Saudi King Pardons Teen Female Rape Victim From Brutal Beating
Isn’t is just amazing what a little pressure from the outside can do?
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her, a Saudi newspaper reported Monday.
…
Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Muhammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the king doubted the country’s judges, but instead acted in the “interests of the people.”“The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair,” al-Jazirah quoted al-Sheik as saying.
I can’t help but wonder how many other women could have been spared from being brutalized or killed had we exerted just a tiny amount of effort to speak out against their tormentors. Think how many women could have been saved if the left – the “traditional” champions of women – had spent the tiniest fraction of the outrage it has expended against President ChimpyMcBushHitlerburton on decrying the brutality Islam’s Sharia visits upon women every day.
So now that we’ve seen what a little pressure can do, it’s about time we see what a lot of pressure can do. King Abdullah took a bold step that will not at all be popular with the huge numbers of Islamists that not only live in Saudi Arabis but also fill his government. Yet it’s worth remembering that the King did not exonerate her. The teenaged girl is still guilty according to the Saudi courts. Young Muslim women have been murdered by their own family members for much, much less. So as glad as I am that he has pardoned this girl from beaing beaten nearly to death, she shuld never have been on trial in the first place. Sharia is a blight upon the soul of the world and the sooner it is carved out and destroyed utterly, the better we will all be. So let’s get to carving, folks.
(via Hot Air)
No related posts.
Category: Alliances and Allies, Fighting the Islamists
Thanks for the encouragement. Liberal (well, progressive and radical) feminists are working against the brutalization of women under Sharia law daily. They could sure use financial assistance in doing so.
We could also use more focus on Afghanistan, where the Taliban are resurgent, again.
Or pressure on our Iraqi allies who have imposed far stricter laws on Iraqi women than existed under Saddam.
"Think how many women could have been saved if the left – the “traditional” champions of women – had spent the tiniest fraction of the outrage it has expended against President ChimpyMcBushHitlerburton on decrying the brutality Islam’s Sharia visits upon women every day."
Are you kidding? Do you just not read anything except Fox and the National Review? This story has been in the news for over a year and "the left" have been up in arms over it for that entire time. Do you even know that the original sentence was for 90 lashes and the Sharia judge increased it to 200 over what he called "media interferrence"? mostly from "the left"?
If you did read anything from the "liberal biased mainstream media" you'd know that "the left" has been condemming fundementalist Islamic treatment consistantly for decades.
You're drawing a false dicotomy. It isn't Christianity vs. Islam. It's fundementalism vs. freedom. Social concervatism vs. civil rights. Modernity vs. Midevealism.
We've all seen over the last 6 years which side Bush and company are on. The same side as Abdullah and Khomeni, and Ahamajinadad. The only difference is the brand of theocracy.
Oh shameful iaintbacchus, how you deceive. The reason the court increased her setnence was not because of the left's agitation but because of her lawyers. In fact, the Saudi court said that "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media" was the reason for the increased sentence. The only one speaking out in the Saudi media at all was her lawyer, who was himself punished by disbarment.
Wait…the left condemning Islam? Dude, you crack me up. I'd buy you a beer if I didn't think you were stone-cold serious about that. I stand by what I said. If the left put an iota of the energy into condemning the brutalities of Islamism as it does the invented offenses of the Bush administration, there'd be a lot more Muslim women alive right now.
"the left condemning Islam"
Damn right. American leftists condemn Islamic fundamentalism almost every day.
Not that Saudi rulers pay any attention to the American left. They do pay attention to the Bush family, though, so that's where the pressure should go.
Thanks for admitting the truth about the left, Jimmie.
Joey – you can't even defend your ideological brethren without editing my quote. That's just sad.
Sorry you feel sad, Jimmie, but you were pretty clear. You admit that leftists condemn Islamic fundamentalism on a regular basis. That's a good thing, and true.
I'm happy for you.
Well, except for the question mark, Joey, you'd be right. But the question mark is there, so you're not. Keep it up I'll kill your comments. Disagreement is fine. Being an ass isn't.
There's no reason for anybody (lefties included) to invent offenses by the Bush Administration.
They've provided enough offenses on their own (fixing the facts around the reasons for War in Iraq, eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, condoning of torture, Abu Ghraib, the hiring of unqualified cronies to positions of power, etc) without the need to invent others.
iaintbacchus,
Your last 2 paragraphs (in particular) are spot on.
I am very happy to hear about this. It disturbs me to think about governments enforcing ideologies in such inhumane ways. Between beatings, renditions, family separations, and all the economic policies designed to keep families in their place, it is hard for human beings to catch a break. So again I am pleased by this news. Now let's ride this momentum to pressure other inhumane activities.
Jimmie, long before you even knew what or where Afghanistan was, "the left" were publishing information about and protesting against the radical abuses of women by the Taliban. (To jog your memory, you were completely consumed by stains on a blue dress around that time.)
While that kind of activity is good and useful in informing compassionate people around the world (another reason why you never knew about it), unfortunately it is rarely effective in creating the change that is sought. The Taliban did not change their policies in response to "the left."
Similarly, Saudi Arabia did not change this woman's sentence in response to the left, nor would they ever have. What changed Saudi Arabia's response was strong criticism from Bush. Without that word from the president, that woman's sentence would still be intact.
Why did he issue that criticism? Who knows? Bush isn't generally the type to give humanitarian concerns more weight than profitable alliances with the devil. So why the deviation? Personally, I understand that Bush's #1 concern right now is his legacy, his desire to leave office NOT as the US's worst president and a major step backwards for civilization. So, he throws a bone to a humanitarian cause, at least when it won't cost him anything.
Your main point seems to be that the left should quit criticizing abuses by our own government, and instead criticize the abuses of other governments that are arguably worse. This would make perfect sense if we were voting citizens or in some other way had any sort of influence whatsoever on the foreign government in question. Without that, it is far more effective to protest against the government that you — theoretically, at least — have some say in.
I hope you can understand all this.
Silly man. You didn't know anything about me and, obviously, you still don't.
Go ahead. Find me a group on the left with any sort of pull that's been half as vocal about the very real and very deadly abuses of women in the past six years as it has the "abuses" of the Bush Administration.
Your summation of my point is wrong. What I am saying, and what I have said, is that the left has pretty much forgotten about the plight of women, gays, teenagers, Christians (well, the left's never been particularly concerned about them, and everyone else held under the sword of the Islamists now that they have Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton and his American Taliban to get all froth-lipped about. Never mind that the President has been very vocal about human rights abuses and, more importantly, has given a physical form to Congress' overwhelming resolutions. He's actually used the word "genocide" – something the last leftist adminstration was afraid to do lest we demand they do something about it. The President is hardly ideal on the issue, but he's a sight better than anything the left has managed to produce in a President (or Presidential candidate) in the last couple of decades. You can argue that all you want. History is squarely against you.
Railing against Bush brings in big money, though. Railing against the Islamists is less lucrative and more risky.
Jimmie said:
"Go ahead. Find me a group on the left with any sort of pull that’s been half as vocal about the very real and very deadly abuses of women in the past six years as it has the “abuses” of the Bush Administration."
You've completely missed my point. There may be groups that are currently doing this, or there may not be. The point is, protesting the actions of a government or organization in which you have NO INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER is not particularly effective. But as for whether or not liberal groups have done this in the past, I have shown that they have. (Just try and remember this one word: Afghanistan.)
Jimmie said:
"Never mind that the President has been very vocal about human rights abuses…"
What difference does that make, when your president is responsible for massive humanitarian crises, particularly in Iraq? You're saying that he gives a mean speech, which makes it all okay?
Jimmie said:
"He’s actually used the word “genocide” – something the last leftist adminstration was afraid to do lest we demand they do something about it."
Okay, Jimmie, while you were scrutinizing that blue dress, back before you'd heard about Afghanistan, there was also something else going on. Seems the Serbians were committing genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo. A democratic president sent troops there. Your republicans (most notably your president) protested against this action, claimed "wag the dog" and demanded an immediate exit strategy.
Just a little bit of history for you.
Jimmie said:
"Railing against Bush brings in big money, though. Railing against the Islamists is less lucrative and more risky."
That's not the calculus that's generally going on. Railing against Bush addresses the most grave foreign disasters currently occurring, from the Iraq debacle to resolutely ignoring climate change. For a person who wants to see the world change in a more positive direction, pointing out the abuses and failings under Bush and marshaling an opposition to them provides far more "bang for the buck" than picketing in front of the embassy of a foreign dictatorship that is the beneficiary of US aid.
Recall that "the Left" was protesting the Taliban dynamiting the statues of Buddah in Afghanistan in June 2001, while the Bush Administration was keeping its mouth shut about it.
From letting Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, to overthrowing secular Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration and Conservatives in general have always favored the religious fundamentalists at every turn.
Of course in the fantasy bubble that Conservatives maintain around their vision of George W. Bush, facts do not matter at all: Just the spin that FoxNews puts out.
Poor Jimmie. Pwned on his own blog.
Right. Keep in mind that in May 2001, the Bush Administration gave the Taliban $43 million. In return the Taliban issued a statement saying that poppy cultivation was against Allah's wishes. In return for such a generous gift, Bush wasn't about to give them grief for blowing up the statues of some religious figure Bush wasn't even familiar with, was he?
That was the job of "the left."