a 32-year-old Indian migrant worker, Puthen Veetil Abdul Latheef Noushad, to have his eye gouged out as punishment for blinding a Saudi man in a fight. Apparently, Noushad was working at a gas station when he got into a fight with a Saudi customer regarding the bill. The Saudi man lost his eyesight from injuries sustained in the fight.
Noushad claims he acted in self-defense but the Saudi court imposed the sentence anyway. An appeals court will review the case and, if the ruling is upheld, the Supreme Court will address the issue. Human Rights Watch has joined the fray, asking Saudi King Abdullah for clemency.
Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islam, mutilation is an acceptable form of punishment. The loss of body parts is regularly specified by the courts. I think it's barbaric, however, I understand that it's proven to be quite effective in reducing recidivism. (via LGF)
1
Is think in some instances it is just punishment. Jesus spoke of it in the Bible so evidently it's been an acceptable form of punishment for many years. I don't know much about Islamic law so I don't know what other forms of punishment vs crimes they have. I have heard of the chopping off hands/arms for stealing and if your constantly trying to make your living off other peoples things that they have legally worked for than so be it. I certainly think that for pedophiles and other sex criminals that removing the offending organ is totally just. If there is no personal self-control than remove the means of the crime. In the case of this being a fight and not an outright attack I would think this man's punishment is severe, perhaps simply deporting him would be better. Conditions of living are much worse in his home country and I think that would be punishment enough.
Posted by: Debby at December 26, 2005 09:33 AM (Ij5Px)
2
Dear Debby,
You poor, naive child. Move to the Middle East, get raped, and you'll see what forms of punishment they'll come up with. And while you're buried in the sand up to your neck being pelted with rocks, get back to us.
Posted by: Oyster at December 26, 2005 10:38 AM (YudAC)
3
This verdict has more to do with the perceived lowly status of the worker than anything else. After all, how dare an infidel fight back and alledgedly cause injury to one of "God's favourites". Debby, most of the world over the centuries has changed a great deal and in that time certain practices have been abandoned because of their uncivilised nature, like pouring buckets of human waste into street side drains, drawing and quartering a criminal and slavery. Gouging someone's eye out or multilating their body as punishment, regardless of the crime is plain barbaric and speaks volumes about the culture. It's completely unacceptable in all circumstances.
Posted by: Graeme at December 26, 2005 11:19 AM (AkfSY)
4
Exactly, Graeme, mutilation is unacceptable in any civilized society, but one wonders if the Indian had been attacked by the Saudi and been blinded, just what would the punishment have been for the Saudi? You can be sure it wouldn't have involved mutilation for blinding an infidel.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 26, 2005 11:31 AM (rUyw4)
5
JJ,
In the Middle East there is a definite hierarchy based on passport and job and connections. The Indian worker is near the bottom of that hierarchy.
If the Indian had his eyes put out by the Saudi? He would have received some form of payment in compensation and little other punishment would have been dealt out. In fact the compensation most likely ordered probably would have been a pittance to the Saudi, not enough to even think about.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at December 26, 2005 11:54 AM (HCun/)
6
This gives new meaning to the bile quote "An Eye for an Eye." I feel sorry for this poor bastard. He's going to be in excrutiating pain.
Posted by: George Ramos at December 26, 2005 01:12 PM (96heC)
7
Poor little Debby. Who raises such idiot children these days?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 26, 2005 01:26 PM (0yYS2)
8
Marcus is right. If the situation was reversed, the Indian would receive virtually nothing. For two years I worked with a Panamax tanker captain formerly based in UAE. I had asked him about life in the Middle East and one of the things he pointed out was how common it was to have guest workers killed in vehicular accidents by local Arabs and no charges are filed against them. That's the type of disdain these people are shown. However, remove all of the guest workers and the country falls apart.
Posted by: Graeme at December 26, 2005 01:41 PM (AkfSY)
9
Graeme,
I spent 6 years in the UAE. A family very close to us found themselves in a very similar situation. They are a Filipino professional family, he teaches at the Higher Colleges and she was/is an admin assistant at presitigous national institution (I'll not give it away). Their daughter was with some friends getting ready to leave school and some local youth bullied his driver into letting him drive. This local youth ended up running over the girls, all of them seriously injured and unfortunately the daughter of our friends eventually died from her injuries.
What happened to the local youth? He was sent to Florida. The driver though is probably the one in jail and he does bear some guilt but the one that should be facing the most serious charges is living the high life.
While I enjoyed my time and life there I knew that being on one end of a similar situation was all too likely.
Also one thing we were told. Never ever stop at the scene of a traffic accident to offer help. Since you will be most likely accused of causing it and find yourself in a situation.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at December 26, 2005 01:52 PM (HCun/)
10
I spent a few months in Saudi Arabia, and from what I saw, Indians and Phillipinos are basically slaves paid a subsistence wage, with no rights whatsoever. Foreign women who works as maids and nannys are used as concubines and often held as slaves without pay and cannot leave. The Saudis are animals.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 26, 2005 01:53 PM (0yYS2)
11
I wonder if the situation is at all similar in Bahrain, where Michael Jackson has taken up residence recently. I know the Philippino workers are on the lowest social rung and it has crossed my mind that their young boys are not particularly safe from MJ's reach. How would Bahrain's government view pedophilia by an American against a Philippino I wonder?
mia
Posted by: mia at December 26, 2005 02:58 PM (PYS7P)
12
It's the same all over the ME Mia, because arabs are essentially the most slimy group of humanoid vermin to ever walk the earth, and have not evolved since the stone age. They practice pederasty, beast-iality, (sorry for the jyphen, damned filter,) and sodomy, and they torture and murder women for sport. If they can't modernize they should be exterminated like plague rats.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 26, 2005 04:18 PM (0yYS2)
13
Agent Jones overheard someone say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 26, 2005 07:24 PM (LLfvp)
14
Agent Smith
That one was sooooooooooo predictable! I've been waiting for hours expecting you to drop that one! I am really disappointed.
An upgrade is definitely in order.
Posted by: hondo at December 26, 2005 08:28 PM (3aakz)
15
Mia,
We had this saying in the Middle East. Trust your money with the Gulf Arabs and your young boys with the Egyptians but never the other way around.
One other thing 'bout Bahrain is it is the playpen for Saudi's not well off enough to jet all over the world. So things in Bahrain are quite a bit more relaxed as far as vice goes. A friend went there on an extended weekend and she didn't like Bahrain at all.
IIRC the Lonely Planet Guide had some interesting advice for men travelling in the Gulf. Can't recall exactly what nation it was.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at December 26, 2005 09:19 PM (HCun/)
16
The saudis are close Bush family friends and allies of the US empire.
Too bad you cant add that in your critiques
ernie
Posted by: ernie at December 26, 2005 10:16 PM (X4Dyg)
17
I don't think we have been speaking of the Saudi's in glowing terms on this blog. If you took the time to do a little research, you wouldn't sound nearly so stupid, ernie.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 26, 2005 11:01 PM (rUyw4)
18
Yo ernie!
I want your opinion on a flag.
Posted by: hondo at December 26, 2005 11:14 PM (3aakz)
19
Ernie's opinion would sound stupid even if he was just commenting on a cup of coffee.
Yes, ernie, you moron, the Saudis are in tight with Bush, as they were with Clinton, Bush 41, Regan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon. If you weren't such an idiot you might read a little about it. Try
Fear No Evil and
Sleeping with the Devil by Robert Baer. Oh, and stop being such a retard.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 27, 2005 11:18 AM (0yYS2)
20
Religion of peace, my left foot...
Posted by: Lonevoice at December 27, 2005 06:04 PM (njlrQ)
21
Agent Smith says all your Saudi are belong to us.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 31, 2005 02:17 AM (HuVhz)
22
Very good map: http://arhusa.us/map3355.html
Posted by: Virility Patcch at March 07, 2006 06:12 AM (FKEds)
23
Very good map: http://arhusa.net/map3357.html
Posted by: what does buspar do at March 07, 2006 06:13 AM (eyjrd)
24
Simulated diamonds have long been held in disfavor, because of the assumption that simulation necessarily implies inferiority
freedownloadsportal.com. So it might come as something of a surprise that many professional gemmologists are now selling simulated diamonds alongside the real thing. Many of mans finest creations have been born in the lab, and moissanite diamonds are no exception.
godanaco.com http://godanaco.com/index.asp?action=page&name=21
Posted by: godanaco.com at March 19, 2006 10:13 AM (Sp53B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
