Saturday, June 11, 2005

Picket Sign with Photo of Indonesian Maid Who Was Beaten by her Saudi Slavemasters

Slavery In The Modern World

Usually I don't post about the bad behavior of a person or a family, because it could simply be an aberration. But, let's look at this story and compare it to some other. From Little Green Footballs:

AURORA, Colo. - A Saudi Arabian couple was in custody Friday, accused of turning a young Indonesian woman into a virtual slave, forcing her to clean, cook and care for their children while she was threatened and sexually assaulted.

A federal grand jury on Thursday indicted Homaidan Al-Turki, 36, and his wife, Sarah Khonaizan, 35, on charges of forced labor, document servitude and harboring an illegal immigrant.

Al-Turki also faces state charges including kidnapping, false imprisonment and extortion, as well as 12 charges of sexual assault. His wife faces some of the same charges. The two could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Like I said, it could be an aberration. Americans have been known to enslave people as well. Yes, I remember reading the story of a couple here in my neck of the woods keeping a slave in their home. But wait, I see some similarity:

An Irvine couple was indicted this afternoon by an Orange County federal grand jury on involuntary servitude charges that allege they enslaved a 12-year-old girl in their garage for two years and forced her to work as a domestic servant for their family of seven.

Abdel Nasser Eid Youssef Ibrahim, 44, and Amal Ahmed Ewis-abd Motelib, 41, who were married at the time of the alleged offense, were named in a four-count indictment. The indictment accuses the couple of conspiring to hold the victim in involuntary servitude, to obtain the services of the victim by unlawful means of force and coercion, and to harbor an illegal alien.

"Today's indictment illustrates the horror of human trafficking and the inhumane conditions that some victims are subjected to," United States Attorney Yang said. "It is particularly troubling that these defendants targeted a child from their home country.

The indictment alleges that Ibrahim and Motelib obtained the victim's services through extortionate threats against the victim's sister in Egypt. Ibrahim and Motelib then harbored the victim "in squalid conditions and conceal[ed] her presence from immigration, school, and police officials so that she could serve their family as a domestic servant," the indictment reads.

Ibrahim and Motelib allegedly forced the girl to work inside their house, with little or no pay, by threatening her with bodily harm and actually striking the victim, threatening that her sister would be arrested in Egypt, and threatening that she would be arrested by the police if she left the house.

And then there's this:

Tigerhawk has an interesting link to a UAE newspaper report. It seems that a maid has been discovered to be pregnant and has been sentenced by a Sharia court to 150 lashes, after which she will be deported.

It was her national sponsor who reported her pregnancy to the police, accusing her both of adultery and of being pregnant. Leaving the adultery charge aside, what is fascinating in the news report is what is missing. Here are the facts we are permitted to see:
  • She refused to reveal the name of the child's father, despite being interrogated by the police and the public prosecutor.
  • The public prosecution department referred her to the emirate's Sharia Court.
  • She refused to identify her lover again.
  • The court sentenced her to 150 lashes, to be administered in two stages.
  • She will then be deported.
Here are the missing pieces:

We aren't told the miscreant's nationality. In all probability she is from the Philippines. Poor women are often recruited for domestic work in the Middle East, hoping to send money home to their families. Instead, they end up as virtual slaves, in bondage to their employers.

We can guess that her "national sponsor" is this self-same employer. What Muslim would sponsor a kafir domestic into the country except as his own employee?

Given her virtual slavery, three guesses as to who had physical access to this "maid"? And therefore, who is the father? And might there be an angry spouse in the background? Or was she handed around to guests or family members?

Another three guesses as to why she refuses to name the father. One hundred and fifty lashes is better than dying "accidentally" for speaking out. Though she will never fully recover from her punishment. Think about it. Would you?

Finally, she is not Muslim. A Sharia court would've had a Muslim woman stoned to death. After she delivered, of course.

But still these stories are "incidents." We don't know if there is a pattern. And it would seem almost racist to suggest that there is. Well, maybe not:

So her story is not unusual after all:

two million
Asian maids are subjected to physical abuse, beating, sexual harassment, rape in Gulf states.

Some of them die as a result. The record of abuse, Sharia court "justice" and the practice of dhimmitude is flourishing in the Middle East. Even in cases of compensation for accidental death or murder, there is the heavy, cruel hand of Mohammed. In
Saudi Arabia for example, what the heirs receive is determined according to religion first, and then to gender.

The families of Muslim men receive the "full compensation amount, which is 100,000 riyals (almost $27,000.00).

Christian and Jewish males are worth about half that.

Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc., -- so-called "polytheistic" religions -- are only one-sixteenth as valuable as Muslims

And of course, the women in each category above are worth half the amount in the twisted calculus of Islam. ... if you're a Buddhist woman in Saudi Arabia: you're "worth" US$843.75. More or less.

None of this would surprise a person with a knowledge of the Theological history of Islam. From Front Page Magazine:

... slavery finds explicit positive support in Islam ...

The Koran, not only assumes the existence of slavery as a permanent fact of human existence, but regulates its practice in considerable detail, thereby endowing it with divine sanction by revealing God's detailed will for how it should be conducted.
Mohammed and his companions owned slaves. The Koran recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter. To be fair, it also urges, without actually commanding, kindness to slaves, and considers a Moslem slave to be of a higher order than a free infidel. However, this does not entitle him to be set free.

The Koran explicitly guarantees Moslems the right to own slaves, either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. Mohammed had dozens, both male and female, and he regularly traded slaves when he became independently wealthy in Medina. Some of their names are recorded to posterity. As for the women:

"Whenever Mohammed took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Moslems would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, 'He owned her as a slave'; that is, she became a property of his right hand." A Moslem slave-owner was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women.

In line with the racist views of Mohammed himself about his own people, the Arabs as "the nobles of all races" were exempt from enslavement. More on the present-day consequences of this in Africa.

The four caliphs or religious rulers who came after Mohammed discouraged the enslavement of free Moslems, and it was eventually prohibited. But the assumption of freedom as the normal condition of men did not extend to non-Moslems.
Disobedient or rebellious dhimmis (subject peoples, i.e. Christians, Hindus, Jews, Africans) were often reduced to slavery and prisoners captured in jihad were also enslaved if they could not be exchanged or ransomed. In Africa, Arab rulers regularly raided black tribes to the south and captured slaves claiming their raids to be jihad; in India, many Hindus were enslaved on the same pretext.

Historically, while maltreatment was deplored, there was no fixed penalty under sharia, Islamic law, placing protection of the slave's well-being at the capricious mercy of judges. If, of course, they could even get their day in court: slaves had no legal rights.
The Koran mandates that a freeman should be killed only for another freeman, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. A Hadith or officially-recognized traditional saying says that "a Moslem should not be killed for a non-Moslem, nor a freeman for a slave."

Now, let me be clear. Most Muslims are fine people, and probably 99.89% of Muslims do not keep slaves. I am simply pointing out that when we do hear of slavery in the modern world, it is often a Muslim who is keeping the slave. I believe this is a result of a mode of thinking endemic to Islamism, or what I typically call Islamofascism. As we can see, Mohammed did approve of owning slaves.
I do want to leave this discussion with a question designed to inspire some thought and commentary. If Islamism says women shoud stay home unless their husband gives them permission to leave the house, that they should do their husbands bidding, and if Islamism says it is ok to keep a slave to do work in your home, and for purposes of sexual gratification, then what is the difference between a slave and a wife?
As far as I can tell, the wife is worth more money if she is killed.

Posted by Hello