In a recent scandal that hit headlines, a Saudi millionaire property developer named Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was recently acquitted of rape charges in London.
Abdulaziz met the 18-year-old young woman in a London nightclub, where he’d invited her and her 24-year-old friend to join his $1,500-per-night table. He proceeded to purchase drinks for them before inviting the two women to his luxury London condo, where he engaged in consensual sex with the 24-year-old in his bedroom, while the younger woman slept on the couch.
Later that night, according to the barely-legal teenager, the girl woke up to find Abdulaziz on top of her, forcibly penetrating her.
Abdulaziz disputed this claim, and this is where the story goes from galling, to outright absurd and nonsensical. Abdulaziz claimed he had approached the girl to “offer her a T-shirt” when she grabbed him, pulled him towards her and — because of his “fragility” — he couldn’t help but fall on top of her.
She then forcibly placed his hand between her legs and his penis — which had apparently been sticking out of his underwear after his sexual encounter with the other woman — had “accidentally” penetrated her.
Although forensic analysis proved that his semen and DNA was inside the girl, Abdulaziz insisted he must have “had semen left on his hand” after his previous sexual encounter.
First, it’s unclear why Abdulaziz felt it necessary to approach the slumbering girl to offer her a T-shirt to begin with, considering not a single report mentioned that she had stripped down before going to bed to such an extent that she needed a shirt from Abdulaziz.
Abdulaziz’ story is utterly logically absurd, the forensic evidence proves that his semen and DNA was inside her and the only other real piece of ‘evidence’ that allegedly exonerates him was deemed ‘secret.’
Further, if he had no intention of having sex with her, it really makes no sense that he would approach her in his underwear, with his penis apparently sticking out. He’s from a deeply religiously conservative culture and even in more allegedly “liberal” cultures like England, it’s still considered inappropriate — even obscene — to approach someone with your genitals exposed.
Finally, considering the logistics of sexual contact, it would be quite difficult for a penis to actually penetrate the vaginal canal from simply stumbling on top of someone, especially if he was still — as he claimed — in his underwear.
Placing the logical holes in the millionaire’s story aside, it’s important to note this story takes place in London, celebrated as one of the leading bastions of liberalism and female empowerment, not in the heart of wahabist Saudi Arabia, arguably one of the most religiously conservative countries in the world, and one with a galling record on women’s rights.
The fact that a judge in England then allowed Abdulaziz to meet with him in private during the trial, where the Saudi allegedly offered “secret evidence” that the judge didn’t see fit to publicly disclose, before he was acquitted in less than 30 minutes, raises the possibility that Abdulaziz used his wealth and influence to beat a rape charge — one with enough damning forensic evidence to convince an unbiased jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, this conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence, but let’s consider the context; Abdulaziz’ story is utterly logically absurd, the forensic evidence proves that his semen and DNA was inside her and the only other real piece of “evidence” that allegedly exonerates him was deemed “secret,” — obtained in a secret meeting with the judge as he refused to explain the necessity of secrecy.
These anti-terrorism and national security laws are almost always used to protect the political stronghold of Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite.
I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to conclude that perhaps Abdulaziz’ wealth and class played at least a nominal role in his acquittal.
Now, normally, the U.K. is notorious for its use of secret evidence in civil and criminal cases. However, U.K. law had previously justified the use of “secret evidence” in matters of “national security.”
Defenders of this controversial policy insisted that the sacrifice of some civil liberties was “necessary” in the age of combatting global terrorism.
As we see in this case, however, once the citizenry allows those in power to limit their civil liberties even a modicum — even if the initial rationalizations seemed sound — eventually, those in power will exploit vague legal loopholes initially designed for “national security” to exonerate criminals who have enough wealth and influence to buy their way out of a conviction.
The U.K. is certainly not alone in exploiting fears regarding “national security” and “terrorism” to privilege the wealthy at the expense of the vulnerable; Saudi Arabia, in fact, has instituted a series of harsh measures to crack down on political dissidents, women’s rights activists and social justice movements under the guise of “cracking down on terrorism” and “preserving Sharia.”
However, these anti-terrorism and national security laws are almost always used to protect the political stronghold of Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite, many of whom are the very clerics who issue religious edicts that disproportionately affect vulnerable minorities — and not-coincidentally protect their own secular, class interests.
Saudi Arabia’s handling of rape cases come in direct contradiction to hadiths in which women are never punished for being raped.
This explains why Saudi Arabia’s clerics issue fatwas and edicts that are demonstrably antithetical to Islam’s teachings, instituting a theocracy where rulers cherry-pick and torture religious logic in order to preserve their own wealth, status and debauchery has been a staple of historical theocracies that proceeded even King Henry the VIII’s establishment of the Church of England for his own personal benefit.
In Saudi Arabia’s case, a prime example includes multiple instances where women are punished and imprisoned for being raped, while the rapists (Saudi males) avoid any legal ramifications for their crimes.
Saudi Arabia’s handling of rape cases come in direct contradiction to hadiths in which women are never punished for being raped, no matter whether they were alone or with a guardian, and the rapist is executed.
Although Saudi law is allegedly based on Sharia, with police forces used to enforce “Islamic law” in the streets, systemic corruption within the system ensures that Saudi law is largely implemented to protect Saudi Arabia’s powerful elite and punishes vulnerable minorities and groups that threaten the status quo.
This is where Abdulaziz’ background comes into play; it seems quite fitting that the criminal in question is a wealthy Saudi Sunni male, someone who grew up in a country whose entire legal and religious system is designed to privilege him at the expense of every other demographic: Women, religious minorities and foreigners.
It is a country where wealthy, Saudi Sunni men dictate harsh and oppressive laws that they, themselves, are exempt from — not in the letter of the law, no, but certainly in practice.
Abdulaziz, it seems, internalized an entitlement complex born from a childhood where vulnerable minorities were expected to submit to his every desire and dictate — and where he was able to continue exploiting vulnerable individuals in the U.K., a country who has demonstrably proven themselves that their laws — even ones ostensibly implemented for “national security — are easily manipulated to protect the wealthy.
Image: The Young Turks
Money, power can indeed buy some very many things..!
Don’t worry, the man will not be charged, such is the beauty of the Western laws.
I just read about the crimes committed by the killers of that little boy named James Bulger. I am completely surprised that the killers went with easy-peasy jailing, while one of them has been caught for other crimes since then; yet he lives among us to destroy the lives of others.
Salute to these “modern” laws. I really do.
well she can’t prove rape under sharia anyway. there aren’t 4 witnesses.
anyway, looks like they closed that other thread:
Sufian 21 hours ago
You were concerned with the prohibition of alcohol in Islamic shariah. I am just telling you it’s bad thing and spreads immoral acts and hatred/bloodshed in society.
West tried and failed with banning of alcohol. Prophet Muhammad banned it and his followers drained all the alcohol they had. That’s the difference between the system you think is ideal and the system of Islam.
So tell me, why was it hard for you guys to leave alcohol while it was easiest thing for Arabs?
They say your freedom ends where someone else’s rights begin. This is why the idea of so-called free speech is wrong. Yeah there is free speech but there’s no denial of Holocaust or even restudying of it. But the question is why do you want to ridicule the prophet or God of someone? Any sound reason you have?
Are they in Muslim land where Islamic shariah is implemented? No. Then the law of the land suffices. And by the way many of these ex-Muslims are fake and some are too cute to believe in the fairy tales of anti-Islam websites.
No. Pagans, atheists, or people who follow any religion can not be killed just because they follow a different religion or worship idols, etc. Quran says there is no compulsion in religion. And this verse is sufficient for a Muslim.
i was concerned if there was a death penalty for drinking. if it fell under the broad statement of 5:33. why did prohibition fail. maybe because we don’t hold our leaders up to ‘prophet’ status. no one thought FDR was talking to an angel. and we like our alcohol.
you bring up the holocaust again? not sure why, maybe you are in germany or some other european country that doesn’t have freedom of speech? here in america you can deny the holocaust all you want. there are books written on it. tenured professors who are holocaust deniers.
if i say muhammad wasn’t a prophet, is that ridicule? if i say anyone who claims to talk to an angel is insane, is that ridicule?
ok, so if someone from the #exmuslimbecause goes to a muslim land with sharia, they should be put to death?
so pagans should be allowed to build temples to their gods? can they worship in public? celebrate their festivals in sharia compliant land? why did the somalis just ban christmas? why don’t the saudis allow churches to be built?
Shariah isn’t implemented in UK and for rape there is no need to establish 4 witnesses, just medical test (already done as reported in the article) is enough. Thanks for showing your poor understanding of Islam.
No death for drinking but since it spreads problems in a society, it’s prohibited. Are you convinced with the reason for prohibition?
Are you aware that Christians and Jews don’t believe in prophet Muhammad and yet they are living for generations in the Arab lands? So where is the idea of not believing in him came as a problem?
Showing respect to beliefs of others spreads harmony in people, and what you’re saying will only spread problems. Generally, angry people neither follow religion nor any ethical code.
If these ex-Muslims refrain from spreading their stupid beliefs, they can live like everyone else. It’s not like Judaism or Christianity where it encourages the believers to be the first to attack those who leaves the religion. Islam is only concerned when you start affecting the society negatively.
Christians have wrong beliefs even according to their own Bible. So you’re actually asking for wrong beliefs to be spread even what they call word of God? Are you serious?
yes i know sharia isn’t implemented in the UK. well there are sharia councils. so tell me, what is the acceptable proof of rape under sharia?
so drinking get you what punishment? 80 lashes?
yes, everyone knows that jews and christians don’t believe that muhammad was a prophet. that was not my question. i’m not asking about disbelief. i’m asking about being allowed to publicly claim your disbelief. one’s ability to challenge islam and its teachings.
“If these ex-Muslims refrain from spreading their stupid beliefs, they can live like everyone else.” and if they don’t, you or your caliph should kill them? if they are in a land ruled by sharia?
so can pagans build temples to their gods in a sharia ruled land? can they hold festivals?
do you support Somali’s banning christmas?
so let the Christians have wrong beliefs. why should that matter to you? yes i’m asking for freedom of people to spread their beliefs. whether you think they are wrong or not. that is what freedom of speech and religion means.
funny thing you mention anger, muslims seem to be the angriest group of people in the world.
If you want to implement a particular system, you have to implement it as a whole for you to see its effectiveness.
Firstly, Islamic law (shariah) blocks all the ways which could lead to rape, one of which is by making fornication illegal. In West man can get away with rape by saying it was consensus, but in Islamic law he would get the punishment of fornication, and a death penalty if proven he did commit it. Not very inviting like the West laws is it?
Secondly, Islamic law does not allow mixed gathering which also stops what we know as “date rape”. And in the news it seems like “date rape”, if we try not to read the post of El Cid.
80 lashes? Why drink and make it public?
So you are saying that death penalty for leaving allegiance with country is acceptable but it’s a problem when someone leaves his allegiance with his Creator?
In school, they won’t allow someone to teach 2 + 2 = 5. Where has the freedom of expression gone?
Blaming Mercedes for the mistake of a driver is not really intelligent.
“Firstly, Islamic law (shariah) blocks all the ways which could lead to rape, one of which is by making fornication illegal.” first of all rape is already illegal. how do you block rape? so there is no rape in sharia complaint lands? too funny.
“In West man can get away with rape by saying it was consensus, but in Islamic law he would get the punishment of fornication” yes, claiming it was consensual is often the first defense. but unless it is date rape, it usually doesn’t hold water. and in sharia compliant lands they do the same thing. and they the woman gets punished for fornication as well. brilliant law you are defending there buddy:
“Secondly, Islamic law does not allow mixed gathering” so a woman can’t work or go to school where there are men. lol.
“80 lashes? Why drink and make it public?” i like to drink.
“So you are saying that death penalty for leaving allegiance with country is acceptable but it’s a problem when someone leaves his allegiance with his Creator?” well i’m against all death penalties. but yes, i would say treason against a country is more reasonably punished than treason against a mythical being. are you a saudi?
“In school, they won’t allow someone to teach 2 + 2 = 5. Where has the freedom of expression gone?” no. put you can stand on the street corner and claim 2+2+5. possible the dumbest analogy ever. how old are you?
so you agree, muslims are angery/bad drivers?
When a person deletes his comment after you have responded to it, and he has done it here twice, to respond to him again, you debase yourself.
He must respect you and himself to stand by his comment. Those who do not have self esteem and self respect often delete their comments, leaving yours hanging in limbo.
This is standard practice for the cowards, hypocrites, the low life denizens of Loonwatch. These Loonwatch Loons, are well practiced in delete and censor when they have not the intelect or argument to respond appropriately, logically.
This particular one is is their attack dog, point man. Plays tag team tango with their moderator spokesperson…they are abusive to Muhammad. They are Gustak a Rasool. Muslims should best ignore them.
Looks like the moderators didn’t like to read loony toons in their discussion threads. They deleted the comments and banned the account. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/altmuslimatpatheos/mawlid_and_christmas_8211_celebrating_prophets_muhammad_and_jesus/#comment-2433999159
el cid, you know I’ve never deleted any of my comments. I stand by what I said. and I reposted it on alt muslim.
“Rape is essentially zina (fornication or adultery) and is proven in the same way as zina is proven, which is with four witnesses.”
“Don’t worry, the man will not be charged, such is the beauty of the Western laws.”
What has it to do with Western Law? No crime was committed under British law. It was consensual, with both women. While he was doing the older one the younger one awaited her turn, coy and sly. Perhaps she was not satisfied with the action or the bonus paid for her services. They expect much from loaded Arabs philanderers.
There is a difference between sin and law. Only in Islam they come together. A Muslim is answerable to God and to society. Most of all to himself. That is where it all hangs, actually. Not so in the West where women are the predators. And they call the shots. There is no sin in the West. Women love the debauch.
You should look at the details of this case. Too sordid for me to lay them down for you. But it is clear that it was consensual. Try walking through London on a Saturday night…if you are young, fit, wealthy. You think that $1400 table…what was being served on it. And the luxury condo…did he drag them in there by their hair.
Heck, the US is much worse. A long time ago, in university I learned not to be, never be alone with a girl in an elevator. I think you call it lift. Free casual sex is standard. Ever week end. Different girl. Even in a computer lab you can be accosted.
Not easy to be an unmarried unattached Muslim in America. I think you have never been tested with overt temptation, aggressive women looking like models. Non-Muslims do get the unrepentant fun, though. You are fair game for the sluts that abound in various guises. Players all.
And the night calls. The house wives. I will leave it there…
I didn’t pass my judgement over this case. I just wanted to highlight the substandard Western law where rapists, murderers and criminals get away with small ‘penalties’.
I do agree with your point, though.
The elevator part reminds me of:
My experience was…shall we say, far more ‘challenging’.
Has to be when there are Ahadith of the prophet (SAAW) regarding the matter.
It was in more in the context of, like the test of YusufPBUH (Prophet Joseph) as implied in Surah 12.
I have had other somewhat more controllable pleasanter test situations but this was sudden, surprising and shocking.
Theory, study, dispassionate intellectualness and conjecture goes away in a moment of reality. All that is one thing but when you are tested in that intense physical manner, when you are not attached or married and answerable to no one but yourself…then the test is in earnest, real, mind blowing.
To be able to walk away from that self assured and confident is even more self affirming and mind blowing. You then are walking on air.
This is so frustrating and disturbing – so many cases of Saudis getting away with such crimes. Smh.
How wealth, power, and influence trumps justice. – That may be a better title. The writer is not talking about how wealth and power influenced this person to commit a crime so much (wealth trumping piety) .. she is talking about how they escaped punishment because of their connections and status.
A pious man doesn’t pull this stuff on women.
I hope you don’t mind me commenting. I agree but also disagree slightly. I am Australian and do not follow any religion. A lot of my friends are the same although I also have friends of many different faiths. If any of them did something like this I would have nothing to do with them ever again. A person’s beliefs do definitely contribute to their actions. My mother brought me up to be a polite and respectful person so I always have to ask myself, what would she think.
A real man doesn’t pull this stuff on women.
By the way, I think this is a great website.
My comment was aimed at Muslim men. Of course decency doesn’t have a religion. It can be present in anyone. But the dominant and wrong idea in Islamic thought that a woman must be subservient and that her rape doesn’t count as a crime committed against is her wrong and people like me are countering this through our discourse. Contrary to popular belief piety for a man in Islam also includes the mutual respect of women and being decent towards them.
Just goes to show how little women’s words are taken for, even if they have every single detail correct. But a man can make this illogical and absurd claim and we all drink his Kool Aid on this one. Sure his money and power play a role in the court proceedings but as a global culture we have all been raised to see women as exaggerating liars so we have a nasty habit of not believing them even when their claims are consistent and accurate.
It may be the case.. a woman’s word not being taken and people ‘drinking the kool-aid’ in regards to what a man claimed. But what readers here see that this man’s words are believable? No one of very very few I would venture to say. And is this mainly about man vs woman in this story? I think not. It it was a rich or elite woman making a ridiculous claim against a man her word may not be believed.. as in this case by authorities.. by it would be used to help her (and in this case this guy) escape punishment.
I personally don’t feel that the overwhelming view of women are that they are exaggerating liars. But maybe you have seen this idea or bias more than me.
Again, I don’t think he was believed. But his story was used and/or he was simply let go because of who he is.
You may not have the view of women being liars but a huge number of other people do and it’s one of the most horrible indictments of our society. Also well off women aren’t really that fortunate either. Just look at the Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen case. Being a rich white daughter of a movie director didn’t save her from being called a liar when she finally spoke out about her sexual abuse at the hands of her father Woody Allen when she was younger. Even actresses who had worked with her father didn’t really believe her and stand by her. And this is a Western country we’re talking about mind you.
Comments are closed.