Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: May 2009

Saudi Judge–>Its OK To Slap Your Wife

Posted: 10 May 2009 12:40 PM PDT

Islam has a very low opinion of women. Take for example these quotes from the holy Hadith text:

  • Bukhari (48:826) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
  • Tabari I:280 “’I must also make Eve (bad word), although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are (bad word).”)…happy, content…utterly incapable from intellectual weakness…never to give us trouble…

One may think that being an ancient text, Islam would have changed its view about women in the intervening years. NO WAY !

A Saudi Arabian Judge was teaching  a seminar on domestic violence an he says that it is OK to smack your wife if she spends too much money. Hey, Happy Mother’s Day from the religion of peace:

Slapping a wife ‘is okay’

Riyadh – A Saudi judge has told a seminar on domestic violence that it is okay for a man to slap his wife for lavish spending, a local newspaper reported on Sunday.

Jeddah judge Hamad al-Razine gave the example of overspending to buy a high-end abaya, the head-to toe black shroud Saudi women have to wear in public, as justifying a smack for one’s wife, Arab News said.

“If a person gives 1 200 riyals ($320) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals ($240) to purchase an abaya from a brand shop, and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said.

The judge’s remarks sparked an outcry at the seminar on the role of judicial and security officials in preventing domestic violence, the paper reported.

The seminar was attended by officials as well as activists on domestic violence, including representatives of the National Family Safety Programme.

Razine acknowledged the depth of the problem of domestic violence, until recently not acknowledged as a serious issue in the ultra-conservative Muslim country, where family problems traditionally remained behind closed doors.

Saudi women have in the past few years become more vocal about the problem of husbands beating wives and fathers mistreating children.

But Razine said some of the blame must be shouldered by wives for their behaviour. “Nobody puts even a fraction of the blame on them,” he said, according to the report.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

An Empathetic Judge is Unconstitutional

Posted: 10 May 2009 05:16 PM PDT


Justice is not supposed to be “empathetic” as President Obama has said, Just ice is supposed to be blind. The law should be viewed objectively. That is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law.”These words,written above the main entrance to the Supreme  Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is also symbolized by the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice which is the symbol of the US judiciary.

Each federal justice or judge takes the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

President Obama’s search for an empathetic judge runs counter to 233 years of American Tradition and the US Constitution:

Lady Justice’s blindfold

By Jeff Jacoby,

JUDICIAL dispassion – the ability to decide cases without being influenced by personal feelings or political preferences – is indispensable to the rule of law. So indispensable, in fact, that the one-sentence judicial oath required of every federal judge and justice contains no fewer than three expressions of it: “I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

There are biblical echoes in the wording of that oath – a reminder that the judge’s obligation to decide cases on the basis of fact and law, without regard to the litigants’ wealth or fame or social status, is a venerable moral principle.

“You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike,” says Moses in Deuteronomy, instructing the Israelite judges. “You shall not distort justice; you shall not respect persons, and you shall not take a bribe.”

Elsewhere they are reminded that it is not only the rich they are forbidden to favor. “Neither shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute,” Exodus firmly warns. Judges may not bend the law, not even to help the underprivileged.

Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under “a government of laws and not of men” only so long as judges stick to neutrally resolving the disputes before them, applying the law, and upholding the Constitution even when doing so leads to results they personally dislike. That is why the judicial oath is so adamant about impartiality. That is why Lady Justice is so frequently depicted – as on the sculpted lampposts outside the US Supreme Court – wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales.

And that is why President Obama’s “empathy” standard is so disturbing, and has generated so much comment.

Time and again, Obama has called for judges who do not put their private political views aside when deciding cases. In choosing a replacement for Justice David Souter, the president says, he will seek not just “excellence and integrity,” but a justice whose “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles,” would be “an essential ingredient” in his jurisprudence. In an interview last year, he said he would look for judges “sympathetic” to those “on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless.”

When he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Obama declared that the “truly difficult” cases that come before the Supreme Court can be decided only with reference to “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” and that “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

But such cardiac justice is precisely what judges “do solemnly swear” to renounce. Sympathy for others is an admirable virtue. But a judge’s private commiserations are not relevant to the law he is expected to apply.

If Obama means what he says, he wants judges who will violate their oath of office.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart – the empathy – to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007. “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

With such criteria, what would remain of the rule of law? What would happen to “Equal Justice Under Law,” which is carved above the Supreme Court’s entrance? What would be left of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” to every citizen?

Lady Justice wears a blindfold not because she has no empathy for certain litigants or groups of people, but because there is no role for such empathy in a courtroom.

“Our constitution is color-blind,” wrote Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, in his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, “and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Harlan had supported slavery; he believed whites were superior to nonwhites. He had his empathies, but he confined his judging to the law.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

YID With LID Link to YID With LID

The Racist King Of Jordan Gets it Wrong Again Posted: 11 May 2009 04:54 AM PDT There is a reason why the diminutive bigot who runs Jordan is pushing so hard for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs—he hates Palestinian Arabs. Here in the US, one of the most racist phrases is “Not in my neighborhood!” This disgusting practice is used when someone of another ethnic background dares to purchase a house on his or her block. In November of 2006 Abdullah for all intents and purposes, used that phrase to refer to Palestinians in a speech to the Jordanian Parliament: “Jordan will not accept an unjust settlement of the issue, nor will Jordan accept any settlement that comes at its expense,” Abdullah told lawmakers, who applauded loudly. The king did not elaborate, but he was referring to Jordanian fears of a settlement that would cause thousands of Palestinians to settle in the kingdom, upsetting the country’s delicate demographic balance (of course he is trying to do just that to Israel by pushing the Saudi Plan). Source The King either suffers from dementia or is a racist. Does he really forget that Jordan is a Palestinian state? Does he forget that until 1967 the west back of the Jordan River was part of HIS country? Or that the Jordanian Army acting on his dad’s orders, massacred thousands of Palestinian Arabs to get them out of the country Abdullah is a Racist as is much as are his fellow Arab leaders! The only reason there is a “Palestinian Problem” is that his father and the other Arab nations refused to take in the Palestinian “Refugees”. They kept them in “camps” on the border so they could not integrate into society and to use the refugee children as a fighting force against Israel. During the same period a slightly higher number of Jews left the Arab countries, they aren’t refugees 61 years later because Israel absorbed them. So the short bigoted King comes to America, not to offer to pressure his former citizens to stop the terrorism so there can be a negotiated peace, or to moderate their all or nothing demands but to tell the US to pressure Israel to put her people in danger. Abdullah is wrong when he says that Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama decides Mid-East’s future. That’s just bravado to protect his racist butt. Next weeks meetings may decide American/Israeli relations for the rest of the Obama administration but it will not decide the future of the Middle East: Netanyahu meeting with Obama decides Mid-East’s future, says Abdullah Michael Binyon and Richard Beeston President Obama’s critical meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu next week has become the acid test for the Administration’s commitment to peace in the Middle East, King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday. The monarch does not conceal his feelings about the Israeli leader. He described their last encounter – 10 years ago when he had just come to the throne – as the “least pleasant” of his reign. But he, and President Mubarak of Egypt, are expected to meet the Israeli leader before his trip to Washington, where the future course of the region could be decided. The King said that he was prepared to believe what Israelis have told him — that a right-wing Government in Israel is better able to deliver peace than the Left. “All eyes will be looking to Washington,” he said. “If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, there will be a feeling that this is just another American Government that is going to let us all down.” If Israel procrastinated on a two-state solution, or if there was no clear American vision on what should happen this year, the “tremendous credibility” that Mr Obama had built up in the Arab world would evaporate overnight. And if peace negotiations were delayed, there would be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months, with implications far beyond the Middle East. “If the call is in May that this is not the right time or we are not interested, then the world is going to be sucked into another conflict in the Middle East,” the King said. He broke off from his busy schedule hosting the Pope in Jordan to give his warning to The Times. He was the first Arab leader to call on President Obama in Washington two weeks ago, and is now leading the hectic Arab efforts to respond to the Administration’s determination to seek a comprehensive peace. Mr Obama is expected to lay this out to the Muslim world in a visit to Cairo next month. The King travels today to Damascus to urge President Assad to join the Arab efforts to seek a settlement with Israel, based on the Arab peace plan adopted in 2002. Brokered by the Americans, this would be the most comprehensive deal attempted since the opening of the Madrid conference in 1991. It would offer Israel immediate benefits, such as entry visas to every Arab country, the right of El Al, Israel’s national airline, to overfly Arab territory, and the eventual recognition of Israel by all 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. In return, the Israelis would have to put an immediate stop to the building and expansion of settlements and agree to withdraw from territories occupied since 1967. The two most sensitive issues — the future status of Jerusalem and the right of return by Palestinians who fled in 1948 — would be negotiated within the framework of the peace plan. The King yesterday sidestepped reports that he had been asked by the Americans to clarify the Arab proposals on making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right of return, the two most contentious issues in Israel. Mr Netanyahu has frequently said these were not negotiable. “I was very specific in carrying a letter on behalf of the Arab League highlighting the Arab peace proposal, their desire to work with President Obama to make this successful, their commitment in the peace proposal in extending the hand of friendship to the Israelis,” he said. Jerusalem was not an international problem but an “international solution”, he insisted. A symbol of conflict for centuries, it was now desperately needed to become a symbol of hope. And hinting at the Arab demand for international control of the old city, he said that Islam, Christianity and Judaism should make it a “pillar for the future of this century”. He sensed a lot more understanding in these times of cultural and religious suspicions that “Jerusalem could be the binder that we need”. The Pope’s visit, he said, was timely. His spiritual pilgrimage with a message of peace sent a signal of hope to back up the reconciliation that politicians in the region were planning. “It is all part of one major effort.” He saw Mr Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama next week as the turning point: “A lot is on his shoulders as he goes to Washington.” The King said that Mr Obama was committed to the two-state solution, which had to be implemented now. The Arabs were “sick and tired” of promises of a new peace process. What was needed was for the Israelis to sit down not only with the Palestinians but also with the Syrians and the Lebanese to settle all the issues. In a direct appeal to the Israeli public, he said they could either do a deal that would lead to peace and recognition by the 57 Muslim countries — a third of the world’s population; or they could maintain “Fortress Israel” for another ten years, which would be a calamity for everyone. This was a bigger issue than just Israel-Palestine. It had become a global problem. “This is where I think the Obama Administration gets it.” Britain also had been “very active” — more than at any time for a decade. The King singled out David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, for praise. Mr Netanyahu is expected in Amman on a private visit very soon. The atmosphere may be difficult, the King considers that Mr Netanyahu had contrived to make the first three months of his reign very unpleasant. But, he added, “we have to deal what we’re stuck with. Just because there is a right-wing Government in Israel does not mean that we should chuck in the towel.” It might even be easier for such a Government to do a deal, he believes. Emphasising again the urgency now felt by all Arab governments of making the most of Mr Obama’s commitment to a settlement, he said this was a final opportunity. “I think we’re going to have to do a lot of shuttle diplomacy, get people to a table in the next couple of months to get a solution.” The alternative was bleak — war, death and destruction. The King added: “This is a critical moment.” My friend Fausta points out Long-time readers of this blog may recall Abdullah was essentially saying the same thing at Princeton U in February 2008, when he specifically asked for a homeland for the Palestinians. Back in February 2008 he was saying “2008 is a critical year for the solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict,” and that “we need the USA completely involved to ensure a final agreement by end of 2008.” Read Her full post here Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com