Saudi Pardon
Today, for those who are unaware, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pardoned the rape victim I discuss in my first post.
I don't have much to say, other than it is the same sort of mediation
through ambiguity and silence that I discussed in my last post.
Note that the Saudi king absolutely does not say anywhere that he questions the verdict in the slightest. In fact the Justice Ministry makes clear, in a statement uncontradicted by the King, that the King has full confidence in the judiciary and is convinced by the justice of the ruling (in Arabic, here). Nevertheless, in the interests of the people, and to alleviate the psychological suffering of those convicted, the King from time to time will pardon a criminal, explains the Ministry.
Unless one understands this to be the use of law to be a mediation of different political and ideological forces, it's hard to make any sense of this. It's certainly not coherent as a legal position. We absolutely could be positivists, grant an executive the power of pardon (as the United States does) and then presumably the president can then say he pardoned a person for whatever reason he wants.
But here we have a court purporting to apply God's Law not some man made thing that distributes powers to institutions and bodies as it sees fit. So where does the "people's interest" and "psychological suffering" fit in? Is it the case that God allows a sovereign may set aside shari'a whenever it is in the "people's interest" to do so? If so, what could the objection to secular democracy possibly be? Or is it the case that a sovereign may suspend God's Law if it perceives psychological suffering on the part of the victim? If so, is there anyone on earth who wouldn't be psychologically scarred from being flogged? Or worse yet, having their hand amputated? Can we please get rid of these then?
It would make sense to suggest a king can set aside a verdict he disagrees with on religious grounds. Or even one that he might see merit to, but he rules against because in the public interest he prefers to employ an equally legitimate version of Islamic law (say, from a different school of thought) that leads to a different result. These sorts of things have a pedigree in Islamic history and practice. But this monarch in this country wouldn't and couldn't do this. If we can accept the Justice Ministry's statement, he pretty much agreed with what the court did and decided to set God's Law aside anyway.
Rather than try to make sense out of this muddle on the basis of some sort of pristine, autonomous "law", if we instead look to the politics of it, things fall into place. He can't tell the hardliners that unlawful seclusion is not a crime. But he doesn't want to enforce the verdict, and it's not just international/West driven pressure. The man has a reputation in the Muslim world he'd like to preserve (well, not much of one, but he does take his image in the Muslim world seriously), and this was quite controversial throughout the Muslim world. Not an insignificant number of Muslims on talk shows and blogs expressed outrage. Throughout Iraq's Shi'a community, Saudi was being ridiculed. I can't read Farsi so the Iranian press I'm not as sure about, but I'd be surprised if they didn't say the same. So he's under Muslim pressure too, and there is an element of Shi'a-Sunni competition as well. So the King found himself in a bind. And what a solution. Give the liberals what they want, they can't really criticize Saudi for a verdict that will now not be enforced. Give the conservatives the seeming endorsement of the legal substance of their position, and hope it all blows away. At least until next time.
Note that the Saudi king absolutely does not say anywhere that he questions the verdict in the slightest. In fact the Justice Ministry makes clear, in a statement uncontradicted by the King, that the King has full confidence in the judiciary and is convinced by the justice of the ruling (in Arabic, here). Nevertheless, in the interests of the people, and to alleviate the psychological suffering of those convicted, the King from time to time will pardon a criminal, explains the Ministry.
Unless one understands this to be the use of law to be a mediation of different political and ideological forces, it's hard to make any sense of this. It's certainly not coherent as a legal position. We absolutely could be positivists, grant an executive the power of pardon (as the United States does) and then presumably the president can then say he pardoned a person for whatever reason he wants.
But here we have a court purporting to apply God's Law not some man made thing that distributes powers to institutions and bodies as it sees fit. So where does the "people's interest" and "psychological suffering" fit in? Is it the case that God allows a sovereign may set aside shari'a whenever it is in the "people's interest" to do so? If so, what could the objection to secular democracy possibly be? Or is it the case that a sovereign may suspend God's Law if it perceives psychological suffering on the part of the victim? If so, is there anyone on earth who wouldn't be psychologically scarred from being flogged? Or worse yet, having their hand amputated? Can we please get rid of these then?
It would make sense to suggest a king can set aside a verdict he disagrees with on religious grounds. Or even one that he might see merit to, but he rules against because in the public interest he prefers to employ an equally legitimate version of Islamic law (say, from a different school of thought) that leads to a different result. These sorts of things have a pedigree in Islamic history and practice. But this monarch in this country wouldn't and couldn't do this. If we can accept the Justice Ministry's statement, he pretty much agreed with what the court did and decided to set God's Law aside anyway.
Rather than try to make sense out of this muddle on the basis of some sort of pristine, autonomous "law", if we instead look to the politics of it, things fall into place. He can't tell the hardliners that unlawful seclusion is not a crime. But he doesn't want to enforce the verdict, and it's not just international/West driven pressure. The man has a reputation in the Muslim world he'd like to preserve (well, not much of one, but he does take his image in the Muslim world seriously), and this was quite controversial throughout the Muslim world. Not an insignificant number of Muslims on talk shows and blogs expressed outrage. Throughout Iraq's Shi'a community, Saudi was being ridiculed. I can't read Farsi so the Iranian press I'm not as sure about, but I'd be surprised if they didn't say the same. So he's under Muslim pressure too, and there is an element of Shi'a-Sunni competition as well. So the King found himself in a bind. And what a solution. Give the liberals what they want, they can't really criticize Saudi for a verdict that will now not be enforced. Give the conservatives the seeming endorsement of the legal substance of their position, and hope it all blows away. At least until next time.
Comments