Filipino beheaded for protecting himself from rape? I don't understand Muslim reasoning for this.

[Inman]

The woman who was raped was executed —for being raped? She was the victim in this crime!

She was probably was executed for committing adultry or fornication. If you can’t proof rape and you get pregrant I think the presumption is that you became pregnant via adultry or fornication.

But that is just an educated (or perhaps uneducated, lol) guess.

 

[Sarabande]

She was probably was executed for committing adultry or fornication. If you can’t proof rape and you get pregrant I think the presumption is that you became pregnant via adultry or fornication.

But that is just an educated (or perhaps uneducated, lol) guess.

Yes, and it’s very difficult to prove rape because you must have witnessness in their law. Female witnesses aren’t considered reliable. Besides the boys who raped this teenaged girl, no one else was around. How many rapes have you heard of where there were other people around? It’s so ridiculous and backward. And to think that she was probably executed for fornication while the boys just got a slap on the wrists.

Even in western society it was once believed that if a woman became pregnant after she was raped, that meant she must have “enjoyed” it, so it couldn’t have been rape. What a crock!!! Thank goodness that is not commonly believed, at least by most people.

 

[Renton405]

you dont have proof

Does anyone find this a very common typical answer among muslims??

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Thank you everyone for your replies.

you dont have proof

The sources I mentioned in post # 1 is from the website of Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in the Philippines.

The sources that I mentioned in post # 3 is from ABS-CBN, one of the biggest tv stations here.

In post # 3, I also quoted directly from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (printed) newspaper that I read.

Another source you can look into is from the website of GMA news, another one of the big tv networks in my country:

See

gmanews.tv/story/46389/OFW-from-Pampanga-beheaded-in-Saudi-for-murder

It said here:

It was learned that on December 22, 2003, the Riyadh Grand Court sentenced Cortez to 15 years imprisonment for the crime he committed.

Immediately, Cortez’ lawyer appealed the ruling on the grounds that his client acted in self-defense. The Saudi Supreme Court saw the merit in the appeal, and reduced his sentence to 10 years imprisonment.

Even though the Saudi Supreme Court had decreed that Mr. Cortez’ sentence be reduced, Saudi Shariah law also takes into consideration the private rights, or the compensation aspect of the case.

At the hearing of the compensation aspect of Cortez’ case, the family of the Pakistani victim stated before the Court that they would not accept any amount of money as compensation. This, in effect, meant that they were seeking the death penalty for Cortez.

I am wondering, if the Saudi Supreme Court already **found merit **(I am interpreting this to mean that it was “believable”) in Mr. Cortez’ contention that he was just protecting himself from rape. Why is it that he was the one punished for it and made to pay for his life?

What also found disturbing was that the family of the man who tried to hurt him couldn’t **forgive **my countryman for killing their kinsman who was the one doing the wrong in the first place!

I really don’t get the justice in this.

Worst, his family can’t even have his body back! In my opinion, its injustice after injustice for his family.

You can read how his family felt at the news that the body of their father would not be returned to them here:

globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view_article.php?article_id=71313

Btw, BelFarfalla, regarding your question here:

Was the poor man a non-muslim?

I just found out from the internet site I mentioned above that he is
a Muslim convert. I am supposing that his family remained Catholic based on what was said in that article that his family had an “altar”. I am assuming that only Catholic have “altars” but I may be wrong. Anyway, here is a part of the article above:

…“We cannot repatriate his remains. I do not think we can bring home the body,” Conejos later confirmed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, parent company of INQUIRER.net.

…After the call by Conejos, Melody left the veranda, walked inside the family’s 4 x 3 meter house, slumped on a plastic chair and withdrew into silence in front of an altar where her six children had lit thin white candles beside the four photographs of their father.
It appeared to be the closest thing they could do to approximate a wake for him.

…Melody, 37, held back words and tears. She reclined her head on her left hand, as sadness and rage showed through her face.

Stunned by news of not being able to see their father even on his death, Cortez’s children – Girlie, 18; April, 17; the twins Allan and Allen, 14; and Ace, 8 – stared hard at their father’s photographs. Alfie, the eldest, slept his sadness away.

Girlie broke the silence by asking, “Are we not really going to be able to bury him here?”…

I still feel that whether my countryman was a Christian or a Muslim, he did not get the justice that he deserved.

My opinion is that Muslim justice dealt him an even harder blow over and above what the man who tried to rape him did to him.

They are continuing to hurt his family by not returning his body to them.

I think it is very, very unfair. I want to ask, how can Muslims think that this is justice?

 

[mark_a]

Islam. Bringing you the best of the 7th century for 1400 years.

Man, that’s cold!

But its dead-on accurate of the Islam depicted on the news.

 

[BelFarfalla]

you dont have proof

lol yes I do… do you want me to type in the Shari’ah laws covering this topic? It will take me a bit of time but I’ll be glad to do it. Of course these laws will show that Islam is very mean spirited and grossly unfair to non-Muslims who live under their rule. Shall I type in the laws and post them here?

 

[BelFarfalla]

The woman who was raped was executed —for being raped? She was the victim in this crime!

How can Muslims see this as a justice? It seems they’re pretty mixed up as to who is guilty–the victim or the perpetrator.

I find this really, really disturbing.

…

In Islam a woman needs 4 witnesses who actually saw the rape to prove that it was a rape. Or she needs to be able to prove by being beaten almost to death that she resisted. Short of that she is considered to have consented to the sex… an act that is generally punishable by death.

Since most rapes occur in private and most rape victims do not fight to the point of being almost killed or killed, most rape victims are considered to have consented.

This goes for both male and female victims of rape.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

In Islam a woman needs 4 witnesses who actually saw the rape to prove that it was a rape. Or she needs to be able to prove by being beaten almost to death that she resisted. Short of that she is considered to have consented to the sex… an act that is generally punishable by death.

Since most rapes occur in private and most rape victims do not fight to the point of being almost killed or killed, most rape victims are considered to have consented.

This goes for both male and female victims of rape.

In this day and age I am shocked that people actually believe that victims of rape **wanted **what happened to them.

People react different ways when confronted with an aggressor. Some **fight **(like what my countryman did) and some retreat and become immobilized or passive out of fear. This surely does not mean they were **willing **participants in the rape.

This is the 21st century. Do they not see that these reactions are also typical of victims of rape? It is not only when a person becomes black and blue that will prove that he/she did not consent to the act.

Btw, BelFarfalla, regarding what I said here:

I just found out from the internet site I mentioned above that he is a Muslim convert.

I want to clarify that I really meant he had converted to Islam (I am not sure if it was during his incarceration or before that). In the article that I mentioned in my previous post, it mentioned his family had an “altar”, which I am thinking to be typical of Catholics in my country.

Nonetheless, I feel that he was not treated humanely and his poor family continue to suffer the injustice that was given to him.

He has been buried in Saudi Arabia. The story is here, which I am quoting in part:

sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/06/15/dfa.fails.to.recover.body.of.beheaded.pinoy.html

GUAGUA, Pampanga – Relatives of beheaded overseas Filipino worker (OFW) Reynaldo Cortez on Thursday confirmed that the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) did not succeed in recovering his remains.

Cortez was buried in Saudi Arabia after he was beheaded on Wednesday. Saudi Arabian laws require that beheaded convicts be buried before sundown…

To me, whether he was a Muslim or a Christian, he was a human being and what happened to him was inhuman and unjust.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

I researched a little about blood money because its something I really find confusing.

See:

islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=84796&Option=FatwaId

In part, it said:

The majority of Muslim scholars believe that repentance wipes out all sins even a sin of killing.
Allah, the Exalted, Says: {And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allâh, nor kill such life as Allâh has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace; **Except those who repent and believe (in Islâmic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds, for those, Allâh will change their sins into good deeds, and Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance.} **[25: 68-71].
**But, the right of the killed one is not dropped even if the killer is punished according to Sharia.**Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah’s Mercy be upon him) said: ‘If a killer has a lot of good deeds; some of these deeds will be taken to satisfy the killed one or Allah will compensate for the killed one if the killer has a true and faithful repentance’ .
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah’s Mercy be upon him) said: ‘True examination of the issue of killing is as follows: **there are three rights: the right of Allah, the right of the killed person and the right of his/her guardian (blood heir).**If a killer gives oneself up to the blood heir voluntarily, as a form of regret and fear of Allah and repentance, then Allah’s right becomes dropped by repentance and so is the right of the blood heirs by receiving their right (blood money or killing the killer or retaliation) or reconciliation or pardon. But, the right of the killed one will be compensated by Allah, the Exalted, on the Day of Judgment for the truth and faithfulness of the killer. Allah, the Exalted, will also make peace between them (the killer and the killed one). Thus, one will receive his right and the other will receive the reward of his repentance’ .Allah knows best.

So am I getting this right? To them :

Right of Allah + Right of Killed person + Right of his/her guardian (blood heir) = JUSTICE ?

Where is the right of the victim to defend himself in that equation?

Because of this rule, the victim has to beg the family of his assailant for pardon?

Since, the blood heirs of the one killed (even if the reason he was killed was because he was trying to harm someone else) must be compensated, does that mean to them it is justice to expedite the demise of his victim so that Allah will make them “friends” in heaven?

Personally, I feel that the Right of Allah (God) is the only one that should matter. The right of the one killed and the right of his blood heirs are, by far, not equal to God’s “Rights”.

The God I believe in is Just and Merciful.

Didn’t Jeus say, "“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a I stone at her”.

Let God decide what is due to the person. As they said,God knows best.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you everyone for your replies.

The sources I mentioned in post # 1 is from the website of Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in the Philippines.

The sources that I mentioned in post # 3 is from ABS-CBN, one of the biggest tv stations here.

In post # 3, I also quoted directly from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (printed) newspaper that I read.

Another source you can look into is from the website of GMA news, another one of the big tv networks in my country:

See

gmanews.tv/story/46389/OFW-from-Pampanga-beheaded-in-Saudi-for-murder

It said here:

I am wondering, if the Saudi Supreme Court already **found merit **(I am interpreting this to mean that it was “believable”) in Mr. Cortez’ contention that he was just protecting himself from rape. Why is it that he was the one punished for it and made to pay for his life?

What also found disturbing was that the family of the man who tried to hurt him couldn’t **forgive **my countryman for killing their kinsman who was the one doing the wrong in the first place!

I really don’t get the justice in this.

Worst, his family can’t even have his body back! In my opinion, its injustice after injustice for his family.

You can read how his family felt at the news that the body of their father would not be returned to them here:

globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view_article.php?article_id=71313

Btw, BelFarfalla, regarding your question here:

I just found out from the internet site I mentioned above that he is
a Muslim convert. I am supposing that his family remained Catholic based on what was said in that article that his family had an “altar”. I am assuming that only Catholic have “altars” but I may be wrong. Anyway, here is a part of the article above:

I still feel that whether my countryman was a Christian or a Muslim, he did not get the justice that he deserved.

My opinion is that Muslim justice dealt him an even harder blow over and above what the man who tried to rape him did to him.

They are continuing to hurt his family by not returning his body to them.

I think it is very, very unfair. I want to ask, how can Muslims think that this is justice?

It looks as if the differences may result from different types of jurisdiction (especially in view of his having been a convert to Islam) - so that​

• 1. a non-religious court, by its own standards, concludes by handing down a 10-year sentence
     whereas
• 1. A court applying sharia law, by its standards, concludes by handing down a different sentence
     The facts of the case may have made this a case of a mixed character - leading to the possibility (in principle at least) of conflicts like those between civil & canon law, when the facts of a case make an accused person liable to both types of law & both types of court.

It would be worth knowing what the legal position is in the Philippines, when a single case can lead to a conflict of this type: is there any Muslim equivalent of a concordat ?

Are there legal provisions in Philippine law which provide for legal procedures proper to courts other than those of the state ?

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

It looks as if the differences may result from different types of jurisdiction (especially in view of his having been a convert to Islam) - so that​

• 1. a non-religious court, by its own standards, concludes by handing down a 10-year sentence
     whereas
• 1. A court applying sharia law, by its standards, concludes by handing down a different sentence
     The facts of the case may have made this a case of a mixed character - leading to the possibility (in principle at least) of conflicts like those between civil & canon law, when the facts of a case make an accused person liable to both types of law & both types of court.

It would be worth knowing what the legal position is in the Philippines, when a single case can lead to a conflict of this type: is there any Muslim equivalent of a concordat ?

Are there legal provisions in Philippine law which provide for legal procedures proper to courts other than those of the state ?

I am afraid, I have very little knowlege about law. I am not sure if my government has any agreement with the Saudi government like a concordat.

What I know is that overseas working Filipinos are helped by their respective Philippine embassies in the countries they work in, but they have to abide by their host country’s laws. In Saudi Arabia, I believe, they follow Shar’ia law.

So, according to reports, when the Philippine embassy found out about the case, they immediately dispatched people who helped Mr. Cortez in his court hearings. They were successful in lowering the jail time sentence because they gave “credence” to his reason that it was self-defense from attempted rape by the man he killed.

Unfortunately, according to their rules, the blood relatives of the man he killed had to be given “justice”.

The Philippine government sent envoys to locate the family of the man he killed to beg pardon for killing their relative (even if their relative was the one doing harm at the time he was killed) and offer blood money. It was was not successful. The blood relatives wanted him dead and did not accept blood money.

When everything failed, Mr. Cortez, the victim of attempted rape, was executed.

I see no justice in this.

 

[zackonattack]

Muslim reason is an oxymoron

 

[fin]

it’s injustice that he is hanged for defending himself.

and why does he have to PAY the BLOOD MONEY??? he’s the one who was attempted to be raped!

 

[BelFarfalla]

it’s injustice that he is hanged for defending himself.

and why does he have to PAY the BLOOD MONEY??? he’s the one who was attempted to be raped!

Most likely because he was Filipino and the man he killed was Saudi.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Thanks everyone for your replies.
"zackonattack:

Muslim reason is an oxymoron

It is unbelievable that cases like this can still happen in this modern age and that some people actually believe that this is justice.

it’s injustice that he is hanged for defending himself.

and why does he have to PAY the BLOOD MONEY??? he’s the one who was attempted to be raped!

Exactly my thoughts.

BelFarfalla:

Most likely because he was Filipino and the man he killed was Saudi.

The man he killed was Pakistani.

I am not sure if Shari’a law makes a distinction of who is a victim or perpetrator in cases where a person gets killed.

Based on this story, I get the impression that a person can be very unlucky if the assailant gets killed, because the victim can get the death penalty for protecting himself.

 

[BelFarfalla]

The man he killed was Pakistani.

I stand corrected. Had read the article days ago when it was first published…

I am not sure if Shari’a law makes a distinction of who is a victim or perpetrator in cases where a person gets killed.

Shri’ah states that if a Muslims kills a non-Muslim the murderer cannot be punished for killing an infidel. If a non-Muslims kills a muslim, regarless of the reason, the non-Muslim must be executed.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Shri’ah states that if a Muslims kills a non-Muslim the murderer cannot be punished for killing an infidel. If a non-Muslims kills a muslim, regarless of the reason, the non-Muslim must be executed.

I guess their law also does not consider a person who converted to Islam at par with one that is a natural born Muslim.

The **God **I believe in is Good, Loving, Just and Merciful.

I do not see God reflected in that law.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I guess their law also does not consider a person who converted to Islam at par with one that is a natural born Muslim.

The **God **I believe in is Good, Loving, Just and Merciful.

I do not see God reflected in that law.

Nor do I. It is not a secular law but law based directly on the Islamic holy books.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

God help us.

 

[Morning_Star15]

I stand corrected. Had read the article days ago when it was first published…

Shri’ah states that if a Muslims kills a non-Muslim the murderer cannot be punished for killing an infidel. If a non-Muslims kills a muslim, regarless of the reason, the non-Muslim must be executed.

And yet Muslims living in North America demand to have equal treatment under the law without discrimination based on religion! I wonder how they’d like it if Muslims were treated the same way in non-Muslims states as non-Muslims are treated in Muslim states. If any Muslim on this forum has an explanation for this hypocrisy, I’d love to hear it.