Every country is sovereign and has the right to develop its own laws and punishments. That’s simply a fact of the world in which we live. The case reported by Arab News in the article below, however, suggests that Saudi law needs to be reviewed.
The story is of a man who was sentenced to nine months in jail for standing by as his wife abused a servant and eventually killed her. The wife, yet to be sentenced, is likely to be jailed for two years. Because the victim’s families accepted ‘blood money’, the killer avoids the possibility of being executed.
Now, I don’t object to removing the death penalty from the table, but a two-year sentence for committing murder seems rather cavalier. Would most Saudis stand for such leniency if one of their family members had been the victim? I don’t think so. Nor do I think a nine-month sentence adequate to punish the husband’s role in standing by while the abuse was going on, even had it not lead to death.
I think the sentences here point to a level of racism within Saudi society and the Saudi legal system that does the country little credit…
Man jailed for failing to stop abuse of maid
Ghazanfar Ali Khan | Arab NewsRIYADH: A Saudi employer whose wife tortured the family’s Indonesian housemaid to death has been sentenced to nine months in prison for failing to intervene and save the maid’s life.
The man has already served six months in prison awaiting trial, while his wife, who has been in an Abha prison for the last 11 months, is scheduled to be sentenced for manslaughter on July 14 by a court in Khamis Mushayt.
… In the Khamis Mushayt case, the court has already found the man guilty of negligence and disregard for the maid who refused to eat in protest at the beatings she suffered at the hands of his wife. Lawyers expect the wife, a teacher, may receive more than two years in prison.
The maid’s family has accepted blood money in compensation for the death.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
May:28:2009 - 13:36
Disgusting, but Islamic. Let’s be clear about that: Shariah allows the victims next-of-kin to accept any amount of money in exchange for no death penalty. And this thing is even worse: if the next-of-kin accepts the money, the perpetrator CANNOT receive any punishment from the state for the capital crime. (The state is prohibited from imposing its own punishment. This is why the King cannot interfere in these things except though mediation and bribing the victims with enough cash.)
What I don’t understand is under what auspice will the state sentence the woman? It’s not for the murder. The state probably will sentence her to two years for some other crime related to the case, like maybe illegally detaining the maid while torturing and murdering her.
Like 4:34 (the part of the Quran that says you can physically abuse your wife for disobedience) and the rule that allows polygamy for men (but monogamy for women), the blood money issue is one that Muslims will have to work through, because it doesn’t work. It simply doesn’t work. We saw this with the UAE scumbag and his torture video — the Afghan merchant was probably paid off. (If the Afghan merchant had been the torturer, he surely would have been executed, unable to pay the demands of the sheikh. THAT IS NOT JUSTICE.)
I agree with Hirshi Ali in this regard: Muslims need to be honest enough with their faith to admit some of the failings of the “immutable” word of the Qur’an, and until they do this there are going to be problems like this and other issues. I suggest three things:
#1.) 4:34 — toss it, re-contextualize it, whatever needs to be done to ensure that people understand that Islam should forbid domestic abuse under ANY circumstance.
#2.) Polygamy for men. Toss it. We’re not living in a world where women need to be married to protect themselves from bedou highwaymen and rapists.
#3.) Blood money. Toss it. The state and the public have an interest OVER the private rights to see murderers punished for their crimes.
And while we’re at it: Men, get over yourselves. Thicken up your egg shell egos. Even if it happens to be that your wives cheat on you or your daughters are sluts, you should not go to extreme measures to protect your worthless reputations. Also: it’s not incumbent of women to dress with modesty; it is incumbent of men to not act like pigs.
Doing those things and I would be much happier
May:28:2009 - 15:22
[...] Crossroads Arabia, John Burgess notes a counterintuitive case of Saudi Arabia’s light sentencing for murder and a rather routine case of Saudi women enjoying less than full rights. Also, Swine Flu has [...]
May:28:2009 - 16:15
I believe in in the more moderate muslim countries the consequences would be fair; and I don’t mean the death penalty, but more in line of a civilized world. I agree, a two year sentence and the acceptance of blood money for someones untimely death is unacceptable.
A few years back in KSA, a Bristish expat killed a Saudi women by accident, and the British man was facing the death penalty. As it turned out, the husband of deceased excused the expact entirely because he wanted to divorce the woman anyway. The British expact was excused.
I observed that everthing in KSA goes from one extreme to another, without any clear transparency in the legal system. The issue continues it is all “Who you know” and how much wasta ones got.
As much as I find this story an eye opener it nothing common but nothing unusual either.
I do not want to sound negative, but I do not think anywhere in the near future that KSA will any less corrupt in the legal system there.
I hope what I stated does not constitute Saudi bashing—-I really do not want to be offensive.
May:29:2009 - 07:01
No, it’s not ‘Saudi-bashing’ to comment truthfully on unpleasant things. Saudi-bashing is to take things out of context or to distort them in order to vilify Saudis and Saudi Arabia. You know what you’re writing about and don’t spin things.
May:29:2009 - 13:25
I’ve noticed that they do not seem to distinguish in any consistant sort of way between different crimes. If someone dies- it seems it is always “murder” even if it was an accident- once in a fight someone lost an eye and the other participant was intitially sentenced to lose his eye as punishment (literally an “eye for an eye”). Often intent, premeditation etc. have nothing to do with things.
Racism (and sexism) can and does play a role- but I’m not sure this is the case here. The payment of blood money is well established here and often comes into play, no matter a persons nationality.
I do think all this, is yet further evidence of the need for codification.
May:29:2009 - 17:32
According to media reports, the maid was constantly and brutally beaten. It ended in her death. Even if it had led to the maid’s jumping out a window to her demise, it still would have been deemed ‘murder’, if only second degree, in most jurisdictions in the world.
I’m not sure codification would get around the issue of blood money. That, as a tenet of Shariah law, seems immune to change. What might change is a set of laws that determines the amount that can be demanded, or sets a relative scale based on the wealth of the malefactor.
May:29:2009 - 17:40
I definately agree this was murder. The British expat story Sweedish mentioned was not.
It seems to me blood money should only buy you so much. That woman deserves a lot more than 2 years.
The whole system needs redoing however. I know someone who had to pay blood money (really more a fine-because they weren’t charged with anything-but it’s called the same thing) for a death resulting from a car accident that was completely the victims fault. It doesn’t make sense.
May:30:2009 - 14:33
thats the whole problem in saudi; third world country guest workers especially maids for the most part have no value,respect or dignity.More often than not, their rights are trampled upon and as this case proves, even if they are killed or raped, their compensation is just a few hundred or a couple of thousand riyals. The poor maid’s family back in indonesia or phillipines will have no option but to accept that money which in reality is an insult upon injury. I know for sure if it was the other way around and a saudi got killed by an expatriate, the sentence would be very severe. If it was a North american or western europe expat, that expat would be jailed(and perhaps experience a bit of arab “hospitality”) and deported after his or her company or country paid blood money but if it was a third world country national, unless western human rights groups staged a powerful media protest on an international stage, poor guy’s neck would be lobbed off on chop chop square. Simple rule: if you commit a mistake but are rich or are sponsered by a rich or powerful horse, then just pay compensation and your life is spared but if your poor and weak, then its the guillotine!!