With a series of new Royal Decrees, Saudi Arabia has taken an amazing step backward from free speech. Directly and indirectly, the newly-amended Press & Publications Law now criminalizes, well, just about anything. Sedition? Check. Lèse majesté? Check. ‘Anything affecting the reputation or dignity’ of anyone? Check. ‘Propagating division between citizens? Check.

That doesn’t leave much to talk about, does it? Maybe the weather is uncontroversial. But if the weather causes floods and people die as a result, this law would prevent talking about who is responsible for the lack of preparation: that would clearly be ‘divisive’. How about sports? No… criticizing a goalie’s poor performance will surely annoy him, his friends, family, and supporters.

Saudi Gazette has the more complete coverage of the announcement made through the Saudi Press Agency. It notes that the law pertains not just to Saudi newspapers, but also to online media, including those of Saudis writing outside the Kingdom.

This is truly both breathtaking in its scope and its stupidity. One does not protect the dignity of people by calling in the cudgel of law, with its power to confiscate newspapers, close their offices, find them heavily, and banning future writings. All that does is push criticism underground while falsely creating a sense that everything is quiet. As I said in an earlier piece, Arab governments have already lost the battle to control media, both professional and personal. They cannot put the genie of the Internet back in the bottle, nor close it down.

The sole redeeming factor in this law is that judgments will be made by new, professional committees. That’s pretty thin gruel. Who will comprise these committees? How will they interpret the law, which is sweepingly overbroad?

It certainly appears that a veil of silence is about to descend on the people and media of Saudi Arabia.

Royal Decrees amend Press Law
with violations and penalties

RIYADH: A number of Royal Decrees were issued Friday containing amendments to the Press and Publications Law of Nov. 2000, addressing violations in the content of published materials, the authorities tasked with investigating and ruling on offenses, and the penalties they incur.

The first of the five amendments concerns Article 9 of the law, with the text now reading:

“All officials in printed materials will heed to objective and constructive criticism in the public interest based on facts and correct testimonies, and are barred from publishing in any form whatsoever the following:

1 – Anything that violates Islamic Shariah rulings or laws in force.
2 – Anything calling for breaches of the security of the country or its public law, or anything that serves foreign interests in conflict with national interests.
3 – Anything affecting the reputation or dignity of, or slandering or personally insulting, the Grand Mufti of the Kingdom or members of the Board of Senior Ulema, or dignitaries of the state or any of its employees, or any person of ordinary standing or any legal person.
4 – Inciting and propagating division between citizens.
5 – Promoting or inciting to crime.
6 – Anything damaging to the country’s public affairs.
7 – Details of investigations or trials without obtaining permission from the legally authorized authority.”

The second amendment made in the Royal Decrees concerns Article 36, which now reads:

“The Ministry may – according to need – remove any publication without compensation, if it is found to contain anything barred from publication by Article 9 of the law.”


April:30:2011 - 07:16 | Comments & Trackbacks (94) | Permalink
94 Responses to “New Saudi Law Tells Media, ‘Shut Up’”
  1. 1
    Balqis Said:
    April:30:2011 - 07:53 

    These rules are all over the gulf, maybe not in a detailed decree that targets media, but they were always there and can be derived from constitution, which is fair, given that we are talking about countries whose laws are inspired by Islam
    At least now are put on paper
    But from the text their main concern is sectarianism, not much limiting freedom of expression and I am not sure it will help
    Laws like that are also in western countries
    For example I am willing to write a post on my blog on tomorrow beatification in Rome, but I will do very carefully because is very easy for the postal police and the public prosecutor in italy to accuse one of terrorism if Muslim
    Just because it happens in Saudi arabia, it will cause an uproar

  2. 2
    Michel Said:
    April:30:2011 - 07:55 

    Really sad news…
    By the way are you/we allowed to make such comments here ?

  3. 3
    John Burgess Said:
    April:30:2011 - 08:13 

    The fact that the rules are found in many countries doesn’t make them right. Their basis doesn’t make them right. I do think it right that the laws will cause an uproar as they are a hugely retrograde step. While they were uncodified, there was at least the wiggle-room of ambiguity. Now, the laws unambiguously criminalize basic human rights. That is indeed ‘sad news’.

    I’m afraid I don’t know anything at all about Italian law and its approach to freedom of speech.

  4. 4
    Balqis Said:
    April:30:2011 - 09:08 

    But in which civilised country are we allowed to offend a religious leader or the government or to promote crime and hatred ?
    Nowhere I think
    If your doubt is on how and by who, decisions will be taken, then fine, but I think still you and the majority of those who criticise this law, will be biased, because it is done in Saudi arabia
    Freedom of speech is not freedom of offending
    The only grey area I see among those is number 6, which can be open to a wide range of interpretations
    It is not a shut up law
    Same as for that on blogs they did few months ago, is a call for responsibility
    Problem today is that the quality of journalism is very law and not only in the Gulf and not only for censorship or self censorship
    It is just because any Tom dick and Harry belonging to the category, believes that he is entitled to say anything
    How many lies were we told during the colored revolutions ?
    Maybe it is about time to put rules on papers

  5. 5
    Light My F-Bomb Said:
    April:30:2011 - 09:20 

    Thus, the reason 16 years later I have no Saudi Citizenship. Praise Allah…Allah Who Akbar…Allah Who Akbar…Allah WHO?

  6. 6
    Jerry M Said:
    April:30:2011 - 09:26 

    “But in which civilised country are we allowed to offend a religious leader or the government or to promote crime and hatred ? Nowhere I think”

    In most of the West you can criticize the government and people in the government, as long as you are not calling for violent overthrow. You can certainly offend religious leaders with impunity in the West. Perhaps those aren’t civilized countries to you.

  7. 7
    Light My F-Bomb Said:
    April:30:2011 - 09:33 

    You know there are a million ways to keep the peace and silencing people is not the answer because when people hold it in they are going EXPLODE!

    I’m not trying to kiss King Abdullah’s butt or anything but I mean I want peace AND he has maintained it so I gotta give up to him a little BUT let us not mow down people guys. That is like WOA man somebody smoking.

    By the way, there was a lovely F-bomb (my terminology…) today in the Arab Newspaper “Steps Toward a Healthier Generation in Saudi Arabia” that was almost angelic or alien. Let us put our attention to the positive: energy goes where focus flows.

  8. 8
    Balqis Said:
    April:30:2011 - 10:04 

    Jerry

    if you read the text of the law, it doesn’t forbid constructive criticism of government
    But it has been made by the Saudi government, so it has to be bad
    No you cannot offend religious leaders in civilised countries, at least in Europe where we have a great great traditions, and that is probably a consequence of political correctness and multiculturalism
    What is the reason why we should offend them
    One may argue that only Islam and its leaders are included in that law, while in western countries all religions are mentioned but that is another story
    Who follows closely M.E. politics, knows that the law is clearly aimed at avoiding further clashes, but not sure it will be enough

  9. 9
    Jerry M Said:
    April:30:2011 - 10:06 

    I am sure the Saudis have taken lesson from how the Chinese control dissent. I don’t think they understand what is so very different between China and Saudi Arabia. Economic conditions in China for most of the people are imroving greatly over a generation ago. Many people are willing to accept a tradeoff between economic opportunities and free expression, one can point to a similar story in Singapore.

    In Saudi Arabia efforts to improve the job market for Saudis have not succeeded. I don’t know if the problem is cultural (Saudis won’t take low end jobs) or economic (foreigners are cheaper). Periodic attempts to bribe the Saudi population are not a solution to the problem.

  10. 10
    John Burgess Said:
    April:30:2011 - 10:37 

    @Balqis: No, most civilized countries do not outlaw insulting others, or–particularly–’offending’ them. There are laws to protect children, but not adults and not adults in positions of authority. There is no human right to not be offended. Who decides what’s offensive? Can I say your comment offends me? How about the color of your eyes? How about your spelling or grammar? There are very few social interactions in life that do not hold the potential to offend.

    Sure, people should behave ‘responsibly’, but who–again–gets to define the terms? Am I behaving responsibly when I point to corruption, even though it offends the official taking bribes and the person giving them? I’m sure they’ll be offended; I’m taking money out of their pockets. Tom, Dick, and Harry ARE entitled to say just about everything. Laws do exist to punish certain kinds of provably false speech like slander or fraud. They cannot justly exist to punish opinion. The new laws offer no hint as to what basis will be used to judge the content of speech. Never mind that content shouldn’t be judged at all, but with no rational basis for judging, it’s all just as arbitrary as however the judge(s) happen to feel today. That is the definition of injustice.

  11. 11
    Jerry M Said:
    April:30:2011 - 10:41 

    @Balqis

    Can you cite an actual example of someone being punished for offending a religious leader in Europe? In England you certainly can insult religious leaders with impunity.

  12. 12
    Balqis Said:
    April:30:2011 - 11:04 

    There are many countries still having laws on blasphemy and vilification but I don’t know if and how they apply it
    The reason why those laws should be there in secular societies and in this difficult moment of confrontations between civilisations, is that the individuals sensibilities must be protected and I know is complicated but there are common moral values from which we cannot distance ourselves
    You have the right and the duty to speak against corruption, but must bring solid evidence
    For example al jazeera said there were mass graves in tripoli, and in a couple of days they were unmasked by bloggers who showed that was just an old cemetery

  13. 13
    Jerry M Said:
    April:30:2011 - 11:13 

    @Balqis

    “There are many countries still having laws on blasphemy and vilification but I don’t know if and how they apply it”

    In short you cannot backup your earlier statement. I would grant that blasphemy laws still exist in Europe but they are by mostly relics of the past (Ireland’s law is an exception). There is a decent summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law.

    In Europe even where blasphemy laws existed, those tended to deal with defamation of God, Jesus etc., not religious leaders.

    To clarify what I said about China vs KSA, China’s bargain is with the younger generation (you keep quiet and you will gain prosperity), KSA’s bargain is with those already in power.

  14. 14
    anon Said:
    April:30:2011 - 11:51 

    ““Freedom of speech is not freedom of offending”

    Uh, yes it is, Balqis. I’m sick of hearing this stupid cliche. Protected speech EXPLICITLY protects the right to insult people. I can understand how if you live in a society of people willing to commit murder over words, you might believe that only speech that exalts and praises is acceptable. But when you live in a society of mature people who don’t commit violence over words, who don’t take everything as a profound personal insult then you understand that in order to protect all speech, the most offensive speech must also be protected.

    For example, Baptists of Wastboro Church of Kansas have been allowed for years to protest funerals of dead US soldiers, holding up signs that says God Hates Fags and wishing more death on US soldiers — a form of speech that is profoundly offensive to many Americans (the equivalent of Prophet cartoons in the level of hurtfulness) — and the federal court system has allowed them to continue to do this — within no less than 300 feet from the entrance of a cemetery.

    Balqis, we don’t need lectures from people about free speech, especially Americans and Canadians (and to a lesser degree Europeans). Europe is still a little behind in free speech, but it still WAY more free than anywhere in the Middle East, especially oppressive dictatorial regimes or countries run under Medieval-style monarchies, like Saudi Arabia.

    So, please, give it up — especially if you’re Saudi.

  15. 15
    Balqis Said:
    April:30:2011 - 12:42 

    I am Italian :P born and raised, Muslim convert and I’ve been living in the M.E. for some time so if I call for respect (which is not lecturing), I know what I am talking about and why
    And before talking about medioeval style monarchies, try to get your facts straight because not all fingers are alike as Arabs say
    There are countries like Oman where I have been living, and also Saudia, where people are given all chances and opportunities by their rulers They are much more free than Yemen who is governed by a puppett dictator Just for some western governments what is good for the goose is not for the gander So for 30 years Mubarak stayed in power with America placet and it was fine, few months ago he became a dictator and it was time for a military coup
    Freedom of expression belongs to a certain set of values which you cannot appreciate if you don’t live your life according to morals
    I do not like gays but I don’t feel to mock at them and I find the cross blasphemous but I must not necessarily disclose this feeling with my family and friends because I wouldnt achieve anything by offending them
    It all depends on how you were educated and how used you are to mingle with people who come from different backgrounds

  16. 16
    NielsC Said:
    April:30:2011 - 16:00 

    “The reason why those laws should be there in secular societies and in this difficult moment of confrontations between civilisations, is that the individuals sensibilities must be protected and I know is complicated but there are common moral values from which we cannot distance ourselves”

    Balgis, I agree with Jerry, the existing blasphemy laws in Europe is a relic from new bourgeois constitution typically mid 19. century. And at this time there was only one civilization. Today the law is seldom used. And it doesn’t protect institutions, the Pope, the church or Islam, of course not.
    The reason is this: when these institutions move out in the public sphere and raise their opinions
    they are part of the public discourse and can be ridiculed. Of course muslims complains, but if you look at the criticism of the catholic church, muslims has been lucky so far.

    It’s to easy to compare Oman against Yemen or Egypt, and forgetting that Oman was established and supported by The British Empire.
    And regarding Yemen, many tends to forget the history. Only 20 years ago Yemen was split into two countries as a mirror of the east west conflict. And before again, Yemen is and has never been a state in any modern term. Its divided between tribes, the yemeni state has been isolated to a few big cities mostly in the coastal region. Not even the ottoman regime had the capability to control Yemen.
    It’s so easy to blame the West and USA. It is as if the arab people doesn’t have any voice of their own. But then they never had, until know hopefully.

  17. 17
    SGIME Said:
    April:30:2011 - 23:51 

    John pegged this newest effort as just one more part of a kingdom-wide crackdown by the archly conservative religious leaders. But seriously, what did anyone with even a scant knowledge of KSA history expect? This is how this government operates when under stress. Much of the King’s recent handout went directly or indirectly to the Hai’a and religious conservatives, and with money comes power and control.

    A few short months ago, we were all hopeful change would happen here in Saudi. Well, change is happening. I agree with John, these new decrees are just the beginning.

  18. 18
    oby Said:
    May:01:2011 - 02:29 

    balqis

    Before your conversion what were your thoughts on the subject? Has your conversion caused you to change your opinion on free speech and how it is expressed? I ask because a friend of mine who is Saudi thinks the new decrees are silly and damaging to his country…it would be interesting that a saudi found it obnoxious and a european found the limitation of speech the right thing to do.

  19. 19
    Balqis Said:
    May:01:2011 - 03:35 

    oby

    It is not the conversion but understanding and learning to respect other cultures and governments
    I agree with your saudi friend because as i said this law in my opinion, is a sort of emergency remedy against sectarianism, but it will bring more damages than benefits as it doesn’t solve the problem at the root
    if true that shiite for example are living in an oppressed environment, then the solution to avoid further frictions is to open the access for them to public posts
    Respect for rulers and religious leaders, unless they force us to make things against islamic principles, is part of our faith hence part of our political and social behaviour cause Islam covers all aspects of our life
    Having a law reinforcing this concept on the press, in a country in which islam is the source of that same law, has nothing odd in it
    The challenge for gulf countries is rather bringing violations done by press out of penal code

  20. 20
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 05:07 

    Balquis

    People do all kinds of [fill in the blank ( )]in the name of Islam. You said you have lived in Saudi Arabia if I’m not mistaken…oh the dirty laundry list of things done and said in the name of Islam.

    I wish that people would stop using Islam as a reason for everything…especially when people are not doing the right thing!

    The Islamic faith when practiced free of coercion is a beautiful one IMO

    When coerced no one can be genuine NO ONE

  21. 21
    Balqis Said:
    May:01:2011 - 05:18 

    I was in Oman but of course I am familiar with the Gulf in general
    Yes Islam is beautiful when practiced freely but who says is not ?
    As I said, Islam is not simply a religion, is a way of life
    Now I have the duty to fullfill all the obligations covered in my public and private life and if I live in a Muslim country I expect that the government implements those involving the public sphere and the religious authority advices and focuses on the private
    Then we can argue on how they do this and why differently from other Muslim countries, but the Quran is a book and the sayings of the prophet, peace and blessings upon him, are words written on papers, which means they can be interpreted

  22. 22
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 05:27 

    The Quran can misintrepreted and abused…

    Saudi is the land of the two holy cities Mecca and Medina. I recommend living here in any city with a family or alone for a good year or two and then please post again your feeling towards these royal decress.

  23. 23
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 06:10 

    I am not arguing limitations. I am only arguing to be in the vortex and am looking for an answer from somone who is inside the vortex.

  24. 24
    Balqis Said:
    May:01:2011 - 06:35 

    Havent checked yet but am sure that local prominent bloggers and connected think tanks and the state dept, for sure will start their crusade against this oppressive law and the king and the whole family
    And you can easily find expats who live there and they will tell you there is no cinema, women go round dressed like bats and bla bla
    This is not the way to solve problems

  25. 25
    Saudi King Muzzles Saudi Subjects Pinged With:
    May:01:2011 - 08:33 

    [...] [...]

  26. 26
    Saudi Forces Burn Mosque and Desecrate Holy Quran in Bahrain Pinged With:
    May:01:2011 - 09:03 

    [...] only destroy physical evidence, they also muzzle their own citizens, and it's going to get worse: link. Reply With [...]

  27. 27
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 10:17 

    hahaha I don’t think that they are the vortex…however, they may be inside the vortex…

    The vortex teaches never to campaign “against” anything it just teaches to follow your bliss :-) if oppressive law or king and family is your bliss follow it and be merry

  28. 28
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 10:53 

    The Magical Fairies have a message and that is:

    “Ask for What You Want”

    Let the Universe and other people know what you need.

    “This card serves as a reminder of the importance of asking for your desires. The Universe is much like a restaurant, in that you need to put in your order before anything can happen. Your current situation calls for action on your part. First, spend time clarifying your desires; then tell the Universe clearly what you want. You can always qualify your request with a prayer, “This, or something better…” so that you don’t unwittingly limit yourself. However you do need to make a clear decision about your desires.”

    Wew with that said Balqis, exactly what problem needs solved?

  29. 29
    Dakota Said:
    May:01:2011 - 11:12 

    Yes Islam is beautiful when practiced freely but who says is not ?

    I say it is not.

    When non-Muslim people are prohibited from practicing their own religion, when non-Muslim women must wear Islamic head scarves, when it is illegal to even buy a Bible in the kingdom, that is compulsion.

  30. 30
    anon Said:
    May:01:2011 - 13:06 

    “Yes Islam is beautiful when practiced freely but who says is not ?”

    Not to nitpick, but apostasy is a capital crime in Shairah. So there’s certainly an injunction against out-conversion. I know most Muslims don’t ascribe that tenet, but it’s there for those who wish to do so. Also: Muslim women can’t marry non-Muslim men. There are a lot of thing in all Abrahamic books that are blatantly offensive and hateful. Certainly the Bible and the Hebrew Bible are both rife with condoning war crimes and murder of infidels and whatnot. But the Quran isn’t above that, either, since the Quran is simply a “reversion” back to the Old Testament. (Some would even call it a plagiarizer, though I don’t see it that way. It’s more complicated than that.)

    If you want to get technical — all three of these faiths owe their existence to Yahu of the Shoshu — the Levantine Bedouin that go back to as early as about 1300 BC (when the “Israel” people were still polytheists with personal household Gods). They’re the ones who were worshiping one God before the Israelites. It’s believed the Israelites probably adopted worship of Yahu, with later becomes Yaweh, which later becomes the Christian God which later becomes Allah. It all goes back to a paternal religion of desert nomads, and the people that became the Muslims were the last to come around to it by returning to the Hebrew Bible, rejecting the Reforms brought about by the Christians in their New Testament, and adding their own “masala” to the stories of the Old Hebrew Bible, like making Adam and Eve giants.

  31. 31
    Balqis Said:
    May:01:2011 - 13:32 

    Each religion has its own rules
    Head scarf is a requirement
    Full veil is disputed
    Apostasy is punished when it is made public and affects the public good, in other words when when it has the meaning of waging war against Islam and as far as I know the rule is applied this way in the vast majority of Muslim countries
    For those cases which had relevance on international press, we were never given full details from the concerned countries
    We can’t marry non Muslim men because the role of the man in the house, other than being the sustainer, is that of religious leader that is, if we have doubts or need advice we ask from him and children are educated to the religion of the father
    If we were allowed to marry outside of our religion, that would create an unbalance
    the Quran is the last revelation from God
    Opposite to previous revelations which we respect and recognise in principle but not in substance, it is valid for all places and times

  32. 32
    Aunty May Said:
    May:01:2011 - 14:28 

    John..thank you for advice on Yellow Fever Vaccine.

    Drugs are unholy
    Drug addicts are unholy
    Drug suppliers are unholy
    Drug communities are unholy
    Drug cultures are unholy

    Agree?……..

    A city which is the drug captial of it’s country is not, in my eyes a holy city.
    The tragic irony is, “Mecca is the drug capital of Saudi.”
    And that is an undisputed fact.
    If anyone wishes to challenge what I say, then let them do their own research.

    Sometimes, “Truth Hurts”.

    God/Allah/Spirit is wonderous in all its beauty and within beauty lies simplicity. Simplicity in truth, simplicity in a message..if the message was to wear the hijab, the instruction would be beautifully simple..”cover you head”. But these 3 words do not exist anywhere in the Koran.

    “Freedom of speech is liberating, even if the truth hurts”.

  33. 33
    Mark Said:
    May:01:2011 - 15:34 

    As an American citizen I couldn’t care less what laws are passed in Saudi Arabia as long as I can buy cheap gas.

  34. 34
    abbas Said:
    May:01:2011 - 16:09 

    sick mind mecca is not drug capital
    but vitican is the drug capital

  35. 35
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 16:26 

    Aunty May:

    Well said and you are so in the vortex!

    Balquis:

    My extrasensory perpectors are alerting me with the feeling that in post 31 you are reading back a script that was read to you without putting much critical thinking into the statement you wrote.

    I know what the problem is…May God Help us All

  36. 36
    John Burgess Said:
    May:01:2011 - 16:37 

    The Saudi media reports on endless drug issues in Mecca. As the city isn’t a drug-producer, I think ‘capital’ may be the wrong term, but the lack of holiness is pretty clear.

  37. 37
    John Burgess Said:
    May:01:2011 - 16:37 

    Some folks are more interested than others. You’ve made the extent of your interest clear.

  38. 38
    John Burgess Said:
    May:01:2011 - 16:40 

    @Balqis: Sorry, apostasy should never be a crime. To find someone guilty of apostasy means that the judge has taken over the role of God, for who else knows what lies in the heart of man? Is a ‘good Muslim’ or ‘good Christian’ or ‘good Jew’ one who knows nothing else, was brought up into it, and stays in it for fear of punishment? Or is the ‘good whatever’ one who seeks to use his/her God-given mind to seek the truth?

  39. 39
    Khalid Ibn Walid Said:
    May:01:2011 - 18:55 

    Shutting up people or the media no longer works in this era. Look at Tunisia and Egypt. Even after they attempted to shut down the internet, news were still being posted, and people still found a way to access them. These new laws show a real ignorance of communication technologies and a lack of understanding of Islam itself. Umar (r) use to treasure any kind of criticism of his behavior because as he stated, these were “treasures” enabling him to improve himself. Since he is one of the top leaders of the Muslim Ummah at any time and was born in Arabia (before it was saudianized), maybe the Saudi leadership should listen to him.

  40. 40
    John Burgess Said:
    May:01:2011 - 20:00 

    You’re right. I think that the Saudi leadership, though, would be better off if they stopped listening to certain groups. Those that profited most through this new law are the ones who should be ignored, IMO.

  41. 41
    Sparky Said:
    May:01:2011 - 23:12 

    Osama Bin Laden is dead

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42852700/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/?gt1=43001

  42. 42
    Balqis Said:
    May:02:2011 - 01:20 

    Aunty May
    if I left Christianity it is because I needed a religion which required critical thinking, and I found it
    But then again each has his/her own version of thinking and most want to impose it on others

    @john
    the punishment for apostasy, like any other corporal punishment in sharia, when applied according to the rules, is not aimed at punishing the personal choice of the single individual .
    As clearly outlined in sura al baqara, there is no compulsion in the religion .
    The punishment is given when the consequences of the conversion are on the public sphere .
    Again Islam is the source of law in a Muslim country, is the basis on which the society is built, is the pillar that keeps the family together .
    So if a Muslim converts and then goes around asking others to convert and to rebel against authority,making legal what is not, spreading mischief in the country, that is not anymore a spiritual choice remaining private, but is an act of war against Islam and against his country .
    It is an act of treachery, for which I think there are laws in non Muslim countries, but probably also those not applied

  43. 43
    Marc Daniels Said:
    May:02:2011 - 02:35 

    Balqis, in the West a Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever is free to go around in public and seek to convert others to his religion – opening mosques/churches/temples, shouting on street corners, operating TV stations… pretty much anything. There have been no laws preventing this for a couple of hundred years.

    Do you really think Islam is so delicate and fragile that the same cannot be permitted in Muslim countries?

  44. 44
    John Burgess Said:
    May:02:2011 - 06:16 

    @Balqis: The difference here is whether one considers religion to be between man and God or between society and God. In the developed world, the answers is ‘Man and God’.

  45. 45
    Balqis Said:
    May:02:2011 - 08:49 

    Marc

    a neighbour was telling me she is fed up with geova witnesses because they are insisting and because once she said she would accept their magazines if had done the same with some christian publication, they just ran away
    Reciprocity is a nice thing but not always can be applied
    If for me the cross has no value because it has exactly the opposite meaning of what is been teached in my religion, then a country ruled by Islamic laws has full right to ban it
    In a secular country or a country whose religion has wider limits, things are different
    The reason why on papers (because in the end as far as I know priests and nuns are everywhere and convert people as well)in some countries public display is not allowed (Emarati government also pay church rents) is simply that those practices are for us blaspheme
    I disagree with the fact that everything is allowed everywhere
    Here in italy a place of prayer is urgently needed in milan, yet they are not giving permission
    They say is for security reasons, but which better way to control terrorism by having all Muslims in one place with monitored sermons ?

    John
    religion is between man and God but Islam is more than a religion, is a way of life
    It was the same for catholicism 20 yrs ago in italy, and still is today even though now church and state are separated
    It is in our culture, traditions, politics, governments are done at dinners with cardinals, but is a different religion and is followed differently, so is apparently less strict

  46. 46
    Aunty May Said:
    May:02:2011 - 09:48 

    @Balquis

    Critical thinking is good for all, whether you wish to find this in your religion, your thought, your motive.

    What I respect about democracy is that it acts as a facilitator by example of freedom of speech. As like a teacher to its citizens, we the students learn to be free …..

    ..”To find Truth which is a constant search’. Its boundaries are ever widening, for as the soul evolves the mind responds.

    In many societies brave citizen’s search for “truth” by not being shackled/ imprisoning themselves by Creeds, dogmas, doctrines, rituals, ceremonies — what have these to do with religion? Peel away the layers and one can see “that religion is in the spirit/energy, the spirit that belongs to all Creation, which expresses itself in every rhythm and manifestation of life; that is revealed in every aspect of Nature and in the striving of all idealists and reformers who wish to serve humanity.
    What has that to do with creeds?
    Critical thinking…is a great tool. So is democracy.

  47. 47
    John Burgess Said:
    May:02:2011 - 11:33 

    Not in Italy 20 years ago. Perhaps in remote villages; perhaps in Sardinia; but urban Italy has been secular for more than 50 years. Abortion–a pretty strong indication that the power of the Church had waned–was legalized in 1978. Contraception, another pretty strong indicator, was legalized in 1970. Now, law tend to lag society. Italians, clearly, were obtaining both abortions and contraception before the laws permitted them to do so. The story is much the same across the Western world. When I was starting university in the late 1960s, contraception in the form of condoms was obtainable only with a doctor’s prescription (this was in Massachusetts). The law changed not long afterwards.

    Saudi Arabia is still negotiating the parameters of both issues today.

  48. 48
    NielsC Said:
    May:02:2011 - 16:01 

    “Balqis”

    And adding to John. What you talk about is the surface of the gulf states. Whats interesting is whats beneath the surface. Parts of the society is changing rapidly below the public discourse.
    And you can add that the gulf states has ‘outsourced sinn’, the gulf societies is based on millions of expats, who doesn’t obey islam rule, but the internal ‘islam rule’ can’t exist without.

  49. 49
    Marc Daniels Said:
    May:02:2011 - 16:09 

    Balqis,

    Britain is a Christian country, and the Queen is the head of the Church of England. The central claims of Islam are blasphemy to the Church of England. By your logic, it should be forbidden for Islam to be openly practised in Britain. Is that really what you think?

    Or are you just saying that your particular version of Islam should have the right to legally persecute other religions, but that no other religion should? If so, this is not a particularly attractive argument.

    Marc

  50. 50
    Tatiana Covington Said:
    May:02:2011 - 20:30 

    Just write and publish anyway. Fight back if assaulted, and use deadly force. Why not? That’s what they’d do to you, and they’re not one bit better than you are.

    Tell that stupid ‘king’, who has to xxxx in the morning like everyone else, to go xxxx himself.

    [Edited to comply with vulgarity rules of this blog.]

  51. 51
    Balqis Said:
    May:02:2011 - 23:19 

    I have no particular version and as I live in Europe, I know what it means to be part of a minority
    And I don-t know if the saudis are applying the correct teachings but I trust them as their the custodians of the holy mosque
    If you go to any other gulf country you will find temples and churchs, you can bring crosses, and dress how you like
    I have no idea about religious rules in england and about rules of the state, but whatever they are , I will respect them and if I am a citizen with the right to vote , I will use it to change
    I am not imposing my rules on a sovereign country

  52. 52
    Saudi Jawa Said:
    May:02:2011 - 23:30 

    Balqis:
    So being a custodian to the holy mosques gives you special moral powers? I would be interested in any texts that support such an idea. I definitely not come across any.

  53. 53
    Balqis Said:
    May:03:2011 - 01:12 

    it is not power
    is a huge burden and responsibility for which they will respond to God

  54. 54
    Marc Daniels Said:
    May:03:2011 - 02:07 

    Balqis, it’s not about imposing rules, it’s about what is morally and politically right. And compulsion in religion is not morally or politically right; it just gives power to the majority to oppress the minority.

  55. 55
    Wes Said:
    May:03:2011 - 04:47 

    First off, the text of the law does not allow for “constructive criticism,” regardless of what the preamble may appear to say. The law bans, in ANY form, news which may be damaging to the reputation of government officials or employees or damaging to the state’s public image. No matter how constructive or polite, any critique of the government would surely fall under that definition of banned speech.

    I think the dialogue started by Balqis is fascinating in that it underscores deep divisions between the West and the Muslim world concerning the role of religion and morality in government, and raises the question of whether secular law can or should exist in a nation whose laws are based on Islamic principles. Although many in the Muslim world lack an understanding of the civil liberties Westerners typically enjoy, we often have trouble perceiving the inseparability of religion and law in the minds of many Muslims. However, if there is truly distinction between religious and civil society that allows for actual freedom of expression, it should be decided by the people of Saudi Arabia, not for them. I can understand that Muslim culture demands respect for political/religious authorities and traditional hierarchy, but it is hard to interpret this Saudi decree as anything short of a complete ban on criticism of the state and religious establishment. When we ask why the common people of the Kingdom have not benefited economically from the country’s oil revenue, it’s simply because the regime would rather import skilled workers and engineers from the U.S., U.K., India and China rather than educate their own people so they can fill these positions. An educated population, or even a mostly literate one, will begin to call for democracy and self-determination and this is unacceptable to those in power. Anyone living in an open society and accustomed to reading news written by a free press can easily see through the claim that this is an anti-sectarian measure.

  56. 56
    Wes Said:
    May:03:2011 - 05:06 

    Balqis, you also argue that a Muslim nation is justified in banning the Christian cross, yet you complain that Muslims in Milan have been discriminated against since they have been prevented from building a new Mosque. If you didn’t know, this assumed double standard held by some Muslims is infinitely frustrating and aggravating to non-Muslims in the West. In Western culture, it’s typically considered impolite to act as if your religion is superior to the faiths of others.

  57. 57
    Balqis Said:
    May:03:2011 - 08:19 

    I am not acting as if my religion is superior
    I am acting as a citizen of my country which is secular and multicultural, gives me the right to vote for people who are supposed to do my interests
    On the other we have a country whose government is not elected according to western models (democracy is not a slogan or just one scheme) whose laws are based on the religion of the state
    This religion says that God is one and jesus is a prophet
    Allowing the cross would be an act of disrespect against God and disobedience towards the religion
    Here we dont have a goose and a gander hence you cant speak of double standards
    They are completely two different cases

  58. 58
    Sparky Said:
    May:03:2011 - 10:21 

    Balqis you are the perfect example of why people are pushing against Muslims. You have not said the exact words “Islam is Superior” but eveything you have said exudes intolerance for anything UnIslamic and I’m sorry most of the Non Saud Muslims would not like the Saudi brand of Islam branching out into their neighborhoods anytime soon.

    And the ones that do are getting high on the deen just like a drug user gets a high off the pipe.

  59. 59
    Saudi Jawa Said:
    May:03:2011 - 10:41 

    “I am not acting as if my religion is superior I am acting as a citizen of my country which is secular and multicultural, gives me the right to vote for people who are supposed to do my interests On the other we have a country whose government is not elected according to western models (democracy is not a slogan or just one scheme) whose laws are based on the religion of the state”

    Alright, Balqis. Let me ask you something, and please answer it truthfully and directly. Which is better then, according to how you understand Islam; a country where only one view of God is permitted or a country that allows freedom of belief?

  60. 60
    Sparky Said:
    May:03:2011 - 10:45 

    Kali

  61. 61
    Balqis Said:
    May:03:2011 - 11:22 

    As a Muslim convert in a very Catholic family in a very Catholic country, I very well know how it feels to be a minority
    It is a pain which cannot be explained
    In my opinion, and I am not a scholar, if the interpretation of the Quranic verses and hadeeth that Saudis scholars do (and I say if), is correct, then the Saudi government is in the legitimate position to impose their regulations
    They are not forbidding residents to have a different view of God, otherwise expats from different religions wouldn’t be allowed in the country, they are forbidding public manifestations
    Mind that when the pope in rome says “hopefully this wave of migrants from africa won’t change the religious traditions of italy”, he is expressing exactly the same concept, but he uses more sugarcoated ways to achieve his goals
    And to be clear, I dont think my religion is superior, but I think is the only valid of course, and that is the position of anybody following any religion
    But I dont go around saying hey my religion is better than yours I dont need it
    I am not saying this for arrogance
    This is not intolerance
    It’s strict aderence to my belief
    Our wish that more people join our religion, is for them to achieve salvation and am sure that is also the aim of the Wahabis in saudi arabia but when their message is filtered by memri and jihad watch org, it reaches people in the wrong way
    And of course on their side they don’t do much to make things better

  62. 62
    John Burgess Said:
    May:03:2011 - 12:21 

    @Balqis: You’re forgetting a very important difference. The Pope rules only in Vatican City, not a country of some 26 million. Because of its small size, the Vatican really doesn’t have space to build other houses of worship; about the only space would be the plaza in front of St. Peter’s. Were the Saudis to limit their exclusion of other places of worship to Mecca and Madinah, then I wouldn’t be bothered nor, I think, would most people. But banning churches in an area the size of western Europe seems a tad overdone. Saudi law permits private worship–but don’t gather too many friends else you’ll attract the attention of the religious police. You can have a Bible, but preferably not in Arabic. You cannot seek to convert Muslims nor are Muslims readily permitted to make up their own minds about which religion they follow. Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are welcome to visit the Vatican, but none other than Muslims are permitted to even visit Mecca or Madinah, never mind living there. Saudi Arabia vitally depends on the work of over 10 million people it invites to come live and work in the Kingdom. But it denies them religious freedom. Even Muslims of the ‘wrong’ sect get hassled. There’s a new report on international religious freedom out now and I’ll be reporting on it soon. You can be confident that Saudi Arabia remains a ‘country of particular concern’ for the way it violates what the world sees as fundamental human rights.

  63. 63
    Balqis Said:
    May:03:2011 - 12:52 

    yes I was reading this morning the report
    the biggest mistake of Saudi authorities in my opinion is lack of transparency
    Same as in the case of HRW report on shiites, we never know only one side of the story
    For example what they write about freedom of religion in russia and chechnya is totally false, from what i know from friends there
    but these reports are about politics and who funds these organisations
    you insist on reciprocity
    fine but unfair
    you may end up being more intolerant than me
    there are of course common grounds on which respect is built, but then you cannot ask to modify my rules because yours are less strict
    the holy city is a place for the sole purpose of pilgrimage, it is only for umra and hajj hence for muslims in the sacred months, not for tourism or souvenirs
    I know this upsets non Muslims or those who think that visiting these places would be useful to understand Arab Muslim culture, but there are other ways

  64. 64
    Saudi Jawa Said:
    May:03:2011 - 13:00 

    I think John summed up our thoughts on religious tolerance (or lack of) in Saudi Arabia nicely. Heck, you could be a Sunni who just follows a different school of thought (not covering the face of women comes to mind) and you’ll still be harassed by the religious police.

  65. 65
    John Burgess Said:
    May:03:2011 - 15:41 

    @Balqis: They’re not MY rules, they the rules that the entire world, except Saudi Arabia and some backward provinces of Afghanistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan, lives by. They’re called Human Rights, not Western Rights. That the Saudis do not feel themselves to be limited by the qualification ‘human’ says more about them than it says about me, the rules, or the West.

  66. 66
    randy Said:
    May:03:2011 - 17:25 

    I am an American.Born and thankfully raised here.I do not agree with all the laws in our country if you ask me a million laws are about 990,000 too many.We can however speak and write with impunity except on network television where your child can see 2000 murders a day but no cursing or nudity.Lenny Bruce taught us how to fight for freedom of speech as well as Dr king and many others.I am repulsed by many many things I read but at the same time I have a right to say strongly how repulsed I am.You will not find a country on this planet that allows more complete freedom of speech than The United States of America.It sometimes hurts and angers but thankfully there are more good decent thoughtful people to counter the misguided and down right NO GOOD.Freedom is a Birthrite.Fight for it and stop blaming the USA for your dictators you live there not us.We may buy goods from such countries,such is the world we live in.If on the other hand the people would take their birthrite (FREEDOM)and are willing to trade with us do not believe we would say no. Seems we only say no to countries that either encourage the death of countries or harbour those that do.How you guys choose to live in your own country is up to you.Therefore is you are oppressed silenced whatever the case may be it is not Americas fault or the west’s fault it is your fault.America needs to stay out of it sometimes but it is not her fault.

  67. 67
    oby Said:
    May:03:2011 - 19:41 

    “but then you cannot ask to modify my rules because yours are less strict”

    Why not? Are human rights not deserved by everyone? Are Muslims more entitled to them than others?

    If the West decided to become strict and it impinged on YOUR human rights as a Muslim you would be the first to speak up about it and cry about it. Yet these same rights are being denied to nonmuslims in the islamic world everyday and it seems not to bother Muslims who say “well those are the laws”. Why is it that the lack of human rights seems to be a problem only when Muslims are affected in the west? Yet in the Islamic world they have (muslims) far fewer rights and swallow that as OK because it is Islam.(though thankfully that is changing)

    This in your face double standard Balqi is what really annoys nonmuslims. It seems human rights are important for muslims as long as they get to enjoy them…but what about all the other nonmuslims who can’t have that freedom? Don’t you think they should? Or is Islam really about double standards and the superiority of Muslims who believe they deserve BETTER treatment than nonmuslims and enshrine it in their law in Saudi?

  68. 68
    Mikee Said:
    May:03:2011 - 21:16 

    Hope they’ll shut up and shut down the feminists.

    Men need sweet young brides.

  69. 69
    John Burgess Said:
    May:03:2011 - 21:29 

    @Mikee: Thanks for posting! I was wondering where the peanut gallery had gone to.

  70. 70
    Kookkiosk Said:
    May:03:2011 - 21:47 

    Balqis,
    Why do you say you hate the cross and gays? What kind of narrow-mindedness is this? To me, my friend, you’re brain – washed.

  71. 71
    Robert B Gillies Said:
    May:03:2011 - 22:57 

    Religion is all about control. It is a kind of malignant software that becomes embedded in the brains of it’s believers so as to make them slaves. A country like Saudi Arabia is afraid of losing power and control so they pass repressive laws. They want to enjoy the benefits of modern technology yet they are afraid of modern science which is a threat to their way of thinking. They don’t want people to think for themselves and question the way they have been indoctrinated. Christianity has been fighting science ever since Darwin but it has learned to maintain it’s appeal to at least a certain group of people. Having to deal with science is a newer problem for Islam and so they react in a more repressive and extreme manner. The other problem with Islam is that in the past it has been spread with the sword. Today science is not only questions and puts into doubt their core beliefs but at the same time science has given their enemies a better sword. So while Islam is skeptical of modern science, the Jews have embraced and excelled in science which is why Israel is superior militarily to the Arab world. Personally I don’t particularly like any religion since none are based on honest knowledge but I think Islam is especially obnoxious.

  72. 72
    Mikee Said:
    May:03:2011 - 23:35 

    John: Why should men allow all nations in the world to be pro-women feminist shit-cans? Why can’t some areas of the world be good for men?

    Really, do you people have to be driven from the world before you will let men have happiness in some corner of the world?

  73. 73
    Mikee Said:
    May:03:2011 - 23:39 

    Girls should be certainly married off once they’re able to have children (this is usually somewhere around age 12) and be sweet obedient pretty little wives for men.

    The Bible is fine with this, there is no minimum age in it. Moses even orders his men to take the young girls at one point and the laws are written and talk about girl virgins (the word translated as girl meaning young as in up till adolecence) being the man’s. In the case of rape, if a man seizes a young virgin she mus be his and he shall not send her away. The words are about a young female, not a mature woman.

  74. 74
    Mikee Said:
    May:03:2011 - 23:43 

    Balqis: You critical think too much. Your punishment for apostacy is about not losing warm bodies for war to other religions.

  75. 75
    Balqis Said:
    May:04:2011 - 01:24 

    I never said I hate the cross and gays

  76. 76
    Sparky Said:
    May:04:2011 - 05:14 

    “Really, do you people have to be driven from the world before you will let men have happiness in some corner of the world?”

    I hereby ORDER you to go to the corner and take a time out!

    There are plenty of places that welcome perverts AND I do not believe this place is one of them.

    Go watch Old Espisodes of Hannah Montana and choke your monkey.

  77. 77
    John Burgess Said:
    May:04:2011 - 06:25 

    I think the world is better when neither men or women reign supreme, when neither men nor women are slaves to the other. Men don’t need some little place set aside for them to behave badly. They can (and do) do that anywhere; same with women. That’s what equality is.

  78. 78
    John Burgess Said:
    May:04:2011 - 06:27 

    Except that 16 is more generally seen as the minimal age for women to be ‘married off’ this century… The Bible is not considered perfect in all things (by most Christians, anyway). The Quran never states an explicit age. Historical reality is seen as the dictator of marriage ages. At this time, there is no need for girls under 16 to be married off. Even less, there’s no need for them to be sold by their fathers into marriage.

  79. 79
    Aunty May Said:
    May:04:2011 - 08:02 

    @Mikee (68)

    Khadijah bint Khuwaylid the Prophet’s first wife was an effective feminist “of her time”. Therefore, if you insult feminists, you and all those who have your way of thinking, insult the memory of the great Khadijah. And insulting her memory you then insult her beloved husband.

    Men need sweet young brides?
    What, to converse intellectually with?
    Enabling to seek pools of wisdom from?
    To smell the aroma of delicious foods they create?
    To pass on their years of knowledge to the children, that enables them to develop into effective citizens?
    Is that why men like you need sweet young brides?
    I don’t think so.
    The question is, “Do these young sweet girls want a groom”?
    I don’t think so.

    (72)
    If Allah ordained an area of the earth just for men, this would have been created. There is no revelation in the Koran or anywhere in the Hadiths that gave this instruction.

    So, as you say about and to feminists ……“shut up”.

  80. 80
    Sparky Said:
    May:04:2011 - 08:14 

    Aunty May and John what civilized responses to Mikee…

    I am second guessing mine, but I will tell it is effective LOL…

  81. 81
    Aunty May Said:
    May:04:2011 - 08:41 

    @John (78)

    Unfortunately fathers have sold off their daughters in many areas of the world.

    I remember years ago I met a young woman who ran away from her husband and carved out her destiny. She worked part-time to get her high school diploma, then went on to complete medical school.

    Mary did well for herself, considering her dad thought she was only worth a sack of flour(in her father’s eyes that was what she was worth in exchange for a husband.

    How times have changed in Alabama.

  82. 82
    MikeeUSA Said:
    May:04:2011 - 11:05 


    Except that 16 is more generally seen as the minimal age for women to be ‘married off’ this century… The Bible is not considered perfect in all things (by most Christians, anyway). The Quran never states an explicit age. Historical reality is seen as the dictator of marriage ages. At this time, there is no need for girls under 16 to be married off. Even less, there’s no need for them to be sold by their fathers into marriage.”

    Christians reject the Bible, especially the old testament. Jesus did not reject the old testment law, he upheld it, but Paul did.

    Muslims, some muslims, and some rural hindus, are the only people in the world who follow the ways of the old testament. They’re the only people who marry the young girl who was raped to the man who took her (as the bible commands in the hebrew (deuteronomy 22)), some of the only people who give girls young to men (totally fine in the old testament, commanded by moses (to take the women children) at one point, sancitioned in the laws aswell, read the hebrew), some of the few people who recongise the man as master of the women, and the woman as just a woman (read the OT in hebrew, what is translated as husband is actually at times man, and at other times ba’al: master. The women also call the man lord (adown) and master.)

    You “good people” won’t let them be though, you have to bring freedom to women and girls in all areas of the world, and dispair to the men who long for a sweet obedient little bride.

    That’s why they have to hang you. But you won’t stop. You won’t let men have what is good.

  83. 83
    MikeeUSA Said:
    May:04:2011 - 11:13 

    @Mikee (68)

    “Khadijah bint Khuwaylid the Prophet’s first wife was an effective feminist “of her time”. Therefore, if you insult feminists, you and all those who have your way of thinking, insult the memory of the great Khadijah. And insulting her memory you then insult her beloved husband.”

    I’m not a muslim. I’m a catholic. I would gladly execute feminists as previous catholic regimes did far in the past, regardless of what muslims believe.

    Muhammed’s favorite wife was his little Aisha. The one he took into his house when she was nine years old (when she reached puberty). The rest were political or monetary marraiges, but he loved the girl.

    I hope some feminists get hung in Saudi Arabia from this law, to even out all the men imprisoned for trying to have young brides around the western world. It probably won’t happen because they have embraced women’s rights in-part, but I pray that it does.

    What would be better would be for the end of women’s power forever, no matter what that entails.

    If you are to continue to rule, in equality or supremacy, I hope you rule over only dust and bones.

  84. 84
    MikeeUSA Said:
    May:04:2011 - 11:20 

    “”"”"”"”
    Men need sweet young brides?
    What, to converse intellectually with?
    Enabling to seek pools of wisdom from?
    To smell the aroma of delicious foods they create?
    To pass on their years of knowledge to the children, that enables them to develop into effective citizens?
    Is that why men like you need sweet young brides?
    I don’t think so.
    The question is, “Do these young sweet girls want a groom”?
    I don’t think so.
    “”"”"”"

    It is women and their pet-dogs that speak of life as if it is about developing “effective citizens”. Effective citizens, ofcourse, are those who support and forward women’s freedom. Human-rights rather than the brotherhood of man (only men’s rights). Civil liberties for all, rather than freedom for one’s fellow man

    It is women who talk as if a female’s worth is her talking with “HER” husband.

    No, that is useless to a man. A man want’s a little toy, an obedient servant, a girl he can love and command.

    He does not want an equal, that is of no value: he allready has himself.

    Women run and are society, they have banned men from having young little brides because women cannot compete with girls.

    Rebellious women who are worthless to men have no place in a open market where men can marry girls.

    Men: do as you have been doing: don’t contribute to society, just play your video games and let the western world devolve and die. Let women get what they deserve. They see you as tools. Be useless. This is not your society, it is woman’s.

    Death To women’s Rights.

  85. 85
    Mikee Said:
    May:04:2011 - 11:58 


    Except that 16 is more generally seen as the minimal age for women to be \u2018married off\u2019 this century\u2026 The Bible is not considered perfect in all things (by most Christians, anyway). The Quran never states an explicit age. Historical reality is seen as the dictator of marriage ages. At this time, there is no need for girls under 16 to be married off. Even less, there\u2019s no need for them to be sold by their fathers into marriage.”

    Christians reject the Bible, especially the old testament. Jesus did not reject the old testment law, he upheld it, but Paul did.

    Muslims, some muslims, and some rural hindus, are the only people in the world who follow the ways of the old testament. They’re the only people who marry the young girl who was raped to the man who took her (as the bible commands in the hebrew (deuteronomy 22)), some of the only people who give girls young to men (totally fine in the old testament, commanded by moses (to take the women children) at one point, sancitioned in the laws aswell, read the hebrew), some of the few people who recongise the man as master of the women, and the woman as just a woman (read the OT in hebrew, what is translated as husband is actually at times man, and at other times ba’al: master. The women also call the man lord (adown) and master.)

    You “good people” won’t let them be though, you have to bring freedom to women and girls in all areas of the world, and dispair to the men who long for a sweet obedient little bride.

    That’s why they have to hang you. But you won’t stop. You won’t let men have what is good.

  86. 86
    Mikee Said:
    May:04:2011 - 11:59 

    “”"”"”"”
    Men need sweet young brides?
    What, to converse intellectually with?
    Enabling to seek pools of wisdom from?
    To smell the aroma of delicious foods they create?
    To pass on their years of knowledge to the children, that enables them to develop into effective citizens?
    Is that why men like you need sweet young brides?
    I don\u2019t think so.
    The question is, \u201cDo these young sweet girls want a groom\u201d?
    I don\u2019t think so.
    “”"”"”"

    It is women and their pet-dogs that speak of life as if it is about developing “effective citizens”. Effective citizens, ofcourse, are those who support and forward women’s freedom. Human-rights rather than the brotherhood of man (only men’s rights). Civil liberties for all, rather than freedom for one’s fellow man

    It is women who talk as if a female’s worth is her talking with “HER” husband.

    No, that is useless to a man. A man want’s a little toy, an obedient servant, a girl he can love and command.

    He does not want an equal, that is of no value: he allready has himself.

    Women run and are society, they have banned men from having young little brides because women cannot compete with girls.

    Rebellious women who are worthless to men have no place in a open market where men can marry girls.

    Men: do as you have been doing: don’t contribute to society, just play your video games and let the western world devolve and die. Let women get what they deserve. They see you as tools. Be useless. This is not your society, it is woman’s.

    Death To women’s Rights..

  87. 87
    Aunty May Said:
    May:04:2011 - 13:25 

    @Mikee (68/86)
    The more you insult feminism the more you insult the memory of the great feminist of her time, “Khadijah bint Khuwaylid , who was the Prophet’s first wife. By insulting what she stood for, you continue to insult her beloved husband too. Now that is unislamic.

    Does anyone have the phone number to the Deaf and Blind Society? If so, please give to Mikee.

    Death to Ignorance

  88. 88
    Sparky Said:
    May:04:2011 - 15:23 

    Jai Kali Maa

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHnEWmS1BNc

    The Birth of Saudi Women’s Rights!

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/04/saudi.women.revolution.rights/

  89. 89
    Sparky Said:
    May:04:2011 - 15:55 

    I would like to set forth a Dislaimer on the Below:

    First, Mikeee I am sorry because you must have had a lot of shitty experiences with women to feel this way OR maybe NOT…

    Anyways, Kali has revealed to me that by LOA which means Law Of Attraction you have arrived here and you are the perfect SACRIFICE.

    God Bless & Peace and all the other stuff

  90. 90
    Mikee Said:
    May:04:2011 - 21:01 

    @Mikee (68/86)
    The more you insult feminism the more you insult the memory of the great feminist of her time, “Khadijah bint Khuwaylid , who was the Prophet’s first wife. By insulting what she stood for, you continue to insult her beloved husband too. Now that is unislamic.

    Not A Muslim

  91. 91
    oby Said:
    May:04:2011 - 23:07 

    Mikee…

    I have never met a pedophilic misogynist before…congratulations! You fit the bill.

  92. 92
    Aunty May Said:
    May:05:2011 - 14:07 

    @Mikee

    Your potential greatness is yours to have…yet you will only claim this through kindness, toleration, sympathy, love, service and doing of good works. Your character evolves only when you aspire to goodness that may manifest in your daily life.

    If you harbour unkind thoughts, thoughts of hatred, of malice, of vengeance, of selfishness, of lust, you yourself will be the victim of and you yourself must pay the price in a warped, distorted and thwarted character.

  93. 93
    Aunty May Said:
    May:05:2011 - 14:44 

    Balqis (57)

    You said..
    “This religion says that God is one and jesus is a prophet Allowing the cross would be an act of disrespect against God and disobedience towards the religion”

    I may offend many and I am sorry if I do, yet I totally agree with Balqis…

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Robert B Gillies (71)

    You said..

    Religion is all about control. It is a kind of malignant software that becomes embedded in the brains of it’s believers so as to make them slaves.

    Sorry if I cause more offence, yet freedom of speech is wonderful, as like “Truth is a constant Search”

    Those 27 words you wrote should become lapidary law. I have the rock, you supply the chisal!!

    I respect and embrace religions, but I won’t cradle them. And that is the difference.

    The only religion I know, “is service to humanity”.

  94. 94
    Sparky Said:
    May:05:2011 - 16:20 

    well said Aunty May

    FYI, toxic words from Mikee have reached the fiery flames.

    In line with the title of this Post “Neww Saudi Law Tell Media, ‘Shut Up’:

    In the destruction of the negative ego, one finds peace.

    The new law needs to reach the fiery flames of hell from which it came.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

spacer
antalya escortizmir escort
  • Advertising Info

    Interested in sponsoring Crossroads Arabia? Contact me for more information.

  • Copyright Notice

    All original materials copyright, 2004-2014. Other materials copyrighted by their respective owners.

    The fact that this blog permits one to use RSS to read content does not constitute permission to republish content. All requests for republication must be submitted through the Contact form on the menu above. Violations of copyright will be dealt with through applicable law.

nedir