Khamisa Sawadi is a 75-year-old woman – and a widow.
Since she is, under Saudi law, allowed to leave her house without a male guardian (who must be a close relative), she had often asked neighbours to help her get food. This time, she had asked her nephew, Fahd al-Anzi, for help.
Fahd al-Anzi and his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein did indeed bring several loaves of bread – Khamisa Sawadi’s one week’s supply of food (!!!) to the old woman. Most normal people would consider this to be a good act, demonstrating kindness and respect to one’s elders. Right?
Well, not according to all people.
Someone in the neighbourhood saw the two young men enter the old woman’s presence – and dissapproved. This busybody then went and reported to the ‘religious police’ (what a concept, eh? ‘religious police’!!!), properly called ‘Commission for the propagation of virtue and prevention of vice’, who promptly arrested the young men…
It seems that the young man’s father, brother of the widow’s late husband, had also complained to the police that his sister-in-law is ‘corrupting’ his son!
Here is where things get a little sketchy: the woman was her nephew’s ‘milk-mother’ (being a child’s wet-nurse, under Sharia, gives a woman an equivalent status to that of its ‘mother’, when defining ‘close male relatives’) and should therefore, under strict Sharia interpretation, be innocent of any wrongdoing. Yet, the AP news report cryptically states:
“Because she said she doesn’t have a husband and because she is not a Saudi [Sawadi was born in Syria], conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed,” the court verdict read.
So, a woman’s marital status and place of birth are the determining factors of her guilt???
And, what was the punishment the court ordered for this 75 year old woman for asking her surrogate son to bring her food?
40 LASHES, 4 months in prison and deportation!!!
Both young men will also be lashed…
I cannot wrap my brain around this! Truly: I got a bad headache when I first heard of it, and it has been getting worse all day. I really, really get worked up about these types of things! Do you know why? Here is a picture of ‘whipping’ as administered in Saudi Arabia…
Can a 75-year-old woman survive this? And then, 4 months in prison (instead of hospitalization)?
But of course, that is not of interest to the very people who have made up – and now enforce – these laws! After all, they would have been perfectly willing to see her starve to death – which is why the ‘religious police’ got ‘tipped off’ by someone in the neighbourhood that this ‘immoral act’ of bringing an old widow her weekly supply of food is happening!
That is pretty scary!!!
Yet, there is hope: the AP article reports that unjust and downright ridiculous rulings such as this one are alienating some of the population.
“Others have also spoken out against the case against Sawadi, accusing the religious police of going too far”
And, if this Saudi woman rights activist, Wajiha Al-Huweidar is correct, there is indeed hope. Not in the near future, but hope!
“Look, the early signs that a wrong ideology is dying are fanaticism and extremism. This is obvious.
Have you ever seen a dead body that is soft? When the body dies, it goes rigid. Similarly, this ideology will become increasingly rigid, and will reach the height of fanaticism, but it is constantly in the process of dying.
Take a look at history.
Let’s examine what happened to the Church in Europe. It became rigid and persecuted ideologies, killing and burning scientists, until people rebelled against it and this led to its collapse.
History tells us this holds true for all ideologies…”
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
March 10, 2009 at 18:45
Xanthippa:
As mind boggling as this case is, it is a typical example of Muslim “jurisprudence,” particularly in terms of who the parties are determining guilt or innocence, as opposed to what they have done.
Remember, it is not a crime, nor is it morally wrong, for a Muslim to lie to, cheat, steal from or kill an Infidel.
Nor is it permissible for an Infidel to give evidence in a trial when the accused is a Muslim.
I just thought I should clear that up for you… just in case you were thinking that Islam is inherently discriminatory…
Xanthippa says:
Thank you! I appreciate being educated!
However, I am much more in agreement with the Saudi woman-rights activist when she says this is a function of the ‘evolutionary stage’ of Islam (my phrasing). I suspect that most religions go through specific stages of ‘social evolution’. Islam is going through the ‘militant’ and ‘extremist’ stage right now….but, this has more to do with the ‘insecure’ practitioners of the religions than it does with the teaching itself.
After all, every religion is elitist and exclusionary, by the very nature of ‘being a religion’. The extremism and militancy of its adherents will vary with time and place. As will eventual ‘reform’ and ‘tolerance’.
However, the ‘stages of evolution’ – when it comes to religions (and, these are MY theories – not anything widely accepted and respected), these stages can last a few centuries and cost millions of lives!
March 12, 2009 at 18:41
[…] VIA XANTHIPPA– Khamisa Sawadi: yet another victim of Sharia! …. […]
March 14, 2009 at 07:55
I have to say, I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my IMHO, which indeed could be very wrong.
p.s. You have a very good template . Where have you got it from?
Xanthippa says:
Thank you!
The template I am using is ‘Garland’ by Stefan Nagtegaal and Steven Wittens, and is one of the ‘standards’ offered by WordPress.
March 14, 2009 at 22:43
Xanthippa:
Yes, exactly: “these stages can last a few centuries and cost millions of lives!” Thing is, Islam has already been evolving for 1400 years, and so far… no change. And I fear there never will be. In Islamic thought, whatever contradicts the word of the prophet (peace be upon him and his family) is irrational by definition, because the words of the prophet (peace be upon him and his family) are the axioms of Islamic thought.
And that is why I think we should halt all immigration from Islamic countries immediately — before the problem becomes so large that Canada is submerged in race war.
Can we not accept Islamic immigrants on the condition that they swear not to try to establish a caliphate, either through violence or through subversion of our legal and social structures? Failing that, can we not accept Islamic immigrants on the condition that they renounce their religion?
Unfortunately, we cannot even risk that — simply because we have no way of knowing whether such promises and declarations are sincere, or merely instances of al-taqiyya, which means “to conceal ones thoughts, feelings and strategies in order to protect or promote Islam or to save oneself from current or anticipated danger.” To practice al-taqiyya against infidels, up to and including lying under oath and the denial or denunciation of Islam itself (!) is considered to be not only a virtue, but is held to be a religious duty by Islamic theology and jurisprudence.
Under these circumstances, the only viable strategy is to keep our distance, if for no other reason than to keep the peace.
August 5, 2009 at 20:55
saudi people is crap.im a muslim in malaysia,we are not barbaric like them.at least,when accusation happened ,we investigate thoroughly.and we dont discriminate old people especially old women.saudi people oppress women.really i wish all of the people that happened to torture khamisa will be sent to naar(hell).im a women,i feel angry to see women are opressed like in saudi.i cant imagine how suffering is life in Saudi.like anything could possibly happened to u.
how could they punish a women that was the milk mother of her nephew! In islam the milk mother relation to the one that she feed is legal
how crap is Saudi people.no wonder so many people hate them.They will die of our curse