How can you lash a rape victim and charge a lover of a pet named Mohamed?
Under law in Saudi Arabia, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition on driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery. Women are also not allowed to testify in court unless it is about a private matter that was not observed by a man, and they are not allowed to vote. This is a regular media blur.
But, nothing here resembles the Islam practiced by the majority of Muslims in the world, so obviously this is Saudi Law and not an Islamic Law. Muslim women may travel, not don black gowns and veils, vote, be witnesses in courts and appeal for a divorce and well, even drive, and that too alone. So when Islam has granted women so many rights and privileges, these bias misogynist men are only destroying human life and Islam with their personal judgments, as in the case of the lady who is sentenced to lashes after being raped, on the pretext that she is an accessory to sexual enticement by walking about alone.
It's nice to hear that the higher Judicial body is reconsidering these laws and it's time, especially how we have seen Saudi Prince Abdullah has been leading some smart political, social and even economic moves, recently, to correct some major evils and build bridges. The fact is the husband of this rape victim rightly said that his wife was abducted from a mall and raped and she was not in any illicit relationship. Not because a woman walks without a mahram/ approved relative she is evil. As a matter of fact, this requirement is only for long distance travel and too if it's insecure, as can be seen how Hajj groups relax this law. Why the Saudis don't charge the girls who walk the malls passing cell numbers out, internet chat and enjoy satellite TV non chaperoned? That's having a relationship without a "relative". Moreso how about not being picky on criminal charges and improve relationship with minorities and Shiite brothers and sisters. Charging non nationals is no justice; moreso, gang-raping a woman is no "honor".
So if someone slams this episode as barbaric, it's the barbarism of a human nature expressed by some wicked authority and not in anyway a libel against the pure feminist laws of Islam nor an attack on an entire women-protecting society.
In the same token, I would beg that we continue to support our domestically abused at home and help them to rise above these cultural and social yokes that seem to travel relentlessly, despite the visas of enlightened ports.
Look how silly the issue in Sudan is, about a woman naming her pet Muhammad, despite being defended by her students and herself claiming this is not her intention- i.e. to demean our Holy Prophet, on whom be peace. So do we have any disenfranchisement warrant for those whose name is Muhammad but do not represent His life? How insulting to the Prophet, isn't it? However, a person can name someone or something off an everyday Mohr; now is that a problem? Sure, how about other Prophets, be peace on them all?