Search This Blog

Thursday, November 21, 2019

The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case: Response to “Rape Victim Gets Lashes”









salafimanhaj.com
1/19
The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case:
Response to “Rape Victim Gets Lashes”
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Recently, the fervently anti-Islamic and secularist newspaper,
Arab News,
published an article claiming that a rape victim was punished with
lashes in Saudi
Arabia. The news was immediately picked up by the Western media
outlets,
including BBC News, and soon the issue became an international
affair. The
enemies of Islam used this news report as a means to disparage the
Muslims by
claiming that Islamic law was unjust and barbaric. The heretics
(i.e. the
Rawaafidh shia) used the incident as a means to fan the flames of
sectarianism,
lashing out at the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, referring to them as
“Wahabis”. And
sadly, many Muslims themselves fell into the trap and believed the
lies levied
against the Saudi judges (who are Ulema).
Allah Almighty warns the Muslims:
“O you who believe, if a wicked evildoer comes to you with a news
report, look
carefully into it to verify the truth, lest you harm a people in
ignorance and
afterwards feel remorseful for what you have done.” (Quran, 49:6)
In the time of the Messenger of Allah, the infidels used to spread
lies and slander
about the Messenger, and they would propagate false news reports
in order to
create dissension and discord amongst the ranks of the believers.
Allah Almighty
revealed the above verse so that the Muslims would be cautious of
such reports
and so that they would prevent the seeds of suspicion from
entering into their
hearts. Today, the enemies of Islam continue their crusade against
Islam, with
the Western media at the forefront of the ideological assault on
Islam. The
Western media has consistently proven itself to be deceitful,
biased, and outright
wicked; as such, whenever we Muslims hear anything from them, then
we should
take it with a grain of salt.
The truth is that the media has slandered the good character of
the Islamic
judges in Saudi Arabia. The entire case has been hyped up and
taken
dramatically out of context by the West and the lovers of the West
(i.e. the
secularists within our own ranks). In this article, we shall–with
the Help of Allah
Almighty–reveal the hidden facts about the case and thereby
exonerate Islam
from the charges levied against it by the forces of Taghoot /
Devils.
The Penalty for Rape in Islam
No other religion besides Islam has ever placed such a large
emphasis on the
protection of women. It is known that the early Muslims even
raised an army to
bring to justice those who raped a woman; such was the attitude of
the Muslims
towards the heinous crime of rape. In one of the Prophetic
traditions, we read:
salafimanhaj.com
2/19
…A woman, in the life of the Messenger of Allah, [left her home]
intending to go
for Prayer [in the mosque] when a man seized her and had sexual
intercourse
with her, while she let out a scream [for help]. The man fled, and
she told a man
what had occurred. A group from amongst the Muhaajireen (i.e. the
first group of
Muslims) were told of this and they chased the man down eventually
capturing
who they thought it was, and took the man to her. She said that it
was the man
who did it to her. They took the man to the Messenger of Allah,
and asked “who
is the man who did this to her”? The man confessed saying, “I am
the one who
did this to her, O Messenger of Allah!” The Prophet Muhammad said
to the
woman, “You can leave, for Allah has forgiven you (i.e. absolved
you of all sin)!”
The Prophet said to the man, “Your words are sound.” So he said
regarding the
man who had raped her, “Stone him.”
[Hadith reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan and Imam at-Tirmidhi
in his
Sunan, in the chapter “What is said regarding the woman that has
been coerced
into committing fornication”]
So the one who says that Islam lets rapists go free is a liar,
because the Prophet
himself sentenced the rapist to stoning. Likewise, the one who
claims that rape
victims get punished in Islam is also a liar, because the Prophet
exonerated
victims of all blame, and this 1,400 years ago when it used to be
common to
blame the woman for such things!
In Islamic Law, the minimum punishment for rape is either stoning
(if the
perpetrator is married) or one hundred lashes and banishment for
one year (if the
perpetrator is not married). On top of this, the rapist is to pay
a penalty fee in the
form of the Mahr. And if the rape involved violence and the threat
of weapons,
then the rapists can be exiled from the land, have one hand along
with one foot
cut off, crucified, or killed.
The Saudi based fatwa site, Islam-qa, explains the Islamic Law:
Question: What is the ruling on the crime of rape in Islam?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
The Arabic word ightisaab refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is
now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honour
of women by
force (rape).
This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and
in the minds of all
wise people and those who are possessed of sound human nature. All
earthly
systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the
strictest
penalties on it, except a few states which waive the punishment if
the rapist
marries his victim! This is indicative of a distorted mind let
alone a lack of
religious commitment on the part of those who challenge Allaah in
making laws.
We do not know of any love or compassion that could exist between
the
aggressor and his victim, especially since the pain of rape cannot
be erased with
the passage of time – as it is said. Hence many victims of rape
have attempted to
commit suicide and many of them have succeeded. The failure of
these marriages
is proven and they are accompanied by nothing but humiliation and
suffering for
the woman.
Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action
is haraam
(forbidden) and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who
commits it…The
punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning
salafimanhaj.com
3/19
if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment
for one
year if he is not married.
Some scholars also say that he is required to pay a mahr to the woman.
…The rapist is subject to the hadd punishment (stoning or lashes) for zina, even if
the rape was not carried out at knife-point or gun-point. If the
use of a weapon
was threatened, then he is a muhaarib, and is to be subjected to the hadd
punishment described in the verse in which Allaah says
(interpretation of the
meaning):
“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His
Messenger and
do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or
crucified or their hands
and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from
the land. That is
their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the
Hereafter” [al-
Maaidah 5:33]
So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in
this verse, and
may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the
objective, which is
to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers
and aggressors.
And Allaah knows best.
www.islamqa.com
It should be noted that this website is maintained by the same
group (i.e. the
Saudi Ulema) who are judges in Saudi Arabia. This refutes those
who claim that
the Saudi judges let rapists go; rather, the penalties for rape in
Saudi Arabia (and
under the Islamic Law) are far stricter than what happens in the
West. Whereas
rapists are routinely executed under Islamic Law, we find
that–according to the
U.S. Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics)–convicted
rapists in
America serve only an average of about ten years behind bars.
(source) In
England, the matter is even worse, with rapists serving an average
sentence of
less than four years. (source) Sandy Brindley, national
coordinator of Rape Crisis
Scotland, said: “People will be shocked to find out the average
sentence for a
rapist is five and a half years. They could be out after only
three years–and that
is concerning.” (source)
As for the victim, then Islam says that she is not to be blamed in
any way at all.
Imam Malik, one of the four greatest jurists of Islam, said:
“The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no
punishment for
the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.” (Al-Muwatta’,
2/734)
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, one of the classical Islamic scholars, said:
“There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced
her and
overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting
for help
(and the like).” (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146)
The Qatif Case
Now that we have reviewed the Islamic Law on such a matter, let us
examine the
case which has created such an outcry. The truth is that the media
has
salafimanhaj.com
4/19
suppressed most of the facts, twisting the story in such a way
with the simple
intent of maligning the good image of Islam.
It should be noted that the Qatif girl was having an affair on her
husband, and
this is what she was punished for.
BBC News says
“The woman was initially to be punished for violating strict
gender segregation
laws in Saudi Arabia, for riding in the car of a man who was not
related to her
when they were both attacked.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7112999.stm”
The liars at BBC have endeavored to make it seem as if the woman
was simply
punished for being in a car of a man; what a boldfaced lie! By
this lie, the
Western media has made it appear as if the Muslims would punish
someone for
such a seemingly menial crime. And yet, they have hidden the
greatest fact of all,
which is that the woman was having an illicit affair on her
husband, and at the
time of the alleged rape, she was in the car of the man with whom
she was
having an affair with! The Qatif adulteress confessed to having an
affair on her
husband, and this is all in her sworn testimony.
Anonymous says
“What do you mean by adultery? Are you accusing the woman of
having sex?
In this article, when we use the word “affair” and “adultery” then
we are not
referring to the actual sex act (i.e. penetration), but we use
these words in the
more general sense. The words such as “Zinnah”, “adulterous”, and
“affair” are
commonly used to refer to any relationship that threatens the
marital oaths.
Therefore, we consider the woman to be adulterous who sends nude
photos of
herself to men that are not her husband, has flirtatious chats
with them on the
internet, secretly meets up with them behind her husband’s back,
etc. These
crimes may not deserve the Hadd punishment, but they are deserving
of the
Ta’zeer punishment. To clarify, we cite the following fatwa:
Question: Is zinaa intercourse only?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Zinaa, in Arabic, means immorality, and is used with two meanings
in shar’: a
general meaning and a specific meaning.
The general meaning includes that which carries the punishment
(hadd) and that
which does not carry it. Islam does not give the name of zinaa
only to that which
carries the punishment, which is just one of many types of zinaa.
Ibn ‘Abbaas
(may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: “I have never heard
any better
definition of ‘small faults’ [al-Najm 53:32] than that which Abu
Hurayrah (may
Allaah be pleased with him) narrated from the Prophet (peace and
blessings of
Allaah be upon him): ‘Allaah has decreed for every son of Adam his
share of
zinaa, and there is no way to escape from it. The zinaa of the eye
is a glance, the
zinaa of the tongue is speaking, and the zinaa of the mind is
wishing and hoping;
then the private part either acts upon this or it does not.’”
(Reported by al-
Bukhaari, 11/26; Muslim, 4/2046).
salafimanhaj.com
5/19
Al-Bukhaari included this hadeeth in a chapter entitled Baab zinaa
al-jawaarih
doon al-farj (Chapter on the zinaa of faculties other than the
private part).
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Zinaa is
not always
associated with the private part itself, but may involve other
faculties such as the
eyes and so on.” Ibn Battaal (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“Looking and
speaking are called zinaa because they lead to real zinaa. This is
why he said that
the private part either acts upon this or it does not”
www.islam-qa.com
Anonymous says
“Are you sure that she was having an illegal sexual affair with
another man? This
is a very serious charge and what if you are wrong? Do you want to
be held
responsible for this on the Day of Judgment? Do you not remember
the incident
of al-Ifk in which certain Muslims were spreading lies that a
woman was an
adulteress?
We ourselves do not make any judgment on the woman, but rather it
is up to the
courts to decide the innocence or guilt of a person. The Qatif
woman was tried in
a court of law and found guilty of Zinnah (in the general sense of
the word). She
is a convicted Zaani (adulterer). Of course, with any crime, whether it is Zinnah
or murder or theft, it is possible that a person is convicted
mistakenly. However,
this is not relevant to the discussion at hand; the question is:
should a
convicted
adulterer be punished according to the Islamic Law? The bottom
line point is that
the Qatif woman was convicted
of Zinnah and then she was sentenced based on
that. This is a completely different scenario than the incident of
al-Ifk; the
Prophet’s wife (may Allah be pleased with her) was never found
guilty of Zinnah
in a court of law. Rather, she was found innocent of all charges.
If there are
merely rumors about a woman committing Zinnah, then of course it
is wrong to
spread such tales. But if a woman is found guilty in a court of
law, then this is a
different situation altogether. This is the same with all crimes;
it is wrong to
accuse anyone of anything if he has not been found guilty in a
court of law.
Because she was convicted in a court of law, there is a basis for
saying that the
Qatif woman was committing Zinnah in the general sense, if not the
specific one.
The Western media has tried to galvanize its readers by claiming
that a woman is
to be whipped in Saudi Arabia simply for sitting in a car with a
man. This is
deliberate obfuscation of the truth. It is like saying that a man
divorced his wife
just because she chatted on the internet. This sounds
astonishingly fickle of the
man to do this, but if one were to elaborate and say that his wife
was chatting
with a man with whom she was carrying out
an illegal affair with
, then nobody
would be surprised that her husband divorced her for this.
Likewise, when the
media declares that a woman was punished simply for being in the
car of a man,
then this makes the Saudis seem barbaric. But when we elaborate
and say that
the Saudis punished a woman for being in a parked car with a man she was
having an illicit affair with,
then suddenly this does not seem so outrageous any
more.
We Muslims are not like the Westerners who are–with a few
exceptions–immoral
fornicators and adulterers. Even though their own religious book
condemns such
things, they themselves are a society which revels in these things.
Famous
Western researchers, such as Alfred Kinsey and Glass & Wright,
found that
adultery occurs in 50-80% of all American marriages! And this
propensity of
Westerners to betray their spouses is one of the causes for their
skyrocketing
salafimanhaj.com
6/19
divorce rates and their broken home syndrome. Al-Hamdu Lillah, our
Muslim
children are obedient to their parents, and they are not
rebellious like the
Western children; and who can blame their children for acting that
way when
their parents are immoral fornicators and adulterers? We can open
up their own
Bible to point to verses in which God Almighty threatens damnation
upon such
nations as the people of Sodom; and this will be the end of the
Western nations
because they have slipped into a state of moral decadence and
depravity.
Christian says
“Whipping and stoning, the punishments of you Muslims, is
barbaric!
The Westerners claim that Islam is barbaric for allowing such
penalties as stoning
and whipping, and yet we find the exact same punishment in their
own Bible! We
read:
“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the
adulterer and the
adulteress shall be put to death.” (Bible; Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40,
Jn.8:3)
And:
“If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and
(another) man
finds her in the city and lies with her, then ye shall bring them
both out unto the
gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they
die — the
damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,
because he hath
humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from
among you.”
(Bible; Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Is it not strange that the Christians do not take issue with their
own Bible, but
then create an outcry when we Muslims enforce similar punishments
on convicted
fornicators and adulterers? In the Qatif case, a woman was
betrothed unto a
husband, and she was having an affair on him with another man. The
Bible, a
book that the Christians claim came from God and something that we
Muslims
also hold to be true,1 commands death on such people. Therefore, we find that
the Westerners have no right to accuse Islam of anything, because
it is found in
their own books.
The Woman Confessed to Having an Affair
The woman herself confessed to having an affair with that man who
was in the
car. Even BBC News was forced to report this fact:
Saudi justice officials say a woman who was sentenced to prison
and flogging
after she was gang-raped has now confessed to an extramarital
affair…
It (the Saudi justice ministry) insisted the ruling was legal and
that the woman
had “confessed to doing what God has forbidden”.
…“The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media
reports over
the role of the woman in this case which put out false information
and wrongly
defend her,” the statement said.
1 Editor’s (cti) Note: From the Bible, we hold to be true, only that which is in
conformity
with the authentic texts of Islam
salafimanhaj.com
7/19
“The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair
with the
man she was caught with.”
BBC News
What happened on that night of the alleged rape was that the woman
went out in
the cover of the night to to the corniche to meet her lover. A
group of men saw
her get into the parked car at that spot. It was this group of men
that followed
her to the car, and according to the men, they caught her naked
and being
intimate with her lover.
The woman did not admit to having sex with her lover, but she did
admit to be
carrying out an affair which went on for many long months. The two
lovers
admitted to the authorities that they were having an illicit
relationship with each
other, and this is in their signed and attested confessions. On
top of this, the
Saudi authorities had proof of the affair in the form of telephone
calls, picture
exchanges, and other such supporting evidences.
With this evidence against the woman, it was impossible not to
punish her under
the Islamic Law; and this is not only Islamic Law, but rather it
is God’s Law, as
found in both the Quran (the Final Testament) as well as the
previous scriptures
such as the Bible.
It is dishonest to state that she was punished simply for being in
the car of a
man; rather she was punished for being in the car of a man with
whom she was
having an affair with. There are degrees of “intermingling of the
sexes”, and the
Islamic Law would differ on the punishment depending on the
situation. It is
incorrect to claim that women are whipped in Saudi Arabia simply
for being in a
car with stranger men; the author himself has been to Saudi Arabia
and knows
that this is not the case, and if it were, then there would be
similar cases every
day! Indeed, if a couple is found dating in Saudi Arabia, then
they are given
warnings and told to go away by the religious police, or their
parents are notified
and warned. As such, it is a blatant lie and manipulation to claim
that the Qatif
woman was lashed for simply being in the car with another man.
Rather, she was
charged with Zinnah, and we all know what happens in parked cars.
We read:
New Ministry Statement on Qatif Case
JEDDAH, 25 November 2007 — The [Saudi] Ministry of Justice issued
a statement
yesterday providing more details regarding the charges against a
19-year-old
woman who was gang-raped by seven men in Qatif.
The statement, which the ministry says is a response to media
scrutiny of the
ruling, said that the rape victim confessed to having an illegal
affair with the man
who was caught with her.
“She went out with him without a mahram, a legal guardian, and
exchanged
forbidden affairs through the illegal khalwa,” the statement said.
“They both
confessed to doing what God forbids.”
The ministry said: “The first verdict of 90 lashes was made
according to Shariah.
The woman and her husband were convinced and agreed to it on
10/10/1427.”
salafimanhaj.com
8/19
…The ministry also claimed that the woman violated the sanctity of
marriage.
“She knows that ‘khalwa’ with an unrelated man is forbidden by
Shariah and by
doing this she has broken the sacred matrimonial contract,” the
statement said.
“The woman mentioned in her signed confession that she called from
her
husband’s house using her cell phone asking for a forbidden
‘khalwa’ in front of a
shopping center,” the statement said.
…The ministry claimed the woman was “in a state of indecency,
having thrown off
her clothes” and the two were abducted in a “dark side of the
(Qatif) corniche” by
the attackers after they saw the couple in this alleged state of
indecency.
Arab News
How deceitful is the Western media: they used flashy headlines
such as “rape
victim gets lashes” instead of “woman convicted of adultery gets
lashes”!
Male is Lashed
The enemies of Islam seek to portray our beautiful religion as
sexist, claiming
that we discriminate against women. To back this claim, they claim
that it is
unfair how the Qatif woman received ninety lashes whereas the
group of men
who allegedly raped her received jail-time only. This argument is
completely
refuted by the fact (and the hidden truth) that the woman’s lover
received the
same punishment:
The woman’s companion was sentenced to 90 lashes.
BBC News
How it is that the liars are exposed for their lies against Islam!
How can one claim
sexism in this case when the man and woman were both charged with
the exact
same sentence? And it is well-known that–under the Islamic Law–the
punishment
for rape is the same for men and women, so how then can anyone
claim sexism?
The Men Accused of Rape
Now that we have clarified the punishment of the woman, let us
move onto the
issue of the men accused of rape, who were sentenced with a few
months to five
years in prison. The enemies of Islam and the hypocrites ask: “Why
is it that the
rapists were given such lenient sentences?” Actually, some of the
men were
sentenced up to ten years (not five) and this is the same as the
average sentence
given to rapists in America! And it is double the average sentence
of rapists in
places like England, Scotland, etc. In any case, the reason that
the men were not
executed under Islamic Law was that there was simply a lack of
evidence to
charge them with the crime of rape.
The group of men deny raping her. According to them, they caught
the Qatif
woman in the car with her clothes off. They caught the two lovers
in the act, and
she was–by her own admission–fearful that the men would inform her
husband of
her betrayal. This is where the story differs between the woman
and the group of
men. The woman claims that the men proceeded to gang-rape her. On
the other
hand, the men claim that she offered herself to them, in exchange
for their
salafimanhaj.com
9/19
promise to keep quiet on her affair. And the men claim that they
refused her
offer.
What really hurt the woman’s case is that she did not go to the
police after the
alleged rape. In fact, she did not report the case at all, and she
remained silent
about it for three months. Eventually what happened was that three
months later,
her husband was sent an anonymous email declaring that his wife
had cheated on
him on that day, having sex with many men at the corniche. The husband
then
confronted his wife about the matter, and she confessed to it but
told him that
she was raped by those men and that it was not consensual. This is
when the
husband notified the authorities and the case against the group of
men was filed.
We read:
The statement [by the Saudi Ministry] claimed that the two victims
of the gang
rape hid the incident for three months until an e-mail was sent to
the woman’s
betrothed “informing him what happened to his wife, and her
betrayal.”
Arab News
This fact considerably weakened the woman’s case: any woman would
claim
coercion when her indiscretions were caught by her husband! And
this was three
months after the event. Even in America, it is important for a
rape victim to
report the crime within twenty-fours, so that important medical
tests can be done
to prove that it was a case of rape and not consensual sex. This
medical test
would document defensive wounds on the hands and nails, wounding
of the
genitalia, sperm stains, DNA evidence, and the like. Without this
evidence, it is
impossible–even in the United States–to prove rape. In fact, when
the Qatif
woman’s husband finally reported the crime three months after the
event, the
Saudi authorities asked her to have some medical tests done in
order to gather
evidence to support her case, but she herself refused because she
knew that so
much time had passed that any evidence was long gone.
It is very difficult to prove rape without any medical evidence of
force, or any
witnesses to the scene of the crime. It becomes a matter of her
word against his.
What could prevent an angry ex from accusing her former boyfriend
of raping her
many months ago? The group of men accused of rape deny raping the
Qatif
woman. They claim that she offered herself to them in exchange for
promises of
silence; however, none of the men admitted to accepting her offer.
A few of the
men admitted to witnessing the rape, but none of them admitted to
the actual
rape. It became a circular accusation, whereby each man claimed
innocence and
put the blame on the other men. As such, it became impossible to
tell which of
the men were guilty and which were innocent.
The problem of convicting rapists is not limited to the Muslim
world, but rather it
is a worldwide dilemma, and this is due to the very nature of
rape. It is very
difficult to prove coercion. This is a problem experienced by
American women as
well:
Rape
For women, rape might appear to be an open and shut case; if we do
not consent
to sex, a rape has been committed. Unfortunately, it is not this
simple in the
courts. Rape is often very difficult to prove. The lack of consent
is one element of
proving a rape, but in many states, this is not enough to prove
that a rape has
occurred.
salafimanhaj.com
10/19
The common law definition of rape is “sexual intercourse achieved
by force or
threat of force without consent of the victim”. By requiring force
or the threat of
force, the legal system perpetuates the myth that a rapist is a
strange man who
jumps from behind the bushes at night. In addition, when there is
a force or
threat of force requirement, non-physical or non-imminent threats
are not
enough to prove a rape. As if this does not make proving rape
difficult enough,
many states also require the proof of “reasonable resistance” on
the part of the
rape victim.
With the current rules in many jurisdictions, it is difficult for
women in an abusive
relationship to prove rape because 1) the abuse might be emotional
so there
might not be physical force or 2) the fear and submission to sex
might be due to
past violence and not a contemporaneous threat. For example, in
State v. Alston,
a woman broke off an abusive relationship with her boyfriend. The
woman saw
her abusive ex-boyfriend some time much later and they had sex.
Even though
the ex-boyfriend did not physically force the woman to have sex,
there was
implicit threat of force due to past incidents. A lower court
convicted the man but
he appealed and a higher court reversed the conviction due to a
lack of physical
force.
Another complexity with the force or threat of physical force
requirement is that
courts distinguish between offers and threats. The difference
might seem clear,
an offer makes you better off and a threat makes you worse off.
However,
sometimes the difference is murky and two cases, demonstrate this.
In
Thompson, a higher court reversed the conviction of a high school
principal who
told a female senior that she would not graduate unless she
“slept” with him. The
senior had sex with the principal in order to graduate. According to
the higher
court, the principal did not threaten the young woman, he offered
her something,
and that was not sufficient to constitute a rape.
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, a higher court reversed
the conviction of
a man who had custody of a teenage girl who had previously been in
a juvenile
detention facility. The man told the girl that he would return her
to the facility if
she did not have sex with him. She complied. Even though the man
was initially
convicted, he appealed and the higher court said that he made the
child an offer
and did not threaten her. Luckily some states have abolished the
threat and
reasonable resistance requirements, but they are in the minority.
WomenMatter.org
Not a single one of the men admitted to having sex with the Qatif
woman, let
alone admitting to raping her. As such, it turned into her word
against theirs.
Without any medical evidence or witnesses to back up her claim,
how could the
judges sentence a group of men to death? The difficulty in
securing rape
convictions is a problem not only in Muslim countries but also
Western ones. BBC
News said in another one of its articles that only 5.6% of alleged
rapists were
ever convicted by the law:
Rape convictions hit record low
The percentage of reported rapes to lead to convictions in England
and Wales has
fallen to an all-time low, according to a Home Office study.
The number of rapes reported is rising - but only 5.6% of 11,766
reports in 2002
led to a rapist being convicted.
salafimanhaj.com
11/19
BBC News
The Indiana Daily says:
Campus rape reports outweigh arrests 43 to 1
Authorities say use of force is difficult to prove
…Rapes often go unpunished because it’s difficult for authorities
to prove an
offender used force.
…Once women do come forward and report, the next issue police face
is having
enough proof to take the case to court. The main reason so few men are
arrested lies with the difficulty of proving force in a courtroom, Slone said.
…Collecting evidence remains another problem in attempting to
prosecute. Police
often don’t find out about the crime until much later, Slone said,
losing the timely
opportunity to collect physical evidence, often bodily fluids. After about 72
hours, that evidence deteriorates, she said, making it nearly
impossible
to prove.
Slone emphasized that women can have the evidence taken at the
hospital, which
is referred to as a rape kit, without actually reporting the crime
to the police. By
putting that evidence in what she refers to as the “evidence
refrigerator,” victims
can take their time to decide if they want to press charges. Without physical
evidence, Slone said, the case becomes a “he said, she said”
issue.
“Many cases that we see, the women do not want to go so far as to
go to court
with it,” Slone said. “To point the finger and say ‘You did this
thing to me.’ It’s
really difficult. Particularly if they know the guy may serve
prison time. … Are
they going to bring this guy to prison for X amount of years based
on her word?”
Indiana Daily Student News
The American police officer, Sgt. Leslie Slone, says that after 72
hours the
evidence for rape disappears and it becomes virtually impossible
to prove rape
after that. And yet, in the Qatif case, over three months had
passed, so are we
surprised then when the Saudi courts could not convict the men on
charges of
rape?
The Qatif woman was caught telling many lies both to the court and
to the media;
she betrayed her husband and lied to him, etc. So how could the
single testimony
of an immoral liar and self-confessed adulteress be enough to send
nine men to
death? Truly it would be a strange country that would send nine
men to death
without any proof except the single testimony of one woman who has
proven
herself to be unreliable.
Why Was the Woman’s Punishment Doubled?
In the United States, the media becomes the judge, jury, and
executioner. It is
well-known in the legal community that high profile cases are won
before they
even get to the courts; whatever version the media wishes to
portray will become
the dominant story. This is called “spin” in legal parlance. Under
Islamic Law,
however, the manipulation of cases is not allowed. In Saudi
Arabia, it is not
salafimanhaj.com
12/19
permitted to use the media to manipulate the justice system. If
the judges
allowed the Qatif woman to do that, then this would become the
norm in Saudi
Arabia, like it is in America.
The Qatif woman fed a story to the media, covering up important
facts such as
her affair, and she did all of this in an attempt to put pressure
on the courts
through the media. Not only this, but she contacted Western media
outlets which
in turn fired up anti-Islamic leaders who further put pressure on
the King of Saudi
Arabia to overturn the decision. This Qatif woman betrayed the
Muslim Ummah;
she made a mockery of Islamic Law, helping to portray it as unjust
and barbaric.
And for this, her sentence was doubled, and rightfully so. Not
only did she
commit a crime, but she betrayed her Ummah and made a mockery of
Islam,
selling her deceitful story to the major media outlets.
However, it should be noted that it was not only her punishment which was
doubled, but also the punishment of the men. The punishment of the
men was
raised in order to remove doubts that bias was being shown against
the woman,
and also because of the dangerous nature of the crime.
Why Was Her Lawyer to be Disbarred?
Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, the woman’s lawyer, is being portrayed as
some sort of
human rights hero. In fact, he is a traitor to Islam, and the West
loves to raise in
rank those who betray Islam. Just recently, Salman Rushdie was
knighted by the
Queen of England, simply because he was a traitor to the Muslims.
This is a part
of the enmity that still resides in the hearts of the descendants
of the Crusaders.
Abdul-Rahman used to be a pious Muslim but then he abandoned that
course in
order to become a secularist, and that is why he will become the
sweetheart of
the West.
In any case, Abdul-Rahman violated the law and ethics by seeking
to manipulate
the media in order to put pressure on the justice system. And this
is why he
should be disbarred. So we condemn him (verbally) based on his
religious
treachery and we ask him to be disbarred (legally) based on his
unethical
manipulations of the justice system.
Anonymous says
“ If the woman was found guilty of adultery, then why was she not
sentenced to
death as per Islamic Law? Where in the Shar’iah / Islamic law is
there a punishment of ninety
lashes? Either she is to be stoned to death or she is not to be
punished, but
lashing does not make any sense and has no basis in Islamic Law.
The one who makes such an argument is in fact not capable of
expounding
Islamic Law, since he does not even know the very basics of
Shari’ah. Such a
person is reeking of ignorance and has made a complete buffoon of
himself! The
punishment of death by stoning is one of the Hadd punishments, and
it is
awarded to only those who complete the sexual act (i.e.
penetration). However,
for anything less than that, the judges can levy Ta’zeer
punishment on the
culprit. The Qatif woman admitted to having an illicit
relationship with her lover
and cheating on her husband, but she did not admit to engaging in
the sexual act
(i.e. penetration). As such, she cannot be awarded the Hadd
punishment since
there was no proof of penetration, but because she admitted to
lesser than that
(i.e. an illicit affair), she should be punished for that.
Obviously, the punishment
for lesser than that would be a lesser punishment, and this is why
she was given
lashes instead of death. Under Saudi law, whatever falls short of
the sexual act
salafimanhaj.com
13/19
(such as kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay, etc) is still a
punishable offense as
stipulated in their penal code, and this has basis in Islamic Law.
Had the Qatif woman admitted to engaging in the sexual act, then
she would
have been given the Hadd punishment; but because she did not, she
was
punished for what she did admit to (i.e. Ta’zeer). It is the Rawaafidh who have
voiced their discontent the most, and we have heard many of them
complain that
this woman should not have been punished since she did not admit
to the actual
sex act; yet it should be known that these Rawaafidh are being
dishonest,
because even in their religion do they believe in Ta’zeer! In
Iran, youngsters are
routinely punished for ‘intermingling’ with the opposite sex, by
which we mean
kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay, etc. Maybe these Rawaafidh
should go to the
streets of Tehran and do these things to see how the Iranian
police and justice
system react!
Anonymous says
“ You say that there is no evidence that the men committed rape,
but we have
the confessions of the men themselves!
None of the men admitted to engaging in the rape themselves.
However, during
the interrogation, some of the men admitted to having been
witnesses to the
rape. In other words, all of the men denied that they themselves
were a part of
the rape, but some of them pointed the finger at others. During
the trial,
however, these men claimed that they were coerced by the police into
“naming
names”; it is known that forced confessions have no merit. Under
Islamic Law,
when a man retracts his confession, then this is enough Shubha
(doubt) to
weaken its validity in court.
Because the woman failed to report the crime except after three
months when
her husband found out about her betrayal–and because she refused
to take any
medical tests–there was no evidence against the men. All that the
prosecutor had
against them was the accusation of the woman and their confessions
against each
other. And yet, both the accusation and the confessions had
serious problems.
The accusation by the woman was tainted by the fact that the men
countered her
accusation by claiming that she was only trying to cover up her
betrayal of her
husband; according to them, she was willing to have sex with all
of them, and
she wanted to cover this up from her husband, lest he think of her
as
promiscuous and loose. She only made these claims of rape after her husband
was notified about her betrayal, and before that, she did not
utter a single word
to the authorities. The men argued that any woman would claim rape
if her
husband found out about her betrayal.
Unfortunately, the woman weakened her case substantially by
failing to notify the
authorities except after her betrayal was exposed by her husband.
She was
engaged in dubious activities, and such a person’s testimony could
not possibly
be used to send a group of men to their death. It is known that
she lied to her
husband when she left her house on that day, and before that as
well when she
used to call her lover, and that she lied to her husband many
times after the
incident for three months, and she was caught in many lies and
inconsistencies
during the court proceedings, and she even lied to the media; as
such, the reality
is that a liar’s testimony in court is seriously called into
question.
The Western media has tried to single out Saudi Arabia, but the
reality is that
cases like this are tried all the time in America. Oftentimes the
only witnesses in
drug cases are other criminals; when these criminals testify
against the drug
salafimanhaj.com
14/19
dealers, then they serve as very weak witnesses, because the jury
is not inclined
to believe a criminal’s testimony. If a prostitute witnessed a
rape or was herself
raped, then she would serve as a very weak witness due to her
dubious
character, and this is a fact in many trials in the United States!
It may be that
adulterers are not seen as anything evil in the West, yet to the
upright Muslims, a
fornicator and adulteress is a very weak witness by virtue of her
dubious
character. It is not proper that fourteen families lose their sons
based on the
singular testimony of an adulterous, immoral, dubious, and lying
woman.
As for the confessions of the men, then these too were
problematic, because
none of the men admitted to anything themselves. Instead they
pointed the
fingers at others, and they claimed that these confessions were
forced by the
police; the men had been led to believe that if they gave up their
own friends
then their own punishment could be warded off or at least
lessened. So we see
that the accusation by the woman and the confessions by the men
could not be
called impartial, since each benefited from them in some way.
Furthermore, the
accusation by the accuser cannot stand as proof in court, which
goes without
saying; and under Islamic Law, retracted and/or forced confessions
cannot be
used.
The truth is that the woman could not bring forth any proof
because she
destroyed all such proof by failing to report the crime on time.
And she failed to
do this because of her own indecencies. It may sound morbid to
say, but it is
simply the truth. It is similar to the man who robs a bank and is
then assaulted
by another robber; he cannot report the assault to the police
because it will
reveal his crime of robbery. Likewise, the Qatif woman could not
go to the police
about her rape because at that very moment she had been engaging
in an illicit
affair with a man that was not her husband. It is sad, but it is a
reality; and it is
one of the very reasons that we should not violate the law or live
outside of it,
because then we may forfeit many of our rights within that law.
That woman had
the right to be protected under the law, but she herself willingly
forfeited that
right in order to cover up her crime.
Anonymous says
“ The woman did not admit to having an affair! She said she was
not involved
with that man, but rather she was involved with that man prior to
marriage and
he had a compromising photo of her. He had threatened to show that
nude photo
to her current husband unless she agreed to meet him at that spot
of the
corniche. She had agreed to the meeting only as a means to
retrieve the photo.
The Qatif woman has lied; the Saudi ministry of justice has
clearly stated that she
admitted to having an illicit affair:
“The woman in the case is married and has confessed to
establishing a
relationship in violation of [Islamic] sharia law,” the Saudi
justice ministry said in
a statement.
Al-Jazeera News
And:
On Saturday the Saudi justice ministry said the rape victim was a
married woman
who allegedly confessed to cheating on her husband.
salafimanhaj.com
15/19
It said she and her lover had met in his car for a tryst “in a
dark place where they
stayed for a while”.
Al-Jazeera News
It is amazing that the hypocrites would believe an adulterous
woman above that
of an entire ministry, but this is the state of their extreme bias
whereby they
would believe in anything so long as it helps them malign the
so-called
“Wahabis.” The woman’s claims that she went only to retrieve a
photo contradict
the reality, because she admitted in the court that she met her
lover twice in the
same month, once during the first days of Shawwal and another time
on that
fateful Thursday. Therefore, this does not seem like some sort of
emergency
meeting for her to take back photos, but rather it seems like an
ongoing affair.
Furthermore, this has been confirmed by incoming and outgoing
phone calls, as
well as picture exchanges that had taken place between the woman
and her
lover. The Qatif woman had sent sexually explicit photos of
herself to her lover.
We know of only one reason why people do this, i.e. to entice
lovers and
invigorate their carnal desires!
The woman claimed she was raped “after she had gone to retrieve a
photograph
of herself from a high school friend after just getting married.”
(Al-Jazeera News)
So why had she sent a compromising photo of herself to that man in
the first
place? Is this fact not enough to prove that she was involved in
an illicit affair
with a man she was not married to? Sending nude photos to others
is a crime
under Islamic Law; does anybody disagree with us on this? If the
stubborn
hypocrites would contest this fact with us, then do they think it
is permissible for
a woman to pose for nude pictures and distribute them? This is
called
pornography and surely this is haram (forbidden) under Islamic
Law! The fact
that this woman sent a compromising photo of herself to a man who
is not her
husband is enough to charge her with indecent acts, which
justifies her
punishment of lashing.
Anonymous says
“ Perhaps she did not give the photo of herself to that man
willingly, and she was
extorted into it.
How in the world would she get into such a situation? On what
basis did the man
somehow force her to send nude photos of herself? If the woman
replies that he
was using her illicit premarital affair with him as a means to get
a photo from her,
then once again she has admitted to guilt under the Shari’ah and
she would be
punished for a relationship outside of marriage!
What if the woman had been caught in the sex act? Would she then
defend
herself by saying that the man had extorted her into that, by
threatening to
release the photos? Let us imagine a similar scenario in which a
man is caught by
police whilst trying to rob a bank. When the man is apprehended,
he says: “I was
forced into robbing the bank by another man who had a picture of
me having sex
with another woman, and I was fearful that this man would show it
to my wife.”
Would the police suddenly let the robber go? Surely the law does
not validate
such justifications, otherwise no crime could be punishable! Every
single person
would claim that he or she was coerced into it. The fact is that
the robber was
caught at the scene of the crime, just as Qatif woman placed
herself in a parked
car with another man in a dark and isolated spot.
salafimanhaj.com
16/19
Even if we believe her story about being extorted, the court
cannot simply waive
off her crime. If this were the case, then no single case of
adultery could ever be
brought to the courts, because every defendant would claim that “I
didn’t want to
do such-and-such sexual act with my lover, but he promised to
expose me to my
husband about our relationship, so I did it.” The truth is that if
the Qatif woman
had never done anything wrong with the lover in the first place,
then he could
never have extorted her; he was only able to extort her due to her
crime with
him. If this were not the case, how did she get herself into such
a compromising
and vulnerable position? If she had been a completely chaste
Muslim woman,
then she would have been completely loyal to her husband and would
have never
been involved with the other man at all. But instead she was
involved with that
man, and–according to her–that man was able to extort her based on
this illicit
relationship which she either was currently in or had in the past.
Either way, she
was in some sort of illegal affair punishable by the Shari’ah.
We have to remember that the Saudi judges are acting in accordance
to the law,
not their personal sentiments. If a crime was committed, then they
must punish it
according to the law.
Anonymous says
“ The woman was gang-raped…is this not enough of a punishment for
any crime
on her part?
Unfortunately, the law does not work in this manner. Let us
imagine the scenario
in which a black man is robbing a bank, and whilst he is doing
that, a racist white
Ku Klux Klan member catches him and roughs up the black man. In
this case,
would the law excuse the black man for robbery, on the basis that
he already got
what he deserved (or worse) from the white man? We find that this
is not the
case even in the United States of America; the black man would
still be punished
under the law for his crime of robbery. Meanwhile, the white man
would be
charged for assault and a hate crime. The two punishments would be
handed
down separately and independent of each other. One crime does not
cancel out
another crime. This would create a state of chaos, anarchy, and
vigilante justice.
In the Western countries, we find that if a woman murders a rapist
or a child
kidnapper, then that woman is still tried for murder. Yes, we all
sympathize with
that woman because we understand her emotions, but nonetheless,
the law
cannot excuse her for the crime of murder. If the law began to
excuse crimes
based on justifications, then this would open Pandora’s box. The
rule of law would
disappear and all criminals could claim that their crimes were
either justified by
the law or that they had already received due punishment in the
outside world.
Can we imagine a court excusing a man for robbery simply because
another
crime had been committed against the robber? Or perhaps because
the robber’s
son died in a car accident? Could not a lawyer argue that it is
not right to jail a
man for robbery when he already lost his son “which is punishment
enough”?
Surely this is a very dangerous and inappropriate line of
reasoning. Each crime
must be dealt with individually.
If a woman robs a bank and she is raped during the heist, would
the court
absolve her of the crime of robbery? The reality is that the
Westerners and the
hypocrites do not think of fornication as a crime like robbery,
and this is why they
are unable to see the parallel! But truly theft is a minor crime
compared to
adultery, and this is what the believers hold to be true. The
problem is that the
Westerners come from a nation of fornicators and adulterers, so
they in their
minds trivialize the crime of adultery. If a woman commits a
crime, then she will
salafimanhaj.com
17/19
be punished for that crime; if a crime is done to her, then the
men who did that
crime will be punished. But one crime does not cancel out the other,
nor do they
have any relation to each other. Each will be dealt with
separately and
independently.
This is not an emotional matter which the judges can simply change
because the
ruling does not sit well with the people. This is rather a matter
of Fiqh
(jurisprudence): two crimes were alleged, and each was judged
according to the
law. The woman was found guilty for her crime because of her
confession in
court, and the men were not found guilty because of lack of
evidence. (And we
remind the reader that nobody can claim sexism since the Qatif
woman’s
extramarital lover, a man, was also given the same sentence of
lashing!)
Anonymous says
“ You say that there was no evidence to convict the men with rape,
but they
were
convicted of rape! Why else were they given jail-time!
The men were not found guilty of Zinnah, but rather some of them
had admitted
to witnessing Zinnah. Therefore, the men were found guilty of
engaging in
dubious activities, but it was difficult to secure a rape
conviction due to a lack of
evidence and contradictory statements made by the accuser. When
there is not
enough evidence to secure a Hadd punishment, then Ta’zeer
punishment can be
meted out based on the level of involvement in a crime.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the alleged rapists were given a sentence
of
ten years imprisonment which is the average sentence given to convicted rapists
in America and double what the average sentence is in many
European countries
such as England and Scotland! So why is it then that the Westerners
are
complaining that the alleged
rapists were not punished severely enough when
their convicted rapists routinely get less than that? Could it possibly be that
they
are dishonest in their intentions, and that they only seek to
attack Islam under
the guise of human rights? They claim to be human rights
activists, but the truth
is that they are crusaders who seek to destroy Islam.
Abeer Mishkhas of Arab News says
“ To add to all of the above, we know that the girl’s husband has
supported her
throughout her ordeal and this says volumes about who has the
right to be upset
about her meeting another man.
In the Islamic Law (as well as in the Judeo-Christian tradition),
there is no
condition that adultery is not to be punished simply because the
spouse forgives!
Therefore, the opinion of the husband cannot ward off the
punishment. To give
another example, we do not ward off the penalty for rape just
because the
woman forgives the rapist. When someone breaches a law, then the
state
punishes the individual, not the aggrieved party. As such, the
aggrieved party
cannot ward off the penalty either.
In the West, some married couples have what is called an “open
relationship”
whereby they allow their spouses to sleep around with multiple
partners. And yet,
such people are to be punished by the law despite the fact that
their acts have
been “forgiven” by their spouse. Surely Allah Almighty is the one
who forgives
such crimes, not any human being. Once the case has been
registered, then it
must go to trial and litigated to its end.
salafimanhaj.com
18/19
Anonymous says
“ She was not in khulwah when she was abducted, nor was she in
some isolated
place, but rather she was next to a public shopping mall where
there were many
people passing by…
This is a lie. If they were in a public place where “many people
[were] passing
by”, then how is it that she was abducted without people seeing
that? By
definition it must have been a secluded place, because she was
hiding from her
husband, nobody witnessed the incident, etc. In any case, there is
no need for
speculation because the Saudi ministry refuted this claim by
declaring that the
Qatif woman had been in a parked car “in a dark place where they
stayed for a
while”.
Conclusion
The Qatif case is a Fiqhi (jurisprudential) matter, and the judges
followed the
letter of the law and there is no blame on them. The manner in
which some
people are attacking the judges is completely inappropriate, and
it stems from
the media which has waged an ideological war against Islam. Unfortunately
many
Muslims have fallen into the trap and they have parroted the
accusations of the
enemies of Islam. Indeed, these Muslims should realize that they
are allying
themselves with a people who seek to diminish the Islamic Law. We
as Muslims
should hold firm and think the best of the judges who were
appointed to uphold
the Shari’ah.
The Westerners imply that whipping and stoning are barbaric
practices, yet we
find the same punishments mentioned in their own holy book (i.e.
the Bible)! And
they seek to decriminalize fornication and adultery, even though
their own holy
book says to kill the one who does such things. And this is
because they have a
disease in their hearts by which they disbelieve in God’s Laws
even though they
claim to be believers; and they come from a morally corrupt
society like the
people of Sodom which were destroyed by God. How could they uphold
God’s
Laws which are in their own Bible when ninety-five percent of them
have
committed either fornication or adultery sometime in their lives?
Is such a society
capable of passing moral judgments on us Muslims? We Muslims are
the moral
ones, who abstain from sexual crimes and uphold God’s Laws which
are even in
their own Christian books.
As for the woman accused of adultery and the men accused of rape,
then it
should be known that these are two separate issues that must be
dealt with
individually and independently. The woman confessed to the crime
of having an
illicit relationship and as such there is no question about her
guilt. Even if we
believe her story about retrieving a photograph, then this in
itself is evidence of a
crime: sending nude or semi-nude pictures is a crime in any
God-fearing country.
As for the alleged rape, then the woman failed to report the crime
except after
three months by which time all evidence had been lost. We have
shown how even
the Western authorities admit that it is nearly impossible to
prove rape after
seventy-two hours have passed. Therefore it is no surprise that
after three
months there was no evidence to convict the men with. The men
cannot be
hanged based on public sentiment alone. They cannot be hanged by
the media,
but rather they should be tried by the objective judiciary. The
media, run by
enemies of the Islamic Shari’ah/ Islamic law, cannot be trusted
with this case; the Western
public views this incident in a highly emotional manner without
knowing the facts,
and they wish to lynch the men (i.e. mob justice).
salafimanhaj.com
19/19
The woman may have been raped, and if she was, then we know that Allah
Almighty will punish the rapists in the next life. Allah Almighty
knows all and sees
all, and in the Court of the Lord each criminal will pay for his
sin. But in the court
of man, we can only judge men on the evidence which is apparent to
us, and we
cannot look inside the hearts like Allah. Therefore, if the men
did rape the
woman, then they have been given lenience only for a short time,
and then Allah
will deal with them. If, however, they were innocent, then Allah
knows that too.
We ask Allah to curse all rapists whoever and wherever they may
be, the known
and the hidden.
We close with these words:
Clearly, in many criminal events there are no clear-cut victims
and criminals,
quite often both sides are guilty. Saudi law clearly criminalises
unchaperoned
one-on-one contact, as a public safety measure, designed to
prevent the
occurrence of exactly this kind of situation. Saudi Arabia must be
congratulated
for their low crime rate. Scurrilous attacks on the judiciary such
as the one
committed by the alleged victim are deserving of punishment.
(Mike, Sacramento, USA; as posted on the BBC website)
The irony is that the Qatif case is being used to attack the
Islamic Law. And yet,
this incident only underscores the importance of the divinely
inspired Shari’ah / Islamic law.
Oftentimes the people ask why it is that Islam has such strict
laws against women
being alone in cars and secluded places with unrelated men. This
is exactly the
reason, so that such things do not happen. No woman deserves to be
raped, and
we do not say that any woman deserves it, nor is it a part of our
faith to claim
this. Yet, we say that women should remain vigilant and adhere to
the Islamic
Laws, refraining from dubious activities, and if they do this,
then it is much less
likely that they would ever place themselves in such a
compromising position.
Had the Qatif woman not engaged in sinful activities like sending
illicit pictures of
herself, and had she been one hundred percent loyal and honest to
her husband,
then she would never have been there on that day and none of this
would have
happened. And even if it had happened somehow, then she would not
have
feared going to the authorities and her rapists could have been
punished
severely. Instead, due to her betrayal, she placed herself in the jaws
of evil, and
she was unable to cry for help.
The entire Qatif incident is very unfortunate, and it is unclear
the level of guilt or
innocence of the woman and the alleged assailants. However, the
judges did the
best they could, given the scenario and the evidence presented to
them. Either
the involved Ulema will get one or two rewards for their Ijtihad.
We seek refuge
from those Taghoot /  Devils
who use this incident as a means to attack the sacred
Shar’iah / Islamic law , as well as those whose only aim is to
increase sectarian tension.
May Allah Almighty unite our hearts upon the path of Islam.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi.
You don't know anything about Muslims or Islam. Visit &
learn & invest some time before commenting,  https://islamqa.info/en
   &  
 www.salafimanhaj.com    &  
 www.islamagainstextremism.com    &  www.peacetv.tv   & http://www.salaf.com   if you
really want to know about ISLAM.