Saudi Arabia - Religious Tolerance not allowed!

robindch

Twenty hours of lousy travel yesterday has me in sunny Riyadh this afternoon, dying for a beer and as much chance of getting one as of I have of seeing flurries of snowflakes drift past my hotel window. So, a quick poke around boards.ie with a cup of tea instead; a couple of postings later, a google or two and up comes the following:

.

.

Ah, religious morality strikes again! Any recommendations for sites I should ask to be blocked?

Have a beer or six for me, folks.

MrJoeSoap

Eek, you there for long?

As for sites to block, hmmm...

http://www.prussianblue.net/
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

Dades

Yeah I'm surprised they let you in here!

In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

robindch

> In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

MrB

robindch wrote:

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

Time to start making up Religions.
"Church of the happy God Botherers"
"Nipplists"
"Holy order of nothing much at all"
"Thingist"

hairyheretic

Would they accept Pastafarianism? You could wish they be touched by His Noodly Appendage

Stephen

Would they actually refuse you entry if you entered 'none' for 'religious sect'?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let you in? That is just crazy.

I'm always cautious not to jump on the current anti-Islamic bandwagon, but these strick religious countries are fecking nuts (er .. that wasn't bandwagon jumping was it )

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let you in? That is just crazy.

AFAIR If you put down Jewish(or Israeli, can't remember)you're not let in either.

I'm always cautious not to jump on the current anti-Islamic bandwagon, but these strick religious countries are fecking nuts (er .. that wasn't bandwagon jumping was it )

I wouldn't say it's anti-Islamic really. From the point of view of officially sanctioned nuttyness, they are to islam, what alabama snake handlers are to christianity. Very right wing in their interpretation.

robindch

> Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let
> you in? That is just crazy.

Yes, it's crazy, but that's what the standard advice is. The Saudi Embassy in the UK is at +44-20-7917-3000, if anybody wants to ring them up and ask them if it's possible...

Put down Jewish, or even just having an Israeli stamp in your passport, and they'll refuse your visa straight-out:

http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html

Finally, there are persistent and credible stories that turning up in King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh claiming you're a Jew will get you thrown into prison.

It's a place which is much more fun to leave than to arrive!

robindch

...a minibar in Riyadh.



<sigh>

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

robindch wrote:

...a minibar in Riyadh.[/IMG]

<sigh>

What? No Mars Bar?
The inhumanity of it all...

Is that not a brewski at the front?

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

.

Is that not a brewski at the front?

I bet it's non-alcholic beer, truley they're savages!

robindch

> Is that not a brewski at the front?

Nope. That might have been beer once, but some callous border guard ripped out its happy heart and forwarded the cheerless corpse to rot in a lukewarm fridge.

.

UU

Wow. I wouldn't even dare to go to a country like that. I wonder what they'd think if one put down something funny like Jedi as one's religion? Just pretend you don't know what religion is. How about that?

Funsterdelux

Sure just get your Shisha out and forget your troubles.:D

I wonder what they would think of "buddhist"...

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I wonder what they would think of "buddhist"...

I was about to ask the same thing.

Zillah

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Thats actually a worryingly accurate sentiment. Westerners are expected to respect other beliefs, tolerance and all that. But we don't expect that of others? Do I have to respect all religions equally? Even those that profess such abhorrent beliefs?

EDIT:

"Apocalypse Mithraic"...?

robindch

> Westerners are expected to respect other beliefs, tolerance and all that.

Oddly, I don't think that's the case, there being two things: one is respect for somebody else's right to hold a belief, and the second is respect for the belief itself. A lot of people seem to get the two rights completely mixed up - respect for the right to hold a belief does not imply respect for the belief itself, any more than respect for somebody's right to eat celery implies respect for that vomit-inducing vegetable.

> Do I have to respect all religions equally?

No, you can object as much as you like to the religion, as long as you permit the other person complete freedom to believe what they want. It's a bit less clearcut when the other person starts making choices, based upon their fantasies, which affect you.

> "Apocalypse Mithraic"

And, lo, news of Zoroaster the Persian came to Babylon and to Israel and from there, travelled to the Holy city of Rome through many small towns and cities and lands in between. And the news was mighty and foretold the events that would herald the second coming of the son of god at the end of time to conquer evil and to establish his Kingdom of Peace for all time. And Behold! In Israel, these holy truths informed Judaism and they became popular there for a long while. And in Rome, these holy truths informed Mithraism until it was noticed that Mithraism was a dangerous heresy and was suppressed by Constantine while he was High Priest and Emperor. Nevertheless, the Apocalypse of Mithra informed the authors of the bible and its Truth lives still and troubles the world and greatly does it yet unsettle the stomachs of the reasonable.

More on the contributions of the Mithraic to Christian eschatologies here.

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Do I have to respect all religions equally? Even those that profess such abhorrent beliefs?

No one does not, what I think one needs to respect is that every individual has the right to practice his/her selected religion. Since I believe that God did not make people, it was people made God, any respect shown to the religion is really secondhand and is by virtue of the respect shown to the individual. For example, I would not go up and pee against the door of a church. Not because I am worried about a reaction from any God, but because this building is considered sacred by a group of individuals and I respect their beliefs. I don't agree with these beliefs, I just respect the wishes of the individual, and I would expect them to accord me the same treatment.....wishful thinking I know:)

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

A lot of people seem to get the two rights completely mixed up - respect for the right to hold a belief does not imply respect for the belief itself, any more than respect for somebody's right to eat celery implies respect for that vomit-inducing vegetable.

Damn, here is me struggling to type a reply and drink my morning coffee with a hang over and you beat me to it:(
Damn good post, don't like celery either.

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote:

No one does not, what I think one needs to respect is that every individual has the right to practice his/her selected religion.

What if practicing their religion and their religious law involves using acid on adulterers, and stoning transgressors? How about those who maintain that their religion advocates the destruction of infidels? Do I have to respect their wish to practice it then?

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

What if practicing their religion and their religious law involves using acid on adulterers, and stoning transgressors? How about those who maintain that their religion advocates the destruction of infidels? Do I have to respect their wish to practice it then?

Well, thats a kind of a loaded question. Unfortunately IMO one does have to respect that they have the right to follow their religion. It does not follow that one must respect their religion, nor even tolerate it. The point here is to respect the rite of the individual. Obviously the follows of the religion in this example do not, a sad affair that seems to naturally occur with organized religions.

Dades

I would see your rights to practice your religion as limited by the laws of the jurisdition you practice it in.

Frequently the "tolerate" is more fitting than "respect" in the context of other less palatable religioues practices.

Victor

But don't other religious states have similar restictions? Not all enveloping, but they are definitely slanted.

The Holy See, India, Israel.

legspin

Victor wrote:

But don't other religious states have similar restictions? Not all enveloping, but they are definitely slanted.

The Holy See, India, Israel.

True, but you don't see the Curia coming out and imprisoning anyone for not being a catholic, (well not any more anyway)

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I would see your rights to practice your religion as limited by the laws of the jurisdition you practice it in.

Good point. I did not mention this in my post as I presumed that it was a given. In my own case, Buddhism is very strong on this issue and we are taught to abide by the laws of what ever country we find ourselves in.

Frequently the "tolerate" is more fitting than "respect" in the context of other less palatable religioues practices.

I would agree to using the term tolerate when talking about the religion, when talking about the right to practice I still prefer to say that I respect a persons right to practice a religion. Sorry, its a Buddhist thing.

robindch

> I would agree to using the term tolerate when talking about the religion,
> when talking about the right to practice I still prefer to say that I
> respect a persons right to practice a religion.

I think this is the point at which many come unstuck when it comes to dealing with the personal beliefs of other people.

Yes, it seems reasonable to me that people have a native right to believe whatever they wish, whether it's about the existence of Zeus, the tooth fairy, gravity, WMD's, the evil of homosexuality, the color green, or anything else. The right, however, does not extend to allowing them to act upon this belief and, specifically, it does not to allow them to deny the rights of other people, regardless of, and frequently because of, how strongly the belief might be held.

It's all about reciprocity, really. About half of most populations seem to respect and understand it, and around half don't.

pH

Respect

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect&db=*

I agree with robindch, I am happy to 'respect' (as in sense 2 above - altough as The Atheist has said 'tolerate' is synonymous with this usage) their beliefs (Mohammed was a prophet, Jesus was the son of God, or that homosexuality is wrong etc) as beliefs, ie. things they hold true "in their minds".

However I do not respect any religous beliefs as in sense 1

Futhermore I do not respect (in any sense) their rights to manifest and impose their beliefs on others. Fine, you believe mohammed was God's prophet and that homosexuality is wrong - go worship at a mosque and resist any homosexual urges you may have...

I do NOT respect this or the people or system that would let it happen:
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/222/69/

Dades

I know I posted this recently somewhere, but what the heck...

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

H. L. Mencken

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

Respect

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect&db=*

Just in case anyone misunderstands what I was trying to say, I also am referring to 2 above. No 1 and 3 do not apply. In short, I do not interfere with them and I expect the same in return.

robindch

Briefly, back on topic:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/asia/tourist-problem-for-saudis/2006/07/13/1152637782025.html

"The tourists must comply with the social conducts of the kingdom, to know what's allowed and what's not allowed, what to wear and what not to wear," said Saad al-Kadi, adviser to Prince Sultan. All female tourists will be required to dress according to Saudi tradition: covered from head to toe with only their face, hands and feet exposed. And in the most conservative city, the capital, Riyadh, women must wear a black robe over their clothes. If tourists choose to travel during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset, tourists will not be allowed to eat or drink in public during fasting hours. One thing visitors won't do, however, is tour Islam's most holy sites, including the cities Mecca and Medina. They are off limits to non-Muslims.

...and there's no alcohol. Or nightclubs. And one cinema in the country (women and children only).

Any takers?

Dades

robindch wrote:

And one cinema in the country (women and children only).

I suppose that's only fair if woman aren't allowed at the stonings.

Three pointy ones and a packet of gravel please.

Zillah

Open mindedness...failing. Capacity to respect differences...declining...

Julesie

Sounds like a barrel of laughs alright.

In an ideal world church and state should be forever seperated but hell that isnt even the case in this fair country of ours. Good Friday anyone?

InFront

[QUOTE=pHI do NOT respect this or the people or system that would let it happen:
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/222/69/[/QUOTE]


I presume you do understand that the details surrounding that particular incident as laid out in your link, are very disputed and it appears that the two boys were involved in the rape of a young teenager as opposed to consentual sex with one another. This wasnt mentioned in that article.

Sounds like a barrel of laughs alright

Guys, Saudi Arabia is, in my opinion, with Iran, the most conservative state in the entire world. And thats coming from a Muslim who has experience of the M.E; You shouldnt be surprised that such a conservative state bans alcohol or sees sex offenses as punishible by death. Im not saying the latter is correct, in fact I often disagree with it. But if you go there expecting SA to be a barrell of laughs, or if you go to Tehran expecting gay culture, you are being immature.
Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.
This attitude of 'we know better' when all people in this forum can discuss is other people's religions, really bugs me.

pH

InFront wrote:

I presume you do understand that the details surrounding that particular incident as laid out in your link, are very disputed and it appears that the two boys were involved in the rape of a young teenager as opposed to consentual sex with one another. This wasnt mentioned in that article.

You presume what you want, the 'rape' charge was made up later after the international outcry.

What about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm

Did she rape someone too? What crime would you like me to believe she committed to be hanged at 6:00 am on a crane?

There's plenty women on death row like :

Hajiyeh Esma’eilvand, 30, sentenced to stoning for adultery with an unnamed 17 year old boy.

Leyla Mafi, aged 18, sentenced for moral offences.

On July the 8th 2006 Malek Ghorbani was been sentenced to death by stoning by a court in Orumieh. She was convicted of adultery and is currently in a prison in the town of Orumieh. Please sign a petition to save her at http://savemalak.googlepages.com/home
Another woman in this position is 37 year old Ashraf Kalhari who languishes in Tehran’s Evin prison and has been sentenced to stoning after serving 15 years having committed adultery with her boyfriend who was convicted of the murder of her husband. It is reported that her barbaric execution will be carried out at the end of July 2006, after only serving 5 years of her prison sentence.
http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

InFront wrote:

Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.

Do you believe everybody is happy living under those ideals?

There are times to step back and say it's another culture we don't understand - and there are times to say - no, that is wrong anywhere.

robindch

> Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are
> happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business
> but theirs.

I agree entirely. And the miles-long queue of cars every wednesday evening from Saudi Arabia into Bahrain suggests that there's a large number of people living in KSA who are interested more in what's allowed to happen in Bahrain on a weekend, rather than what's allowed to happen in KSA. Same goes for Dubai.

> This attitude of 'we know better' [...] really bugs me.

We're not saying that we know better. What we are saying is that there's a lot of hipocrisy going on and nobody likes having that pointed out.

Zillah

InFront wrote:

Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.

Yes I'm sure all the dead queers and adulterers are quite happy "living" like that.

Be damned to their ideals sir. Damned again and thrice damned to be sure.

InFront

My post was referring to people lamenting the unavailability of certain western habits in the middle east (Saudi) and seeming to suggest this makes Saudi somehow backwards, which is ridiculous tbh. In my opinion there is a complete unwillingness to look seriously at Middle Eastern culture and acknowledge the right to difference of religious, political and social opinion, and benefits that that culture might allow in kind.

This thread is entitled Saudi Arabia, religious Tolerance not allowed and yet what was being discussed was things like pornographic websites, alcohol and nightclubs. All very superficial and pointless issues, whether they exist or not in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Muslim states, is a matter for the individual country.
Its hardly life or death, and people who are surprised at this or find the censorship ridiculous should grow up in my opinion. Its very immature to expect such things in a place like saudi, which is undoubtedly one of the top 5 most conservative countries worldwide.

Zillah, my post was not an advocation of the death penalty for your typical Iranian homosexual, I was merely stating that the example of a hanging provided in a previous posters link contained some pretty well known doubts that were not referred to or acknowledged, ie the hanged were accused paedophiles.

Zillah

InFront wrote:

This thread is entitled Saudi Arabia, religious Tolerance not allowed and yet what was being discussed was things like pornographic websites, alcohol and nightclubs. All very superficial and pointless issues, whether they exist or not in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Muslim states, is a matter for the individual country.

And of course we can be sure that its what the people want because their leaders are all democratically elected, right?

Its hardly life or death, and people who are surprised at this or find the censorship ridiculous should grow up in my opinion. Its very immature to expect such things in a place like saudi, which is undoubtedly one of the top 5 most conservative countries worldwide.

No its not life and death, its about freedom, which many people would rank above life and death.

Zillah, my post was not an advocation of the death penalty for your typical Iranian homosexual, I was merely stating that the example of a hanging provided in a previous posters link contained some pretty well known doubts that were not referred to or acknowledged, ie the hanged were accused paedophiles.

So, accused paedophiles deserve to be lynched?

Asiaprod

InFront wrote:

My post was referring to people lamenting the unavailability of certain western habits in the middle east (Saudi) and seeming to suggest this makes Saudi somehow backwards, which is ridiculous tbh. In my opinion there is a complete unwillingness to look seriously at Middle Eastern culture and acknowledge the right to difference of religious, political and social opinion, and benefits that that culture might allow in kind.

Good post. I feel that it is not so much the lack of western habits that cause people to view this area as backwards, but the over reaction we see when the authorities try to prevent these western habits taking a foothold, and in particular, the excessive punishments doled out to those who break the laws. Time and again on this forum we have debated the origins of ethics and morals and I think we have more or less come to agreed that one cannot attribute our ethics and morals, no ethos, solely to religion. Religion does indeed influence our codes, but in reality, these have developed over the generations based on the needs of forming viable societies that cooperate to survive. The Religious Intolerance we see today in places like the Middle East run counter to "Natural Evolution" of these moral and ethical codes (that's a new one for JC and Wolfie) and are often seen today as a throw back to the repressive eras of bygone days. IMHO this is indeed taking a step backward, and that is also why I would question the right to enforce their religious, political and social opinions. Any benefit that that culture might bestow becomes overshadowed, dare I say negated, by the cost to personal freedom.

InFront

Asiaprod wrote:

I feel that it is not so much the lack of western habits that cause people to view this area as backwards, but the over reaction we see when the authorities try to prevent these western habits taking a foothold, and in particular, the excessive punishments doled out to those who break the laws.

I agree that the reactionary nature of these administrations to some aspects of (imo) innocent western culture are disappointing. Im talking about certain aspects of censorship. However, that is opinion, we should be able to look at this in an adult way, from "their" perspective. Looking at society in the West, they see a lot to be apprehensive about. It reminds me of somebody overlooking a riot or a great big swell of unhappiness and deciding it is not what they want. Firstly we should try and rememeber that.
Nobody is choosing censorship out of spite or badness. It is a genuine belief that they are doing what is best for their people.

If we accept certain core principles; 1. that nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone else's; 2. all opinion is legitimate belief; 3: all actions by the Muslim states are answerable and accountable to the Cairo Agreement (see here), then we are some way along the road of marrying western understanding to Middle Eastern and Muslim Theories of Social Policy.

Given the above conditions, how can one belief sytem (western culture) override another belief system in importance or weight (middle eastern culture). Obviously, blatent violations of human rights is never OK. But to assume that Western culture should be afforded importance or domination, simply by virtue of being Western, or being perceived to be correct by westreners, isnt sensible. Islam may be all about submission, but that does not include submission to the West and its perception of right and wrong.

As fervently as those in the west believe in their culture, so too do citizens of the Middle East believe in theirs. Neither is more legitimate, and in that regard, Western Culture is no better or no more respectable that Middle Eastern culture.

The Religious Intolerance we see today in places like the Middle East run counter to "Natural Evolution" of these moral and ethical codes (that's a new one for JC and Wolfie) and are often seen today as a throw back to the repressive eras of bygone days. IMHO this is indeed taking a step backward, and that is also why I would question the right to enforce their religious, political and social opinions. Any benefit that that culture might bestow becomes overshadowed, dare I say negated, by the cost to personal freedom.

I think this is a clear example of applying Westernism to Islam, and neither tend to sit comfortably in close company. Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are completely ignored by this society. That doesnt give me the right to preach my ideals here (even though I am also Irish). I suppose the essential point that I am making , is that every state is free to make its own policy and laws. It is not the duty or right of anyone to crusade against lawful acts, but to get on with their own life, and in doing so, if it works, maybe then others will follow you.
The old familiar mantra of we're right, they're wrong is all too common, and far too arrogant and self-confident to be taken seriously in my opinion.

Originally posted by Zillah:
So, accused paedophiles deserve to be lynched?

Sorry if that wasnt clear, they weren't simply accused, but convicted in a trial.

robindch

> Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are
> completely ignored by this society.

Could you give a few examples of things which are ignored?

> is that every state is free to make its own policy and laws

States don't make laws or policies -- people do. The problem is, generally, that the people who are make the laws and policies are not chosen by the populations who have to live with them.

InFront

robindch wrote:

> Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are
> completely ignored by this society.

Could you give a few examples of things which are ignored?

Sure. Im talking about things like alcohol consumption and certain types of human relationships. If I say that "dancing is dangerous", that is one thing, but I dont expect the west to respond to my belief. It has its own belief system in place.

I dont have the right to expect these things of a non Muslim state. Neither do have the right to preach to a non Muslim (or a fellow Muslim for that matter) of my beliefs. This is my underlying problem with the posts in these thread - whatever about expressing disappountment at the Middle East, it is quite another thing to expect things of it. That should be reserved (with respect) to your own culture.

My original point was, and it is still my point, that it is ridiculous to expect certain facets of western life to be available to you in Saudi Arabia.

States don't make laws or policies -- people do. The problem is, generally, that the people who are make the laws and policies are not chosen by the populations who have to live with them.

Im not sure what your point is, this hasnt got anything to do with religion or atheism. Autocracy and Islam are different things. In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith. Stalin, for example.

Schuhart

I think one aspect that might be considered is to remember that censorship as a tool to mould the morals of the people and insulate them from influences deemed to be corrupting is a part of our own past. It also came from a desire to establish religious principles at the heart of life. Those principles were not a million miles away from Islam – such as sexual continence before marriage and criminalisation of homosexuality. The ever handy wikipedia has some material illustrating this.

I think this should, on the one hand, remind us that the essential approach taken by some Middle Eastern states is not some strange aberration in human affairs that could never happen here. Much the same happened here, and in living memory. To that extent, I can appreciate InFront’s point that it’s hard to take people trying to assume the moral high ground.

However, it is hard to take an approach that we tried in the 1920s and 30s and subsequently rejected as oppressive and stunting, and see it as a valid modern alternative to Western society.

Equally we can only notice that Ireland was at least a functioning democracy while all that was being done, so at least the State needed to get a mandate to visit all that stuff on us.

When these points are considered, I think it is fair enough for us to criticise countries giving a special place to one religion and shutting out any material that might distract the faithful. It is not an approach that is beyond our understanding or experience.

Dades

InFront, it's a rare and a great occasion that we've had poster come and argue here a different side. The different perspective is appreciated.

InFront wrote:

As fervently as those in the west believe in their culture, so too do citizens of the Middle East believe in theirs. Neither is more legitimate, and in that regard, Western Culture is no better or no more respectable that Middle Eastern culture.

Isn't the point here that we don't really know that to be the case? I suspect polling isn't big in S.A. As robindch pointed out - there are plenty of people willing to journey distances for a taste of "western" lifestyle - if only for a weekend.

InFront wrote:

I think this is a clear example of applying Westernism to Islam, and neither tend to sit comfortably in close company. Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are completely ignored by this society.

There are of course dangers that come with little restriction. Alcholism is one - but allowing people to make their own mistakes is a right in itself. Unsure what you mean by "certain types of human relationship", I don't see danger there. The point is the dangers are evident within that society. Wouldn't it be true to say there are different dangers involved in a more "restricted" society? Perhaps a lot more potential for injustices to go unnoticed? It easier to get away with things when the eyes of the world can't see you - especially in human relationships.

InFront wrote:

In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith. Stalin, for example.

Don't go down that road. Muslim countries have always had Muslim leaders, are you saying they have all been noble and worthy?