Not Better Than A Sharp Stick in the Eye

You know, I could go on all day about the Saudis and what’s wrong with their culture, or what’s wrong with our Republican leadership that adores them, but would be redundant in doing so. Let’s face it. The Saudi Arabia is not a bastion of freedom or liberty by any stretch of the imagination, yet I, falsely assuming, thought that at least a few of their barbaric practices finally made it into the ‘chara’ bin. My mistake. Once again I have to check my calendar to remind myself what century I’m living in.

You have to give fundamental Islam credit for being consistent. This religion appeared sometime in the 7^th century and, for the most part, has remained there. The few times I am ‘privileged’ to converse with Moslems on-line, be it Yahoo Chat or some other forum, I am always left with a mental and cultural kind of jet lag. Talking to Moslems is akin to time travel. When finished, you will swear you just visited the Dark Ages.

(This little news blurb comes courtesy of AlertNet. I am not going to reprint the entire article here, but only the salient points I wish to comment upon. My comments appear in normal type and the excerpts in italics. You’ll probably want to read the entire article there.)

Saudi Arabia: Court Orders Eye to Be Gouged Out 09 Dec 2005 23:08:04 GMT

(Source: Human Rights Watch)

The injured Saudi man, Nayif al-'Utaibi, has so far insisted that the sentence be carried out, refusing to pardon Noushad or accept monetary compensation.

I’m well aware that Middle Easterners of all types are assholes. No surprise there. What bothers me more is the insistence, in the 21^st century, to refuse compensation, even when the physical damage done to this plaintiff was negligible. The truth behind this ‘justice’ is the defendant being a non-Saudi who struck a Saudi, even where both men are of the Moslem faith. This is what makes it an unforgivable offense.

One witness to the altercation between the two men told Human Rights Watch that on the morning of April 1, 2003, Noushad told 'Utaibi that he would not be able to obtain a refund once he used the jumper cable he had just purchased. When 'Utaibi demanded a refund after using the cable, Noushad advised him to speak to the shop owner, who was not there at the time. The witness said 'Utaibi replied heatedly that he could not wait that long and lunged at Noushad.

Ok. We have a Saudi man trying to get a full refund for a product that he has already used, and when refused or asked to wait for the manager, this cheap bastard loses his temper and attacks the gas station attendant! This sounds like self-defense to me and in the civilized world, the plaintiff would be laughed out of court. If I were there, I’d have beat on the asshole myself for being so tacky. (You will remember from the 1^st WTC bombing that the terrorists were caught only because the dumb-shits went back to the auto rental for their deposit!)

The witness, also a worker from India, told Human Rights Watch that the court refused to admit his testimony backing up Noushad's account. The judge reportedly said that non-Saudis were barred from testifying in cases involving Saudis.

This needs no embellishment or explanation. If you are not Saudi, even if you are a Moslem, you have no rights in Saudi Arabia. You might now start to get the picture of why so many Moslems hate the Saudis. If you think that is bad, try being a woman, Jew, Hindu, or Christian in that part of the world.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only known countries that consider eye-gouging a legitimate judicial punishment.

Isn’t that sweet? If you ever decide to strike a Saudi on his own soil, make sure to hit something you can afford to lose. It could even become an alternative diet plan if aimed properly.

“No punishment of the unrighteous has ever been too severe in the eyes of the righteous.” (Author Unknown)