Guardian

What the Guardian won’t report: Saudi Arabian brutality that’s beyond description


This was published by Jonathan Narvey at The Propagandist.

First, they chopped off her head. Then they dragged the corpse through the air with a helicopter so that ordinary citizens could see what they’d done. To send a message, you understand.

A brutal drug cartel at work? No. A dramatic armed robbery gone horribly wrong? Not even close.

This is what sharia looks like in Saudi Arabia, where the rulers of the country claim to have the final word on the proper interpretation of Islamic law.

Read the rest of the post, here.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , ,

21 replies »

  1. The Guardian/CiF is no friend of the Saudi Royal family who are propped up by US military and political support. So the question is – Why don’t they display this abomination on their pages.

    I believe it is part of their policy of dumbing down the debate on Islam and Sharia in particular. This video reflects badly on Sharia and the UK Muslim community, who are unwittingly part of the strategy to bring anarchy to the UK, would be offended by publicizing this example of Sharia punishments.

  2. The Guardian did report this story on 22 June: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/22/maid-held-hostage-saudi-arabia?INTCMP=SRCH

    “Ruyati binti Sapubi, 54, was convicted of murdering her Saudi employer’s wife and was beheaded with a sword in Mecca on Saturday. She was the second Indonesian maid to have been executed in Saudi Arabia since 2008.”

    I remembered seeing it in the print edition and it took about 30 seconds to confirm that the story is online. Why couldn’t your correspondent have checked before publishing nonsense?

    • Well. They didn’t publish the video and have not moralized in that article. The have published videos which shine a less than complimentary light on Israel.

      Can you imagine. The Guardian missing an opportunity to moralize.

      Unheard of? (If the target is Sharia or Muslim ‘cultural’ practices.)

    • Not nonsense sencar-guardian-apologist. The correspondent here gave this horrendous incident perpetrated by the “Religion of Peace” its rightful emphasis – people need to be informed of the logical conclusion if the barbaric Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Islam is allowed to influence UK society too much – the Guardian skated over it because it didn’t want to admit that Islam provides an environment which all too often encourages its adherents to be capable of such barbarism.

      JerusalemMite is correct, any criticism of sharia (which is not pick and mix – just like the Islamic cult it has to be all-encompassing otherwise those who choose which bits to follow are apostates) is stifled almost at birth, by lunatics who are incapable of the critical thinking needed to combat the barbarism which invariably ensues from it.

      I believe the video should be sent to church leaders and others who advocate a little sharia here – in particular the Archbishop of Canterbury and those Quakers and other useful idiots for Islamism who believe that one
      can reason these lunatics into civilised behaviour.

      • If the headline had stuck to condemning Saudi barbarity that would have been fine; moreover it would have been consistant with the 22 June Guardian article, which was critical of a number of Saudi practices in relation to foreign workers. But he chose to tell us that the Guardian wouldn’t publish this story. That was demonstrable nonsense, as I am afraid, are your poor attempts at justifying his story.

        • Read this carefully sencar

          The Guardian may well have MENTIONED the fact that this took place in Saudi, but it singularly failed to make the connection between the barbarism of the action which was mandated by the sharia and the barbarism of those who follow it so mindlessly and would have us do the same, and to whom the Guardian gives column inches on CiF.

          In other words, it’s all about context sencar and the routine lying by omission as well as commission on the Guardian’s part.

          Understand now?

          • Put “Saudi sharia” into the Guardian site search box. You’ll see plenty of stuff making the connection and (in opinion rather than news pieces) being very critical. This for example:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/19/islam-religion?INTCMP=SRCH
            The 22 June item was NEWS and intended for intelligent readsers who would be well aware of the sharia connection. The idea that the Guardian hides things like this from its readers is laughable. Try reading it!

            • Sencar please answer where in Sharia Law is it permissible to drag the corpse through the air by helicopter? Why did the Guardian not report this loathsome practice? How much ADDITIONAL pain did this cause to the family and friends of the poor woman? What does this say about that society?Was the trial fair?Who represented the woman? What did the British Government do to condemn the barbarity?

              Yes, the story was mentioned in a number of papers, but the Guardian poses as a newspaper with a conscience, but has clearly failed or deliberately played it down. Contrast this with The Times handling of the Ashtiani case in Iran. It ensured the story stayed on the front pages for days. The result? Well, the woman is still alive, as far as we know.

    • What the title of this CiF Watch post is:

      What the Guardian won’t report: Saudi Arabian brutality that’s beyond description

      How sencar reads it:

      What the Guardian won’t report: Saudi Arabia beheads Indonesian

      The story you claim ‘covered’ this, briefly mentions it and makes no mention of the brutality and barbarity involved. It’s that very brutality that the title of this post is directed towards and since the Guardian makes no mention of this, the title of the post remains correct but nice try, thought you’d finally caught the evil CiF Watch out, eh?

  3. Being one of the most populous Islamic countries in the world whose inhabitants ardently follow essentially what is a Saudi Arabian cult, why is Indonesia complaining? If anything, Indonesians should be grateful to the Saudis for saving Indonesian souls by giving them such a wonderful faith that saved their souls from eternal damnation which was guaranteed to them if they had not converted out of paganism of Hinduism and Buddhism of their ancestors. No?

    • They are complaining about the monopoly saudi clerics take over Islam and the interpretation these clerics make of its laws.

  4. I have only recently been introduced to this website but it does seem that CIF believes that if only the Guardian would print what CIF would like then the world’s problems would be solved. I really do think that your time would be more usefully spent in doing something other than pore over every dot and comma in the guardian and as Sencar points out not even then getting it right! Sencar, thanks for introducing a note of sanity to this particular comment

  5. I have only recently been introduced to this website but it does seem that CIF believes that if only the Guardian would print what CIF would like then the world’s problems would be solved. I really do think that your time would be more usefully spent in doing something other than pore over every dot and comma in the guardian and as Sencar points out not even then getting it right! Sencar, thanks for introducing a note of sanity to this particular comment