http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090710/twl-saudi-religious-police-bla...


A Saudi women's group on Friday blamed the country's religious police in the "honour" killing of two sisters shot dead by their own brother after they were arrested for mixing with unrelated men.


The Society for Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia said the religious police had placed the sisters' lives in danger when they arrested them and then placed them in a Riyadh women's shelter.

The two women, identified as Reem, 21, and Nouf, 19, were murdered after they left the shelter on July 5.

The brother shot them in the presence of their father who, according to newspaper reports, quickly forgave the son for defending the family's honour.

But the society blamed the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or the religious police, for sparking the brother's anger over his family's honour by arresting the girls in the first place.

"The hands of the religious police, as well as the brother's hands, are stained with the blood of these innocent young women," the group said in a statement.

"These women have not committed any crime to be killed in a such brutal way."

Under Saudi Arabia's Islamic sharia legal code, unrelated men and women are not allowed to mix together, and the religious police actively enforce the rules by patrolling areas frequented by young people.

"Arresting women for mingling with (unrelated males) should be stopped because it puts many Saudi women in danger and sometimes (costs) them their lives," the statement said.

"This act has nothing to do with the religion of Islam or Saudi tradition."

The women's group called on the Saudi authorities to charge the brother with murder and also bring to justice members of the religious police involved in the two girls' case.

Views: 4

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Surely we are still in the’ Dark Ages'. How long do we have to wait for a civilised society, forever I believe as the evil gene will live on forever passing from one human to another. I believe that they can now trace dna of some people back to Genghis Kahn, which I think backs up my thinking.
The Saudis belong to an evil gene and will never change, The World does nothing about this but still deals with the Saudis, we all know that is because they have oil.
Woah.. that's pretty inflammatory.
There is no such thing as an 'evil gene' though I do think that biochemistry does influence the personality of some people.. and of course there are psychiatric implications in sociopaths, ect. (Though even being a sociopath doesn't make you evil or even mean.)

Hell, you can't even say Genghis Kahn was evil unless you've met him yourself. Stories handed down were penned by the culture that won, you know. He might have just been really ambitious and distanced from the day-to-day murder.

Being Saudi does not make you any more or less physically inclined to be evil. Are their women evil? Do they all torture small animals as children?
No. They aren't evil. They are just ignorant and backwards.

Yeah.. evil isn't a gene, though the combination of certain genes that influence personality could potentially add up towards swaying someone's temperament.
I may be wrong so may you be. You tell me then what makes some one do things bad to to others.
I have been taught history not the bible, and history says Hengis Kahn killed a lot of people are you saying he was not evil. . After all are you saying that the world is flat but that is what we have learnt from science.
I am not saying that all Saudis are evil never would i say this. There are good and bad of all races and peoples of the world, just that the police who condon these killings and the family that would kill their own.
Actually.. you DID say Saudis were evil. You said they belonged to an 'evil gene' The Saudis belong to an evil gene and will never change, - Your direct quote from above.
Science 'having been wrong' is an argument theists use. The very nature of science is to progress, peer review and then correct any mistakes when a theory is proved faulty. This is what we know so far:
And evil gene is an over simplification of a very complex issue.
Evil is subjective, but genetics rarely are. A gene might pre-dispose you to certain behavior patterns, such as addiction or depression, but it does not dictate your specific actions, and isn't that what evil is? A chain of specific actions.
I honestly don't know much about Mongolian history, so I can't argue too much whether or not Khan was 'evil.' Sure, he killed a lot of people, but he came from a very violent culture where different ethnic groups were fighting over resources such as land, hunting and water. Invading other territories might well have been necessary to keep from watching his own babies starve to death.
Female circumcision or mutilation or deformation is largely seen as evil... but how many mothers or aunties look at their daughters and want to see them in pain? Most cultures do it because they see it as a mark of beauty, womanhood, or to insure that their girls are able to find a husband that can provide for them in the future so they don't end up as prostitutes begging in the streets.
Every story has two sides. To try and make it black and white, then link it to a single gene is pretty far fetched with what we know about modern medicine and human psychology.
Well put, Misty.

A couple other points on Genghis Khan. He has a lot of descendants. An estimated 16 million men (and an unknown number of women) alive today are his descendants. I must have missed the part of the article where they all inherited the 'evil' gene and were out sacking cities and massacring people.

A society's concept of evil changes as its ethical philosophy develops. We look back 200 years and find some accepted parts of society then repulsive and clearly unethical. 200 years ago, they looked back 500 years and thought the same. And 200 years from now, undoubtedly our descendants will look back at our time and consider some of our societal norms to be barbaric and 'evil'.
You tell me then what makes some one do things bad to to others.

There is not a single answer to this. Culture, religion, socio-economic status, ignorance, and so on and so forth. There was a time that the Arabic world was the beacon of enlightenment.

One thing to keep in mind is that the human species is a young species. Looking back with our more developed moral systems and judging historic figures is not always fair and sometimes paints a misleading picture of the person. And in some parts of the world, people are living with outmoded morals. The difference between the two is that one we can do nothing about and the other live in a world where people know better and something can be done about it.

RSS

  

Forum

Your kid's friends

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by GTWilco 5 hours ago. 2 Replies

World conflict and problems other than Israel-Palestine.

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 11 hours ago. 54 Replies

Is Anything Worth Saying Anymore?

Started by Ari E. S. in Small Talk. Last reply by Fragile Nokia 20 hours ago. 5 Replies

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service