Saudi Arabia sentences maid to death by stoning for adultery - but the man she slept...

Daily Mail ^ | 11/28/15 | Sophie Jane Evans

[markomalley]

A married woman has been sentenced to death by stoning in Saudi Arabia after admitting to adultery - while the man she had sex with has escaped with a punishment of 100 lashes.

The 45-year-old Sri Lankan woman who had worked as a maid in Riyadh since 2013, and her partner, also a migrant from the island nation, were both convicted of adultery in August.

However, their sentences were very different. 

While the woman was told by a Sharia court she would be pelted with stones until she died for cheating on her husband, her lover was handed only lashes - because he was single at the time.

[dp0622]

You and I have already realized that.

They are the Barzinis of the Arab world.

The rest are Tattaglias.

[DaveyB]

Jesus said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I'm not sure if you are accusing me of adultery or if you think that the civil magistrate should never use capital punishment.

Your reference is to Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery is fraught with problems in your application, if your application is either no penalty for adultery or no capital punishment. First those who brought her to Jesus were not the civil magistrate nor her husband, so their standing was not correct. Second not explicitly stated but understood from the text the accusers were guilty of the same crime and probably with the very adulterous they accused.

Jesus' mercy toward her, reflects eternal justice, it is a separate matter from civic justice on earth. I certainly hope that you do not think Jesus is kosher with adultery, the entirety of scripture uses the term as a most heinous sin and profound evil.

[mkjessup]

I contend that if the sin of adultery is recategorized as a criminal offense, that a.) it will not eliminate the crime, b.) it will clog the already clogged courts, and c.) do nothing to improve the moral climate.

The place to fight adultery and other moral threats to the family structure is in church, with strong Biblical values taught to our children, and admonishment to those adults (whoever they might be) to repent and mend their ways if they have committed such offenses.

Taking those sinners into court and determining whether or not they should be stoned or even executed, is not the way to clean up our moral cesspool as it exists in society today. It begins at home, in the heart, and on our knees.

You appear to have confused what you call ‘civic justice’ with CRIMINAL justice, which is great, if you’re living in an Islamic country that is, and approve of Sharia law.

[bgill]

Coming soon to a public plaza in Your Town, USA.

[Kudsman]

If he had sex with a goat everything would have been fine. What if she had done the same?

[UnwashedPeasant]

Would 100 lashes kill a person?

[DaveyB]

If the sin of rape is a criminal offense, that a.) it will not eliminate the crime, b.) it will clog the already clogged courts, and c.) do nothing to improve the moral climate.

SO we should stop prosecuting rape.

[mkjessup]

Nice straw man but no cigar Davey.

Rape is indeed, a criminal offense, it is also a VIOLENT offense because the rapist is imposing their will upon their victim, against their wishes and without their consent.

The sin of adultery is not violent, and the participants have mutually consented to their behavior, as morally objectionable as it may be.

As they say on the game shows "BZZZZZZT!!!"

Wrong answer.

[Politicalkiddo]

The real “slut-shaming”. Always hear sluts my age whine about how they are targeted for their promiscuity. Never hear them whine about this crap, though.

[DaveyB]

without their consent.

But that is the rub, adultery is without the consent of the spouse who is cheated, it is against their wishes and is violence against their marriage and family.

[mkjessup]

Your definition of 'violence' is defective at best. The legal definition of violence is:

'the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.'

Under which your proposed definition does not apply.

And if the spouse who is cheated upon does not 'consent', and should they find out about the adultery, THAT is why such things as divorce courts exist.

[DaveyB]

THAT is why such things as divorce courts exist.

You mean that quaint little place where men, even those who are the offended party, legally lose custody of their homes, children and 2/3's of their income to their whore wife. And if they protest too much they are accused of abuse and presumed guilty - that divorce court. You protest to laws against adultery which were common in America for centuries, but you advocate for the destruction of the home and the enslavement of men atht the hands of their ex-wife. If I had to guess.... nah I'll let your words stand on their own.

[mkjessup]

The law is the law. Our legal system is far from perfect but I’ll take it over the Islamofascist sharia law which you sound quite entranced with.

You want to criminalize adultery, and you sound just fine with stoning or even executing those who commit that sin.

You would fit right in with ISIS. Visit their recruitment page.

[mkjessup]

And a minor 'PS'

If I had to guess.... nah I'll let your words stand on their own.

What words are you objecting to? These?

Your definition of 'violence' is defective at best. The legal definition of violence is:

'the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.'

Under which your proposed definition does not apply.

And if the spouse who is cheated upon does not 'consent', and should they find out about the adultery, THAT is why such things as divorce courts exist.

I find it curious that you accuse me of:

"but you advocate for the destruction of the home and the enslavement of men at the hands of their ex-wife

Where in my previous words did I ever 'advocate' for such things?

As a man of God, you shouldn't play fast and loose with the truth, know what I mean Preacher?