Sri Lanka gave the Maldives a statue and zealots took its face off. Now this.
The Maldives is a Muslim country, but they’re not known for beings dicks about it. The ones I meet in Sri Lanka are generally quite chill. I find this quite shocking though. Apparently extra-marital sex is a crime in the Maldives, punishable by public flogging.
According to the law, 30 lashes are given to women found to have committed adultery. Court officials would not give numbers on how many women are flogged in the conservative Muslim nation, but the punishment is usually done in public. (Washington Post)
I have a great affection for the people of the Dives and it’s sad that they’ve been getting a lot of bad press lately. Recently some zealots destroyed statues that were gifts from Pakistan and Sri Lanka because they were false idols and people might worship them. As fars as I could tell, the statues were a stack of books and a lion.
The following is the best response I saw to that. It’s satire.
Over 300 people have been reported to have converted to other religions by the sheer charisma and persuasiveness emanated from the statues.
Ali (not real name), was on his way to the Sri-Lankan lion statue, his new God, to ask for forgiveness when an angry mob attacked him. The mob assured reporters that Ali was not brutally assaulted for his religious beliefs. “No, we attacked him because he’s homosexual.” (Hundreds converted by idolatrous SAARC monuments)
Now this, that they’re flogging women for having sex, apparently in public. Thing is the article isn’t quite clear on whether this is actually happening, and one would think they could find out. I’ll ask my Maldivian friend in the morning.
So what did he say?
And what did they do to the man in question?
don’t cheat, kids. ;P
Flogging as punishment for adultery is part of Shariya law. It applies to both men and women. Proving someone committed adultery is not easy though. You need 3 witnesses and so on, and well since mostly people have sex in private that makes it a bit difficult.
Harsh laws are enforced to discourage people from even contemplating committing these crimes. Personally, I believe adultery is a terribly thing and I’m all for flogging people who indulge in it. They’re cheating their spouses and worse if they have children- broken families and the psychological effects that ensue. If people have problems with their spouses and they can’t talk it out and solve it, they should get a divorce. Why commit adultery?
Yeah, but that’s an issue within their relationship and their family. Violence doesn’t make it right, nor does it but families or children back together. If people have marital issues they should talk it out. The state doesn’t need to assault them.
Flogging is barbaric.
Yeah, I would keep it within the family if someone were unfaithful to me. I’d want to do the flogging myself and then throw them in a lake with piranhas.
I don’t know how the Maldivians do it but according to Islamic law proving adultery happened is not a very easy task at all. The stringent requirement for witnesses means that any proven act of adultery would have to be blatant and almost public. Adultery like that, if allowed to carry on unhindered, will have several negative affects on society. If you don’t see this as a crime the come out with reasons for it. Calling it ‘dickery’ and ‘barbarism’ is a little immature. You have to understand first the worldview the legal system you are referring to is based in. On an aside, If flogging people for a crime is barbaric, then all law is barbaric. Imprisonment is pretty barbaric. A human being caged like an animal for years on end is a terrible waste to society and a burden on the prisoner and his family, yet it goes on all the time.
You’re arguing for a law by its loopholes, hardly a testament to the law.
I think the prison system needs to be reformed generally, but whipping a woman in public for cheating on her husband is barbaric. I don’t think sharia should be the basis for any national law, people should be able to consult it for disputes if they want, but in the Maldives it’s also illegal to not be Muslim. People shouldn’t be forced to live under sharia.
I’m not one to agree with the UN on everything, but I do agree with this
“This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women, and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told Parliament.
Its not a loophole man, its the structure of the law. It deliberately leaves out doubts and ensures that only the most blatant cases are punished that way.
Also, you’re distorting things, the punishment for adultery is asexual. It doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman. So you’re title is misleading (unless the Dives only punishes women). So you can’t really call this ‘GBV’.
Sharia doesn’t state anywhere that non-Muslims aren’t allowed in an Islamic state. A law should be decided upon by its people, not outsiders. Why don’t you think Sharia law shouldn’t be based as the national law in an Islamic state? If you really look at it, its a very robust legal system and works very well. Corruption happens anywhere. One can argue that no secular legal system is free of brutality, and injustice happens on a day to day basis wherever you look.
If you freely choose to live by a religion that inflicts violence upon your person for a moral failing, then perhaps you deserve what you get. Violence against disobedient women is directly commanded by Allah in the Koran (4:34).
However, when your very citizenship is dependent on your belonging to a particular religion you have no choice in the matter. If religion and religious laws are not voluntary, then they are necessarily oppressive.
Defiant cries of the high threshold of proof for inflicting violence and death do not speak to the principle of the punishment and deliberately ignore the countless examples where suspect rulings are made. When a woman’s evidence is worth 1/2 that of a man in Sharia law, claims as to its fairness or high burden of proof are preposterous. It’s wilful deception. In some ways I prefer the honesty of the fundamentalist crazies.
The argument against Indi’s title would only be valid if Sharia law was asexual in every aspect.
To decide on which is more barbaric, flogging or imprisonment just ask anyone which one they would take, if convicted of a crime and given a choice?
Actually, Islam is completely egalitarian. There are different roles assigned to men and women in an Islamic system, but this does not mean that either one is inferior to another. A legal system is a legal system, religious or otherwise, and anyone living within a system is bound to that system’s laws and regulations, this is a relatively simple fact to grasp. This debate would be richer if we focused more on how the law is practiced in Maldives and then progress to the letter and spirit of Sharia if necessary.
This punishment is not just for adultery – it is for ANY sexual intercourse outside of marriage:
Verses 24-2,3 says: “The woman and the man guilty of fornication flog each of them with 100 stripes.” “The fornicator shall not marry save an fornicatrix, and the fornicatrix shall not marry save a fornicator or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers.” Clearly the punishment is not lethal since the fornicator and fornicatrix can marry subsequently. The problem comes with the translation of the Arabic word Zina, which some translators have used adultery to express in English. However this is inaccurate as the term Zina has a much more specific meaning and therefore a much longer translation if it is to be expressed correctly.
Zina means ‘any form sexual intercourse outside of marriage’, as Islam prohibits all sexual intimacy other than between husband and wife within marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina
Why is it necessary to flog consenting adults who engage in sexual intercourse?
“Sharia doesn’t state anywhere that non-Muslims aren’t allowed in an Islamic state.”
That might be true, but they have to pay Jizya. Again, an act of discrimination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
A Maldivian writes:
“If we are that backward and intolerant I suggest no Maldivians travel to our neighboring countries or any other ‘non Muslim’ countries for their medical check ups and surgeries. Just like how the Israeli doctors got ridiculed, they should also banish the ‘non-Muslim’ teachers who are educating their children to survive in this world.
Islamic Ministry has not only banned a blog having different opinion of Islam, it has shown to the world why religious groups should not be in politics or any part of a government. Because all these wahhaabees in Maldives are following a sect of Islam practiced by extremist cults. Their ideals have no place in a world where we realize that we are all a one race, no matter the religions we follow, we still are brothers and sisters. The Islamic Ministry is doing things that does not make sense because they are still living in the stone ages with their four wives, slave wives and goats at their back yards. These are the exact people who would rejoice when an underage girl gets married and exploited.
Stand up Maldives, look around you. We survive because of these so called ‘infidels’ the tourists who come to our country. The infidel hands feeds us and yet we bite it. Aren’t we feral dogs now?”
http://sellingkarma.blogspot.com/2011/11/unban-hypocrisy.html
What I’ve heard about the triple talaq divorce and the possibility of the mother losing custody of her children subsequently, sounds like discrimination to me. Isn’t that from Sharia?
With any secular legal system, there’s’ provision to review the law and make progressive amendments. Does the spirit of Sharia allow for that?
If so, can a woman initiate such proceedings?
On the subject of punishment, I’d say amputation practised under Sharia was more barbaric, and would be more wasteful and burdensome than imprisonment
Islam is not a barbaric religion that takes delight in flogging people. The punishment enforced is harsh so as to discourage people from committing that crime. This way people are too afraid to commit the crime and no one gets flogged; man or woman. The quote from the Washington Post reads that court officials did not give them the number of people flogged- so for all we know no one has being flogged.
From what I see the Washington Post has a taken an excerpt from a law (conveniently leaving out that the law is applicable to men as well) and making it seem like Islam (Sharia law) is unfair to women.
As a Muslim and a woman I can tell you that that is not true. Please try to understand Islam, ask a Muslim friend first before believing everything you read about the religion. In fact you should do that if you come across anything you don’t understand in _any_ other religion. I’ve spent hours with my Hindu, Buddhist and Christian friends trying to find out more about those religions and clarifying doubts. The result– I think all religions are amazing. Now if only we could all just try to understand other religions and live peacefully…
Islam brought significant new rights to women 1300 years ago. The right to divorce in some circumstances (though not as easily as for a man), the right to part of an inheritance (though less than that of a male) and so forth. The Koran also permits slavery, demands beatings for disobedient wives and prescribes death to non-believers and apostates.
There are many schools of thought on Sharia, in some cases a woman’s testimony counts for nothing, in others it’s half that of a man and in very few it can be equal to a man for some crimes. None here being a scholar of Sharia, we can’t have a conclusion as to whether it’s fair to women. However, I know full well from professional experience that the way it is practiced in many Islamic countries is deliberately targeted against women, homosexuals and people who have the audacity to harm no one, only to engage in activities considered immoral by 7th Century standards.
One significant aspect that isn’t raised here is the common requirement in Sharia courts for the testimony of four witnesses to confirm a serious allegation. That’s cited as being a positive protection, a high standard of proof. But it also makes rape a real problem. If a woman admits she had (even non-consensual) sex, then she’s admitting her guilt of adultery and risks harsh punishment without being about to provide four witnesses to prove it’s rape. If you care to see where this sort of law can lead, I advise you to read the story of 16 year old Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh, hanged in Iran for ‘crimes against chastity’ (if that term doesn’t send a chill down your spine then I hope never to cross paths with you).
The Puppeteer says: “The punishment enforced is harsh so as to discourage people from committing that crime. This way people are too afraid to commit the crime and no one gets flogged; man or woman.” The second part clearly isn’t true, or there’d be no such punishments meted out. This is a terrifying attitude when you consider the consequences of being found guilty of committing 7th Century moral ‘crimes’. Whether this system of law is barbaric or not obviously depends on your values.
Wait, wait, wait. O_o Are you guys seriously for flogging someone for what they did in the privacy of their bedroom with another consenting adult?
First off, the institution of marriage is clearly broken. All might seem well at the surface, but almost every Tom, Dick and Harry is sleeping with each other’s wives underneath. So if this law is carried out, there will be a whole lot of sore butts in society.
Secondly, what about punishment that befits a crime? Yeah, adultery is terrible. But it doesn’t warrant flogging. Nothing warrants flogging. Bank robbers and kidnappers go to jail, they don’t get flogged in public.
Thirdly, think about the kids. I mean, having your parents marriage end in divorce due to adultery is bad enough, but imagine having to see your mom being flogged in public. How can a kid face society after that? How can he go to school without being taunted every day?
And as for severe punishment deterring crimes, yeah that doesn’t exactly happen when you’re thinking with your penis. :P People ‘fuck up’, literately. All I would recommend for them is a marriage counsellor or a divorce lawyer.
Last I checked the death penalty hasn’t prevented people from murder in Texas…therein lies the Puppeteer’s basic fault in logic. A religion is a nonsensical thing to base law on because as someone mentioned above, law needs to evolve and change. Religion is mostly static and stuck in the past…its fine for your personal life but keep it out of the public sphere.
“A human being caged like an animal for years on end is a terrible waste to society and a burden on the prisoner and his family, yet it goes on all the time.” – You’re excuse for flogging being ok is that it is as terrible as incarceration? Superb…so basically two shit systems are ok…god forbid we try and put together a system that works.
Thanks Carasek
I was told that one woman’s testimony for say something like rape was equivalent to four men’s testimony for the same crime. I.e if a woman says she is raped, then four men have to back this up. Any truth in this Puppeteer and Whacko?
this sounds super equal to me.
“For example, in Saudi Arabia, a women’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man’s testimony, according to a Human Rights Watch report in 2002.
Under the so-called zina (fornication) law in Pakistan, extramarital sex is punishable by public whipping or even stoning to death.
If a woman is raped, she runs a high risk of being charged with zina, particularly if she becomes pregnant. In order to prove an absence of consent, however, a woman is required to provide four witnesses to the rape, a near impossible task.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art07.shtml
most of the time, even if the law treats men and women equally, the interpretation is such that women are discriminated against.
while i certainly don’t condone cheating within or without marriage, i don’t think it is a “crime” of the same gravity as say murder. i don’t see how or why the state would need to get involved in something that is a private matter between a husband and a wife.
wow Indi impressive number of comments and debates going on for your post. But what I learn from this post is sex draws traffic but add a bit of religion, specially one like Islam with passionate followers and you are sure to get loads of comments on your site.
So bloggers here’s how to increase your visitors and also get loads of comments. Be controversial.
I use the same reasoning with “halal” slaughter… there are many who claim (quite vociferously) that it is the most “humane” way of killing an animal. But if I had a choice between a quick death such as a bullet to the head vs having my throat slit and bleeding to death I would choose the former. I think the halal method of slaughter just prolongs animal suffering and some of those youtube videos on halal slaughter are simply shocking.
Someone mentioned 7th century moral crimes, and I think many of the Islamic punishments also belong in that era and not in the 21st century. Chopping off people’s hands and stoning people to death are pretty barbaric in my opinion. Yet, if I am not mistaken, these are sanctioned under Sharia. You can imagine back in the day people being buried up to their chest in the ground and then the public gathering around and throwing stones at the man/women till he/she is dead and this was considered “normal” by society…but I don’t think that this should not be accepted in modern society here in the 21st century.
“so for all we know no one has being flogged.”
That’s not true…
—–
Maldives flogs women as punishment for sex outside marriage
—–
– Dozens of young women in the Maldives have been flogged in public as punishment for extramarital sex.
In one of the worst cases, an 18-year-old woman received 100 lashes in public earlier this month in the capital Male, less than a year after a reformist president was voted into office.
Amnesty International said on Wednesday that about 180 men and women are awaiting flogging after being sentenced by both informal Islamic sharia courts and criminal courts for having sexual intercourse outside marriage.
The young woman punished on July 5 fainted during the flogging. Two men who were her co-accused escaped punishment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/maldives/5888049/Maldives-flogs-women-as-punishment-for-sex-outside-marriage.html
“Yeah, but that’s an issue within their relationship and their family.”
Not quite. When you get married, you sign a legal document, so there is an argument for considering adultery illegal. Similarly we don’t consider child or spousal abuse a family matter. What the punishment should be is another issue.