Saudi Arabia - Religious Tolerance not allowed!

robindch

I'll happily concede that alcohol causes many social problems, as a quick trip to any of the homeless shelters around Dublin will show. However, I'm not sure about the other one -- could you characterize in greater detail, the "dangers" arise from "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.

Well, if you produced evidence to suggest that dancing causes major problems, then I think many people would listen. If, however, you simply say that it's dangerous without justifying what you're saying, then do you think that it's unreasonable for people to fail to respond to your belief?

> 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.

I'm not *expecting* them to be available, but simply noting (again) that there is some serious hipocrisy going on here, with thousands of Saudis heading over to Bahrain and Dubai for the weekend to indulge in whatever they're not allowed to indulge in at home.

> Im not sure what your point is, this hasnt got anything to do with religion
> or atheism. Autocracy and Islam are different things.

Clarifying my point: you said that "every state is free to make its own policy and laws". I am pointing out that laws and policy are made by a small group of human beings and these laws and policies are then applied to people who have no part in the decision-making process. This contradicts your excellent statement that "nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone else's", because clearly, the opinions of a small group are understood to be more valid than everybody else's, since they get to make the laws.

I'm not criticizing islam for anything, other than the obvious point that it's frequently provides the justification for whatever the ruling group wants to do. One could describe it as a useful tool.

> In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith.

You will find that virtually none of them have been atheists (Stalin spent some years in a christian seminary), and the few that were atheists appropriated explicitly religious modes of hero-worship to maintain their grip on power.

Wibbs

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,

Well religious tolerance is hardly allowed in SA either. For a start Jews aren't allowed into the kingdom. If you even have an Israeli stamp in your passport you're refused entry. You can't wear a crucifix, star of david or any other religious symbol in public. The bible isn't allowed to be brought into the country, even showing one to the wrong local could have you in jail. Mein Kampf is OK though and is a big seller and not just in SA. It's openly available in Egypt from street sellers, but any non islamic religious book being sold will get you in serious hot water. Lets not forget about the plight of women and a lot of foreign workers(who are basically endentured slaves). This is a country that only banned slavery in the last 30yrs. Women can't travel freely or even drive a car. The fire that claimed the lives of women fairly recently is a tragic classic. The "religious" police wouldn't let them come out of the burning building because they weren't veiled. If that's an example of religion, count me right out. That place is nuttier than a bucket of squirrel sh1t and no amount of moral equivalency can change that. To be fair you agree it's off the scale on the conservative front.

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

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in most of these cases we're not talking about states here. We're talking about a very small group of people are the ones doing the policy making.

It is not the duty or right of anyone to crusade against lawful acts

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I would say that there have been far too many "just" laws in the past that were completely crackers for that statement to be true. Apartheid was the law. Segregation of Blacks in the US was the Law. Slavery was the Law. Executing children and the mentally ill was the Law(still is in many states in the US)Inequality of women was the Law. The lack of the vote for the common man and woman was the Law. It is precisely the duty of every citizen who deserves the name, who has an issue with any law they feel unjust to crusade against it. If others agree then things may change for the better. This of course is difficult in any theocratic state as such laws are considered immutable for all time. Great system altogether. No accounting for societal changes or evolution.

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.

The west is not the only one that accusation can be levelled at. Not by a long shot. Arrogance is far easier to sustain when you think you have God on your side(check out some americans for the western version). Islam like most unreconstructed faiths can be extremely arrogant in this manner.

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

The trial was a farce, like many in that country. Read more about it. Iran is a charm for that guff. One girl was hanged because she was acting "rebellious" in the mind of the judge. Brilliant. Others are awaiting stoning. Welcome to the dark ages.

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 see your point with the demon drink, but as the Atheist points out allowing people personal responsability for their mistakes is a right in itself(whooole other debate as to how far to extend same. Drugs etc). Many Muslims would consider dancing "dangerous". Fair enough, that's their choice and I respect that so long as that doesn't stop others from partaking. There is a balance here.

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.

In this I actually agree with you. I don't expect that those facets in SA. That goes both ways too. Any culture who thinks their way is perfectly correct is dangerous. At least the ideal of secular democracy has the concept that the current laws and mores are just that, current and can be adapted and updated in response to changing needs. Not exactly the case with any theocracy. That to my mind is where it's superiority may lie.

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

Well religious tolerance is hardly allowed in SA either. For a start Jews aren't allowed into the kingdom. If you even have an Israeli stamp in your passport you're refused entry. You can't wear a crucifix, star of david or any other religious symbol in public. The bible isn't allowed to be brought into the country,.

I think we have very similiar opinions in some respects. Perhaps I am brainswasjed to certain point by living in the west, (a Saudi might suggest) but I dont believe the hostility to the Jews that exists in some administrations is warranted in Islam. Yes, Jews are banned there. That is religious intolerance (in my opinion). A new bill in Israel banning Muslims from moving into Jewish communities is also racist and intolerant.
You have mentioned some very extreme cases, like banning the wearing of a Christian symbol. I also think that banning similiar religious modes such as Hijab, in France, is religious intolerance.
While I think that Saudi has some serious questions to answer on these issues, they are not alone. Places like Israel and France are answerable too.

even showing one to the wrong local could have you in jail. Mein Kampf is OK though and is a big seller and not just in SA.

Thats right its done quite well in Turkey too, and its quite strange, I didnt think Hitler thought much of Arabs. It is worrying for Anti Semitism in these places. This is a real issue of religious intolerance in Saudia Arabia, Im glad that you brought it up. You also mentioned sad the case of the Saudi girls who died in a fire. Im unfamiliar with the details of that, but from the small bit I remember it does seem to have been an unwarranted tragedy. Very sad for all of the families, and of course I think they should have tried to save them and let God decide after that.

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in most of these cases we're not talking about states here. We're talking about a very small group of people are the ones doing the policy making. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I would say that there have been far too many "just" laws in the past that were completely crackers for that statement to be true. Apartheid was the law. Segregation of Blacks in the US was the Law. Slavery was the Law.

My point is that not all of the states who recognise the importance of Islam are dictatorships. Pakistan is not a dictatorship. Bangladesh is not. Neither are Morocco, Bahrain, Jordon, more. There are many dictatorships run by Atheists and Christians and others.
Nevertheless, Islamic autocracy occurs. I'm talking about not criticising laws that are within the Cairo Agreement (Charter for Human Rights for the guidance of Islamic nations). Anything that is within those parameters, and is decided by the govenrment may be 'crackers' to you, but is valid and lawful to the people who live there.

If others agree then things may change for the better. This of course is difficult in any theocratic state as such laws are considered immutable for all time. Great system altogether. No accounting for societal changes or evolution.

Im not sure what you mean by this. Laws change and are amended and new laws are introduced constantly across the Middle East. It is very difficult to speak of the Middle East as one entity when there is a whole spectrum of policies across the region, but even in Iran, laws change and are ameneded frequently. And in that case, it isnt always to the approval of the religious scholars. Im talking about women in sports if you have heard of that disagreement. Ahmedinejad isnt Mr popular with everyone.

Arrogance is far easier to sustain when you think you have God on your side(check out some americans for the western version). Islam like most unreconstructed faiths can be extremely arrogant in this manner.

I have never encountered an Arab, or a Muslim, or indeed anyone from Asia or the Middle East come here and expect things to change or expect everything to be like back at home. Have you? Yet thats exactly how this thread began. *They dont see life as we do, idiots* attitude.

I see your point with the demon drink, but as the Atheist points out allowing people personal responsability for their mistakes is a right in itself(whooole other debate as to how far to extend same. Drugs etc).

Do you see the contradiction in your statement? You think its okay to allow drinks but not cocaine for example? Well why not let people make their own mistakes? This is where we differ on opinion. I dont think it is best practice to allow the people to make their own misakes. Be it from God, or the family or the community or the state, portection and guidance are valuable things. Laws help contain personal freedom within the parameters of public safety and wellness.

Many Muslims would consider dancing "dangerous". Fair enough, that's their choice and I respect that so long as that doesn't stop others from partaking. There is a balance here.

My point exactly!:) I cant come over here and expect a ban on alcohol in the same way as people cant go over there and expect there to be alcohol. Its about getting on with your own agenda and not interfering with other's rules.

In this I actually agree with you. I don't expect that those facets in SA. That goes both ways too. Any culture who thinks their way is perfectly correct is dangerous. At least the ideal of secular democracy has the concept that the current laws and mores are just that, current and can be adapted and updated in response to changing needs. Not exactly the case with any theocracy.

The West places just as much importance on its legislation as does anywhere else. Nobody here looks upon the law and says 'thats a bit dodgy, lets ignore it'. MCD anyone? The law is applied with equal force here, no matter how little sense it makes.
I dont know any countries in the region that dont amend laws or create new laws on an ongoing basis.
In my opinion, the real difference is in the substance of these laws. And as long as that matter is agreeable to the Cairo agreement, and lets not forget, agreeable to Islam, then it is right that it should be upheld. Western countries can have no place in approving or dicrediting laws made in independent countries that meet these conditions.

InFront

robindch wrote:

Well, if you produced evidence to suggest that dancing causes major problems, then I think many people would listen. If, however, you simply say that it's dangerous without justifying what you're saying, then do you think that it's unreasonable for people to fail to respond to your belief?

With respect I think you have missed the point. Nobody in the west has to respons to the belief that these things are dangerous because its a culture where these things are automatically accepted.
Certain western habits are automatically not accept in the Middle east, so people should stop expecting it.

You will find that virtually none of them have been atheists (Stalin spent some years in a christian seminary), and the few that were atheists appropriated explicitly religious modes of hero-worship to maintain their grip on power.

Stalin was an atheist, it is in every biography I have ever seen. So was Lenin. And Brezhnev. These are the only ones I happen to know from history, whoi knows how many there are. Autocracy doesnt have any foundation in religion, they are seperate things.

robindch

> With respect I think you have missed the point.

And I think you have missed the point of what I've written, but it's hardly worth rewriting in full

> Autocracy doesnt have any foundation in religion,

I think most anthropologists would disagree with you on that!

Have a good weekend.

Schuhart

The West has no particular right to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Ultimately, even oppressive government fall if the people collectively decide to ignore them, as we saw in Eastern Europe.

But we can comment what we see other countries do. There’s nothing wrong with someone with a conservative Islamic outlook expressing the view that our women are harlots, and our societies are wrong to permit all kinds of perversions to say nothing of the demon drink. And there’s nothing wrong with us pointing out that we’ve been where they are, and we can probably see how they’re pinned. Incidently, with true apologies to InFront, all the talk of dangerous dancing reminded me of that moment in Futurama “Y'know, that dance wasn't as safe as they said it was."

At the end of the day, no god or angel under his instruction dictated a book into the ear of a prophet. That’s just not how the world works. Whatever about respecting the right of people to live an illusion if it comforts them, building a society on the basis of this fairytale is pure nuts.

Islam is not alone in attempting this. It was only in 1973 that we voted to drop the provision in the Constitution recognising the special position of the Catholic Church, which was a symbol of the attempt to reflect Roman Catholic ethics in the laws of the State. We’ve been where they are. We know it’s a blind alley. We know what was cloaked by the comely maidens image of Ireland at that time.

We know this story from the inside. So its not arrogance to point out that the Cairo Agreement looks to have all the fudges you would expect such a document to have. Some points are very nice. Who could argue with Article 22 (d)? “It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.”
Specifically, I found Article 22 (a) to (c), and particularly Article 24 “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah” simply invalidated the whole document.

It’s not a charter of rights – it’s a ball of smoke attempting to hide the inevitable incompatibility of liberty with the imposition of a particular religion. It’s what a PR consultancy would produce if the Vatican asked them to sell Roman Catholicism to the GLBT community.

InFront

If that is your opinion it's fair enough. I find Atheism an interesting approach to living one's life. But before I leave this topic I would like to say that for all of the scope that exists for intolerance within Islam, through misinterpretation, propoganda, and foolish conservatism, there equally exists this scope for intolerance within all faiths and no faiths. Intolerance is something that haunts all religion and no religion. It is more on a human question. Some of the comments Ive read here are interesting but I think I have read enough now to understand your view:)

Zillah

InFront wrote:

Intolerance is something that haunts all religion and no religion. It is more on a human question.

Not equally however. I think you'll find that the religious are far more likely to be intolerant due to their irrational beliefs than atheists or agnostics. If an atheist is anti-religious then its a bias against the insitution of organised religion, not one faith in particular.

Dades

InFront wrote:

I have never encountered an Arab, or a Muslim, or indeed anyone from Asia or the Middle East come here and expect things to change or expect everything to be like back at home. Have you? Yet thats exactly how this thread began. *They dont see life as we do, idiots* attitude.

For the record the thread started as an observation on how certain websites are censured, followed by how robindch had to lie about his beliefs to get in to the country. The fact he would have liked a beer was really an aside.

Beruthiel

Although Saudi Arabia signed the 'UN Covenant for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women' (CEDAW) in September 2001, women live as third class citizens here. They are not allowed to drive or to travel without written permission from a male guardian. Women cannot walk alone even in their own neighbourhoods without the fear of being stopped and possibly detained by the Mutawwai'in, the religious police.
There is more discrimination in the workplace. For example, women are discouraged from taking up careers in law, architecture and engineering because they are more likely to be in contact with men.

In the family, roles are very unequal too. Under Saudi law, a man can have up to four wives. He can marry a Christian or a Jew, whilst a Saudi woman can only marry a Muslim. As marriage is regarded as an important bond between two Saudi families, some women will quietly put up with violence and abuse in the home. Unlike her husband, a woman must go to court to prove her case for divorce. If the divorce is granted, she can only keep custody of her children until seven years old for a son, and nine years old for a daughter, and she can only receive maintenance payments from her ex-husband for three months. The lack of money and the limited job opportunities leaves many women destitute and heartbroken.

The time for when women in Saudi Arabia can enjoy full rights as human beings is long overdue!

The above comments are from a woman living in Saudia Arabia. Perhaps some women are happy to live like that, but I don't for one second think all women living there are happy to have men tell them how they should run their own lives.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

I think we have very similiar opinions in some respects.

TBH I wouldn't be that surprised.

Perhaps I am brainswasjed to certain point by living in the west, (a Saudi might suggest) but I dont believe the hostility to the Jews that exists in some administrations is warranted in Islam.

It's a grey area in Islam. There are many passages that would be construed as anti Jewish(anti christian and pagan too) in both the Quran and especially Hadeeth. In the Islamic doomsday scenario. Jesus can't even return til the rocks and trees cry out "there's a Jew behind me oh servant of Allah. Come and kill him"(except some tree that the Jews friend apparently).

Yes, Jews are banned there. That is religious intolerance (in my opinion).

Agreed.

A new bill in Israel banning Muslims from moving into Jewish communities is also racist and intolerant.

Agreed as well, though one seems more a response to a percieved threat(however dubious), while the other has some basis in dogma. The former is easier to repeal.

You have mentioned some very extreme cases, like banning the wearing of a Christian symbol.

Not that extreme and it's any religious symbol that's not Islamic.

I also think that banning similiar religious modes such as Hijab, in France, is religious intolerance.
While I think that Saudi has some serious questions to answer on these issues, they are not alone. Places like Israel and France are answerable too.

There may indeed be a case to answer there. That said in France it's all religious symbols. None get preferential treatment. There's a difference. Again it can be changed in a secular state, if the people want it to change. It's not part of the dogma of the faith. Among Mohammeds last words were "turn the pagans (non-Muslims) out of the Arabian lands". This stuff doesn't come from a vacuum. It was one of the reasons osama binladen got upset oer the first gulf war. The idea that US troops were on holy ground got his back up.

Thats right its done quite well in Turkey too, and its quite strange, I didnt think Hitler thought much of Arabs. It is worrying for Anti Semitism in these places. This is a real issue of religious intolerance in Saudia Arabia, Im glad that you brought it up.

Yeah the mein kampf thing is a bit mad for an Arab to read given the ideas behind it. The other popular tome in some areas is the (false)Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You also mentioned sad the case of the Saudi girls who died in a fire. Im unfamiliar with the details of that, but from the small bit I remember it does seem to have been an unwarranted tragedy. Very sad for all of the families, and of course I think they should have tried to save them and let God decide after that.

Naturally you like any caring human being would think that. The worrying part is the suggestion that a God would even need to decide any moral issue with them being rescued unveiled.

Nevertheless, Islamic autocracy occurs. I'm talking about not criticising laws that are within the Cairo Agreement (Charter for Human Rights for the guidance of Islamic nations).

I also agree with Schuhart that the inclusion of the Sharia part is part of the problem there.

Anything that is within those parameters, and is decided by the govenrment may be 'crackers' to you, but is valid and lawful to the people who live there.

As I've pointed out many crazy morally corrupt and dodgy laws/mores were considered valid and lawful things in the past. That in itself doesn't make it right. Hell, we burned witches for long enough in Europe. Look there is much in the Arab world that is good and admirable. Crime tends to be low. People are often more charitable, welcoming and friendly among other things. I'm definitely not tarring all with the same brush. Not by a long shot.

Im not sure what you mean by this. Laws change and are amended and new laws are introduced constantly across the Middle East. It is very difficult to speak of the Middle East as one entity when there is a whole spectrum of policies across the region,

Very true.

but even in Iran, laws change and are ameneded frequently. And in that case, it isnt always to the approval of the religious scholars. Im talking about women in sports if you have heard of that disagreement. Ahmedinejad isnt Mr popular with everyone.

Laudable to be sure. I've heard of the women in sports debate. The fact it needs to be debated is a bit strange to my ears if you see what I mean. Now fair play that it is being debated. It does show people are pushing for more freedoms. More power to them. Actually as an aside I think Iran may surprise us yet. A young population that isn't too happy in many quarters with the current status quo.

I have never encountered an Arab, or a Muslim, or indeed anyone from Asia or the Middle East come here and expect things to change or expect everything to be like back at home. Have you?

Actually I have. TBH I'd be surprised if they didn't. How many visitors to another country moan and bitch about how it's not like "back home". That guff is universal.The Irish looking for full Irish breakfasts on thier holidays to the middle of nowhere. Heard it myself once on a trip into the desert in Morrocco. English chick asking a local if they had any bacon for breakfast. The way that lad tried and failed to keep a straight face was priceless. His answer was that if she or her husband found and slaughtered a pig he would be only too happy to cook it. Class.

Yet thats exactly how this thread began. *They dont see life as we do, idiots* attitude.

Again a universal trait.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement?

Oh yeah. I do. Big debate as I've said.

This is where we differ on opinion. I dont think it is best practice to allow the people to make their own misakes.

Weeelllll. Another time we'll get back to that one.

Be it from God, or the family or the community or the state, portection and guidance are valuable things. Laws help contain personal freedom within the parameters of public safety and wellness.

Yes but the advantage of the state over God is the flexibilty over time of the former.

The West places just as much importance on its legislation as does anywhere else. Nobody here looks upon the law and says 'thats a bit dodgy, lets ignore it'. MCD anyone? The law is applied with equal force here, no matter how little sense it makes.

The amount of people who will smoke pot at the weekend throws that one out for a start. There are many other examples.

I dont know any countries in the region that dont amend laws or create new laws on an ongoing basis.

So long as it agrees with Sharia.

Wibbs

Beruthiel wrote:

"Although Saudi Arabia signed the 'UN Covenant for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women' (CEDAW) in September 2001, women live as third class citizens here. They are not allowed to drive or to travel without written permission from a male guardian. Women cannot walk alone even in their own neighbourhoods without the fear of being stopped and possibly detained by the Mutawwai'in, the religious police.
There is more discrimination in the workplace. For example, women are discouraged from taking up careers in law, architecture and engineering because they are more likely to be in contact with men.

In the family, roles are very unequal too. Under Saudi law, a man can have up to four wives. He can marry a Christian or a Jew, whilst a Saudi woman can only marry a Muslim. As marriage is regarded as an important bond between two Saudi families, some women will quietly put up with violence and abuse in the home. Unlike her husband, a woman must go to court to prove her case for divorce. If the divorce is granted, she can only keep custody of her children until seven years old for a son, and nine years old for a daughter, and she can only receive maintenance payments from her ex-husband for three months. The lack of money and the limited job opportunities leaves many women destitute and heartbroken.

The time for when women in Saudi Arabia can enjoy full rights as human beings is long overdue!"

The above comments are from a woman living in Saudia Arabia. Perhaps some women are happy to live like that, but I don't for one second think all women living there are happy to have men tell them how they should run their own lives.

That quote is a good example of why no religion should have the control of the state. Most of that has good backing from the Holy books, hence the enforcement by the religious police. Even the term religious police gets my back up. To be fair the job discrimination and the divorce proceedings wouldn't be particularly Islamic.

Zillah

...some are more equal than others...

Schuhart

Putting a slightly different spin on it, religions often depend on the quiescence of women. One possible reason why this quiescence is frequently forthcoming may well be that women appreciate the familiar protections that their faith brings.

For example, Islam probably marked a step forward for Bedouin tribeswomen to the extent that it actually recognised them as deserving equal respect to men, even if that is where it saw equality ending. Taking an example closer to home and in more recent times, recall Alice Glenn TD’s comment that a woman voting for divorce in a constitutional referendum was like a turkey voting for Christmas. A part of religious thought seems to whisper in a woman’s ear ‘You’re doing fine, plus you don’t really want to do dead hard sums or heavy lifting. Where do you think he’s going to be if you say you can look after yourself?’

This article was posted up in a thread on the Islam board, just giving some views from Muslim women which I think reflect this. It is there in the reluctance to face up to some pretty obvious flaws in the outlook of their faith by saying ‘well, I think I’ll pass that question on to Allah’, who as always prefers to cite the Fifth.

On a more positive note, once a dialogue starts it pretty much has to reach its obvious conclusion. Take an average Irish Roman Catholic from 1950 living in [insert name of Irish small town that you have a bias against]. Put him in the middle of his present day Muslim equivalents, and you’ll find they have a lot to share. Our townie might have taken the pledge, so they could even agree on alcohol. Where is that average Irish Roman Catholic now?