Monday, October 7, 2013

Saudi Men to Receive 2,000 Lashes for Dancing Naked

But don't let such punishments distract you from the fact that Islamophobia is the real problem.

(CNN) -- Four Saudi men accused of dancing naked on the roof of a car and posting a video of the incident online have been sentenced to as many as 2,000 lashes and up to 10 years in prison, and fined thousands of dollars, a newspaper reported this week.

A criminal court in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia, handed down the verdict on Wednesday, according to the newspaper al-Sharq.

Three of the men were sentenced to three to seven years in prison and 500 to 1,200 lashes, and one man received the harshest sentence -- 10 years and 2,000 lashes.

The fines came to 50,000 Saudi riyals ($13,000), the newspaper reported. The car they danced on was confiscated, al-Sharq reported, adding that the video of the incident has been removed. (Continue Reading.)

20 comments:

Devotee of Christ said...

http://m.ndtv.com/article/world/terrorists-in-kenya-mall-used-new-tactic-to-spare-some-muslims-425361

hugh watt said...

Kinky dancing. Kinky sentence.

Mohamoud Hassan Mohamed said...

If this report is true I think Saudi Official did good Job. these boys who danced naked they don't know that we are passed ancient times when people were naked.

if they naked why they televising their bad actions and spreading it to the you tube?

Don't they know that they are in the Holly Land?

we know every one regarding his religion/race hates to be naked in the front of people and record it, this is common nature of humanity.

Sis said...

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/10/christian-students-forced-pray-allah-study-quran-pledge-allegiance-afghan-flag/

Christian A. said...

Lets call it Saudi Barbaria

John 8:24 said...

Mohamoud Hassan Mohamed said: "If this report is true I think Saudi Official did good Job... Don't they know that they are in the Holly Land?"

If they did a good job and normal why then is it in the headline news? Please use your common sense - i.e. if you got any. The basis of any right justice is that punishment should fit the crime committed. 2000 lashes and 10 years in prison for dancing naked? That is excessively harsh and barbaric.

Meanwhile, in comparison if you rape your 5 year old daughter, brutally beat her, break her back and burn her you would get 600 lashes and 8 years in prison in your "Holly" land (Saudi Arabia)!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449709/Fayhan-al-Ghamdi-jailed-years-torturing-daughter-Lama-death.html

There are many Muslims out there who sing peons about how perfect and beautiful the Sharia law is. One must be absolutely stupid or brainwashed not to see how horrible, excessive and unjust these Sharia laws indeed are!

Asher Labutte said...

@John 8:24

I agree that the punishment for these guys are too harsh, but this is the law of Saudi Arabia if you cannot live there then leave. I now you want to have people dancing naked in front of your door, of you children you are free to welcome them.

As for me I say that every punishment of this kind should be in the HEADLINE NEWS so as to show others what is waiting for them if they want to engage in these activities.

I completely agree that "600 lashes and 8 years in prison" is too little for this crime.

As for this "One must be absolutely stupid or brainwashed not to see how horrible, excessive and unjust these Sharia laws indeed are!":
If you are not brainwashed or stupid how can you accept the bible:
In 1 Samuel 6:19 God killed 50,070 people for looking into a box an yet he never uttered 1 redeeming word about Lot having sex with his daughters Genesis 19:30 onwards. This is the most unjust thing to accept.

Point to reflect: Matthew 7.

Deleting said...

Asher said, 'In 1 Samuel 6:19 God killed 50,070 people for looking into a box an yet he never uttered 1 redeeming word about Lot having sex with his daughters Genesis 19:30 onwards. This is the most unjust thing to accept.'
First it was 70 men and the reason why is given in the book of numbers which is in the Torah that no man was to look inside the 'box' which was the ark if the covenant.

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading before you post errors.

Second the incident in genesis chronologically took place BEFORE the incident in Beth Shemesh and the only connection here is some emotional trite your trying to cobble together...badly.
Also Lot wasn't conscious to this event nor would he have actively participated if he was so what would God have to say about an act being done TO him. The reason why this story is there is one of many (highlighting the overall wretchedness of man in light of a Holy and Pure God.) but one tangible reason for it is this story is the origins of a people group that was kin to the children of Israel.

Last would you like to discuss religious texts that are WHOLLY UNJUST AND UNACCEPTABLE because I got a few in the Koran and the Hadith we can talk about that make what happen to lot-yet ordered by your prophet and endorsed by your god-look like a walk in the park.

The bloodshed by your religion is ten times worse and ALWAYS will be.

Deleting said...

Asher said 'Point to reflect: Matthew 7.'

And yet you didn't reflect on it or you wouldn't have posted it at it.
Matthew chapter 7 is about using superficial judgment not checking your brain at the door. Reading the ENTIRE chapter will tell you as much but since you really aren't a fan of reading as we've learned about you.

Deleting said...

'At it' means at all. I typed this in my iPhone.

Deleting said...

Ark of the convenant is also what I meant to say. Sorry for the typos.

Asher Labutte said...

Deleting said...
"First it was 70 men and the reason why is given in the book of numbers which is in the Torah that no man was to look inside the 'box' which was the ark if the covenant."
I think you have never studied the so called 'original hebrew' scripture where it says 50,070 this is why you accept the hide and seek that the translators are playing.
Deleting said...
"Perhaps you should do a bit more reading before you post errors." You better follow your own advice…
And your god is so loving that he could not forget their sins, and you believe that the same god sent his begotten son into the world to save humanity, seems like he suffers from alzheimer or another brain decease.
Deleting said...
"Second the incident in genesis chronologically took place BEFORE the incident in Beth Shemesh and the only connection here is some emotional trite your trying to cobble together...badly."
Where did I say that I had followed the chronology of the bible in my post?
Deleting said...
"Also Lot wasn't conscious to this event nor would he have actively participated if he was so what would God have to say about an act being done TO him."
Think about Adam, he was offered the apple and influenced by Eve [according to the bible they didn't know what sin was which means that they were innocent] and God punished them.
Deleting said...
"The reason why this story is there is one of many (highlighting the overall wretchedness of man in light of a Holy and Pure God.) but one tangible reason for it is this story is the origins of a people group that was kin to the children of Israel."
I don't know where this fits in the conversation but feel free to express your frustration.

Deleting said...
"Last would you like to discuss religious texts that are WHOLLY UNJUST AND UNACCEPTABLE because I got a few in the Koran and the Hadith we can talk about that make what happen to lot-yet ordered by your prophet and endorsed by your god-look like a walk in the park."
I would really appreciate it, but I should refuse, I live in a small Island called Mauritius, I can't afford a plane ticket and a hotel room to hear about lies.

Deleting said...
"The bloodshed by your religion is ten times worse and ALWAYS will be."
Compared to a god who sends his only "begotten" son into the world, pleading him to remove the cross from his way, [And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.(Luke 22:44)] while he was sweating blood, yet this loving god condemns him to be lashed, crucified, shed his blood on the cross and die.
I really can't compare this atrocity with anything.

Deleting said...
"And yet you didn't reflect on it or you wouldn't have posted it at it.
Matthew chapter 7 is about using superficial judgment not checking your brain at the door. Reading the ENTIRE chapter will tell you as much but since you really aren't a fan of reading as we've learned about you."
You got me on this point I don't like to read, but when I do, I read correctly and reflect on which I have read. I could say the same about you but the difference between you and I, is that I don't judge others based on comments rather by their way of thinking.
Matthew 7:
http://biblehub.com/akjv/matthew/7.htm
Verse 1-6 is about "John 8:24" and about his judgement, you [Deleting] also fit in,
7-12 to make "John 8:24" how could a loving God as describe in there not forgive sins unless the blood of his "begotten" son is shed.
It requires a 1 hour lecture to explain this whole chapter.

Deleting said...

Asher said, 'think you have never studied the so called 'original hebrew' scripture where it says 50,070 this is why you accept the hide and seek that the translators are playing.'

According to what manuscript? You say 'original Hebrew' but all ancient text documents are named and catagorized.
Name it so I can reference it.

Ill respond to the rest later. Your assertions are irrational and appeals to emotion but I'm in the middle of something else.

Deleting said...

My response to Asher.

Asher's concluding point is what I will start with first:

" I read correctly and reflect on which I have read. I could say the same about you but the difference between you and I, is that I don't judge others based on comments rather by their way of thinking."

I don't think you have because much of your post is garbled. You connect two points like they have something do to with each other. That's why I replied the way I did when you tried to connect violating the command not to open the ark of the Covenant (quit calling it a box) with lot.

Then you tried to string that further by bringing in Adam and Eve.

Are you saying God does not have the right to punish sin as he sees fit? Are you being deliberate in ignoring the fact that Adam, Eve and the men at Beth Shemesh had sinned which precipitated punishment.
'Don't eat of the fruit'
'Don't look inside the ark of the covenant'.

Lot, in contrast, didn't initiate sexual contact with his daughters.

Next point: "Compared to a god who sends his only "begotten" son into the world, pleading him to remove the cross from his way, [And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.(Luke 22:44)] while he was sweating blood, yet this loving god condemns him to be lashed, crucified, shed his blood on the cross and die."

You're right you don't like reading because Christ also says in John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Jesus wasn't a victim. He was a volunteer. He took penalty for breaking God's law. He'll come again to execute God's judgment against those who rejected him.

You might want to rethink your stance of rejecting the bible as the word of God.

Last: Matthew 7:
http://biblehub.com/akjv/matthew/7.htm
Verse 1-6 is about "John 8:24" and about his judgement, you [Deleting] also fit in,
7-12 to make "John 8:24" how could a loving God as describe in there not forgive sins unless the blood of his "begotten" son is shed.
It requires a 1 hour lecture to explain this whole chapter.

This is gobblygook. whole chapter says not to express superficial opinions as judgment like 'that person looks poor they must be a thief'.

Just admit you didn't read the chapter and didn't understand it.

Asher Labutte said...

Deleting said...
"According to what manuscript? You say 'original Hebrew' but all ancient text documents are named and catagorized.
Name it so I can reference it."
One of them is the Massoretic, for more read the footnote of your bible ['...most Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint 50,070']

D... said...
"...Your assertions are irrational and appeals to emotion but..."
It may be 'irrational and appeals to emotion' for you, but this is not the case for everyone John8:24 attacked my religion so I have the right to fight back unlike turning the other cheek.

D... said...
"I don't think you have because much of your post is garbled. You connect two points like they have something do to with each other. That's why I replied the way I did when you tried to connect violating the command not to open the ark of the Covenant (quit calling it a box) with lot. Then you tried to string that further by bringing in Adam and Eve."
Usually when people cannot reply back they use these kind of comments 'your post is garbled', If you have read properly you would have known that I did not 'connect' these two points but opposed and compare them. Having sex with your own daughters is a crime no matter how drunk you may be, sin whether influenced by Alcohol, the devil or a woman either all should be punished or none.

D... said...
"Are you saying God does not have the right to punish sin as he sees fit?"
Yes, he has all rights, then inform 'John 8:24' of it. [John said...
There are many Muslims out there who sing peons about how perfect and beautiful the Sharia law is. One must be absolutely stupid or brainwashed not to see how horrible, excessive and unjust these Sharia laws indeed are!]
If he did it once why not againt.

D... said...
"Are you being deliberate in ignoring the fact that Adam, Eve and the men at Beth Shemesh had sinned which precipitated punishment.
'Don't eat of the fruit'
'Don't look inside the ark of the covenant'."
Not at all, If they have sinned they deserve punishment but "to which extend?" the topic on which I'm writing.

D... said...
"Lot, in contrast, didn't initiate sexual contact with his daughters."
Leave alone Lot, according to you being drunk justifies what happened.
But what about his daughters they initiated the sexual contact.

Asher Labutte said...

D... said...
Next point: "Compared to a god who sends his only "begotten" son into the world, pleading him to remove the cross from his way, [And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.(Luke 22:44)] while he was sweating blood, yet this loving god condemns him to be lashed, crucified, shed his blood on the cross and die."

You're right you don't like reading because Christ also says in John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

No matter whether once accept the injustice done to him, it does not justify any crime of any kind.
Anyway if you look at the preceding and following verses [this verse is part of a phrase] you will know that he was speaking in parables, not literally laying his life.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."(John 10:14-18)

Laying his life in context means being submissive to God not get killed by the Jews.
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again."
The reason God loves his is because he is submissive to God, the reason he may get enter paradise.
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord"
God proposed him to be a prophet and he accepted, nobody forced him, but he chose to accept.
"I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again"
He has the authority to accept or refuse, and receive the rewards in the hereafter.

D... said...
"Jesus wasn't a victim. He was a volunteer. He took penalty for breaking God's law. He'll come again to execute God's judgment against those who rejected him."
Volunteer or not injustice is injustice, I accept him as a prophet and a righteous man, not as scapegoat.
If you want to enter paradize by his blood feel free:
"Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber..." (John 10:1-5)

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:21-23)
D... said...
"You might want to rethink your stance of rejecting the bible as the word of God."
As for now there is no change of stance necessary, I know where I am, what I do. If there is any change in status I'll let you know.

D... said...
"This is gobblygook."
I'm really sorry English is not my mother tongue.

D... said...
"whole chapter says not to express superficial opinions as judgment like 'that person looks poor they must be a thief'."
Then explain it to me I'll be happy to hear from verse 7 to 21.

D... said...
"Just admit you didn't read the chapter and didn't understand it."
Whether it please you or not I refrain from lying.
I have read this chapter.

Deleting said...

Asher's answer to my question of which manuscript has 50,070 or whatever number.

"One of them is the Massoretic, for more read the footnote of your bible ['...most Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint 50,070']"

This is not an answer. Which manuscript, NAME IT!!

Next: " Having sex with your own daughters is a crime no matter how drunk you may be, sin whether influenced by Alcohol, the devil or a woman either all should be punished or none."

So what is it if it's rape? Oh wait, there's no such thing in islam as rape...

""Are you saying God does not have the right to punish sin as he sees fit?"
Yes, he has all rights, then inform 'John 8:24' of it."

This is the second time you've brought him up. He's not involved in THIS particular conversation.

You're talking to me, not him.

""Are you being deliberate in ignoring the fact that Adam, Eve and the men at Beth Shemesh had sinned which precipitated punishment.
'Don't eat of the fruit'
'Don't look inside the ark of the covenant'."
Not at all, If they have sinned they deserve punishment but "to which extend?" the topic on which I'm writing."

Let me make it easier on you. God said don't do it. They did it. Lot, in contrast, was not initiating sexual contact with his daughters. They were. It's still called rape...

""Lot, in contrast, didn't initiate sexual contact with his daughters."
Leave alone Lot, according to you being drunk justifies what happened.
But what about his daughters they initiated the sexual contact."
OMG what do you think I've been saying to you all this time!!!!!
They GOT HIM DRUNK...HE DIDN'T INTIATE THAT. THEY DID IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEX WITH THEIR FATHER TO PROCREATE CHILDREN. THESE BECAME THE AMMORITES!

Continued though I don't know why...

Deleting said...

part two:

Correction, it was the MOABITES NOT THE AMMORITES THAT came from the union.

Asher said, "Laying his life in context means being submissive to God not get killed by the Jews.
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again."
The reason God loves his is because he is submissive to God, the reason he may get enter paradise.
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord"
God proposed him to be a prophet and he accepted, nobody forced him, but he chose to accept.
"I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again"
He has the authority to accept or refuse, and receive the rewards in the hereafter."

Not that's not right. It was because he was going to be crucified for sin. You know how I know that, because there are three other gospels written, the entire catalog of jewish scriptures and the pastoral epistles. We take ALL OF scripture, not piecemeal to read something in that ought not to be there.

No one listening to him speaking ever thought he meant what you're trying to imply.
This is called extreme isogensis.

Next "Volunteer or not injustice is injustice, I accept him as a prophet and a righteous man, not as scapegoat.
If you want to enter paradize by his blood feel free:
"Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber..." (John 10:1-5)"

You do realize John 10:1-5 is talking about you being the robber and thief. It's a euphemism of one trying to bypass what God ordained as acceptability to enter into heaven.

Posting all at once:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:21-23)
D... said...
"You might want to rethink your stance of rejecting the bible as the word of God."
As for now there is no change of stance necessary, I know where I am, what I do. If there is any change in status I'll let you know.

D... said...
"This is gobblygook."
I'm really sorry English is not my mother tongue.

D... said...
"whole chapter says not to express superficial opinions as judgment like 'that person looks poor they must be a thief'."
Then explain it to me I'll be happy to hear from verse 7 to 21.

D... said...
"Just admit you didn't read the chapter and didn't understand it."
Whether it please you or not I refrain from lying.
I have read this chapter"

answered in no particular order:

1. You are using the koran to interpret the bible so regardless of proper hermaneutical explanation you will still reject what you're told. You proved as such when you twisted John 10:1-5.

2. You write English well enough in terms of syntax and grammar. It was gobblygook because your points are scattered and very little with you makes sense.

Not to mention you attack John 8:24 in a post to me (twice) when in fact he's probably not read your response.

As far as explaining anything to you the problem is whether or not you're going to twist scripture like you did earlier.

Asher Labutte said...

Part 1
[Asher's answer to my question of which manuscript has 50,070 or whatever number. 
"One of them is the Massoretic, for more read the footnote of your bible ['...most Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint 50,070']"
This is not an answer. Which manuscript, NAME IT!!]
Since you are insisting I had to perform your home work,
One is Aleppo Codex(I didn't say only 1 script but 'most' read the footer of your bible),

[Next: " Having sex with your own daughters is a crime no matter how drunk you may be, sin whether influenced by Alcohol, the devil or a woman either all should be punished or none.
So what is it if it's rape? Oh wait, there's no such thing in islam as rape…]
Call it as you like rape or incest its only a choice of word.
Are you telling me that since God did not prevent Lot from having sex with his daughters justified the fact that he was not punished?

[Are you saying God does not have the right to punish sin as he sees fit?"
Yes, he has all rights, then inform 'John 8:24' of it."
This is the second time you've brought him up. He's not involved in THIS particular conversation
You're talking to me, not him.]
This is an amazing situation:
1, YOU at first was not in the "conversation" I was replying to John8:24 (not to you) you popped into it and now arguing that he is not in the "conversation".
2, As I said he attacked my religion, so I have the right to reply,
3, He said that the Shariah is unjust (and other comments) since you said that God has the right to punish sins as he sees it fit then you are the best one to teach him this aspect of God.

[But what about his daughters they initiated the sexual contact."
OMG what do you think I've been saying to you all this time!!!!!
They GOT HIM DRUNK...HE DIDN'T INTIATE THAT. THEY DID IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEX WITH THEIR FATHER TO PROCREATE CHILDREN. THESE BECAME THE AMMORITES]
So what? Are you telling me now that since they had a "good" reason ("PROCREATE CHILDREN. THESE BECAME THE AMMORITES") is why they were not punished?

Asher Labutte said...

Part 2:
[Not that's not right. It was because he was going to be crucified for sin. You know how I know that, because there are three other gospels written, the entire catalog of jewish scriptures and the pastoral epistles. We take ALL OF scripture, not piecemeal to read something in that ought not to be there]
Sins that he did not commit, this is call INJUSTICE. 3 other gospels written which "certifies" your belief (and many others who goes against) did you know that Mark's gospel was written first then Luke and Matthew copied from it and added other things besides and the final John even disagree on which day Jesus was crucified (it's evident that he was not crucified twice). Did you know that?

[No one listening to him speaking ever thought he meant what you're trying to imply. This is called extreme isogensis]
Just because nobody ever understood him, not even his disciples:
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. (John 10:6)
These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him. (John 12:16)
And there are so many other references, where it is clear that he was misunderstood.

["Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber..." (John 10:1-5)"
You do realize John 10:1-5 is talking about you being the robber and thief. It's a euphemism of one trying to bypass what God ordained as acceptability to enter into heaven]
Ezekiel 18:20-22
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
This is the Just law of God, not using the blood of Jesus as magical detergent to clean sins.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)
Talking about robber and thieves?

[1. You are using the koran to interpret the bible so regardless of proper hermeneutical explanation you will still reject what you're told. You proved as such when you twisted John 10:1-5]
If you could point out where did I use the Qur'an?
Is that "proper hermeneutical explanation" to you, taking parables literally?
Where did I twist John 10:1-5?

[2.... It was gobblygook because your points are scattered and very little with you makes sense]
Ignoring…

[Not to mention you attack John 8:24 in a post to me (twice) when in fact he's probably not read your response]
You raised this issue again previously, and blamed me ("points are scattered").

[As far as explaining anything to you the problem is whether or not you're going to twist scripture like you did earlier]
You can prove that I have twisted it, just give reasons why it cannot be interpreted the way I see it. Prove it...