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 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…
The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, feared by many Saudis, is made up of several thousand religious policemen charged with duties such as enforcing dress codes, prayer times and segregation of the sexes. Under Saudi law, women face many restrictions, including a strict dress code and a ban on driving. Women also need to have a man’s permission to travel…
The problem recurs with theocracies. This is their preferred method of ruling the superstitious and ignorant.
#30, Alphie,
you’ve been called a real thinker…by those who lisp.
So not only are you an idiot right wing nut evangelical thumper, but you’re also a bully that picks on those with speech impediments.
Geeze, between you, LibertyPoser, Lyin’ Mike, and Cow-Patty, we have quite the crew of selfish idiots.
Darnit, Mr. Fusion, you beat me to it. Kudos.
#40 RBG wrote, “Except what I write is no myth.”
If true, that would be pretty scary all by itself. Among other things, it shows that your god makes sudden and radical changes to the “true path” that are no less revolutionary than the differences between Judaism and Christianity, which are wholly incompatible theologically. These sudden changes may be heralded by nothing more than claims of prophesies in scriptures that are rife with ambiguities which are still being argued thousands of years after the fact. The final step is the appearance of a human being who claims to be a messenger sent by the Creator who then convinces his contemporaries of his authenticity and his authority to change everything for all of mankind who wishes to worship the Creator.
I can’t help but see the potential for a problem or two.
I worship sand (silicon chips for the unenlightened). Everything else is Neanderthal and ancient myths. I can’t wait for them to embed one in my body. Then I know I will have arrived in the promised land. /sarcasm off
Mr Fusion – Thank you for your thupport.
Alfie! I’m shocked, SHOCKED, you would attack me while I was asleep. But be of good cheer. I’ll go to a temple today and pay some nice Buddhist monk to bless you.
No different from the states here that use the death penalty. Both are crude, outdated, and totally ineffective ways of dealing with problems.
The way we look down on stories like this is how the rest of the world looks down on us still killing people in the name of justice.
43 Gary,
Just add in Satan (Revelation, chapter 12), Free Will of humans and then don’t sweat the small stuff.
RBG
RGB — I hate to have to introduce some history into your religion-addled brain, but… Iraq invaded Kuwait under Big Bush’s watch, not Little Bush’s. That’s why Little Bush had to make up all those funny WMD stories to justify invasion, remember? Sorry, nevermind, you’re probably not old enough to remember.
F uped Campers
#47, Small stuff, RBG? Your deity’s body count for innocents killed is much higher than Satan’s, so if you’ve got Satan pegged as the villain in the story, you’re on the wrong track. The writers tried to invent a character even more hateful than Yahweh, and Satan was the result of that failed effort.
And speaking of Revelation, I thought you were against psychedelic drug use, even for religious purposes. Did I misunderstand your position?
48. Wretched Gnu. Ha. That’s like saying Truman had no right to finish WW2 because it was started under Roosevelt. Nice.
47 Gary. Sounds like someone has a hero.
RBG
OK, RBG, I have to award you an LOL for that one 😉
#51,RBG,
That’s like saying Truman had no right to finish WW2 because it was started under Roosevelt. Nice.
First, you have no idea what you are trying to analogize. WWII was started over two years before the US made an appearance.
Second, Roosevelt did not start the war.
Third, the US was attacked and war was declared upon it by Japan and Germany before the US declared war on them.
Fourth, war was declared by the US Congress, not the President.
Fifth, Iraq invaded Kuwait during Bush Sr.’s Administration. In case you missed it, Iraq surrendered.
Sixth, the United Nations oversaw the compliance of Iraq.
Seventh, the WMDs had been destroyed to the UN Inspection teams satisfaction.
Eighth, Iraq was not in Kuwait or threatening anyone when Bush decided to make himself a war President.
Ninth, you’re just trolling.
53 Mr. Fusion
Roosevelt declared war that started the US into WW2. You can check up on that if you like. I say nothing of other countries which would be an irrelevant red-herring to my analogy as are the “reasons” for why a previous president might initiate war or whether Congress is involved.
Tenth: “Saddam routinely cited his survival as “proof” that Iraq had in fact won the war against America.
“The U.S. launched a missile attack aimed at Iraq’s intelligence headquarters in Baghdad June 26, 1993, citing evidence of repeated Iraqi violations of the “no fly zones” imposed after the Gulf War and for incursions into Kuwait.
“U.S. officials continued to accuse Saddam of violating the terms of the Gulf War’s cease fire…
“Western charges of Iraqi resistance to UN access to suspected weapons were the pretext for crises between 1997 and 1998, culminating in intensive U.S. and British missile strikes on Iraq, December 16-19, 1998. After two years of intermittent activity, U.S. and British warplanes struck harder at sites near Baghdad in February, 2001.
“Iraqi co-operation with UN weapons inspection teams was intermittent throughout the 1990s.
“During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton maintained sanctions and ordered air strikes in the “Iraqi no-fly zones” (Operation Desert Fox)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
An odd way to behave when a war is over, wouldn’t you say?
RBG
#54, RBG,
I realize you are a Canadian and do not understand the United States Constitution.
53 Mr. Fusion
Roosevelt declared war that started the US into WW2.
No. It is and was the responsibility of the US Congress to declare war.
The rest of your blathering can be summed up as:
Bush told Congress that Iraq had some Weapons of Mass Destruction he was ready to use on the Western World plus he was harboring Al Quada terrorists. We need to destroy Iraq to save us from these WMDs.
Note, if you are going to quote something, please don’t take your quotes out of context and use the whole passage.
“U.S. officials continued to accuse Saddam of violating the terms of the Gulf War’s cease fire…
An accusation is NOT proof. Anyone can accuse someone of something, much like Bush did over the WMDs.
55 Mr. Fusion. Try to get with the program. The argument is about the presidential watch, nothing to do with your attempted arcane Congress digression.
I’m pretty sure I left out any mention above of WMDs in all the Clinton & Bush continuing reasons and actions for war.
You’ll have to ask Clinton what evidence he had to order air strikes into Iraq as the US continued to do throughout 12 years since “the end of war” in Iraq.
“Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”[102]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
You’ll have to be willing to put up a lot of $ if you want to challenge me about citizenship.
RBG
#56, RBG,
As I suggested earlier, try reading and posting the entire comment instead of cherry picking.
Try to get with the program. The argument is about the presidential watch, nothing to do with your attempted arcane Congress digression.
You effen stupid idiot!!! you were the one who posted ”
Not you want to forget you blunder and take a different tack?
*
You’ll have to ask Clinton …
So now you want to add Clinton when you’ve been shown to be wrong on everything else? Why? So you can later decide this isn’t about Clinton?
*
From the very same paragraph you linked to.
then just two paragraphs later
<blockquoteIn March 2003, Hans Blix reported that, “No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found,” in Iraq, saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue.[51] But the U.S. government announced that “diplomacy has failed” and that it would proceed with a coalition of allied countries, named the “coalition of the willing”, to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government abruptly advised U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Baghdad.
(My emphasis)
Face it, you’re a poor debater.
57 Mr. Fusion
Gee, wonder why your “logic” didn’t help Obama avoid being tarred as a shot monkey cartoon responsible for the $ bail out when it was actually the responsibility of Pelosi’s gang? (Hint: the buck stops with the president.)
I don’t “want to” anything. It’s a fact Clinton conducted war upon Iraq. Feel free to follow my link to wikipedia any time – and then ignore like it didn’t happen.
Apparently I don’t need to be a good debater when you make my points for me. On top of continuing war that I cite with references, (the ones you feel you can arbitrarily ignore), you go on to support my points.
Blix could not finish the job after all the years given – only stating progress was possible. Diplomacy had failed. And for the inspectors to pull out of Baghdad. (My emphasis)
A poor debater is better than being a sore loser.
RBG
“A poor debater is better than being a sore loser.”
— RBG
Not really. That neocons lied about WMDs and Saddam’s 9/11 complicity are facts that the rest of the world, and the rest of history, has already set in stone. You “win” only up to the moment you set foot outside your parents’ basement.
As is the fact that Saddam invaded ally Kuwait and the US has conducted war ever since. Also set in history. Set in stone.
RBG