Jan 09 2013
BBC: Sri Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek beheaded in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has beheaded a Sri Lankan domestic worker for killing a baby in her care in 2005 in a case that has been widely condemned by rights groups.
The maid, Rizana Nafeek, had denied killing the four-month-old boy.
Her supporters say she was only 17 at the time of the killing. They say her execution is a breach of international child rights.
The Sri Lankan government condemned the execution, which it said took place despite numerous clemency pleas.
The Saudi interior ministry said on Wednesday that Ms Nafeek was executed for smothering the infant after an argument with the child’s mother in the town of al-Dwadmi.
Click here for the full story.
5 Responses to “BBC: Sri Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek beheaded in Saudi Arabia”
It is surprising to near now from the Saudi Interior Ministry, only after the execution of Rizana Nafeek, that the maid “smothered the infant after an argument with the child’s mother.” To my knowledge, this statement is utterly bogus and was never publicized before the maid was beheaded, given she was arrested in 2005. This is a cynical attempt by the executioners to besmirch a dead person.
Again, if only for the historical record, Rizana claimed the baby inadvertently choked during feeding. No witnesses were present (the mother having left the infant alone with Rizana for feeding) and no autopsy was ever conducted to ascertain the cause of death. The sentence was based purely on a forced confession extracted by the Saudi authorities. They murdered an innocent person.
Next time i meet a saudi, whereverer, i’ll just behead them, prefereably with a blunt spoon, for being a member of a state that refuses to acknowledge human rights…is that ok?
I am speechless as my tears fall into the emptiness…
I am ashamed, frustrated, hurt and miserable.
I am ashamed of Saudi Arabia.
I am ashamed of the people who try to justify this barbaric act in the name of ISLAM.
This execution was under SAUDI LAW and it can not be SHARIA LAW.
• Rizana was just a child of 17 years at the time of the baby’s death.
• She had no lawyer to defend her and no competent interpreter to translate her justification.
• Cause of death was not known until to this day as the Saudi officials failed to conduct the postmortem on the deceased infant baby.
• Rizana had repeated her confession in the open court. On 3rd February, 2007, Rizana withdrew her confession and informed the court that her original confession admitting to the killing the child had been obtained by the Police under intimidation.
Saudi Arabia, the abode of Islam has been turned into a strange land where democracy and freedom of expression are barred.
Those who believe that Saudi Arabia has an Islamic system &Islamic law are misguided. Hereditary monarchy rules Saudi Arabia, while the prophet Muhammad(Sal) teachings and life were strongly democratic.
Rizana ,my sister , May Allah Grant you the most cherished paradise- Jannathul Firdouse.
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” This saying lives in me.
Let us stand against this execution. We should not let the JUSTICE to be beheaded.
One voice can make the difference.
Shameela Yoosuf Ali
2013.01.10
@1.57 am
I’m a Sri Lankan Sinhalese, had been following this case for a couple of years now.
I have to say that this is an utter tragedy & I’m sure that it’s strongly felt by people who have any decent conscience despite whatever the differences; race, language, religion, culture, social status, income level, whatever…. This girl had been very young at the time of the incident & seems to have come from the poorest & the least privileged layer of the society even by SL standards which may have led her to seek for an employment even at the tender age of 17, even by letting to falsify the documents, knowingly or unknowingly. To me, what had been so shocking is that how any legal system can convict a person & order to execute, that again by beheading, without having any proper evidence/proof ?. Even an adult ?. Had this been any fair trial ?. Where’s the postmortem report of the infant died, seems like such a proper postmortem had not even been conducted. Was there any competent unbiased interpreter/translator involved as she couldn’t speak Arabic or not competent at least in English, so there must have been a clear gap in communication which can be so vital & tricky especially in a trial like this ?. Was there any lawyer to appear for her in order to provide any legal assistance/guidance ?. She seems to have been a mere defenseless person in a virtually unknown land during the initial trials which convicted her & ordered her to be executed. Then, to make things worse, the appeal also upheld the conviction. The officials must have clearly known the full background at least by then, how ignorant, mindless, selfish, swollen-headed, hypocrite, for them not to overturn the conviction even when they clearly knew that the initial conviction had not been given by any fair trial. They may have been so reluctant to accept that fact. How can this kind of a mindless irrational law, be it coming from religion or whatever, still survive in this 21st century, especially in a country accepted by UN ?. This is no medieval times, people have to understand. It’s true that most of things happening these days in Sri Lanka as well are in a total mess, some criminals are escaping the law, some unwanted drama like Chief Justice’s case is dragging seemingly endlessly, in the meantime several killings has taken place without identifying any criminal/s or letting them to escape law, etc. But, to compensate for that, is anyone justifying the conviction of whoever brought before the court in the absence of the actual criminal ?. To convict someone based on mere accusations & hypothesis without having any proper evidence, just for the sake of convicting someone for the crime & make him accountable for it ?. Unless you cannot prove, you have no right to convict someone, that again to behead & take his/her life. You can guess that she may have done the crime, or may not have done it & it was by mere accident, can be either way, so how can anyone be so confirmed if they don’t have proper evidence/proof ?. To me, this whole thing had been an utter shame, shame on Saudi Arabia for not overturning the decision at least during the appeal, shame on Shariah, shame on this land of Barbarians in the middle east to say the least who behead & amputate several dozens annually may be after trials like this. We, as Sri Lankan Sinhalese, have experienced many losses of lives during the past 3 decades, still this single loss of life shocked most simply because how recklessly, mindlessly & selfishly this was handled from the beginning to take the life of this defenseless, least privileged, and seeming innocent young woman who had sought to make a living from her very young age. A classic example for inability of people, despite how higher up in the hierarchy they sit, to see the plain truth before them when they are blindly following any baseless beliefs, be it Shariah or whatever garbage. It’s high time for the people to understand this reality, they all must try to transcend their beliefs, culture, religion, language, nation, all…. Any blind faith, especially if grasped too tightly, can be only destructive. The international community must take these incidents seriously & ask these regimes to impose proper laws over these craps like Shariah. Let it rot in hell for good instead of allowing its executioners to rot innocent people in hell with trials like these. If the officials/regimes of these countries are not willing for this change which seems to be required sooner than later, they should be ready to face the strict consequences. Remember, today you may be judging others, a day will come that you’ll be judged.
The Hypocrites from Saudi Arabia: The Pseudo-Islam: Wahabism
They claim they follow the Holy Quran and Sharia Law that comes from it. The events that lead to the tragic execution Rizana Nafeeek, the accusations, the trial, the witnesses, the lack of conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the forced confessions obtained after beatings. the so called Sharia Judges, the Appeal Sharia Judges, the Saudi Ministry and the King all are NOT following the Sharia law as laid down in the Holy Quran, and are hypocrites (Surah 2:8-20), and are agents of Satan.
What they are following is the Arab Tribal Tradition,in the pretense of Islam, and are guided by the Tradition of the Satan, called Shaitan. No God would allow for such injustice.
Qur’an, Surah 2: 282, “Let not witnesses withhold their evidence when it is demanded of them.” And again, “Conceal not your testimony, for whoever conceals his testimony in an offender.”
If you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you.So fear Allah;For it is Allah That teaches you. Allah is well acquainted With all things.
The Evidence- Provided by the Agents of Satan:-The Liars
The Police were then summoned to the house. The police was told that the servant from Sri Lanka had strangled and killed the baby in the presence of the children. Rizana’s mistress told the Police that she had scolded the maid that morning for not doing her chores properly( A lie). It was alleged that Rizana had killed the baby in revenge for the scolding. Though false and thoroughly implausible the complaint was believed by the Saudi Police.
Sadly for Rizana there was no way in which she could explain what had actually happened. Though she had picked up some Arabic words that was not enough to communicate. Besides she was dazed by the baby’s death and shocked by the assault on her. The Saudi police took her into custody and dragged her off to the Police station.
Rizana had to undergo a bitter, savage ordeal at the Police station. The biggest problem was communication. There was no one to interprete or translate Rizana’s version of what had happened to the Police. Likewise there was no one to interprete or translate into Tamil what the Police wanted to convey to Rizana.
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html
The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.
In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the “roots of the law.” Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from “the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate” to the case at hand.
Shafii provoked controversy. He constantly criticized what he called “people of reason” and “people of tradition.” While speaking in Egypt in 820, he was physically attacked by enraged opponents and died a few days later. Nevertheless, Shafii’s approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world