22 year old arrested in Qatar because of being raped

[Tempguy]

No. That's not what the article says at least.

"She was arrested in March on suspicion of having sex outside of marriage. She is due to appear in court on Monday."
"She was arrested in March on suspicion of having sex outside of marriage. She is due to appear in court on Monday."
"She was arrested in March on suspicion of having sex outside of marriage. She is due to appear in court on Monday."

So she was arrested for having sex outside of marriage but not for being raped?

Are you okay?

[Deleted]

That's what you believe, not what is being said/written.
Not a single word in the article describes that she was arrested due to "lying".

the sentence

She was arrested in March on suspicion of having sex outside of marriage.

implies however that charges where being made because of adultery.
Why didn't it say "on suspecion of making false accusations" or something like that?

Terms like these aren't technicalities... they define the offense and even the degree of penalty.

[Noradin]

The title tries to equate Qatar to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, in which, indeed, women are punished FOR being raped - while it is not true for Qatar in reality. Qatar stands very far away from extreme Sharia countries, and, while it is hardly a land of liberty and democracy, it is well above the usual suspects in this regard.

Yes, it should be pointed out that "Sharia Law" as an scientific term does not mean what people assume when they read it in the papers nowadays.
It means that the underlying moral code the definition of crimes, punishments and other relavant terms are based on started out in the islamic law tradition (just like the European ones mostly started out with the Roman and Germanic law traditions and the canonical law (that means the church!)).
It doesn't mean that it has remained unchanged from the middle ages. And it certainly does not mean all these resulting systems are exactly the same in all things.

Here is a map for you if you are interested.

Of course, today scientists would probably use the term "islamic law" instead of "sharia law" to avoid confusion with the term the media coined, but then this is a news article, they live of drama, thus they empoy those terms on purpose to make the narrative more emotional and captivating.

- - - Updated - - -

Well our system is no better either. We tend to heavily favour the woman when she makes a rape allegation and send the man to prision under the assumption he is already guilty. I disagree with the idea of making adultered sex illegal; something I don't want to argue right now, but at least under this system everyone is given an equal chance to prove their claims. If the evidence indicates that there was in fact a rape then there should be no problem.

Also under sharia law the punishmet for rape is severe so the judge cannot make mistakes.

I concur, adultery should be something the spouses discuss among themselfes (discuss, not physically fight over!), but then she could have been held for "potentially falsly accusing the man of rape". i do not know what their law would say about that, but it might amount to the same thing if she cannot leave the country. She is a tourist, where would she stay, who would pay for it? I do not think she could afford to stay in a hotel for month on end at age 22.

What are the circumstances she is being held under?

[Tempguy]

That's what you believe, not what is being said/written.
Not a single word in the article describes that she was arrested due to "lying".

the sentence

implies however that charges where being made because of adultery.
Why didn't it say "on suspecion on not saying the truth" or something like that?

If it's adultery, the rape allegation is false. Hence, she is arrested for lying.

Pretty sure that is called inductive reasoning. Or conductive. One of the two. Basically, if she is arrested for having consetual sex out of wedlock, but claims rape, she is being arrested because she had consensual sex out of wedlock. Not because she was raped.

[Noradin]

Dude...
The woman goes to the police and claims she has been raped by a man.
The man gets arrested.
The police suspects that the sex was consensual, hence not rape, and arrests her as well.

This is the story. What is not clear here?

You forgot that she was accused of making a false accusation and indirectly of adultery.
They didn't just assume it. An accusation was made thus they should have to act on it regardless who made it.
(In case of someone insane making the accussation "act on it" might be dismissing it, but in this case it is a man accused of but not convicted of a crime. An accusation should never be enough to lose ones rights to call on the law.)

- - - Updated - - -

If it's adultery, the rape allegation is false. Hence, she is arrested for lying.

Pretty sure that is called inductive reasoning. Or conductive. One of the two. Basically, if she is arrested for having consetual sex out of wedlock, but claims rape, she is being arrested because she had consensual sex out of wedlock. Not because she was raped.

It is always the worst crime that gets listed, thus: Adultery in her case and false accusations gets no mention, in his case it is rape and adultery gets no mention, that he was indirectly accused of making a false accusation about her lying does not need mention anyway.

(This post includes no judgement who might be innocent or guilty here, it is just a listing of the potential crimes that might have been commited and need investigating and ruling on.

[Bushtuckrman]

Friendly reminder that Qatar is on the UN human rights council

[May90]

That's what you believe, not what is being said/written.
Not a single word in the article describes that she was arrested due to "lying".

the sentence

implies however that charges where being made because of adultery.
Why didn't it say "on suspecion on not saying the truth" or something like that?

The article mentions that she claims she has been raped, and the police arrested her for adultery. The conclusion is obvious. Since adultery and rape are mutually exclusive.

Yes, it should be pointed out that "Sharia Law" as an scientific term does not mean what people assume when they read it in the papers nowadays.
It means that the underlying moral code the definition of crimes, punishments and other relavant terms are based on started out in the islamic law tradition (just like the European ones mostly started out with the Roman and Germanic law traditions and the canonical law (that means the church!)).
It doesn't mean that it has remained unchanged from the middle ages. And it certainly does not mean all these resulting systems are exactly the same in all things.

Here is a map for you if you are interested.

Of course, today scientists would probably use the term "islamic law" instead of "sharia law" to avoid confusion with the term the media coined, but then this is a news article, they live of drama, thus they empoy those terms on purpose to make the narrative more emotional and captivating.

Yes, I think this is a pretty accurate representation. It is true though that Islamic systems nowadays tend to be much more outdated than Roman/Germanic ones. The East has had a tendency to lag behind the West in terms of progressiveness. Even in Qatar, for example, adultery is still a crime, which, in my opinion, is outright barbarism. It is just a bit sad when people try to avoid getting into the details of the said systems and, instead, present them in a very simplified and biased way in attempt to make a more impacting story.

Qatar is not Saudi Arabia. It is not Sweden either, but people trying to see Middle East as some kind of unified entity are very wrong.

You forgot that she was accused of making a false accusation and indirectly of adultery.
They didn't just assume it. An accusation was made thus they should have to act on it regardless who made it.
(In case of someone insane making the accussation "act on it" might be dismissing it, but in this case it is a man accused of but not convicted of a crime. An accusation should never be enough to lose ones rights to call on the law.)

Perhaps. The article just isn't very clear on it. I got the impression that she was suspected in adultery which is a crime in Qatar (again, I don't know whether it is, but from the article it looks like it is).

[draganid]

Dude...
The woman goes to the police and claims she has been raped by a man.
The man gets arrested.
The police suspects that the sex was consensual, hence not rape, and arrests her as well.

This is the story. What is not clear here?

because in the middle east, women are lower than dirt. you dont go to the police and call rape then expect to be arrested for adultery. but the man says it was consensual, probably because there is less punishment for rape than adultery and because he is a man and she is a woman, his word is taken as factual.

that is the harsh reality of living in a theocratic country.

[Noradin]

Yes, I think this is a pretty accurate representation. It is true though that Islamic systems nowadays tend to be much more outdated than Roman/Germanic ones. The East has had a tendency to lag behind the West in terms of progressiveness. Even in Qatar, for example, adultery is still a crime, which, in my opinion, is outright barbarism. It is just a bit sad when people try to avoid getting into the details of the said systems and, instead, present them in a very simplified and biased way in attempt to make a more impacting story.

It is not like the west can claim to be centuries ahead, at best a few decades and that does not even apply to all cases.
We still have a long way to go, if we aren't diligent we might get overtaken.

[Tempguy]

because in the middle east, women are lower than dirt. you dont go to the police and call rape then expect to be arrested for adultery. but the man says it was consensual, probably because there is less punishment for rape than adultery and because he is a man and she is a woman, his word is taken as factual.

that is the harsh reality of living in a theocratic country.

I'm not gonna bash you because I get why you feel that way. But you're not totally right. Women in some middle eastern nations enjoy rights and are treated as equal. Now, some places men own their wives and daughters and the women are treated like bargaining tools, but not all.

Just want to make that clear. It reeks of "womyns had no rights before feminism" which is also false on many places throughout history.

[Mayhem]

Friendly reminder that Qatar is on the UN human rights council

Friendly reminder that the USA aren´t on the UN human rights council.

What does that tell us?

[Cairhiin]

Adultery is a consensual sex, by definition. Sharia or not, it is just what it is.

She was drugged and raped. At least according to Dutch news sources.

[Bollocks]

Friendly reminder that Qatar is on the UN human rights council

Friendly reminder that the usa vowed to protect democracy in the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicara...ion#Contra_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

[Bushtuckrman]

Friendly reminder that the USA aren´t on the UN human rights council.

What does that tell us?

With Saudi Arabia at the head of that council its best not to be on it is my guess

[Bollocks]

I'm pretty sure that rape victims are not considered sinners in Islam/Sharia laws. Also in Sharia law you can't convict someone of adultery unless there are 4 witnesses reporting seeing the actual act happening (which would mean it was either a big orgy or sex in public). Getting her detained has nothing to do with Sharia law. There is sharia law and there is Qatar law, which is a big difference.

No that's false. In Sharia law the four witnesses is required to senteced a Hadd punishment (lasshing), otherwise it passes to a taz'eer which then decides then decides the veredict and the adequate punishment. Its pretty fucked up, and that's why I disagree with the whole idea of making adultery illegal.

[Mayhem]

With Saudi Arabia at the head of that council its best not to be on it is my guess

How does that make sense in your mind?

[Noradin]

I'm pretty sure that rape victims are not considered sinners in Islam/Sharia laws. Also in Sharia law you can't convict someone of adultery unless there are 4 witnesses reporting seeing the actual act happening (which would mean it was either a big orgy or sex in public). Getting her detained has nothing to do with Sharia law. There is sharia law and there is Qatar law, which is a big difference.

"sharia law" as a single set of laws does not exist in the first place, that one is a myth propagated by the clueless and abused by the media to stir the pot, "sharia law" is a categorisation based on the origin of the underlying moral system of the laws. Like calling English a "Germanic language". It does not mean that all Germanic languages are the same or even just understandable to everyone in the same group.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps. The article just isn't very clear on it. I got the impression that she was suspected in adultery which is a crime in Qatar (again, I don't know whether it is, but from the article it looks like it is).

Well, I cannot read the source due to problems all my browsers seem to have with that site currently, but it was stated there that the man claimed it was consentual sex. If the police know of one of them being married that claim would count as accussation of adultery (potentially unknowingly if he was married, but that would have to be investigated).

- - - Updated - - -

because in the middle east, women are lower than dirt. you dont go to the police and call rape then expect to be arrested for adultery. but the man says it was consensual, probably because there is less punishment for rape than adultery and because he is a man and she is a woman, his word is taken as factual.

The potential punishment for rape (death) is much harsher than for adultery (lashing) as was reported in this thread (but no source given that I remember).

[ParanoiD84]

So she was druged then raped and when she wanted to report the rape she was arrested? what a shit place.

[Deleted]

muslims.

Somehow when religion is involved it's okay for a woman to be jailed for three months 'because she comitted adultery'. Nevermind what actually happened, that she was raped. Naturally all the man has to do is lie through his teeth and some of the muppets here will goa long with him. Seriously what are you people suggesting here? She falsely accuses him to the police, and then what? It takes an honest person to do something as stupid as try to find justice in allah forsaken qatar, what's just as infuriating to me however is the people here tin-foil-hatting and seeing plot-twists everywhere.

Please check yourselves.

[Noradin]

She was drugged and raped. At least according to Dutch news sources.

Those aren't admissable in court in Qatar I suspect, at least not without hard proof and even then it would have to wait for the court hearing.
Does anyone know about the accomodations of where she is being held until then?
Because if I had to unexpectably stay in a country like Qatar for a yet undefined period of time and pay for my own lodging as a student of 22, I might prefer for the state to provide it depending on the accomodations and circumstances. I might even be forced to choose it due to lack of funds if I was in her position.
So is it a regular prison or some other facility?