Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak hit the headlines (again) last week when he came out with a fatwa condemning the ‘mixing of sexes’ in university or workplace settings. His target was changes slowly moving through Saudi society and supported both by the King and his ministries. Al-Barrak was not speaking only for himself, apparently, as Arab News reports that a collection of religious scholars, judges, and imams have come out supporting his view.
It could be that this group is trying to force the hand of government, requiring it to take measures against them. If that’s the case, then all I can say is, ‘Remember the Battle of Sabilla.’
Al-Barrak gets support from a few scholars
MUHAMMAD AL-SULAMI | ARAB NEWSJEDDAH: Over two dozen Saudi religious scholars have come out in support of a fatwa issued by Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nasser Al-Barrak in which he called for the death of those who promote gender mixing in workplaces and educational institutes.
Al-Barrak, a 77 year-old scholar from Qassim, said the mixing of men and women in the workplace and in educational institutions is religiously prohibited. He also said those who approve gender mixing are “infidels” and that they should either retract their views or be killed. “Gender mixing is totally prohibited by the Qur’an and Sunnah,” said the 28 scholars in a statement issued on Monday in support of Al-Barrak.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
March:03:2010 - 22:23
When is the next probe going to Mars? We can send him there with it?
Hey I have a serious issue with a holy man calling on the death of people who interact normally like humans and not Martians. Thus, I have this strange compulsion to grab his beard downwards as I slap both his cheeks and say, “Wake UP from your trance…We R oN PlaNet Earth Fool.”
March:03:2010 - 23:30
Don’t propose a violent solution, even if it’s less violent than killing someone. Ridicule is a sharper weapon and it leaves no marks.
March:04:2010 - 00:08
What cheeks did you think I was talking about?
March:04:2010 - 00:20
Also, yesterday I was walking the streets again with a friend a truck came barreling down like he was going to side swipe me. So my reaction was to move closer and put my chest out and then there was this dude hanging out the window and I looked him right in the eyes and said, “What’s up?” with both my hands outwards palms facing outwards gangster style. They sped off so I piced up a huge bulder and my friend said, “What are you doing?” I said, “Protection”. She said, “No put the it down by law of attraction it is not good.” She kept saying put it down law of attraction says. I said, “Law of attraction says get close enough to me you are going to attract this large rock through your windshield!” I said when we reach the end of the street safely I will put the rock down and law of attraction says there is nothing more than I would love to do than put this rock through some A holes windshield. Enough said.
March:04:2010 - 04:30
Does he include the King in his death sentence?
Does he hope to win this battle against the King?
God save Saudi Arabia!
March:04:2010 - 05:48
There were many bearded men at the bookfair…not acting inappropriately. Umm the Ministry of Culture and Information booths were completely bare…
March:06:2010 - 05:53
U silly devil worshippin kafirs have no say in this affair. U don’t know islam so why don’t u face ur silly dogmatic ways of life suckas?? He didn’t call for their deaths, but stupid you don’t even understand arabic. He made a statement that he who permits the forbidden is killed. That’s a classical islamic ruling. Christianity did the same, albeit unreasonably when scientist were burned at the stake.
March:06:2010 - 08:15
Sleek: Thanks for your comment, on which I disagree on nearly every point. When Islam affects our lives, we have more than a right to speak on it, though we also have an obligation to try to understand it.
The sheikh’s comments would be considered calling for their deaths in any court in any nation. He’s not absolved simply because he cites holy authority for his call, either textual or precedental.
Yes, Christian scientists were burned at the stake unreasonably. It is equally unreasonable to kill those who note that modern reality is not the same as in the 7th Century.
But please, do continue to comment.
March:06:2010 - 14:14
Sleek LMFAO @ suckas…
He who commits the forbidden…
Is you high on God man? Those is some crazy matha f ers!
March:06:2010 - 15:06
OMG…By law of attraction Sleek is surreal…
March:06:2010 - 21:49
Permitting the forbidden includes mixing of sexes – the subject of this post. In effect the fatwa calls for killing those who allow mixing of sexes. No point in trying to defend the fatwa by saying things like we don’t understand Arabic. The fatwa implies exactly what this post says, unless this commentator can show how it means otherwise.
Using abusive language doesn’t make an argument valid.
We are supposed to understand Islam but people who have this kind of mindset don’t see that any kind of understanding has to be necessarily a two-way process. The orthodox Muslims also should try to understand the values of a secular democracy.
It is equally offensive and closed-minded to abuse non-Muslims in this derogatory fashion just because they are not going to follow Islam. If orthodox Muslims are not going to understand other people’s viewpoint, they should not expect any kind of understanding from others either.
And no point in saying Christianity did the same. Christianity did it in the mediaeval period. Extremist Islam is doing it now – after it has access to so many other kinds of ideas which didn’t exist in the mediaeval period.
I hope this commentator understands English and most non-Muslims are not going to follow Islam, no matter what the rabid, orthodox, closed-minded, ill-behaved, extremist Muslims such as this commentator think about them.
March:06:2010 - 22:36
I just visited the blog of this commentator. Why is it that so many science students turn into extremist, closed-minded, orthodox religionists under the false impression that they are following “new reason?”
Is it of any consequence that s/he happens to be a Nigerian?