• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Saudi housewife faces one year in prison and $133,000 fine for posting online video of her cheating husband

Oct 8, 2015 7:57 am By Robert Spencer

“This law includes stiff punishment for anyone using mobile phones with camera or other equipment to photograph others and defame them.” But more importantly, Islamic law, particularly when it comes to moral issues, is entirely male-oriented. The Qur’an requires four witnesses to establish adultery: “And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient” (24:4). These witnesses have to be men: “If testimony concerns fornication or sodomy, then it requires four male witnesses,” says Reliance of the Traveller (O24.9), a manual of Islamic law certified by al-Azhar. Thus a woman’s testimony is inadmissible in such cases. Since a woman — the adulterer’s wife — posted this video, it is only evidence of her defaming her husband, not of his adultery.

Saudi cheater

“Saudi housewife could be put behind bars for posting online video of her cheating husband,” by Colin Freeman, Telegraph, October 8, 2015:

A Saudi woman who posted footage online of her husband cheating on her with a family maid has been warned that she may face jail for “defamation”.

The housewife used her mobile phone to secretly film her partner as he made advances to a female servant in the kitchen of the family home.

The video shows a man, dressed in traditional white robes of a Saudi male, apparently trying to kiss the maid as she attempts to pull away from him.

The wife uploaded the footage to YouTube, alongside the caption “the minimal punishment for this husband is to scandalise him”.

The footage drew widespread support for the unnamed housewife, but Saudi legal experts have warned that it could be the wife who ends up in jail.

“She faces up to one year in prison or a fine of SR500,000 (£87,214) for defaming her husband in line with the law on information technology crimes,” Majid Qaroob, a lawyer in the ultraconservative kingdom, told a local newspaper.

“This law includes stiff punishment for anyone using mobile phones with camera or other equipment to photograph others and defame them.”

The encounter takes places in full view of another woman, also believed to be a houseservant, who is also seen walking around the kitchen. Since it was posted online, the #SaudiWomanCatchesHusbandCheating has gathered more than 25,000 mentions in 12 hours….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Saudi Arabia, Sharia Tagged With: #SaudiWomanCatchesHusbandCheating


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Gary says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Something tells me Sharia Law has a lot to do with this situation. If it had been the husband taking the video and posting it on YouTube things would have been swept under the Persian rug.

    Not to worry. The wife will have her day in court. She just has to wait a while…..

    “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12)

    Oh and wait! It gets better for this “faithful husband”….

    “Be not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatever a man shall sow, that also shall he reap.”
    (Galatians 6:7)

    • mortimer says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 10:23 am

      Sharia law is the problem…entirely. Sharia law subverts logic so that women have no recourse against a determined male ‘owner’. Women are slaves in Islam and a slave cannot speak his (her) mind.

      Sharia law provides SEVERAL ways for a man to commit adultery or fornicate LEGALLY under various legal pretenses. The result is that under Sharia, a man can cheat with a good conscience while being evil.

      ‘Slander’ under Sharia is to say something that a person does not wish others to know…such as his snoring…or cheating.

    • Dr. Divinity says

      Oct 9, 2015 at 4:16 pm

      She would probably have been better off to just have stoned him to death using an AK 47

      • Diana says

        Oct 10, 2015 at 3:03 am

        He can’t be stoned to death unless four free adult male Muslims testify to his adultery. But it only counts as adultery if the housemaid is married to a Muslim or dhimmi. If she is single or married to another kind of man, it’s only fornication. If she is attached to the household in some capacity that could be prudently deemed slavery (e.g., because she’s a polytheist from a non-Muslim country) then it’s legitimate concubinage and not a crime at all.

        And to clarify what Mortimer says above: “slander” is not a good translation of “ifk”. The basic point of slander is that it’s untrue, and truth is a sufficient defence of slander. The basic point of ifk is that it displeased a Muslim because it in some way made him look bad. Whether or not it is true is completely irrelevant.

  2. Cameron says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 10:04 am

    She has brought shame to her husband. Chances are she will be murdered for the sake of the husband’s honour. Truly a disgusting culture.

    • mortimer says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 10:30 am

      She may be honor-killed and the cheating husband will receive moral support from the legal system and a light sentence if they can pin it on him. Of course, the offended woman may be found tragically to have ‘committed suicide’.

      • Gary says

        Oct 8, 2015 at 11:06 am

        A light sentence here, in this world…..

        “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:29-30)

  3. Stephanie says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Cheating? More like sexually abusing his maid/slave.

    • Salome says

      Oct 9, 2015 at 2:47 am

      And it’s a brave woman in those regions who doesn’t just accept that it is his right.

    • Diana says

      Oct 10, 2015 at 3:04 am

      That is still adultery against his wife, even if the more serious crime is the assault on his servant.

  4. Angemon says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 10:50 am

    The video shows a man, dressed in traditional white robes of a Saudi male, apparently trying to kiss the maid as she attempts to pull away from him.

    Not just adultery, but also sexual abuse. What a charming fellow… Remind me again why are we importing hie coreligionists by the hundreds of thousand?

    The wife uploaded the footage to YouTube, alongside the caption “the minimal punishment for this husband is to scandalise him”.

    The footage drew widespread support for the unnamed housewife, but Saudi legal experts have warned that it could be the wife who ends up in jail.

    “She faces up to one year in prison or a fine of SR500,000 (£87,214) for defaming her husband in line with the law on information technology crimes,” Majid Qaroob, a lawyer in the ultraconservative kingdom, told a local newspaper.

    “Defamation” as in “mentioning anything that a person would dislike or would rather not be known”, not defamation as we’ve come to understand it – communicating something we know to be false. That’s sharia law for you.

  5. TheDane says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I have never understood how any phillipine or Indian woman would choose to Work in Saudi?! Being a sex-slave is a normal thing for the followers of the perverse religion; it seems that all these folks think about it is sex and death!

    • TheDane says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 12:39 pm

      it should have read: ..”taking a sex-slave is a normal thing…”

    • katnis says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 3:04 pm

      If you watch the video, it looks like a nice home. The sad part is that the maid probably needs the money and the saudi man can afford to employ her. The maid’s skill set is probably limited, which means she doesn’t have many options to support herself.

      (Feeling grateful for my education and the fact that I was born in the United States.)

    • Angemon says

      Oct 8, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      TheDane posted:

      “I have never understood how any phillipine or Indian woman would choose to Work in Saudi?!”

      Probably a mix of ignorance (of how things are there) and desperation – I doubt that most girls (or boys, for that matter) born in poor families in poor countries stand to have much opportunities to make some money in their lives…

  6. Jay Boo says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    I have heard that in Iran some doors have His & Hers door knockers.
    Presumably this must be to determine if the person outside is a woman who’s testimony is inadmissible or a man.

  7. Katnis says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    Here is the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dhYSk79DSQ

    This guy is CLEARLY harassing the maid. You can see her pulling away as this guy teases her. I would be furious too. Good for the wife for posting the video, and shame on him for being so disrespectful.

    Oh – and BTW – I am grateful that I live in a country that has harassment laws in place to protect me from this nonsense. I

  8. Aardvark says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    So who pays the fine? The woman – or her owner?

    Under sharia, she is his possession. Can she own anything herself?

    • Diana says

      Oct 10, 2015 at 3:08 am

      Yes, she can. Under Islam, a woman keeps all her property and does not have to share it with her spouse. In fact she is not even obliged to share it with her children unless their father is dead or bankrupt.

      The thinking behind this rule is that women don’t have much so they might as well be allowed to keep what little they have.

      In a situation like this, it is often the husband who ends up paying the fine. That keeps things quiet and saves everyone’s face. But if he doesn’t want to pay, she could be in a very nasty situation due to being unable to find the money herself.

  9. More Ham Ed says

    Oct 8, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    It’s that islamic “contribution” to science thing, four muslim “witnesses” are somehow more accurate than HD video doncha know..

    • خَليفة says

      Oct 9, 2015 at 3:43 am

      Comparing the good and bad aspects of Sharia law is like comparing camel and goat poop – inspite of any differences it’s all just a bunch of poop. There is no such thing as “gourmet poop” – serving poop on a golden platter won’t make it taste any better. What’s the difference between a bucket of poop and sharia law? The bucket.

  10. Lioness says

    Oct 9, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Women are so well respected in Islam! A rape victim either goes to jail, is stoned in public or murdered by a male family member. If the husband cheats it must be the wife’s fault. Women that give birth to girls rather than a boy, can be beaten or murdered. Actually a man does not need much of a reason to harm or kill a woman, it’s his Allah’s given right. What a progressive religion – a women’s lib model.

    • خَليفة says

      Oct 9, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      I’m sure most Muslims do not know this – but according to Islamic texts if a woman “comes” first the child will be a girl, if the man “comes” first the child is a boy. MO said so, so it must be true. It’s no wonder the misogyny of Muslims is so pronounced. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex – as, according to Islamic teachings, it leads to prostitution.

      But Muslims have no problem with “temporary marriage” – which is the same as prostitution.

      • Diana says

        Oct 10, 2015 at 9:03 am

        Actually it is only the Shia who allow mutaa (“temporary”) marriage. The Sunni majority don’t like it at all and fiercely insist that Muhammad banned it in 628.

        The reason WHY the Sunnis hate temporary marriage is very interesting. See Robertson Smith (1903) “Kinship and Marriage” for what little we know about pre-Islamic marriage customs. In brief …

        (1) Islamic marriage can be extremely temporary. Muhammad divorced two of his wives while they were undressing for the first consummation and two more only a few weeks of living together. So it isn’t the TEMPORARY nature of mutaa marriage that offends Sunnis.

        (2) Mutaa marriage sets a minimum term (sometimes one hour, sometimes fifty years) during which a couple cannot divorce. So it sometimes ties the spouses down to a much longer marriage than they find convenient.

        (3) Once that term expires, the marriage can only be renewed if both agree. In other words, it gives equal divorce rights to the woman.

        (4) In Muhammad’s time, mutaa marriage was directly linked to polyandry. A woman could have several mutaa husbands at once. Paternity was no problem because the mother had right of custody and her brothers provided most of the child support. However, she could nominate one of her mutaa husbands to be the legal father, and he had no right to deny it, even if he suspected that he had not provided the gametes.

        The essential feature of mutaa does not seem to be either its fixed term (since this can be lifelong) or its

        Khadija’s mother came from a clan that practised mutaa right up until 630, and Khadija’s sister was polyandrous. It now becomes less surprising that even Muhammad’s own marriage to Khadija apparently included some mutaa features. Their mutual fidelity and his unilateral obedience both suggest a contract that had been designed by the woman.

        Muhammad abolished polyandry, of course; but even in its modern Shia form, mutaa marriage provides a dangerous degree of freedom for the woman.

        • Diana says

          Oct 10, 2015 at 9:05 am

          Sorry –

          The essential feature of mutaa does not seem to be either its fixed term (since this can be lifelong) or its polyandry, but the rights that it grants to the woman.

  11. Troybeam says

    Oct 9, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    Even with the proof on film in Islam the woman is always at fault, women have no standing in Islam as the cattle have more respect than a woman, does she need 4 witnesses that she filmed this to make her credible.

    • Diana says

      Oct 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

      There is some evidence that the witness of four video cameras will be accepted. I’ve heard rumours of hotels in the Middle East being equipped with four cameras each so as to catch adulterous couples. You would probably still need to prove that it was male persons who had held/installed the four cameras.

      That woman should have used four cameras!

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.