Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The government of Saudi Arabia whips another rape victim
A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.
One would have thought that the gang rape was punishment enough.
For all I know, Islam may be a perfectly compassionate religion at its periphery. In its spiritual and cultural center, however, it is quite brutal and disgusting.
36 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 12:49:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 01:03:00 PM:
If this kind of event happened frequently, the Arab Gulf Times wouldn't have written a big story about it. (After all, ordinary events aren't news.)
Like other countries, the Saudis have an appeal process. The chances of the woman's sentence actually being carried out are remote.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Nov 08, 01:45:00 PM:
The fact that the sentence exists to begin with is an issue DEC. It's not about the appeal process, its about a judicial system that would countenance such a sentence at all.
Frankly, I don't recall any American woman being sentenced to a whipping because she was alone in a car with a man who wasn't her husband.
My goodness there is no sophistry capable of making this story less than ghastly. Islam is as Islam does.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 02:52:00 PM:
I can string together a series of isolated events in any country to make it look evil, Skipsailing.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Nov 08, 03:00:00 PM:
So all countries are morally equal, DEC? Say yes and I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Zimbabwe.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 03:09:00 PM:
I have been to Zimbabwe many times, Scurvyoaks. When I need to go again, I can afford my own first-class ticket. But thanks for the offer.
By Ken McCracken, at
Wed Nov 08, 03:38:00 PM:
Ah, so this grotesque injustice only 'looks' evil, DEC?
So, I guess you would be comfortable with other cultural practices such as, say, sati?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Nov 08, 03:44:00 PM:
I don't see this as an isolated event, I see it as indicative of the moral fiber of the country. Clearly you have more experience in the region than I, and I hesitate to disagree with you but I remain concerned about the true nature of the Saudi government and the ultimate desires of Islam.
My understanding is that Saudi money has done much to create the current poisonously anti American climate in the region. The CAIR watch website for example paints a less than rosey picture of the main muslim mouthpiece here in the states.
Further, the way our soldiers and airforce personnel were treated led me to grave concern about Saudi Arabia and the Wahabbhi sect.
the fact remains, DEC, no American women would be subject to such a sentence. I doubt any European woman would face a similar fate.
I see no effective way to defend this. Pointing to the foibles of other cultures won't make this right DEC, it just won't.
By 
, at
Wed Nov 08, 04:54:00 PM:
Here is another example of "Islamic justice" from another Muslim country, Pakistan. I find the sentence abhorrent due to its cruelty but I expect many Americans would cheer at this. To be fair, the Pakistani government did not allow for this sentence to actually be carried out. What is interesting, however, is that this sentence was said to be consistent with Sharia by the judge. That should tell you a lot about what Sharia is really all about.
A court in the Pakistani city of Lahore has found Javed Iqbal guilty of murdering 100 boys.
[...]
Judge Allah Bukhsh Ranjha invoked Islamic law, saying Iqbal and one of his co-accused deserved to die in the same manner as their victims.
"You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed," he said.
"Your body will then be cut into 100 pieces and put in acid, the same way you killed the children."
[...]
However Pakistan's interior minister said such a sentence was not permitted, and would be challenged in the High Court.
Moinudeen Haider said: "We are signatories to the Human Rights Commission. Such punishments are not allowed."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/678553.stm
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:03:00 PM:
Ken McCracken said: "So, I guess you would be comfortable with other cultural practices such as, say, sati?"
As far as I know, only a couple of women in India committed sati (suttee) in recent months. Meanwhile, an estimated 50,000 people die from poisonous snake bites in India each year. I am more concerned about getting an effective antivenom distribution system in India than I am concerned about saving a couple of crackpots from funeral pyres.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:07:00 PM:
You're welcome, DEC. Care to answer my question?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:24:00 PM:
To Skipsailing:
Your position is easy to defend, Skipsailing. And I don't mind challenges--preferable polite ones--from other people with a different point of view.
In my view, the political left in the U.S. underestimates the Islamic threat and the political right in the U.S. overestimates the Islamic threat.
Poor countries have rich people and poor people, but a very small middle class. Most of these countries contain two parallel societies--the successful and the unsuccessful. The parallel societies in each country have little contact with each other. What you see mostly on TV are the poor, the unsuccessful. You don't come across many Arab businessmen who want to blow themselves up in their new Mercedes-Benz. You don't come across any Arab businessmen who want to stone women to death. You don't come across many Arab businessmen who want to conquer America. Heck, many of them already own big chunks of America.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:31:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:45:00 PM:
I will answer you this way, ScurveyOaks.
I am a businessman.
Will Rogers said, "I tell you, folks, all politics is applesauce." In other words, all politics is nonsense.
The left and the right think they are opposite from each other. To me. they are both the same. They both cling to impractical ideas from the past.
The world has changed. You live in a global village. Whether you have money in your pockets depends upon the global economy. To succeed in this new world, tough conservatives need to learn how to manipulate rather than confront. When the U.S. has to take out an enemy for the common good, the country needs to use a stiletto, not a battle-axe. Very few people want to deal with the mess from axe murders anymore.
The social engineering of left-wing idealists is a thing of the past. If liberals make laws or enact taxes I don't like, I will headquarter my business operations in another country. My friends will do the same thing. There will go the tax money to pay people at the public trough. Moving operations from place to place doesn't bother the modern entrepreneur. Many of us already have homes in different lands. If you are rich, the whole world is the same.
Nationalism is slowly becoming a thing of the past, too. Nationalism is useless in an environment where more and more entrepreneurs have to deal in forty different cultures on a regular basis to achieve success.
In recent decades, businesspeople (mostly Republican) fertilized the growth of moral relativism, as every executive in international trade knows. You can't make sales by insulting your customers.
The people who succeed in the future will not be the strongest. They will not be the smartest. They will be the people who can adapt most easily to change.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:48:00 PM:
P.S. Like most successful businessmen I am a pragmatist, ScurveyOaks. Whatever works best is fine with me.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:50:00 PM:
DEC:
In my view, the political left in the U.S. underestimates the Islamic threat and the political right in the U.S. overestimates the Islamic threat.
Agreed, and I think that deep down most thoughtful observers with no partisan objective think that. However, doves and hawks separate this way: hawks believe that underestimating the threat is the greater risk, and doves believe that overestimating it is (because we will generate new enemies through our putatively unnecessary actions).
You don't come across many Arab businessmen who want to blow themselves up in their new Mercedes-Benz. You don't come across any Arab businessmen who want to stone women to death. You don't come across many Arab businessmen who want to conquer America. Heck, many of them already own big chunks of America.
This is only half true, it seems to me (although I defer to you, insofar as I have never been to an Arab country). While it is certainly true on its face that most successful Arabs are not terrorists, it is also true that most terrorists, or at least the leaders of terrorists, are successful, or at least educated and even wealthy.
By , at
Wed Nov 08, 06:02:00 PM:
Scary that I find myself agreeing with the right-wing guy (albeit not the far far right-wing guy) in his counterpoint to the center-right wing guy, but TH seems right about this -- aren't the rich Saudi businessmen funding the Madrassas? Certainly we know of at least one super-rich Saudi businessman who fathered a leading terrorist.
jk
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Nov 08, 08:43:00 PM:
The idea that only the poor and disenfranchised would take up arms in terrorism is an idea left over from the days of Communist guerillas/revolutionaries. Theoretically, if the people became well off they would lose their motivation to fight. Therefore, economic success = peace.
Unfortunately, that does not extend to religion. Plenty of intelligent, wealthy, successful people do odd things because they feel that their religion requires them to do it, whether it be handling snakes, refusing blood transfusions, marching in the streets with signs that say 'God hates queers,' or exploding buildings.
For the mujahideen, their religion requires them to kill people like us. Being rich or poor doesn't really apply, insofar as how easy it is to obtain the means of killing. What really matters is belief. *shrugs*
By sbchurl, at
Wed Nov 08, 09:09:00 PM:
DEC,
Your insouciance regarding the value of nationality might fade in a world where a powerful, democratic, freedom-loving state (such as the United States, or England before it) is no longer the de facto guarantor of a modicum of world stability.
Should such a day ever come, the whole world will emphatically not be the same. Whatever islands of freedom remain will suddenly become precious indeed.
Stan
By , at
Wed Nov 08, 10:23:00 PM:
Hey where the UN human rights commision where are they to compaain about this brutality
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Nov 09, 02:34:00 AM:
That's a horrible story, sandmanusa. I hope it works out for you eventually.
Our support for Saudi Arabia during the Cold War was an unfortunate consequence of the need to contain the Soviet Union. During the Clinton administration, we groveled to the Saudis to keep the price of gas low. Today, we do it because we have shared interests in the containment of Iran and the war against al Qaeda. None of these reasons are very satisfying, but some of them are more ignoble than others.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Nov 09, 11:21:00 AM:
Wow did this post trigger an interesting debate.
I have a few problems with your descriptions DEC. First, you claim that there are parallel societies. I wonder how this is relevant to the issue at hand though. Are you saying that a rich woman would not be sentenced to whipping? None of what you said obviates the fact that the Saudi government condones this form of punishment. Further, nothing you've written thus far provides any justification for keeping women as chattel, irrespective of the social class involved.
In addition, while the fact that there are two societies is indisputable, what troubles me is the inability of any citizen in the countries you mention to move from the lower class to the upper class. These are not meritocracies by any stretch.
People wishing to view the net result of such a rigid class structure need look no further than Mexico. 12 million of their citizens are here in America because there is no opportunity in their homeland.
but again, how does that justify state sponsored flogging? How does that justify a set of "rules" for women that is tantamount to bondage?
Help me with this statement DEC:
P.S. Like most successful businessmen I am a pragmatist, ScurveyOaks. Whatever works best is fine with me.
It seems to me that this means that you have placed "results" over principles. This statement's meta message is that profit matters and not much else. Your comments, taken as a whole leave the impression that nothing much matters beyond your ability to sustain your life style.
Am I getting that right? if not, please advise.
Thanks.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Thu Nov 09, 12:52:00 PM:
DEC, thanks for your candid and coherent answer, which is certainly principled in its way. A few thoughts:
1. I will still bet that none of your homes is in Zimbabwe. I'll go out on a limb and guess that they are all in jurisdictions with pretty good Freedom House numbers.
2. I'm happy for your success, and I'm all in favor of a globalized economy. (It's good even for me, toiling away as a partner in a regional US law firm.) But your sense of what "works best" seems to reflect an indifference to human rights. Apprarently that's just not a priority in your scheme of things.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 01:01:00 PM:
Skipsailing said: "Are you saying that a rich woman would not be sentenced to whipping?"
Generally she would not. For one thing, she would have her own security people with her to deal with any attempts to interfere with her as she went about her business. (You can always find an exception to any statement. For example, a female member of the royal family was executed for adultery. But that was a "political execution.")
Let me give you an example of how things work in another Arab country. I was with an Egyptian businessman and an Egyptian army colonel (in civilian clothes) in Cairo when a cop told us to move our parked car.
The colonel told the cop to go away.
The cop started to "write" down our license number.
The colonel grabbed the cop's notepad. "Just as I thought," the colonel said to the cop. "All you are doing is drawing lines. You can't read or write. Get out of here before I make trouble for you."
The cop walked away.
In the case of women, keep things in perspective. For example, Egypt is the most populous Arab country. In the early 1990s an Egyptian friend of mine investigated the number of women who were stoned to death for adultery in Egypt during the last 400 years. He found five cases.
Skipsailing said: "None of what you said obviates the fact that the Saudi government condones this form of punishment."
That statement is correct.
Skipsailing said: "It seems to me that this means that you have placed 'results' over principles."
I focus on problems I can solve. I can't change Saudi Arabia. You can't change Saudi Arabia. President Bush can't change Saudi Arabia. Any attempt by the West to solve this problem quickly is a masturbatory exercise. Only the Saudis can solve this problem by updating their religion.
My advice to America: Clean up the mess in Iraq before you take on new projects
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 01:23:00 PM:
ScurvyOaks said: "But your sense of what 'works best' seems to reflect an indifference to human rights."
My approach to the human rights problem:
Encourage trade, private investment, and other forms of voluntary exchange (travel, tourism, study-abroad programs, etc.) between Americans and the people of the region. "Seduce" them. Don't act like an obnoxious mother-in-law (as the U.S. often does).
By ScurvyOaks, at
Thu Nov 09, 02:46:00 PM:
DEC,
My views and yours are closer than I initially thought. I agree that your seduction approach is very often the most effective. (I think it clearly should have been our approach in Cuba for the last 15+ years. If we'd started it then, Cuba would be materially more free today than it is.) Even in the seduction model, I think there's room for a little nagging, although not much.
The harder cases are the cultures where seduction (even if somewhat successful with the economic elite) runs up against vehement, conscious and powerful opposition. As Bernard Lewis has observed, the identification of the US as the Great Satan is based on understanding the US as the seducer -- tempting Muslims to turn from their faith by dangling our material prosperity and permissive society in front of them. Seduction may still be the best long-term strategy in those cases. Even if that is so, we have to figure out how to deal with the violent opponents of that seduction while it's in the process of working.
Finally, it's not clear that the seduction model is working very well at all in the current Muslim interaction with Europe. Under the seduction theory, wouldn't Muslim immigrants to Europe move in the direction of liberal values? But the current trend is that sharia is making headway in the banlieues. Do you see it differently?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 03:19:00 PM:
To ScurvyOaks:
We are in agreement.
You wrote: "Under the seduction theory, wouldn't Muslim immigrants to Europe move in the direction of liberal values?"
In the case of immigrants to America in the early 20th century, many in the first generation didn't change their ways significantly. The second generation was different because of their exposure to other ideas at school, in the military, on the job, etc.
The ghettoization of many Muslims in places like France has slowed down the process in Europe. On that continent the second generation is often a write-off, too.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Nov 09, 05:05:00 PM:
Very thought provoking.
Can we change Saudi Arabia? I agree we cannot, but we can provide the Saudis with some reasons why they should change.
During a recent debate about granting student visas to Saudis VDH, a writer I admire, stated that we should refuse these visa requests because there must be some consequences for the Saudi support of our enemies. I find that argument persuasive. I wonder if a quarantine might not actually send a message about our issues with the Saudi's fence sitting.
As for immigration I see two significant differences between the situation my grandparents faced and today's world.
First, no effort was made by the host country to welcome the new comers. If they wanted to make it here, they'd better get to it. Phrizz, not surprisingly called me an oppressor, but the reality is, the situation was assimilate or starve.
Today's multi culti welcome mat removes that impetus. All that's left is the alure of the society itself. since I have to accept Achmed's little quirks, Achmed sees no need to abandon them. That's OK to a point, but it will ruin us in the end.
Seduction is far harder when there is the additional headwind of community leaders demanding isolation. I was confirmed as a catholic in St Casmir's church but no priest to me to resist the American way of life. the message was "be proud of your polish forebears, but live righteously in America"
Today it seems to me that Imams are actively proposing not just isolation, but outright resistance. The arrest of Fahwaz Damrah here in Cleveland was, IMHO a clear indication that the Muslim faith would do all it could to insure that Islam ultimately dominates here. That's not seduction as I understand it.
It appears that ultimate conquest is ingrained in the Muslim faith. Further I am concerned that much of America has reached the conclusion that murder is a fundamental aspect of the muslim inspired culture.
People I talk to aren't complaining about America failing in Iraq as much as they are wondering why we should spend blood and treasure to prevent a behavior that appears basic to the Iraqis.
if this is the face of Islam, and I believe that was the true intent of TH's post, we should tread gingerly and be very wary.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 07:31:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 07:36:00 PM:
I wonder if a quarantine might not actually send a message..."
Unfortunately, they don't need you, Skipsailing. They can shop, invest, attend school, and obtain first-class medical care in many other places with five-star accommodations.
Arabs account for USD 9.3 billion of the foreign investment in the U.S.
As the Associated Press said earlier this year: "From the ritzy Essex House hotel in Manhattan, owned by the Dubai Investment Group, to the nationwide chains of Caribou Coffee and Church's Chicken, owned by another company serving Arab investors, foreigners are buying bigger and bigger chunks of the country (U.S.)."
If the Saudis and other Arabs don't put the money in the U.S., they will simply put it someplace else--Singapore, London, etc.
American business needs Arab money. America and its best friends need Arab oil.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 09, 07:59:00 PM:
P.S.
Skipsailing, do you remember the severe trade restrictions against Libya? During that time, I asked a Libyan trader about the impact of the boycott on his life.
"I have to drive to Egypt to catch a plane," he answered. "Other than that, the restrictions have no impact. I can get anything I want."
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Nov 10, 01:44:00 AM:
DEC, re American business needs Arab money. America and its best friends need Arab oil.
True, but there are two qualifications. First, Arabs only have money because of the oil. They've shown no capacity to generate economic value-added in anything. Second, we don't have to be paying so much for the oil. There are plenty of steps we might have taken, and still could take, to pay Arabs a lot less for oil than we do.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 10, 10:59:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 10, 11:06:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 10, 11:25:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 10, 10:32:00 PM:
Yes, TH, the Arab countries with oil sell oil. Canada sells lumber. You work with what you have.
And OPEC is a problem (as any cartel is). However, I respectfully suggest you look at this OPEC brochure:
"Who Gets What from Imported Oil"
http://www.opec.org/library/Special%20Publications/taxes3.htm
Meanwhile, I can think of many things Muslim countries produce, from fine rugs to Egyptian cotton (the finest cotton in the world).
It is important to remember that many of the Gulf Arabs are basically country folks. You don't have a lot of innovation coming out of rural areas of Arkansas, either.
It is also helpful to look at religion as a business. Think about how much money the Saudis and other Arabs make from the pilgrimages to Mecca. Remember every Muslim in the world is supposed to make the hajj. (Pretty clever way to generate tourism dollars, isn't it?)
