Sudan Flogging Video Sparks Outrage (GRAPHIC VIDEO)

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - Sudan's judiciary opened an investigation into a video of a woman being flogged that has been widely circulated on the Internet, the state news agency reported Sunday.

The video shows a woman in a voluminous cloak on her knees screaming and pleading with blue-uniformed policemen, identified as Sudanese, who take turns whipping her across the head and feet.

There is no way to verify the identity of the woman or the location of the event shown on the two minute video.

"The investigation was started immediately after the images of the young woman, being punished under Articles 154 and 155 of the 1991 Sudanese penal code, appeared on the Internet," the judiciary said in a statement.

The statement said the investigation would look into whether the punishment was implemented improperly.

Article 154 and 155 of the Sudanese penal code mandates flogging up to 100 lashes as a punishment for adultery or running a brothel, as well as up to five years in prison.

WARNING: Video contains graphic imagery.

In 2009, Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein was sentenced to 40 lashes under the country's controversial indecency law for appearing in public wearing trousers.

Under a storm of international criticism for the sentence, Hussein was eventually released with just a fine.

Sudan's government implements a conservative version of Islamic law in the north, and "public order" police enforce the laws, banning alcohol, breaking up parties and scolding men and women who mingle in public.

Comments

[khartoum]

02:03 PM on 12/18/2010

pls do something. from sudan

[donnac406]

10:30 PM on 12/17/2010

first, let me say this video is horrific ... no excuse whatsoever could be a good reason for flogging.

then, let me say that i'm a cynic. it feels like we, the people of america, are being set up again to agree to military action in a foreign country.

i would be a lot more sympathetic to a country who's leader did not have 9 BILLION dollars in lloyd's of london.

what a world...

[DeadRagon]

06:56 AM on 12/16/2010

I think I know why they have this no pants law. In ancient times, and probably much later in time, women would masquerade as a man for whatever reasons like to escape an arranged marriage. Now, without the no pants law there would be no law broken and no reason to incarcerate anybody, but with the no paints law if a woman was to be discovered masquerading as a man – she would immediately be taken into custody. I’m sure a vengeful father could easily track his daughter making it much easier to trade her hand in marriage for a handful of jacks’ magic beans and a cow. Then they all lived happily ever after (except for the innocent daughter.)

[PlayTOE]

06:37 AM on 12/16/2010

A law which subjects women (or anyone) to this brutal treatment is based on intimidati­on and subjugatio­n, not justice.

A religion that promotes hate cannot be worshiping a god of love.

[IceStar]

04:24 AM on 12/16/2010

This video shows how much respect Islam has for women.

It is worth noting how several translators render the key word in the Qur'an's notorious verse sanctioning the beating of disobedient women (4:34), وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ,waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Dawood: "and beat them."
Muhammad's example is normative for Muslims, since he is an "excellent example of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21) - and Aisha reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?"

[donnyraindog]

09:52 AM on 12/15/2010

As long as a majority of the islamic world is willing to condone by silence an essentialy 8th century view of justice this kind of thing will occur .

[hchavez]

09:45 AM on 12/15/2010

Isn't shameful to film this instead of offering assistance? Or, is filming video of people in agony a form of journalism in some societies?

[drbslurp]

12:14 PM on 12/15/2010

Women interfering would be beaten. The men are all for this type of thing.

[EasyDoesi]

01:49 PM on 12/15/2010

In some instances yes! it is shameful... but when a government is at fault i believe it makes more sense to capture and spread the event. It may not help the individual but spreading the "Awareness" might just save others of this harsh punishment.

[courtb]

08:49 AM on 12/15/2010

According to other news sources, she was flogged for wearing trousers underneath her abaya. Do we know which it is?

Furthermore, even the Sudanese ambassador in London said the following: "Whatever the crime, what the policemen have done on the video is wrong, is unacceptable and is shameful."

[drbslurp]

12:14 PM on 12/15/2010

Yeah, the Ambassador would say the PC thing while reality marches on.

[timbeaux]

04:14 PM on 12/21/2010

As well as applying the blame at the lowest level. I doubt the policemen decided spontaneously and personally to flog this poor woman.

[NobodySince1980]

04:49 AM on 12/15/2010

What? People are actually stating this woman ruined homes? Excuse me but when were the men abducted, bound, gagged, and raped? Where does this rationale come from that she is the home wrecker and the sole individual responsible for leading young girls into prostitution? Where is the responsibility of the man, of the parents? It's this kind of thinking that perpetuates these heinous crimes against people.

[Hill Dweller]

08:51 AM on 12/15/2010

I hope they do the same to the men who frequented her brothel, then. It is not fair for her to be punished and not the men who kept her in business.

[jusathot]

02:25 PM on 12/15/2010

Fanned- hill dweller. There is a Christian woman in Pakistan who is scheduled to be killed because she supposedly said to a coworker that when Mohammed died their were worms in his mouth, meaning he was human. On the basis of that, and other workers claiming they overheard her, she will be killed.

This is how the judge puts it: "The law is neither just or unjust, it is just Pakistani law." The government official (something like a mayor) said, he has never had a happier day in all his years of service, than the day this woman was condemned to death.

This is what happens when men have complete control of women's lives. Go ahead and vote for men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. These things never start with an execution, but bit by bit, issue by issue, until we arrive at execution.

[Mohamed K]

02:54 PM on 12/15/2010

Amen.

[moraldesert]

09:43 AM on 12/15/2010

It takes two to have intercourse. If a man is willing to go after prostitutes the home is already ruined.

Supply is one side, demand is another. If there was no demand problem, there wouldn't be a supply one.

[blanchedub]

02:29 AM on 12/15/2010

There is something inherently psychotic in this religion, which is evidenced by the men laughing while a defenseless women is beaten with whips. It shows the very darkest, most sadistic version of human behavior and, apparently, elevates this conduct to a form of justice. Disgusting!

[drbslurp]

06:41 AM on 12/15/2010

Even your postings on this site show Islam to be psychotic.

[Silverfern]

06:13 PM on 12/15/2010

Abu Gharaib? On your logic what does that say about christianity in the US?

[timbeaux]

04:17 PM on 12/21/2010

The people tormented at Abu Ghraib were on the other side of a war, the side that uses terror against innocent people. It was still wrong for them to have been treated that way, But it requires a really logic-free mind to equate that with two strong men whipping a woman of their own culture.

[Wayne Franco]

02:25 AM on 12/15/2010

Shame. These men fear the sexual power women inherently are born with because they (the men) are so controlled by their sexual urges. This in a weird way makes them feel very much in need of a woman. They hate her for possessing that which they are attached to and yet they want her so much for their sexual and emotional needs = dilemma, so they get enraged about their dependency on the woman but they will never admit it. It makes them so mad and insecure so they end of trying to control and dominate her.


Yes some men hate their attachment to the female. They know they need the Female both sexually and emotionally, so they turn women into slaves so they can control her, take away her right to decide who she wants to be with and what she wants to do WITH HER OWN LIFE.


Instead of embracing the beauty that is a women, the creator of life, the nurturer of life, they suppress & dominate them. They do not want women to be free because they fear her, they fear not being in control. They don't want her to have choices because men are fearful and weak.Yet men came from a woman. A woman brought them into this world and nurtured them.

Let women have choices and guess what? These undeserving men will be left by themselves becuz women will pass them over becuz they bullies. They aren't worthy of a woman's love and loyalty.

[bornefree]

05:17 AM on 12/15/2010

Men who behave like this do not have love in their lives. They were not nurtured by a mother. They could be the result of a forced marriage and rape, thus, the lack of love received by the woman who bore them making them incapable of understanding their hateful actions. These men could be gay and/or hate women.

[timbeaux]

04:19 PM on 12/21/2010

They also could have been born into families in which their mothers and sisters were marginalized, fifth-rate citizens totally dominated by the males. Violence and ignorance breed violence and ignorance.

[Peter Combs]

01:11 AM on 12/15/2010

Whats most amazing is the absolute silence from Women's groups on this....minor whimpers...THis film is about the bahavior of Muslims who follow Sharia law as it was applied hundreds of years ago..they are de-volving.

As the article points out, this punishment is prescribed by Sharia...which is very influential on how laws are written in Sudan.

Still waitng for influential Mullahs to step out from the Shaddows and Publicly Decry and COndem these barbarians..

[nightwind928]

10:42 PM on 12/14/2010

A group of people laugh while a terrified woman is beaten in public with whips. Nobody with any moral decency can justify and take any satisfaction from this. It's just bullying taken to a higher level.

[xMoonWalkerx]

04:42 PM on 12/15/2010

Bullying is a very mild term when applied to this. Evil is more apt.

[Doug Sandlin]

09:50 PM on 12/14/2010

This type of thing is unspeakably horrible.

Even the unspeakably horrible, though, can be a catalyst for good.

Check out this video, starting at 5:00 (the whole thing is good; the key portion, related directly to this thread, and the video we're discussing, starts at 5:00 in the video).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2gmk8zzS7I

The video provides an overview of a very similar video, of a 17 year old girl, being whipped, in Pakistan.

Yes, the men committing that barbaric act are technically Muslim.

So is Salman Ahmad, the world's most famous Muslim rock star, guitarist for Junoon - the U2 of Pakistan - who is speaking out against Islamic extremism in this video.

And so are the crowds of Pakistanis shown protesting against the Taliban - and waving signs such as "Taliban are not Muslims".

Sure, the Taliban may have some influence with impressionable young Muslim men.

But so do peace-promoting Muslim rock stars.

That's a very important point to note -- it can help us avoid distorted ideas about Islam and Muslims in general, while remaining appropriately focused on the horrors of barbarism enacted due to extremely distorted ideas about religion -- and it can also help us realize that even Pakistan isn't stuck in the 7th century .... and that there are a lot more moderate Muslims in Pakistan than there are extremists - the extremists remain on the fringe, as always.

[GZLives]

01:34 AM on 12/15/2010

First, bravo Salman Ahmad. No one can deny that kind of courage.
In your post you write
"it can help us avoid distorted ideas about Islam and Muslims in general"
Which are what in your opinion?

[Doug Sandlin]

01:00 PM on 12/15/2010

Which are that "all Muslims are terrorists" or even "ten percent of Muslims are terrorists" or "Islam teaches {insert horrible act du jour here - "killing infidels", "stoning women", etc. etc.}), or anything else of the kind.

To believe that the roughly 1.6 Billion people who consider Islam their religion universally hold the barbaric mindsets that we see represented in the worst of the worst who claim to follow that religion, is the very definition of bigotry ... and glaringly inaccurate.

As you said - "Bravo, Salman Ahmad!" - He's Pakistani, and he's arguably had as much or more influence throughout Pakistani society as the Taliban (he's been nationally famous there, and in neighboring India since the early 90s; he's basically the "Bono" of Pakistan, with over 30 Million albums sold ... mostly in Pakistan .... and Pakistan only has 170 Million people, total -- that's proportionately a LOT of representation, culturally.

He also wrote the song that not only made Junoon famous, but which has been the most popular song in Pakistan, EVER, by a LOT, since the early 90s ... it's literally the unofficial anthem and national sports anthem of Pakistan; Junoon played it live once, with General Musharraf (former dictator of Pakistan) standing next to Salman, singing along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChbxKfUOSz0

The point? Peace-inspiring Muslims can be as influential as women-whipping Muslims .. but the former don't tend to make the news.

[drbslurp]

06:44 AM on 12/15/2010

People keep saying that the extremists are a tiny percentage of all muslims - yet - that huge majority can't manage to stop the fringe from bringing loathing and dishonor on the majority. I'm not buying it.

[ascertain the truth]

01:00 PM on 12/15/2010

well there were many, many around the world and in the USA; more than what you think did not agree for america to go to war with Iraq but did that majority stop Bush - a minority of one?

[Doug Sandlin]

01:07 PM on 12/15/2010

Okay; I can respect that.

Question, though: there are Christians that do some fairly horrific things by most people's standards .... not nearly as horrific as physical, murderous terrorism, of course ... but horrific, in their own way.

I'm thinking of Fred Phelps, and his church members' anti-gay protests at the funerals of people who have nothing to do with homosexuality - namely, service members who were killing in action, and, most recently, Elizabeth Edwards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/elizabeth-edwards-funeral-westboro-baptist-church_n_794333.html

Why can't the huge majority of Christians stop the fringe from bringing loathing and dishonor on the majority?

My guess is: extremists don't tend to listen to other peoples' opinions -- at all -- that's a key part of what makes them extremists.

Extremist Muslims consider moderate Muslims every bit as "worth listening to", as they consider infidels (i.e. non-Muslims) to be -- i.e. "not very" .... lethally so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ga27nP5oM