Dr. Hayat Sindi is a Saudi Arabian medical scientist and a woman who has earned respect for extraordinary accomplishments in a country that denies women basic liberties. She is not only an award-winning scientist but one of the first female members of the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia. Ranked by Arabian Business as the 19th most influential Arab in the world and the ninth most influential Arab woman, it is not surprising that Harvard University has brought her to the country as a visiting scholar. However, a nasty lawsuit in King County has raised deeply disturbing allegations about Sindi’s efforts against women who she accuses of hacking her emails. According to counsel for one of those women, Sindi worked to have another woman flogged for writing on Facebook that she had had an affair with her husband. On the other side is Samia El-Moslimany, a women’s activist and photographer who lives in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, who is fighting to keep Sindi from forcing the disclosure of the women, who would face medieval Sharia justice in Saudi Arabia.
All of this began when El-Moslimany posted statements on social media in 2012 alleging that Sindi had had an affair with her husband. Sindi responded with a Saudi defamation case and, according to an affidavit submitted by El-Moslimany’s lawyer, she wanted El-Moslimany flogged. The effort backfired. A Saudi judge decided last year that El-Moslimany should spend four days in jail for the public defamation while Sindi should spend two months in jail for forming an illicit relationship with El-Moslimany’s husband. Neither has served their sentences.
Sindi however has continued to try to force disclosure of the names of the women commenting on the Internet under the claim that she was hacked. A King County Superior Court judge decided Friday not to sentence a Burien woman to jail or to levy a $500 fine for each day of withholding the names in light of the danger to these women.
Judge Mariane Spearman denied Sindi’s request to hold El-Moslimany in contempt of court because Sindi’s new lawyer could not specify which Facebook comments might be a basis for investigating any of the women.
The idea of a Harvard academic fighting to have women flogged for alleged defamation is deeply troubling. The fact that Saudi Sharia law allows for medieval justice does not excuse a demand for such justice over the exercise of free speech. Even if such speech was defamatory, it should not be a criminal matter subject to flogging. Whatever the truth of the adultery, it should not be relevant to Harvard or anyone else other than those involved in these families. However, flogging for posting matters on the Internet raises significant issues of due process and free speech.
Should Harvard be involved in such dispute when one of its faculty seeks to have women flogged under Sharia law or this is simply a private matter under the laws of another country?
Karen, which one of these are you? Did not see your name but perhaps you are one of the hidden donors. http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/16/fear_inc_20_as_anti_muslim
Mespo727272
I note you haven’t replied to my example. Why must anyone respect the unfounded beliefs of another? I’d love to know why and how you can swallow that bit of tripe.
Hi Mespo – I know why you don’t respect my beliefs I think. Correct me if I am wrong. I used to be atheist and the idea of God made me so angry. The thought that a person put an imaginary smurf in the sky above reason and what was seen and known was absurd and beyond irrelevant
To worship such a being was the height of absurdity. Like the emperor with no clothes so to speak. There is nothing there!
Do I have it pretty much down? Darren has my comment up there in moderation. I don’t even know if it was seen.
But you don’t have to respect them. I think what he is saying is that for a lot of sensitive people on here you are desecrating their beliefs. I used to be sensitive like that as you know. Maybe you toughened me up Who knows. 😉
Since he is not answering tonight and I know I am not really that important or anything but humor me if you will, why do you have to be that way and attack as hard and as often on Christianity? I know someone else who does that on another site and simply cannot help himself. He actually thinks all of the evil of the world comes from religion.
Happy, you can pray for me all you want, I actually like your progressive religion. It certainly isn’t fundamentalist in any way.
Annie(Inga)
So are we not mad at each other any more? lol I was just playing with you. I never meant to piss you off. I had a lot of crap going on in my life a couple of weeks ago. You must know how it gets.
Okay Po I don’t like to fight actually – I am not very good at it.
po – did you ever respond to the Janissary issue I raised?
Karen
As usual, rather than answering my challenge, you play the victim and enter into the usual performance of …poor me, I am just speaking out against the evil of extremism, which is contained within shariah law, that monster under my bed that is about to devour me first and then conquer the whole world. Woe me, such a good, caring person I am, with these many muslim friends, and just because I believe shariah law…shariah law…shariah law… accused me of… islamophobic…when…extremism… you…denounce extremism… shariah law…shariah law…
Again, I am challenging your moral and intellectual honesty. Either respond to my points, or please spare me the hand wringing and crocodile tears.
In case you forgot them, here they are again:
Is the world of Islam limited to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Those 4 countries together count 162 million muslims, out of 2 Billion.
Did you know that china has almost as many muslims as Saudi arabia?
That Indonesia counts more muslims than all of those countries put together?
You may not know that but arab muslims are fewer in numbers than non-arab muslims. SO which one are we discussing? Arabic culture or Islam?
Awaiting your answer. Not expecting it though.
And why limit the discussion to islamic theocracies? Are we discussing islam or theocracies?
Again, where is your female head of state?
Here are mine:
Tansu Çiller, elected prime minister of Turkey, 1993-1996
Benazir Bhutto, elected prime minister of Pakistan 1988-1990, 1993-1996
Mame Madior Boye, appointed prime minister of Senegal, 2001-2002.
Megawati Sukarnoputri, elected president of Indonesia, 2001-2004
Khaleda Zia, elected prime minister of Bangladesh, 1991-1996 and 2001-2006
Sheikh Hasina, elected prime minister of Bangladesh 2009-
Roza Otunbayeva, president of Kyrgyzstan, 2010- 2011
Atifete Jahjaga, elected president of Kosovo 2011-
And if this ain’t enough, here is a list throughout history.
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm
You are welcome.
I call everyone to witness, unless you can, Karen, undermine mine arguments and sources, please just keep silent, lest I think you intellectually, and morally, dishonest.
Darren
Why is my 2:19 remark still in moderation?
Happy pappies. It went into moderation because it contained a prohibited word–the expanded form of “BS”.
Darren- I am going to take out the bad word
Mespo I left this comment last night and it had a prohibited word in it.
I don’t think I am unreasonable at all. I know for a fact I don’t sound like a right wing nut. lolol most people are Democrats that go to my Church, They marry Gay people. I am not trying to sell you or anything I am just saying.
on 1, February 18, 2015 at 2:19 am happypappies
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Darren and Mark
That was why I put the Lemaitre quote in there because even though he was a Catholic Priest he was alarmed when anyone tried to deify his science.
Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
I was an atheist for 40 years so I know how angyr it used to make me when I saw people who had faith post their beliefs. It seemed so stupid and mindless. I had no patience with it and I wanted to strike out against it. I am very familiar with this as my Father was agnostic to the point of almost atheism. He was extremely intelligent.
Mark, I can’t explain it to you without sounding like a paranoid schizophrenic so if that is what you want to believe, go ahead. But I have tried many times to dis-believe in God since I started my Faith Journey again. This last time I felt the Presence over my shoulder telling me not to worry about all of the crap in the Bible that I could not swallow because it was so heinous. The Presence told be as long as I knew He was there and called on him in times of need I would receive peace. It wasn’t this OBEY thing. It was mercy and peace. So, I don’t know what you have been told but it sounds like BS.
I don’t expect you to believe me but I know there are people on this blog who care about you and worry about you in spite of yourself. I don’t know what’s wrong but I wish it would get better for you. I really do. And if I just made you mad that was not my intention. I just thought you should know we all care.
(I made this comment last night when I thought something was wrong okay)
Oops, did not mean “Happy, sounds good to me” in response to her offer to pray for Inga. Said it in reply to the olive branch above 🙂
Paul C. Schulte
Inga – you take injury too easily. Your skin is too thin.
————————-
Who would know but Paul?
Ain’t it your job, Paul to measure people’s skin for thickness?
Happy, sounds good to me.
mespo:
Did Darren’s wife have a religious experience during her extra-marital cavortation?
i will pray for Inga in spite of herself
Darren – I appreciate your efforts to stop the mudslinging on the thread and return us to intellectual discourse.
Excuse me. I hit enter too soon. You “frequently” call me, and any other critics “Islamophobe.”
Was it “Catholicphobe” to protest the pedophile priest scandal and call for reform? Was it “anti-fundamentalist-Mormon” to condemn the Yearning for Zion child bride scandal? No, not to any rational person.
“Islamophobe” is a manufactured term meant to silence critics, and promote willful blindness. Thankfully, here in the US we still enjoy Free Speech.
I oppose extremist violence and the subjugation of women’s rights around the world, including under Sharia Law. I support the freedom to practice any religion, including Islam, or no religion, in peace. I have remarked that a lot of moderate Muslims immigrated to the US to escape this extremism.
What do you stand for? Because you, and others, certainly argue with my rational, humane position frequently. I would think a moderate would be in complete agreement with me; i.e. extremist Islam = bad and moderate, peaceful Islam = good. And yet, you have a problem with me, and call me Islamophobe. If criticizing only extremism makes me an Islamophobe, where does that put you on the scale?
Po:
A lot of terrible sins are done in the name of Islam by extremists around the world. Women’s rights are abused in the name of Islam around the world.
It is entirely possible, and common in the US, to follow Islam in peace.
Hence the need to REFORM Islam in how it is practiced by extremists around the world.
I hope you either now understand this basic point, or will at least desist in excusing extremism done in the name of Islam globally.
I’ve seen far too much lecturing by Darren when it comes to what he considers disrespect toward other’s belief systems. Is this a free speech blog or not? I’ve been subjected to one of these paternal lectures when I voiced my irritation with a commenter who said she would pray for me, after telling her that I was not interested in her prayers, and she was being a pushy with her religion towards me. Is this the role of an administrative person here to scold others on religious matters?
Inga – you take injury too easily. Your skin is too thin.
I have no duty to respect the beliefs of another on any matter. I do have a duty to respect the right of another to have beliefs.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Mark wrote:
but because you sympathize with the religious belief system you’re willing to apply a different standard to that set of beliefs versus mine. See any problem there?
~+~
I see a problem with intolerance of individuals’ beliefs that are contrary to one’s own, frankly.
So would it be proper discourse and scholarship to allow persons to be insulted or criticized simply by their being, that is being born into this world and having the capacity to formulate thoughts of their own? That is essentially the argument you are presenting here. That others have the right to criticize another simply for their own person’s religious beliefs. In fact your argument is that “no one’s beliefs are entitled to respect”. That is an antithesis to the freedom we hold dearly. People should be respected in that we allow them the respect that they have the right to their own thoughts and to their existence and the lack of this fundamental respect is what gives others a license to harm others.
This is not a pugilist’s arena where rights are inherent in the ability to criticize or attack others. We do not live in a world where contention is the basis for society as it is the adversarial system in an American courtroom.
We can look at others in a public arena, we do not live in a society where people to choose to dress a particular way or talk visit with their associates and constantly be subjected to criticism just for their “being”.
At the very least it is known as ordinary common courtesy and politeness.
There is more benefit in having an environment where all participants are allowed to speak freely and express their own perspectives on a particular issue. Had this instead degenerated into an arena where people are held to great criticism every time they voice their thoughts it will stifle many other thoughts or perspectives that might offer some additional ideas to the mutual benefit of others.
But this digresses into the physical world rather than the mind of the individual. There are no thought crimes, there is no crime in fact possible without either an omission or an act. People have a right to their own beliefs as I have said before.
Learning to accept others is a sign of a greater calling.
Darren:
And while we’re on the subject of beliefs and respect let’s look at one. Suppose I believe your wife is running around on you. I don’t know your wife, her habits or her character. In fact, I have no basis whatsoever for that belief. But Like our religious friends here I believe it on faith. Still think I’m entitled to respect for that belief? Would you put me in a position of trust if I stuck to that belief in the face on contrary logic? Of course not, but because you sympathize with the religious belief system you’re willing to apply a different standard to that set of beliefs versus mine. See any problem there?
No ones beliefs are entitled to respect just because they have them. They are subject to analysis and criticism. That’s the nature of discourse and scholarship. You want to believe something stupid, it’s your right alright just like it’s my right to call you on it. What’s better: letting you go around being wrong or getting you to rethink your position based on rational argument? We need less nannies and more critical thinkers erstwhile you get the mindless drivel you see bantied about here as some sort of profound wisdom. It’s not.
There is no need to insult a person’s religions beliefs. Every individual has their own thoughts that are of their own. We are all free to think or believe as we may choose and since these are at the core of our being, and we all are this way, insulting each other for their thoughts is tantamount to attacking them simply for “being”. And attacking people simply for being is what creates this animosity and lack of empathy that has led in a greater degree to much contention and ultimately inhumanity.
If one were to take to heart the phrase “I think therefore I am”, then there should be no reason to attack a person for their thoughts, because you are attacking them simply for being.
Darren Smith
If one were to take to heart the phrase “I think therefore I am”, then there should be no reason to attack a person for their thoughts, because you are attacking them simply for being.
When God created man in his own image what most intelligent people took that to mean was he gave us the greatest gift of all and that was the imagination. I love to imagine things. It is wonderful and boundless to me to day by day find new and different ways to look at other people and the world. When I found that Quote by Lemaître the other day I was also amazed and I would like to share it with you and anyone else who is receptive.
Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
Happy
Great song, gave me the chills!
That is too what I believe.
We are much closer than you think.
Er, Hapster, it’s God’s infinite mercy that put us in these times. Or don’t you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe who has a special plan for all of us– even little old you? In not, you’re an apostate.
To quote one of your heroes in a slightly different context, “ain’t nobody gonna save us from us, but us.”