What in the world is this?
A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports.
According to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan, troubles for the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, began last year when a member of the religious police entered her house in the city of Al-Chamli and found her with two unrelated men, “Fahd” and “Hadian.”
Fahd told the policeman that he had the right to be there, because Sawadi had breast-fed him as a baby and was therefore considered to be a son to her in Islam, according to Al-Watan. Fahd, 24, added that his friend Hadian was escorting him as he delivered bread for the elderly woman. The policeman then arrested both men.
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism and punishes unrelated men and women who are caught mingling.
It is nothing but backwards. I’m not a postmodern relativist; I believe in universal standards. I have no problem defining such rural laws and practices as incredibly crude and completely out of place in the cosmopolitan age of “science and technology.”
The use of the term “man” when referencing males in these cultures bugs me.
Their behavior is the polar opposite of true “manliness”.
Allah please save me from your followers.
This should be a huge wakeup call to everyone supporting integration of America with the Muslim faith.
We as Americans will be next if we support the Islamic religion on this soil.
An interesting wakeup article from Britain:
Want to see the future of America? It’s not that hard. It’s ironic that so many women voted for Obama. I would guess that in 20 years they will regret it. Start picking out your latest in burka fashion ladies. This will be what your freedom of choice looks like in 20 years. It will get you stoned to death in the streets. It makes me angry that foolish people may succeed in destroying the future of my grandchildren.
A Lament for Britain
——————————————————————————–
View Comments | Print This Post |
by Aaron Goldstein | February 25th, 2009
If I were living in Britain today I would probably be looking to leave.
Fourteen winters ago, I spent a semester in London as a parliamentary intern in the British House of Commons where I had stints with two Members of Parliament from the Labour Party. My second placement was with a MP from Glasgow named Jimmy Wray.
Jimmy and I got along famously. I was one of the few people who could understand his thick Scottish burr. We were a perfect match.
We worked so well together that Jimmy wanted me to return to London to work for him after the 1997 general election which Labour under Tony Blair was widely expected to win. The Conservative government of John Major was clinging to power trying to put off the inevitable for as long as possible. Sure enough Blair and Labour ended 18 years of Conservative rule as planned. However, the plan to return to Britain was never realized. In fact, I have not been across the Atlantic since.
I was disappointed at first. After the obligatory culture shock and equally obligatory adjustments I enjoyed my time over there immensely. I enjoyed walking to work from the hostel on Great Portland Street to Westminster. This commute was far more interesting than taking the Tube not to mention better exercise. I would pass the shops on Oxford Street and Piccadilly Circus through Trafalgar Square onto Whitehall past Number 10 Downing Street. On weekends, I liked walking through Regents Park or Hyde Park. I also visited the Old Vic, the London Zoo and Abbey Road. While many scoff at British cuisine I quite liked eating jacket potatoes as well as fish and chips. Throw in the occasional soft serve ice cream with half a Cadbury Flake inserted in the cone (this was before I stopped eating dairy). I also liked being in a country that was the cradle of modernity. Where would Prime Minister’s Questions and Speakers’ Corner be without the Magna Carta? I would have loved to have lived in Britain.
But life went on. Five years after my time overseas, I would find myself in the United States where I have been ever since, having evolved from a Canadian socialist to an American conservative. Looking back on it now I would have to conclude that it is just as well that I did not move to Britain. If I were living in Britain today I would probably be looking to leave.
In the fourteen years since that winter, Britain has become a place where common law is breaking down, liberty has been surrendered and history is no longer valued. The main reasons for this are the excessive political correctness of Britain’s political and cultural elites, the assertiveness of Britain’s growing Muslim community and the unwillingness of political and cultural elites to stand up for common law, exercise liberty and remember its history.
Of course, I am far from the first person to lament the current state of affairs in Britain. Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn have written extensively on this subject and frankly have far more first-hand experience where it concerns the day to day travails in which Britain finds itself unable to properly negotiate.
According to the United Kingdom 2001 Census, there are more than 1.5 million Muslims in Britain comprising nearly 3% of the population. That might not seem like an impressive figure. But when one considers that a third of that population is under the age of 16 and more Muslims have found their way onto British soil in the decade since, one must take pause. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/438576…) It is worth noting that in 2007 the second most popular name for baby boys in Britain was Muhammad. It is quite possible that by now Muhammad might have supplanted Jack for the number one spot. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk…) Muslim numbers are large enough to have achieved critical mass sufficient for Britain to have fundamentally altered the character of British law, liberty and history.
The backbone of the British legal system and much of the English speaking world is common law (Scotland is different although it does incorporate some elements of common law). There would have been no United Kingdom without a common set of laws that were applicable to all persons. However, the influx of Muslims in Britain has created judicial bodies which adjudicate matters through Islamic Sharia law, a legal system that amongst other things considers the word of a woman to be worth half that of a man.
A year ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said it “seems inevitable” that Sharia law would be incorporated into British law. Earlier this month, the Archbishop said that there was a “drift of understanding” in British society towards his view. He cited the views of Lord Phillips, the former Lord Chief Justice and soon be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Last July, Lord Phillips publicly concurred with Williams that Sharia law could be utilized in civil matters:
It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law . . . In some countries the courts interpret Sharia as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
– http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..judge…
How can Lord Phillips be so confident? At the very minimum, Britain is on the verge of creating one law for Muslims and one for everyone else. What is to stop Muslims for wanting everyone else to submit to Sharia law? Only days after Lord Phillips made his remarks Sarfraz Sarwar, a Muslim leader in the small town of Pitsea, said Sharia law should apply to criminal matters and that criminal offenses should be punishable by flogging in town centers such as Pitsea. (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/2380729.…) Where’s Enoch Powell when you need him?
If Sharia law is formally enshrined in British law one can kiss political liberty goodbye. As it stands now there isn’t much liberty to speak of in Britain these days. Last week, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was denied permission to enter Britain to present his film Fitna, documenting violence carried out in the name of Islam. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith referred to her fellow European parliamentarian as an “undesirable person.” Yet the Home Secretary had absolutely no problem permitting Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi from entering the country last May. Either the Home Secretary doesn’t consider terrorist mouthpieces undesirable or is simply afraid of offending Muslims.
Whatever the motivations of the Home Secretary it represents an infringement of political liberty. If Muslims in Britain had wished to protest Wilders’ presence peaceably then fine. Denying Wilders entry into Britain denied Britons an opportunity to listen to his arguments and make the choice of accepting, rejecting or ignoring them. Somehow I don’t think this will be the last time someone who has views that are not acceptable to Muslims will be denied entry into Britain. If Wilders’ colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali decides to touch down on British soil do not be surprised if the Home Secretary deems her an undesirable person as well. Fortunately, Hirsi Ali and Wilders are both welcome in America.
President Obama caused a bit of a stir when he returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the British Embassy in Washington. The bust was lent to President Bush by former Prime Minister Blair in the wake of the September 11th attacks and sat in the Oval Office until the end of his tenure in the White House.
One could take President Obama to task for alienating a long-standing ally. On the other hand, one could make the argument that Churchill isn’t valued by British political and cultural elites in the way he used to be. In July 2007, Britain’s Department of Education & Skills removed the study of Churchill from the history curriculum of its secondary schools in favor of “relevant issues” like global warming and genetically modified foods.(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007…)
If Britain’s Ministry of Education doesn’t place any value on Churchill then why should we expect any different of President Obama?
I am certain this development was pleasing to Britain’s Muslim community. After all, it was Churchill who in 1899 wrote, “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property . . . must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.” (http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2006/02…)
When a country cannot be bothered to teach its children about its most important historical figures one cannot expect them to grow up with the knowledge of the development of their national identity and the measures it took to maintain that identity, much less take even a modest amount of pride in them.
If there is a silver lining in all this, it is that it is not too late to reverse these trends although the time is at hand. Such a reversal would most likely happen if a political figure were to emerge who was willing to say enough and mobilize support around such a sentiment. It is difficult to imagine Britain’s current state of affairs happening under the watch of Churchill, Margaret Thatcher or an Enoch Powell. But they don’t make Churchills or Thatchers like they used too. I am no more optimistic about the Conservative Party under David Cameron than I am about the Labour government of Gordon Brown. While Powell enjoyed popular support he exercised little political power.
This isn’t to say there isn’t promising political talent. Conservative MP Michael Gove comes to mind. Of course, how much support he can mobilize amongst Tories much less Britain’s silent majority remains to be seen. But perhaps reversing such a trend is a task too much for a single individual no matter how charismatic and persuasive. It would require a cultural shift amongst the current and next generation of British political and cultural elites. Such a shift would need to emphasize a common law that applies to all, a political liberty that can accommodate vast disagreements without violence or threat of it and an educational system that appreciates and is proud of Britain’s history.
It is a lot to ask but anything short of it could result in Britain eventually becoming an Islamic state. This is my lament for Britain.
Dan – Grammar helper here – please check and correct that last sentence, but keep those inalienable truths held high – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I swear we need to get out of the oil business with these vicious people.
I feel for those poor women, I hope the first lady brings more attention to their plight.
Please delete the racist rubbish posted by Reality Check — it’s off-topic, stupid, and inappropriately posted — a link would have sufficed.
As for the Saudi news story, a little context might be useful. The Saudi religious police are flexing their muscle a little right now, but, as always, that kind of muscle-flexing is a sign of weakness, not strength. They’re responding to some specific modernization measures coming down from the prince recently.
This kind of medieval insanity is actually very unpopular in Saudi Arabia, and it’s slipping away, slowly but surely. Hey, they only outlawed slavery in 1964, give ’em a break! Why, women are expected to receive the right to drive a car soon, even.
Postmodernism and relativism are not necessarily the same…
@6 Fuck you up the goat a$$ Fnarf.
Who makes you the monitoring police?
Seriously? It is on topic to Islamic religion and what it represents. It is factual, quotable, and has supporting links attached.
Just because you don’t like the message doesn’t make it any of the above. I fail to see how racism is involved whatsoever.
Take your PC bullshit whining elsewhere and go crawl back into your hole.
Instead of posting one link, I posted an entire excerpt. This was done because many folks are simply too lazy to read things they need to see if directed elsewhere. If it is put here, at least some folks who might not have bothered reading it elsewhere, will take a moment to read it here.
The truth hurts.
I agree whole heartedly with Charles on something. This makes me nervous, but I’ll accept it. 😉
It was only a matter of time before RC demonstrated his true self: a demented racist with the intelligence and maturity of a child. Little glimmers have peeked through in the past and now we finally have total confirmation.
And as far as the article goes, you just know there’s nothing a 24 year old likes better than banging a 75 year old. That’s presumably the origin of these kinds of restrictions — to keep everyone, especially women, chaste and pure.
Charles,
Correct. We can’t be moral relativists. We (the Occident, civilized nations?), should condemn this kind of behavior. Women are treated like feces in the SA Kingdom. I disagree with Fnarf. Radical Islam is on the RISE. Our Pres. Obama should consider this before making any overture veiled or not to the despicable Taliban.
Reality Check: Posting a mile-long piece is bad netiquette no matter how interesting it is…but when the piece is boring and badly-written (like this one is), it’s just lame. You trying to justify it by calling everyone else lazy officially makes you a worthless dolt.
Where is the vaunted Stranger hate speech filter? Please use it to erase from virtual existence Reality Check’s useless troll commentary.
In fairness, Reality, if I see anything as long as what you posted/pasted, I skip it, unless it says danielbennetkieneker at the bottom.
I agree with Reality Check that the Aaron Goldstein piece (quoted in full in 3) is relevant, although only in a tangential way, and I agree that I probably would not have read it had he posted a link. I found the piece to be appallingly racist, however, but in a subtle way. It’s more subtle than the use of demeaning slurs against Mormons that we’ve been seeing on Slog but it has a similar spirit behind it.
RC’s article is so poorly written/argued, it’s not even necessary to mock it. But, here’s a shorter version of it, in case you don’t want to read the whole thing.
“I studied abroad! Know everything about UK because I spent a semester there! Lots more Muslims now! Am afraid because people are naming their babies Muhammad! Muslims take over legal system! Obama returns Churchill statue (somehow this has something to do with my point)! Conservatives 4-eva!!”
I was expecting to be rick-rolled by the end of that Reality Check posting. Disappointment.
15
Julie,
don’t you need to go burp David Dukes lovechild?
@15, Julie: You make my day so often. Thanks.
I might have looked at the article RealityCheck posted if it were simply a link, but I assumed anyone who would post the entire article in a blog comment is an insane racist troll, so I just scrolled over it. (Okay, I did look at the first bit and that reinforced my assumption that it was worthless.)
On the subject of this elderly woman, would she be in for the same sort of punishment if the first man was her son by blood and he brought a male friend over when he stopped by to visit?
Want to stop al-Qaeda, which gets more than 90 percent of its funding and volunteers from just one nation, Saudi Arabia?
Nuke em.
I’d suggest neutron bombs so the holy sites are left, but …
assuming the religious police are male, shouldn’t they arrest themselves?
Maybe Obama returned the Churchill bust because Churchill murdered his Kenyan ancestors?
I was in Saudi ARabia in January; I think I can speak with experience about the religious police and being a woman in SA; mind you, I am a western woman, so its different, I am less likely to be arrested, just rather detained and scared shitless.
1. Yes, everyone in the whole freaking country is afraid of the religious police. Everyone can tell you a story about an experience with them.
2. The religious police have been losing power over the time that the new KIng has been around.. they know it too… much like we are seeing an increase in gay bashing in the states since we homos are flexing our muscles, the RP (that is too much to type every time) are pushing back against their own loss of influence; like the homophobes, they are trying to turn up the heat.
They have more power in smaller towns like al-Chamli or Mecca;
3. Women are not a weak minority in SA; I work with both men and women there and I can truthfully say that one of the team leads is female and very much in charge and respected by the men; and me, a woman, also listened to and very much respected.
most of the women I know there are university graduates. and plan on going to complete their doctorates. the state supports the education of men and women.
4. That being said, I cant be in a room with a guy I am unrelated to with the door shut or a car without him being in danger of arrest
5. the whole country is like 9th grade.. boys and girls are not allowed to mingle, but when you are being driven down the street, guys will pull up next to you and try to get you to give them your phone number via bluetooth or throw cards to you with their phone numbers… this happens all the time…
Anyway, I’d love to sit with some other sloggers and tell you about my experiences in SA… when is the next pub crawl?
Lar
@3 – As long as I can wear a blue burka. Can I wear a blue burka?
@23 – thanks for your interesting comments.
I saw Tony Bourdain’s show on Saudia Arabia recently, and the woman hosting him had a fascinating take on the separation of the sexes in restaurants/public places. That it was more of a division between “single men” and “families” (i.e., keeping the single men away from the family section) than it was keeping women away from men. The implication being that the policies about women ended up marginalizing single men to an extent as well. Was that an impression that you got in SA?
I find it pretty fascinating how the old traditions and ideas in a country like Saudi Arabia interact with the new, modern globalized world…
Saudi Arabia and it’s King are guilty of “Crimes Against Humanity” and should be tried in the Hague.
Why does relativism get such a bum rap? Mudede says, “I’m not a postmodern relativist” and goes on to say a reasonable thing that any relativist would say. Someone who actually “believes in universal standards” would not choose to criticize laws and practices for being “out of place” for their cosmopolitan age, as Mudede does. Universal standards would declare these laws wrong simply, which Mudede does not do, nor does he need to.
@23: Thursday at Cafe Metropolitan. No burka required.
Everyone is the same! Everything and everyone is equal in every way! CELEBRATE DIVERSHITTY!
I wonder if @ 29 is autistic. She always posts the same thing in threads are only barely related to anything resembling diversity, and it’s always after nobody at all said anything about diversity, good or bad.
OK, then, guess I’m not moving the family to Riyahd after all…
@27: Maybe because relativism is generally understood to mean, “Your values are ok for you. My values are ok for me. Let’s agree to disagree,” without ever taking into account that traditional values are often directly contradictory to modern values.
To be more specific: is it all right to cut off a girl’s clitoris with a piece of broken glass and sew up her vagina because that is what the culture deems is all right? What about the universal declaration of human rights, to which our nation is signatory? Don’t the values stated in that document run contrary to mutilating pubescent girls’ genitals?
I’m with Mudede on this one. Relativism is for fucking cowards, postmodernism for spineless dweebs. Some things really do break down to right vs. wrong.
Thank you, Charles.
The religious police need to be shut down.
It’s a fucking joke.