Posted on 11/28/2007 3:33:51 AM PST by Clive
Sharia shame What is there to say about a woman in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison after being abducted and gang-raped by seven men?
It is one of those cases that seems so improbable, so horrible, that words are meaningless. No matter one's political or ideological sympathies, this case defies comprehension -- though it is justified by some interpretations of Sharia law.
If nothing else, it should be a rebuke to those in the McGuinty government who supported, or advocated, a form of Sharia law being implemented in Ontario.
The Saudis point out that the 19-year-old married Shiite woman was not being punished for being raped. No, her offence was being alone with an unrelated man, an offence against Islamic law as practised by Wahhabi courts.
What makes this case even more bizarre is that the young woman was originally sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with the man, the seven rapists to five years. Then the Supreme Judicial Council reviewed the case and upped her sentence to 200 lashes and six months, and the rapists to sentences ranging from two to nine years.
Canada calls the whole process "barbaric," while the Saudi court reaffirms that theirs is a "virtuous country" that follows the rulings of God as revealed to Muhammad and based on evidence. Reassuring, eh!
It seems the woman's husband isn't happy with the sentence and has been told he can appeal -- with the judge warning that this might result in an increased sentence. There are also warnings that critical media coverage might adversely affect the woman.
The case is already an international outrage. Likely, if the Saudi court doesn't back down, King Abdullah will commute the sentence -- and world diplomacy will revert to its usual moral equivalency of not being critical of the habits and customs of other cultures, especially if we need their oil.
The trouble for the likes of America, Britain and Canada, all of whom are equally appalled at this case, is that Saudi Arabia is supposedly a friend, an ally, and therefore immune from harsh criticism or retaliation.
Canada's previous government chose to believe the Saudis when Bill Sampson was framed for murder, tortured and sentenced to death in 2000, before being released 31 months later. The shame of that still lingers.
Governments tut-tutted, but buttoned their lips in 2002 when 15 girls died in a burning Saudi school, supposedly not rescued because they weren't wearing head scarves.
Stoning to death is still a penalty for adultery, and lopping of hands a punishment for crime, as is the lash -- all of which our democratic governments tolerate (if not condone) because of sensitivity to outlandish customs, and because the perpetrators are allies.
Saudi Arabia, of course, survives via the double-standard. It produces terrorists (the 9/11 sky-jackers), and has spread jihadists and Islamic extremists around the world. It is a financier of international terrorism, yet we are afraid if we criticize, they'll jack up the price of oil.
Looking beyond the 200 lashes to a gang-raped Saudi woman, if there were less tolerance by the civilized world for barbaric behaviour, and if more discretion were exercised on which countries we called friends, perhaps the money supply would dry up and terrorism would revert to being a local or domestic phenomenon, not an international plague.
One can't be sure, but what is certain is that our present attitude encourages rather than curtails outrages and barbarism.
-
Words cannot express the outrage at the reprehensible ‘sentence’ placed on this young woman. I am further outraged that there is not a sustained hue and cry from the international press, the global feminist movement, and condemnation of this social order by sane folks everywhere. I will note, too, that the US Democrat party has NEVER mounted a proactive response against this type of activity, despite their claim to being the voice of the individual.
The plight of women in Muslim society is atrocious. But, it will take the non-Muslim world’s defeat of the Muslim advance on secular societies to start the pendulum swinging back.
It’s time that Islam leaves behind the 7th Century mentality and advances to the modern age.
Does not Islam mean "submission to God?" But who interprets the Koran and justifies action? Men. It appears to me that these "Men of God" have interpreted Shiria law to suit themselves. Is that not a concern? That we have a religion with no free will, but only submission to the Will of God as determined by the Imams? Do all of the Imams move in lock step to interpret their Holy Book? I just do not know. Something does not seem right in this case.
Dump this death cult.
Ban it.
Forever.
Expell its adherents.
It cannot coexist in a society without destroying its host.
Do it. FOR US!
This and other true crimes covered in my Blog post below.
http://patfish.blogspot.com/2007/11/true-crime-natalee-holloway-case-will.html
The Sharia laws are pretty literal... there’s not much to infer from. Most crimes or “crimes” have punishments ranging from taxation, slashing, lashing, amputating, beheading, and the like.
When humanity will nuke these barbarian b@stards to idealogical extinction, will determine how long humans survive, on the whole.
Okay.....
....every word as written is true.
If ever a country was barbaric, it is Saudi Arabia. That bit about those 15 girls left to burn alive is very true and yet...where was America’s National Organization of Women? Where was the UN Human Rights Group?
Nowhere. Because as the writer opines above, Saudi Arabia has oil and often when we get mad at them, they reduce the cost of their oil.
So here’s my question...I’ll throw it out there. This form of barbarism CAN be stopped and I’d estimate it might take a month of two. What would be required to stop this atrocious treatment of women is for all of America to boycott Saudi oil. Boom.
BUT....if we boycott Saudi oil....well we might have oil shortages here in the mighty United States of America. We might have to curtail our travel. We might have to use our wits and get around the shortage for a while. We’d have to mean it and we’d have to stick to it. Most important, and most impossible, we’d need a leader with a strength of conviction and who’d guide us with determination.
So....if some mythical leader were to appear out of nowhere and deliver an impassioned speech....something to the effect about young girls left to burn alive, about women being lashed for the crime of being gang-raped, about women born without a hope of ever being able to drive, or vote, or walk about freely. If that leader then told the American public that it’s time the U.S. take a stand, it’s time we use the power we have.....
....would you all enthusiastically do it?
Because that’s the only thing that will put an end to that mess of a country run by descendents of camels known as the House of Saud.
What say you?
Since there were Saudi reps at the boondoggle yesterday in Annapolis, I’m sure Condi and W strongly counseled them about this incident and I’m sure it will be rectified to everyones satisfaction. /S
The MSM, being liberal and elitist, can’t be bothered by what those peasants, those less-than-humans do to each other. That is the same reason that Feminists cannot be bothered by such things. Also any customs in another culture that are counter American culture must have some inherent good in them because they evoke horror in non-left Americans.
Neither have the Republicans. Since President Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz on board the USS Quincy, every US president, both parties, has stuck with the bargain they struck -- The US keeps the House of Saud safely in power, and the Saudis guarantee a steady flow of oil.
OR we could drill in ANWR and build some more refineries. Reducing the cost of petrol is as simple as increasing the supply.
Yep. Too bad the author doesn’t suggest such an option along with his understandable outrage of this case.
Amen! That is worth repeating.
I say hogwash. The problem isn’t Saudi Arabia or its oil. The problem is islam. It must be destroyed.
Such punishment for a rape victim is only “so improbable, so horrible, that words are meaningless” to those totally ignorant of today’s tribalist, fundamental Islam.
Feminists love Saudi Arabia though, so we can’t say anything.
Wahhabi dogma is in a culture freeze at a medieval level and treats Arabs and Saudi Arabia as the chosen ones to receive the word of Allah. Everybody else from the Pashtun tribals to the modern Indonesian civil society are second class and thereby not entitled to debate the meaning of the revealed word. Saudi Arabia backs it up with the force of its money and expansion of Wahhabi mosques even into North America.
It is as if Christianity had gotten locked into the the Inquisition and never evolved past it. Indeed, Islam performs like the Inquisition on steroids.
Nothing will change until Islam finds its version of the protestant reformationn. That is needed to allow for discourse and consequential evolution. It might even save the Arab custodians of Islam in the same manner as Protestantism was the impetus for the saving of Holy Mother Church.
That bit about those 15 girls left to burn alive DRIVEN BACK INTO THE FLAMES is very true and yet...where was America’s National Organization of Women? Where was the UN Human Rights Group?
There, I fixed them both for you.
Money surpasses all evil. I learned that long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.