Saudi Woman Beats Up Religion Cop

A member of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Saudi religious police known locally as the Hai’a, asked the couple to confirm their identities and relationship to one another, as it is a crime in Saudi Arabia for unmarried men and women to mix.

For unknown reasons, the young man collapsed upon being questioned by the cop.

According to the Saudi daily Okaz, the woman then allegedly laid into the religious policeman, punching him repeatedly, and leaving him to be taken to the hospital with bruises across his body and face.

Full Story – HERE

LOL she took care of business. Good for her, it must suck to have such ass backwards rules like they have over there.

Should the woman be charged, she could face a lengthy prison term and lashings for assaulting a representative of a government institution.

Sadly, being a male dominated society she will probably get the book thrown at her.

19 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Pete May 19, 2010 at 07:32 am

I’ll be the first to say it, she is hot by Saudi standards……

….too bad they will probably beat the crap out of her in jail to get a confession from her….

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 12:24 pm

sorry I should have blurred the face or something.. that isn’t her, it’s just a pic I grabbed of a saudi woman off google images

Reply

Mount May 19, 2010 at 11:19 am

Lets start a charity that provides a firearm for each and every woman over there. I’m sure things would change for the better real damn quick.

Reply

Josh May 19, 2010 at 11:49 am

“LOL she took care of business. Good for her, it must suck to have such ass backwards rules like they have over there.”

She took care of business? By assaulting a police officer who was trying to do his duty? There was nothing in the story that implied that the police officer did ANYTHING wrong. You might disagree with the law, but that’s no excuse to attack those charged with enforcing it. The way the story was written, it sounds like the woman immediately attacked the officer for no reason whatsoever after her boyfriend (or whatever he was) fainted. It sounds to me like the officer didn’t even get the chance to ask her a question to determine her relationship to the man.

“Sadly, being a male dominated society she will probably get the book thrown at her.”

If the man she was with hadn’t lost consciousness at the mere presence of the police officer, and he had been the one to attack the officer for no apparent reason, would it be better? Of course not. She shouldn’t have the book thrown at her because she’s a woman; she should have the book thrown at her because she sounds like she’s a f**king lunatic.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm

I don’t support unjust laws, nor will I standby and support the people who choose to enforce those laws in any country. She’s probably sick and tired of getting harassed multiple times a day for “marriage checks” … it’s not like she killed the officer, she just sent him and society there a message.

Reply

Josh May 19, 2010 at 12:58 pm

I don’t expect that they will kill her either, just send her and society a message – that you don’t assault people, especially law enforcement. Maybe they’ll throw her in jail for awhile. What if they beat her? Rape her? I mean, it’s not like that would be killing her… just sending a message.

You say you don’t support unjust laws. Who are you, or I, or any of us, to determine what is just in another society? Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation. They are not obligated to abide by the standards of social etiquette that you or I find appropriate based on our experiences in America. This law forbidding unmarried women to be in public with men is part of their society. It’s no different than American society historically saying that only a man and a woman may enter into marriage. When our constitution was written, it was socially and legally acceptable for people of a certain race to be owned as property. This “oppression” of women in Saudi Arabia is nothing compared to that.

Just like the slavery issue was America’s to deal with, this is Saudi Arabia’s. One of the reasons that there are people all over the world that have such contempt, and sometimes outright hatred, for America is that they perceive America to be very arrogant. Imagine our reaction as Americans if there were a bigger, more powerful country out there trying to tell us what is appropriate behavior for our society. That’s what this law in Saudi Arabia is about – appropriate behavior. It’s about what has been deemed throughout history in their culture to be appropriate behavior by women, or specifically unmarried women, in public. This is about societal standards, not real oppression.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 02:37 pm

I definitely understand your more mainstream point of view Josh, but as I mentioned before on this blog, I really don’t care for laws that hinder the freedom of the people. If you wan’t to do ________ and it doesn’t physically hurt or damage someones property then I think it should be allowed. Send people to jail and tie up the court system for real crimes like theft, vandalism, rape, murder, assault etc.. Not for bullshit which should be legal anyway by virtue of us being “free” such as gay marriage, guns, drugs and what not. If a guy that hasn’t committed a “real” crime in my eyes wants to marry another guy, shoot their suppressed m4’s whenever they want in any state they want, and smoke weed for recreation, they shouldn’t need permission from the government to do so no matter what country they are in.

Reply

Aleksandr Mravinsky May 19, 2010 at 06:14 pm

Same view I have. Anything goes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals. I think that guns could be looked at the same way; anything that can have a strictly defensive use (like real assault weapons) should be legal for individuals to own, whereas things that have strictly offensive uses with no legitimate defensive uses (like nukes) should be regulated.

Reply

Josh May 19, 2010 at 06:39 pm

Laws restrict things. They all “hinder the ‘freedom’ of the people” to some degree.

I think it could be argued that your position, which seems to say (to some extent) – America’s values should apply around the world – is more mainstream than mine (here in America anyway). You seem to be neglectful of the natural right of a society to make laws, as it sees fit, regarding the behavior of its citizens. Every society has its own values based on traditions, shifting perceptions in that society, etc. I don’t know if you’re a dog owner, but I’ll bet there are some readers who are. And I’ll bet that they would be outraged by the idea of raising a dog to be butchered and eaten. In some cultures it’s a common practice. Some cultures find the idea of eating a pig disgusting, and some hold cows in such high regards that they would not think of killing one to eat. Point is, a society should be free to make its own rules and laws based on the prevailing feelings of the society, and dictated by that society’s traditions, or religion, or whatever.

Regardless of all of that, disagreement with one of the standards of the society in which you live is not justification for the unprovoked attack of another person. Marijuana is illegal, but you say you support people’s “freedom” to use drugs. If a police officer approached a person that he witnessed smoking pot, is it OK for the person to attack the officer for approaching him? Because that’s what happened here. And if you take the position that this woman was right to do so, then based on your statements about the other laws that are “wrong,” I would have to assume that you would support that person as well.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 07:44 pm

Josh, let me put it this way… If I was in Saudi Arabia standing right next to that woman and she said to me “I’m sick of this shit.. If that religion copy harasses me I’m going to kick his ass” I would have advised her to not do that, because of the ramifications. That said, I wouldn’t be loosing any sleep over the fact that she actually did follow through on her impulse. Same goes for your marijuana example… I definitely wouldn’t be the guy that would get into a fight with the cops, but at the same time I would be very apathetic if I saw an officer try to charge a person with something drug related and ended up getting his ass handed to him, and vise versa if the person doing the drugs ended up getting his ass kicked because he instigated the police by trying to fight them.

To answer your first question, no I don’t have a dog. And it wouldn’t bother me if someone wanted to raise dogs for food. I happen to think cattle, pigs, lambs etc.. are nice animals too, and I don’t have a problem with the farming of them.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 07:53 pm

Another thought too… the California open carry ban is heading to the floor for a vote. There are 80 people in the California State Assembly, and around 37 million people in California. Those 80 people all have their own personal agendas, their own opinions of they way they would like things to be, and are all working for their own personal gain just like everyone else in California. I find it ridiculous that those 80 people are voting on something that will represent 37 million people. This is a “freedom” issue for me again. If that passes and open carry gets banned in CA, to me that says the majority of the group of 80 people didn’t like the idea of open carry.

Reply

bryce May 19, 2010 at 11:42 pm

I have agree with Mike on this one The argument that this is their culture just does not work. Everyone should have basic human rights. I don’t want put American values on Saudi Arabia I would like to see some humane values. In these incidents the woman gets stoned (usually to death) the man gets to go about his way. Women are just as equal as men we could not continue life without them. Unfortunately in SA this not the case they are second class to the lowest of there class structure

Reply

Josh May 20, 2010 at 12:09 am

I’m all for humane values. The values I was referring to in this case are those that deem it inappropriate for unmarried women to be socializing with men. I wouldn’t call that an issue of humane treatment, it’s more of a social behavior thing. In their society they view it as wrong for women to behave that way. They have strong views about premarital sex too, right? Aren’t there middle eastern women that have restorative surgeries before marriage, to make their “lady parts” look like those of a virgin? They clearly have some different views on what is appropriate behavior for unmarried women. It seems wrong, or strange to me, but they’re entitled to their own culture.

Regardless of all of that, my point was that the disagreement with this law that forbids this type of fraternization is no excuse for the unprovoked attack of an innocent police official. This wasn’t an act of protest, it was an act of violence. She could have protested – pissed on a cop car, burned her burkha in public, etc. I have trouble feeling any sympathy for her if they put her in jail. I hope that she’s treated humanely in jail, but I don’t think that she “got the job done,” or that it was “good for her” to lash out at someone trying to do his job.

As to your comment that “In these incidents the woman gets stoned (usually to death) the man gets to go about his way” – I think that is an absolutely inexcusable way to treat people. I won’t attempt to defend that by saying that it’s a part of their customs; it’s inexcusable. All I can say is that any punishment she is going to face for this could have been avoided by not lashing out in the first place. This isn’t Beverly Hills, she’s not Zsa Zsa Gabor, what did she think would happen if she attacked the police?

Reply

Josh May 19, 2010 at 12:12 pm

I was going to say she’s not bad looking for a Saudi woman too… I looked up this picture though, and that woman is Reem Assad – a college lecturer, writer, financial analyst, and women’s rights advocate in Saudi Arabia. I don’t think this was the woman who assaulted the officer, just a convenient photo of a Saudi woman on the internet. None of the stories about this that I’ve seen have named the woman, and this woman lectures at a college that is literally on the opposite side of the country from where this took place.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 19, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Yea I should have obscured the face or grabbed another pic.. that isn’t the lady in the article, just a pic I grabbed off google images of a saudi woman.

Reply

bryce May 19, 2010 at 03:24 pm

A different thought. How do you get laid there? their rules seem very counter productive for the men there.

Reply

Josh May 19, 2010 at 06:45 pm

Well, you know, in those Muslim countries sex with women is for making babies. Getting laid is what little boys are for. Or maybe that’s just Afghanistan… I’m not expert. Just knowing that much is more than I want to know.

Reply

Dom May 20, 2010 at 06:35 am

Ew, I didn’t know about the little boys, but that explains a lot. A friend of a friend did a stint in Doctors Without Borders in Saudi Arabia. He called it “Sodomy Arabia.” He repeatedly would find himself faced with a couple, wherein the woman was very shy and feeling quite guilty, and the man was irate that she would not produce a child. Lo and behold, it would turn out the couple didn’t have any idea how to produce a child, and had been practicing anal sex the entire time.

I think both Mike and Josh are right. It’s just different perspectives. People are entitled to their society, even if it is stupidly conservative and controlling. And those same people have the right to take their objection to that society from words to action. America is a place where that has happened over and over. You don’t think the Civil Rights Movement was bloodless, do you? They tried for it to be, but it was not, on either side.

This woman probably won’t become the Rosa Parks of Saudi suffrage, but she could be a spark, or she may even be the fire. Remember, this is the same society that produced Al Qaeda. I know who I am rooting for!

Reply

Me January 1, 2016 at 07:02 pm

Don’t let ignorant people BS you; homosexual activity is prohibited there, even with “Little boys” as Joshie-poo would have you believe.

Unfortunately, the woman, if she was in fact caught, could be stoned to death for attacking a religious representative, and her husband could be expected to throw the first stone.

The husband may be jailed because of her actions, as he is responsible for her… Just depends on how they choose to handle it.

Have you seen a man beheaded? How about a woman rape victim, buried to her neck and pummeled with rocks until she is dead? These ARE realities of Islam in some parts of the world; ready for it here???

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: