Saudi religious cop says 'no need' for women to cover up

[Libertarian Muslim]

Saudi religious cop says 'no need' for women to cover up

Tue Nov 30, 4:06 pm ET

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AFP) – A Saudi religious police commander criticised the kingdom's ban on gender mixing on Tuesday and said women did not have to veil their faces to applause from his female audience.

Sheikh Ahmed al-Ghamdi, outspoken head of the Mecca branch of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, also said there was nothing in Islam to prevent women from driving, despite the Saudi ban on the practice.

"There is a difference in interpretation of the (Koranic) verse... which leads some scholars to rule that the whole body must be covered ... However other scholars approve showing the face, hands and elbows. And some even okayed the hair," he said.

He said the kingdom's mixing ban should be applied only to men and women meeting in secret, not in public places -- a rule normally enforced by the religious police.

Islam "orders a woman to cover her body to allow her to participate in social life, not to prevent her from doing so," he said.

The women in the audience, all clad in the all-black shroud-like abaya they must wear, broke out in applause.

Ghamdi, who was mysteriously fired and reinstated in April after breaking ranks with the religious police to endorse mixing, was speaking at a conference on "Women's Participation in National Development", where the hot issue was the barriers posed by Saudi Arabia's ultra-strict ban on women working.

Because Saudi women are not permitted to mix with unrelated men, must have a male guardian and are not permitted to drive, there are huge limitations on their employment opportunities.

Recently, top religious officials strongly objected to a labour ministry effort to allow Saudi women to work as cashiers in supermarkets.

Labour Minister Adel Fakieh said on Tuesday that 200,000 women in the kingdom, or 44 percent of the workforce, were unemployed, and that of them 157,000 had degrees above the level of high school.

"The unemployed women are educated above high school, while unemployed men mostly don't have degrees," he said.

Meanwhile, the country's sole female minister, Deputy Education Minister Noura al-Fayez, also came in for criticism for not having achieved much in terms of women's educational advancement and opportunities.

She urged the audience of Saudi women to have patience, and told them she could do little about certain issues, like the high accident rate for rural women teachers who must travel great distances to work because they are not permitted to live away from their families.

On Monday, King Abdullah's daughter Princess Adela bint Abdullah said a greater effort was needed to provide jobs for Saudi women.

"Women's participation (in the workforce) is behind expectation. A society cannot walk with a limping leg," she said.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101130/lf_afp/saudipoliticsislamwomen

[George H. Smith]

Saudi religious cop says 'no need' for women to cover up

Tue Nov 30, 4:06 pm ET

"There is a difference in interpretation of the (Koranic) verse... which leads some scholars to rule that the whole body must be covered ... However other scholars approve showing the face, hands and elbows. And some even okayed the hair," he said.

What's next? The right of Saudi women to show their ankles in public? Beware the slippery slope!

That is one fucked-up culture.

Ghs

[Mikee]

This looks positive. I hope we don't hear about Sheikh Ahmed al-Ghamdi being blown up by a suicide bomber.

I like this comment: "Women's participation (in the workforce) is behind expectation. A society cannot walk with a limping leg," One good insight leads to another. Small steps.

[BaalChatzaf]

This looks positive. I hope we don't hear about Sheikh Ahmed al-Ghamdi being blown up by a suicide bomber.

Wait a while.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Saudi religious cop says 'no need' for women to cover up

Tue Nov 30, 4:06 pm ET

"There is a difference in interpretation of the (Koranic) verse... which leads some scholars to rule that the whole body must be covered ... However other scholars approve showing the face, hands and elbows. And some even okayed the hair," he said.

What's next? The right of Saudi women to show their ankles in public? Beware the slippery slope!

That is one fucked-up culture.

Ghs

Certainly is, but don't point out the obvious fact that it's also one fucked-up religion. Michael's shorts will get in a knot and he'll think you're spewing hatred.

Bob

[Richard Wiig]

Beware: Dangers of bluetooth in Saudi...

Sentenced to 70 lashes for turning on bluetooth near a women's shopping centre

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/beware-dangers-of-bluetooth-in-saudi-2010-12-01-1.323699

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

That is very good news.

I fear our peanut gallery has little notion of what this means in Saudi Arabia and the complexity of that society.

I am interested in this country, but I have not had the time to look at it as much as I would like.

On the one hand, this it the country that is funding Al-Qaeda, spreading Wahhabism the world over with oil money, etc. Just for fun, it is also clamoring for the USA to bomb Iran (as the recent Wikileaks document dump proved).

On the other, Saudis as a whole are lovely people and Saudi Arabia has to host Muslims pouring in from the world over to Mecca--and be a gracious host at that. This includes Muslims from Iran and far different versions of Islam than the Wahhabi fundamentalists believe is right.

I am glad to see the status of women moving closer to equality. I know this must be driving the fundies nuts, but they have to accept it. I see this as a shift in the Overton Window for the better over there, which is the way change occurs in societies.

btw - See these links for an explanation of the Overton window: Wikipedia - Overton window, and A Brief Explanation of the Overton Window where you can slide the window up and down (you have to scroll down the page to get to the article).

I think it would be a great idea to formulate something like this in terms of freedom in the different Muslim countries. It provides an excellent tool for what to focus on at the moment. I.e., you put the main part of your activism focus on the next step to shift the window rather than focus on the end result. Then you start focusing on the next step and so on. Meanwhile, the culture mostly stays active on the topics within the window, wherever it is at the time.

Michael

[Selene]

Beware: Dangers of bluetooth in Saudi...

Sentenced to 70 lashes for turning on bluetooth near a women's shopping centre

http://www.emirates2...-12-01-1.323699

Richard:

Welcome to OL. Where do you hail from? Are you a student or a worker slave for the state?

You seem to be familiar with Muslim countries. Is the infidel handle significant of something?

Adam

Edited December 2, 2010 by Selene

[Richard Wiig]

I hail from New Zealand, Adam. The Infidel name is only significant in that I am proud to be an Infidel.

[Robert Campbell]

Sheikh Ahmed al-Ghamdi, outspoken head of the Mecca branch of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, also said there was nothing in Islam to prevent women from driving, despite the Saudi ban on the practice.

LM,

It's impressive that a top officer in the mutawwain is saying these things.

I've heard that some of the Sa'udi rulers have decided to clamp down on these morality police. Putting al-Ghamdi in charge could have that effect.

Now we'll see how long it lasts.

The underlying difficulty for the Sa'udi rulers, as always, is that they derive their legitimacy from enforcing the dictates of Salafi Islam.

Robert Campbell

[Richard Wiig]

LM,

It's impressive that a top officer in the mutawwain is saying these things.

It's nothing that hasn't been said before throughout the history of Islam. It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

I seriously doubt Robert Campbell was wetting his pants and it's offensive to him to suggest he was (although I doubt he took it seriously) .

But we know that's not where you were at, don't we?

Let me be clear. I don't want veiled bigotry on this board. It's OK to disagree with Islam (or any religion of philosophy for that matter), but keep a lid on the wet your pants crap and similar stuff.

You already have your cutesy moniker. That's good enough for you to get your jollies on OL. But don't think that's a sanction for your bigotry. I don't want this to grow here. You have the entire Internet to cuss and mock Muslims to your heart's content. But not here.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

I seriously doubt Robert Campbell was wetting his pants and it's offensive to him to suggest he was (although I doubt he took it seriously) .

But we know that's not where you were at, don't we?

I wasn't suggesting that Mr Campbell was. I'm merely saying that evidence of a conscience in a religious wacko (one must be a religious wacko to be head of the moral police) doesn't change Islam. There's no bigotry in that observation; it's simply an observation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Infidel,

No bigotry? Writing like you do?

Heh.

I don't know why bigots always think they can treat other people like fools.

I'm not going to change you, nor do I want to. Just keep a lid on it here on OL and we're fine.

If you want kindred soul-mates, may I suggest Solo Passion, or maybe the Dove World Outreach Center?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Infidel,

No bigotry? Writing like you do?

Heh.

Perhaps in this case the label is appropriate - or not - I don't know.

But Micheal, I respectfully suggest that you have too often failed to accurately assess what is bigotry and what isn't.

1) Is it bigoted to despise Communism? Can you conclude anything about these people as a group? Is it bigoted to say they are all wrong (or at least to the extent they actually believe it), and their core dogma is nonsense?

2) Is attacking the fundamental irrationality of Communism unwarranted?

It is a body of thought that is dangerous, destructive and nonsensical, without any race-bias, or gender-bias, or anything. So is Islam. I again respecfully suggest you learn to understand the difference between this and bigotry. I think this is a big problem when you accuse someone of hatred or bigotry when they criticize a nonsensical body of "thought".

Maybe you'll even earn a high compliment from Ba'al and be considered "pretty smart - for a Gentile".

Bob

Edited December 14, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Discussing ideas, even ones you despise and saying so within the context of an honest discussion, does not convey bigotry.

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling on loaded issues, or making constant, obnoxious, no-intellectual-content one-liner put-downs against the same scapegoat, or saying stupid things like there is no difference between Islam and Islamism, etc.--these things do convey bigotry.

In other words, you don't need to explicitly say, "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim," in order to convey bigotry.

You say I don't assess bigotry correctly. Well, that's the way I assess it. You are free to use another system, but that's the system I use. And it is pretty clear. (In my experience, bigots know this, too. They are just more committed to their prejudices than committed to looking into ideas, so they constantly push to see how much they can get away with and to hell with anyone who wants to learn something.)

A person who truly wishes to change the world learns and uses tools like the Overton window, persuasion techniques, etc., to effectively promote the ideas he holds dear and combat the ideas he despises.The best of these believe in the inherent good of all people.

A bigot does none of this. He lives in the world where his scapegoats are "wackos," "evil fucks," etc. And people who do not agree are, to him, misguided at best--but usually he treats them as appeasers.

OL is not a site devoted to hate speech. That crap pollutes true intellectual interest for those who use OL for working through their ideas (my target public).

People who want to practice hate-speech should go elsewhere. We have better things to do here than cuss people we don't know just for the sake of cussing them. I say "we" because, from reading the posts over a long time, I have seen that there are several people around here who think like I do on this issue.

Ultimately, though, this is a value judgment on my part and I assume full responsibility for it.

I highly value people who seek to understand and seek to do things based on wisdom. These are folks I want around me--even and especially if they don't agree with me--and I am trying to encourage the growth of a small community of these kinds of people.

I do not value know-it-alls filled with spite. These are people who make no loss to me if they go away, although, I admit, I like it if someone who is like that turns around and starts using the "identify correctly then judge" system of thinking.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

Your remark is better suited to SOLOPassion, where, if I recall correctly, you have posted under your real name.

Meanwhile, I'm permanently banned from SOLOP. Over there you will find no new comments from me to which you might be inclined to take exception.

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

Meanwhile, I'm permanently banned from SOLOP. Over there you will find no new comments from me to which you might be inclined to take exception.

Robert Campbell

How did that happen? I was also banned from there.

I kept on bringing up facts that tended to contradict the Objectivist position. So they concluded I was not sympathetic to Objectivism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Richard Wiig]

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling

I haven't goaded or bullied anyone. I unfortunately said "wet your pants", as opposed to "wet ones pants". I meant it in the general sense.

[Richard Wiig]

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

Your remark is better suited to SOLOPassion, where, if I recall correctly, you have posted under your real name.

Meanwhile, I'm permanently banned from SOLOP. Over there you will find no new comments from me to which you might be inclined to take exception.

Robert Campbell

I didn't take exception to your comment. In fact, your comment isn't that far removed from mine.

[Selene]

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling

I haven't goaded or bullied anyone. I unfortunately said "wet your pants", as opposed to "wet ones pants". I meant it in the general sense.

Richard:

Why don't you just apologize.

Adam

Post Script: Out of curiosity, do you work with industrial drilling equipment?

[Richard Wiig]

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling

I haven't goaded or bullied anyone. I unfortunately said "wet your pants", as opposed to "wet ones pants". I meant it in the general sense.

Richard:

Why don't you just apologize.

Adam

Post Script: Out of curiosity, do you work with industrial drilling equipment?

Apologise for what? I haven't goaded or attacked or insulted Robert. I don't work with industrial drilling equipment.

[9thdoctor]

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

Your remark is better suited to SOLOPassion, where, if I recall correctly, you have posted under your real name.

Here’s his blog on SLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/blog/288

I got a big laugh out of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7nPTnoXLs&feature=player_embedded

[Selene]

Thanks ND:

The review of Atlas was, as usual, both enlightening and amusing. I thought the short haired lady was the most amusing. She states at about 10:31 or so, that Atlas is for people who want a justification for selfishness! And for poor behavior!

The bald gentleman to her left, just does not get the government concept when he states that it is a choice between total control and no government at all.

Amusing group that is completely stunned by the sales of the book continuing year after year.

Kind of like the NBC anchor who says at the cocktail party that she cannot understand how Reagen won in a landslide because no one that she knows voted for him.

Adam

Edited December 15, 2010 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

Thanks ND:

The review of Atlas was, as usual, both enlightening and amusing. I thought the short haired lady was the most amusing. She states at about 10:31 or so, that Atlas is for people who want a justification for selfishness! And for poor behavior!

Huh? I think you're on the wrong thread.