Islamic law in action

I pulled parts of these two articles from CNN.com today 1/21/10

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.
The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

In a different case:

A 13-year-old Saudi schoolgirl is to be given 90 lashes in front of her classmates after she was caught with a mobile camera phone.
The girl, who has not been named, was also sentenced to two months in jail by a court in the eastern city of Jubail.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13--sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html#ixzz0dFv0MC69

Public floggings are common in Saudi Arabia. As I stated in a prior post, I am not for intervention in the sovereignty of other countries. Punishment for crimes is the internal affairs of other countries. However, what I would like to point out is the backwardness of the entire ideology.

Saudi Arabia is the source of Islam. It is the home of Mecca and Medina, the birthplace of Islam and the place where Muslims are obligated to visit if they have the means. This is one of the pillars of Islam. Saudi Arabia is where Islamic law originated and is enforced. Saudi Arabia is about as backward as they come.

I read a statement by an important Saudi speaking of the choices women have in Islam. "They can get married, or become public property." Another comment was that theft does not occur if the penalty was implemented that cut off the hands of thieves. This is the same type of thinking that prompted the president of Iran to say that Iran has no gays. He did not say that the reason was that they execute those that they find. If strict penalty was a complete deterrent of crime, then a very strict penal code would eliminate ALL crime. Along with the concept of public flogging, this ideology is from the Middle Ages. As is being demonstrated with just these two cases, one of the most strict and brutal legal systems in the world has NOT eliminated crime.

These reasons are not enough to go to war over. However, the authoritarian ideology that goes along with such a brutal system can and does easily accept many other concepts that ARE the source of violent confrontation and open warfare. This is the case with Islamic foreign policy, a policy that DOES cross the line of sovereignty and national boundaries.