Saudi crucifies murderer (after beheading)

[Robb]

Source: Agence France-Presse (via Straits Times)

RIYADH - SAUDI Arabia executed two murderers including a Yemeni whose body was nailed to a cross after he was convicted of killing a fellow countryman and his daughter, the interior ministry said on Monday.

Shaaban al-Nasheri was beheaded for shooting dead Dhayeh al-Manbahi after barging into his family home in the south-western town of Jazan, the ministry said in a statement cited by the official SPA agency.

Nasheri was also found guilty of raping and killing Manbahi's daughter before shooting and wounding her sister. Following his execution, the murderer's body was nailed to a cross in Jazan.

(snip)

The beheadings bring to 15 the number of executions reported in the ultra-conservative Gulf monarchy this year, according to an AFP count. In 2009, there were 67 reported executions in the kingdom, compared with 102 in 2008.

Read more: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_543723.html

---

Sort of puts the firing squad in Utah in a bit of perspective, I guess.

[marmar]

1. "Sort of puts the firing squad in Utah in a bit of perspective"

All the same energy, tho......

[burnsei sensei]

7. The firing squad in Utah

comes from the Mormon misreading of "blood atonement" in ancient Hebrew sacrifices.
The idea was that the blood of sacrifice atoned for sin on the Day of Atonement. And then only.
The sinner was not killed-- it was not his blood-- he was never intended to be the sacrifice.
But in Utah, I suppose human sacrifice is a favored practice and so we have the atonement for murder by the blood of the murderer.
In essence, what happened here was human sacrifice.

[hlthe2b]

2. Having just finished the series on Henry VIII (the Tudors) on Showtime

I think I will never ever be surprised at the horrendous ways of torturing and murdering man manages to come up with. No group nor religion has the monopoly on this, I'm afraid.

[Rebubula]

8. Amen

Excellent series, but DISTURBING level of torture and executions. I suspect that much of the torture\execution depiction was accurate.

[Warpy]

13. They played fast and loose with a lot of the history

but yes, the sets, lighting, and torture were all pretty accurate.

[AlbertCat]

66. but yes, the sets, lighting, and torture were all pretty accurate.

They had lighting? What is Renaissance lighting? The whole thing was done by candle light?

C'mon people! "The Tudors" is not a history lesson. It's drama. It's TV.

[Warpy]

72. I have the DVDs which come with background, technical and historical

and they shot as much as possible with sunlight and candle light.

I addressed the dramatic rather than historical aspect when I mentioned they'd played fast and loose with the history.

[AlbertCat]

65. I suspect that much of the torture\execution depiction was accurate.

Why? Little else was.

[hlthe2b]

70. reading of history?

[burnsei sensei]

10. You're right. The Early Modern Era

was extraordinarily brutal.
It remained so until the very late 18th century.

[enlightenment]

25. Argh.

Using that soft porn nonsense for historical example??

I'm disappointed in you, hlthe2b!

:evilgrin:

[hlthe2b]

26. Lots of made up sensation... but the torture/executions accurate

from what I've been able to surmise from more academic pursuits. ;)

[enlightenment]

41. I'll take your word for it.

Honestly, I couldn't get past the costumes (all women with their norks out) and the utter inconsistency of a scrawny, black haired Henry VIII. And the acting. Lame.

;)

[hlthe2b]

51. You mean a scrawny, yet very good looking Henry VIII

LOL... even at the end, he was portrayed as lean and lithe and about 30 years too young, surrounded by the most buxom and beautiful women.... I guess that's what they have to do to get the average American to watch history... "Rome" was even worse on that score...;)

[enlightenment]

59. Picture me banging my head against the wall.

It does provide chuckles to my peers who are willing to sacrifice their sanity for a week, scoring the AP exams. Tiresome to have to waste time 'undoing' the notions students' bring to my classes, though.

I watched a little bit of "Rome". Apparently tuned in just in time to watch a rather violent and graphic rape (?) - was there an actual plot to the series or just unrelated scenes loosely linking the sex and violence?

I will say that the sets looked luscious. No cost spared there.

[hlthe2b]

69. I've always liked period pieces as a genre...

any period of history, even poorly constructed old westerns can sometimes hold my interest... Rome had its moments with some reasonable acting-- in between the overt sexual perversion and violence (which was not altogether unrealistic for Rome, after all)... I'd have to say the new Spartacus series is a bit more difficult to find anything redeeming, so caught up in CGI blood and gore, as it is... Although admittedly, I've only seen about 15 minutes of a single episode before moving on.

A bit sad that your students take these kind of shows literally. I would have hoped it might pique their interest in doing a bit of actual reading of history.

[enlightenment]

73. Not all of them, thankfully.

But doesn't it seem to be the case that the few that do can suck up half a lecture period?

I suppose we're getting terribly off-topic with this . . . guess we'd best stop before we are 'snipped' from the thread!

[Berry Cool]

81. Wow, I'm glad I don't get Showtime.

I don't think I could have stood watching the story of Henry VIII be served up as if it were a sixteenth-century version of Big Love.

Everything we know about Henry VIII near the beginning of his life tells us that he was tall, muscular, hale and hearty as a young man--and reddish-blond in hair color--but by the time he was near the end, he was grossly obese and had a huge open ulcer on his leg that oozed pus and other foul-smelling bodily fluids all the time. Not exactly Hugh Hefner.

[AlbertCat]

64. Henry VIII (the Tudors) on Showtime

You don't think that show has anything to do with real history do you? I mean.... History was far worse!

[wordpix]

76. these are sick bastards, indeed

[burnsei sensei]

3. I would consider that a barebones insult

to Christianity.
After all, the cross, for Christians, is the way beyond death.
To put a convicted murderer in what, symbolically, is Christ's place sends a message to the rest of the world-- and perhaps to Arab Muslims who wish to be Christians.

[burnsei sensei]

5. The death penalty--

wrong in this case.
Wrong in every case.
If your opposition to it is principled.

[notadmblnd]

9. Crucifixion was not exclusive to Christ

It was a very common form of execution used by the ancient Romans.

Still isn't crucifying an already dead body overkill?

[burnsei sensei]

14. That's true.

But in the highly religious and symbolic thinking that is general to the Muslim world, and particularly intense in Wahhabist Islam, I'm sure Christ was exactly who they had in mind.

[msanthrope]

18. But Muslims don't think Christ was crucified. And Christ is revered in the

Koran. You might try reading the essential parts of the Koran to understand how Islamic culture views the mythological Christ.

As an atheist, I've found it useful to read the actual primers of mythology before commenting on the mythos itself.

[burnsei sensei]

20. If, in fact, they revered Christ,

then they would not kill those of their number who convert to Christianity.
If they revered him, the Christian never, ever could be apostate.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. You should probably follow that poster's advice, and learn a little bit about other religions.

It may surprise you.

Christ IS revered by Muslims, just not in exactly the same way you do.

[burnsei sensei]

48. Reverence is something we all understand.

It encompasses several behaviors.
Murdering, threatening or seeking to murder Christian converts from Islam is not one of them.
Where knowledge leaves off, common sense must pick up.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Hopefully it picks up a book...

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Yeah? Peter is revered as the first leader of the Christian church.

Would somebody who worships Peter be considered an apostate to Christianity?

[burnsei sensei]

22. If they don't think Christ was crucified,

and they understand that Christians do believe that he was crucified
(as one of the cornerstones of Christianity),
then the argument that this is an insult has even more weight.

[Dogtown]

27. Besides

They believe in a mythology that differs from yours.


Tell the truth...

[msanthrope]

74. Exploding the blood libel myth against the Jews is a bad thing?

Explain to me how thinking that Jesus was bodily assumed by Allah, confirming the chastity of his mother, insults you?

Thinking he died a shameful death at the hands of the jews is one myth variation that some religions adopted over time. Islam did not.

Which version is more respectful is a matter of perspective. But why is your Abrahamic co-religionist's view insulting. Early gospels had the same view.

I admit that watching some follow the shoe and some follow the gourd is amusing.

[No Elephants]

62. "Sure?" Really?

[msanthrope]

17. Crucifixion predates christianity, and is considered a shameful death....

so much so that early Christians debated whether the mythological Christ was indeed crucified. (See the Gosp. of St. barnabas, and other sects.)


Of course, since Muslims don't think Christ was crucified in the first place, and he is actually revered in the Koran, I seriously doubt this is meant as a slap in the face to Christians.

[DeSwiss]

54. Exactly

Crucifixion
Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.<2><3> It was also used as a form of execution in Japan, of both criminals and Christians.

Ancient Rome
Crucifixion was used for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. Therefore crucifixion was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from crucifixion (like feudal nobles from hanging, dying more honorably by decapitation) except for major crimes against the state, such as high treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Laugh out fucking loud.

A method of execution invented by the pagan Romans centuries before Jesus was ever invented and used to execute probably a million people over a spans of 700 years is now only the province of christians?

And, you might have noticed, this guy was not executed by crucifixion, but was simply put on public display - which is a throwback to the origins of crucifixion where an executed criminal was displayed at the city gate. Sometime in the 3rd century BCE some bright Roman (though some sources say they got it from the Persians) got the idea of putting the criminal on the cross before he was dead, turning the display into the execution itself.

History is fun - you should try it sometime.

[burnsei sensei]

31. Why are you focusing on crucifixion itself

instead of the event that is the subject of the thread.
Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.
Here it is being used to humiliate a murderer, and I have argued, symbolically to insult Christianity itself.
Your post talks about the history but not the symbolism of Christianity.
In the Muslim world, religious symbols and ideas count for very, very much.
There is no wall of separation of church and state in Saudi Arabia.
The idea of tolerance is alien to their culture.
In religious terms, the cross is the symbol of Christ. You can ramble on and on about its history to your heart's content, and you will never be able to wipe the Christian symbolism from the cross and crucifixion.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. First up, a crucifix is not necessarily a 'cross'.

A 'T' will do fine.

Particularly with a headless corpse.

[snagglepuss]

34. So Mr Historian when did Arabs start using crucifixions to kill murderers?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. its mentioned several times in the koran, but likely predates the koran

[snagglepuss]

47. Well that is a clincher. There should be plenty of historical evidence

of whether Arabs crucified criminals before Mohammed. Did Arabs crucify people prior to the Koran? That is a very interesting question.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. Well, if they did get it from the Persians, or the Carthaginians, it would have

been somewhere between 500-200 BCE. Well predating Christianity. The Persian Empire reached from India to Egypt, and there is no way the 'Arabs' - those on the Arabian Peninsula - would have not been aware of it. Of course Muslims have only been around since the 6th century, so obviously crucifixion also predates them. It's debatable whether the Romans got it from the Greeks, in the 3rd century BCE, or the Carthaginians in the 2nd century BCE.

[snagglepuss]

55. All if that is a fact then it is profoundly that Mohammed therefore Allah promoted

a form of punishment practiced by kuffir.

[alfredo]

28. Crucifixion has nothing to do with Christianity in this case.

It is about the power of the government. Most likely the body is in full view from a busy street.

It is also an insult beyond death. Both the Muslims and Jews have specific burial rituals to ensure passage to the afterlife. Crucifixion disrupts those rituals. The body is not taken down, but allowed to rot and be eaten by insects and vultures. In time the flesh is gone and the bones fall to the ground to be scattered by dogs and Hyenas.

I don't believe this form of execution has any message for Christians. The execution was an act as violent as the crime. Read about the concept of Vengeance in the Muslim faith.

[burnsei sensei]

33. Vengeance is certainly what they got here.

nt

[alfredo]

40. Their belief in vengeance is why they did not oppose our

invasion of Afghanistan. They felt it was justified.

[burnsei sensei]

35. You have answered my argument

without an appeal to ridicule.
With knowledge.
I am grateful for your ability to reason.

[alfredo]

37. Thanks. You caught me on a good day ;)

[Jkid]

53. If you look at the point of view of the Saudi Government however.

A murderer or a rapist does not deserve these specific burial rituals, thus the crucifixion.

[alfredo]

71. That's it. From what was written, the crime was quite brutal.

I'm no fan of the death penalty, but I can understand the victim's friends and family wanting payback big time. Dismemberment is also a way to show disrespect.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. huh. so the cruelty of this isnt offensive. whats offensive is that they use a method

similar to the killing of christ.

somewhere christ is crying about his flock.

[burnsei sensei]

45. I think the cruelty of it should be

offensive to all people.
But, of course, it isn't.
There are many people who seem to favor the death penalty no matter what.
But, of course, it could be offensive for different reasons also.
In spite of what you've heard, all people really don't think, feel or believe alike.

[LanternWaste]

38. The cross as an instrument of both torture and death...

The cross as an instrument of both torture and death predates Christianity. I imagine one must look at both context and intent prior to judgment.

[No Elephants]

60. the cross is not theway beyond death. Belief in Jesus is. John 3:16.

Remember, crucifixio was around long beore Jesus and long after--and Jesus was only one of 3 crucified that day.

Nothing about the cross is magical. the resurrection is. If Jesus had been stabbed or speared or strangled or suffocated (or beheaded, nothing about Christianity would be different.

[AlbertCat]

67. I would consider that a barebones insult to Christianity.

Uh... crucifixion is not exclusive to this area....or religion (after all the heathen Romans crucified).

Why do Christians think everyone else is thinking about them? It's all about them! What chip they have on their shoulder!

From Wikipedia: "Crucifixion"

As punishment in modern times

Middle East:

In Saudi Arabia, the bodies of beheaded convicts may be tied to wooden displays for public display after the execution.


Maybe that entry was just put in this morning! :eyes:

[tsstranger]

68. You can't be that uninformed

The cross was Christ's place? If that did even occur, being put to death on a cross was one of the most popular forms of Roman torture.

And speaking of torture, do a bit of research on Christian tortue methods. Beyond hideous.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Wow--guess they wanted to make sure that he wasn't only merely dead, he's

really most SINCERELY dead.

[Richardo]

12. I'll gladly spend part of my afterlife in hell for laughing at that.

Because I did. :D + :hide:

[Robb]

24. Heh. Move over, then.

Make some room. :hide:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. me too

[burnsei sensei]

56. +1

nt

[alterfurz]

77. kinda like in PeeWee's Big Adventure-?

Biker #2: (the whole gang holds Pee-wee hostage) I say we kill him!
Biker Gang: (shout) Yeah!
Biker #3: I say we hang him, *then* we kill him!
Biker Gang: (shout) Yeah!
Biker #4: I say we stomp him!
Biker Gang: (shout) Yeah!
Biker #4: Then we tattoo him!
Biker Gang: (shout) Yeah!
Biker #4: Then we hang him...!
Biker Gang: (shout) YEAH!!
Biker #4: And then we kill him!
Biker Gang: (shout) YEAH!!!
Pee-wee: (trying to throw his voice) I say we let him go.
Biker Gang: (shout) NO!!!
Biker Mama: (whistles) I say ya let me have him first!
Biker Gang: (break out in raucous laughter)

[davidinalameda]

79. drop a house on him then

:evilgrin:

[KansDem]

6. Hey, these are our allies!

Even though 15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

They're also Bush family friends and business partners...

[gratuitous]

16. I'm guessing that Rick Perry will send the Saudis a telegram of support

But I could be wrong.

[burnsei sensei]

42. That's a point we need to keep bring up

repeatedly.
Saudi Arabia is not cast in the mold of a modern nation state.
Afghanistan certainly was.
Iran is.
Syria is.
One of the things I can never forgive the Bush regime for is imposing terrible chaos on two modern entities-- Afghanistan and Iraq.
Saddam Hussein may have committed many atrocities, but he never bought slaves or permitted them to be sold in his country.
The Emir of Kuwait owns chattel slaves. He is supposedly our friend. We represented his interests in 1991.
Were we really working in our own best interests here? No.
Similarly, Afghanistan would have been better kept intact, in spite of its leadership.
We have imposed chaos-- a kind of collection of unruly states has emerged. Afghanistan has gone backward because of our stupid war.
And Iraq? Same story. More chaos. Less modernity and reflection. All on account of us.
Our leadership cannot understand the difference between archaic and modern political forms. They have put knives into all our necks.

[Warpy]

11. Beheading in Europe was reserved for royalty

and other people of importance. Execution of commoners was considerably more grotesque, often an all day affair, and provided entertainment for the commoners who hadn't been caught yet.

Beheading was seen as quick and relatively painless, if messy. It only looks barbaric to a country that has "progressed" to committing state sponsored murder via intravenous drugs--no muss, no fuss, no screams, just suffocation.

[kestrel91316]

15. Well, they didn't really "crucify" him. They abused his corpse.

If they had hung him on a cross BEFORE beheading/killing him, I'd say crucified.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. it gives me no particular perspective on Utah. something is or is not heinous

the comparitive morality of this, doesnt really soothe me.

[Robb]

23. Not meant to soothe....

...nor compare moralities. But I do believe messing around with the corpse is a touch more on the horrific side. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. why? they are already dead. not like they can feel anything.

[Robb]

39. No, of course they can't

...but I sure can, can't I? :D

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. yes, i agree its upsetting to my sensibility but its hardly a human rights violation

[snagglepuss]

43. Someone opposing the death penalty that is rather a surprising comment.

Abusing a corpse is no different than abusing defenseless animals, both reveal a contemptible lack of humanity.

[superconnected]

52. The corpse is dead, the senseless animal is alive and still feels - it's not the same thing.

Abusing the corpse is simply grotesque. It shows the wallowing in morbidity. I don't feel bad for the corpse though.

Abusing a living thing - is so ghastly most people can't handle standing there to watch and then leave with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[snagglepuss]

57. Any sort of abuse speaks volumes about the abuser. Someone capable

of nailing a decapitated corpse to a crucifix is subhuman.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. exactly. abusing a corpse upsets my sensibilities, abusing a human life offends my humanity

lots of things upset my sensibilities..

[burnsei sensei]

58. +1

nt

[gilpo]

75. There have been 28 executions in the US so far this year

51 in 2009 and 1276 since 1976. What makes us any better? We don't put their heads on a pike I guess, but the practice is barbaric, nonetheless

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-2010

[Canuckistanian]

78. What? No disemboweling?

No drawing and quartering?

These Saudis are getting soft on crime, I tell you.

[Alamuti Lotus]

80. Broke in, raped and killed the daughter, shot her sister, killed the father

Kinda puts the punishment in a bit of perspective. The beheading is the punish the guilty, the display after is to warn those who would follow in his depravity.