Saudis fear ‘no more virgins’ and people will turn gay if female drive ban is lifted

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imightknow
there is nothing even remotely funny about a group of people who think they are intelligent being this blatantly, hands down stupid.

And there is nothing even remotely funny about apologists for this group of people. We are supposed to stick our collective heads in the sand and not dare to expose stupidity and/or human torture (whipping women who want to drive a car is torture)?!?! We are supposed to not look and ignore it .. simply because it's PC to be an apologist for Islam and the barbaric laws of Islamic countries?!?! It's unconscionable.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Absolutely, we need to let other cultures have their own culture. Although I don't agree with the punishment meted out to the woman that was caught driving, I do believe that they have the right to govern themselves in the method they choose rather than having our culture, mores, and system of government forced upon them.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Islamic culture selects for stupidity as is evidenced by their stupid actions.

Such a stupid stupid culture Islam is!


You are welcome to your opinion, but have you looked at our culture lately???



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


In your opinion, what exactly should we do about them wanting to treat their women that way?
Sorry I could not make that question long enough for two lines.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Saudi dictatorial religious leaders fears that this will lead to 'no more virgins' or 'less virgins' does make some sense.

If women are allowed to drive it will give them more freedom to choose where they travel to and who they travel with etc.

However I would expect if they were allowed to drive, a member of the family would have to be present. You would also have to take in to account that the majority of women practicing the Muslim faith will still wait until marriage before indulging in sex.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This article only serves one purpose, to dehumanize Muslims and condemn their way of life.


The article certainly highlights that Saudi women don't have equal rights to men, consistant with Sharia law, the Koran and the Hadiths.

The article could have mentioned that



(1) All Saudi women must have a male guardian, who has the right to control marriage, travel, education and opening a bank account.

(2) Saudi women can't vote.

(3) Saudi women can be charged with prostitution for socializing with a man who is not a relative or husband.

(4) Saudi women must cover all of the body except the hands and eyes.

(5) Sex segregation is expected in public. Women and men must minimize social interaction. Most offices, banks, and universities have separate entrances for men and women.

(6) Women’s freedom of movement is very limited in Saudi Arabia. They are not supposed to leave their houses or their local neighbourhood without the permission of their male guardian, and company of a mahram (close male relative).

(7) There are no laws defining the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia. Most religious authorities have justified the marriage of girls as young as 9.

(8) Under Sharia law a rape victim is often punished.

In the Qatif girl rape case, an 18-year old victim of kidnapping and gang rape was sentenced by a Saudi court to six months in prison and 200 lashes.

Wikipedia



Originally posted by muzzleflash
We ought to mind our own business, IMHO.


Yet the Saudis have spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere.

National Review



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
edit on 3-12-2011 by azulejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

LMAO! How soon do we forget?


Remember what sparked this issue in the 1st place!


Here ...

SAUDI ARABIA: Women threaten to breastfeed drivers if they aren't allowed to drive. (by Alexandra Sandels, in Beirut June 22, 2010 | 8:24 am) [latimesblogs.latimes.com/]


Many were stunned when Saudi cleric Sheik Abdel Mohsen Obeikan recently issued a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, calling on women to give breast milk to their male colleagues or men they come into regular contact with so as to avoid illicit mixing between the sexes.

But a group of Saudi women has taken the controversial decree a step further in a new campaign to gain the right to drive in the ultra-conservative kingdom, media reports say.

If they're not granted the right to drive, the women are threatening to breastfeed their drivers to establish a symbolic maternal bond.

"Is this is all that is left to us to do: to give our breasts to the foreign drivers?" a Saudi woman named Fatima Shammary was quoted as saying by Gulf News.

Obeikan argued in his decree that if the women give their drivers their breast milk, the chauffeurs would be able to mingle with all members of the family without having to worry about violating Islamic law. Some Islamic scholars frown on the mixing of unmarried men and women. Islamic tradition, or hadith, stipulates that breastfeeding establishes a maternal bond, even if a woman breastfeeds a child who is not her own.

Drawing from the cleric's advocacy, the women have reportedly chosen a slogan for their campaign that translates to, "We either be allowed to drive or breastfeed foreigners."


I encourage the women to carry through on their Fatwa!

Personal Disclosure: Praise be to Allah for handing Saudi Arabian boobies into FOREIGN mouths!


P.S. OL would be watching for a spike in numbers of men trying out for Taxi jobs!
Lickalicious!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Maybe we should let Hitler gas all those jews and other groups, after all, it was a democratically elected government and a German culture at the time.


Harsh international criticism of stupid laws, sanctions against such governments, even military conflicts in some cases is applicable. Humanity does not move forward through tolerance of stupidity, but through challenging it. Non-interventionism be damned.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
We are supposed to stick our collective heads in the sand and not dare to expose stupidity and/or human torture (whipping women who want to drive a car is torture)?!?!

We are supposed to not look and ignore it .. simply because it's PC to be an apologist for Islam and the barbaric laws of Islamic countries?!?! It's unconscionable.


Yet Islam is stridently opposed to Western values and makes no secret of it.


But the self loathing adherents to political correctness fall over themselves to apologise for intolerant Islamic beliefs...

all in the interest of tolerance of course.


For instance,



When 500 British Muslims were interviewed, none believed that homosexual acts were acceptable.

Also only 3% of UK Muslims believed that sex between unmarried people was acceptable.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Koran is clear that sex between unmarried people is prohibited.

www.usc.edu... www.usc.edu...

The penalty for fornicating outside marriage is 100 lashes.

www.usc.edu...

Muslims are merely following the dictates of their religion when they show zero tolerance to homosexuality and near zero tolerance for sex outside marriage.

The penalty for homosexual acts is death, according to Muhammad in the hadith and, 100 lashes for sex outside of marriage according to Allah in the Koran.

www.usc.edu...





edit on 3-12-2011 by ollncasino because: Insert Link



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I sense a "Let's go kill some Muslims" insinuation somewhere within it.
Just tell us which ones want to kill us, so we can go fight for their oil.

It's a big convenience that the people the US government wants its people to invade are so invadable.
"Ok, so there are no WMD's. But, just look at them. See, you're still doing the right thing."



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The root cause of all this mess is sexual oppression which is inherent in the religion. You cannot take a drive as forceful as human sexuality, insist that it be severely limited, and not expect problems to spring up in all other areas of life.

All these laws and rules are symptomatic of this one issue.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


again visit a Muslim country, meet Muslims, talk to Saudis to see their real views about their own country and then we can have a conversation where both parties have enough knowledge to discuss.


It is not the Muslim countries, it is the goverments who control this countries and you only see it in some of them because others are clearly reached their balance.

Saudis HATE their goverment. Just liek Americans have a crazy goverment with crazy laws doesnt mean all Americans are crazy! What an absurd generalisation but unfortunately, our goverments are our international representatives



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
EXCUSE ME BUT WHAT?

Have you been to Morocco? HAve you been to Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Emirates, Mali? These are not crazy countries and let me give you a bit of hostory about Saudi Arabia. Saudi, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are different counmtries form the rest and if you have ever visited a Muslim country you can see that for yourself. So, the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are all bad? Thats a bit of an ignorant suggestion from your part.


It is a mixture of agreedment with th American goverment, the British Empire and a nutty familyu with a lot of power and influence. The Saudi Family is one of the most powerful families in the world.
How coincidential America and UK are involved in this eh? As they are always are involvced in everything. If I would called anyone eveil in the world I would say the cancer, the parasite are the American-British goverment.

Let us talk about Saudi Arabia and how it came to be how it is now:

The Saud family was one of the most power trive in the peninsula.

Muhammad Wahhab (1703-1791) traveled about the Ottoman Empire, comparing what he saw with what Islam was supposed to be according to the Koran. He began a new movement that denounced all influences in Islam that had developed after the writing of the Koran: luxurious living, Sufi influence, rationalism, visiting the tombs of saints and asking intercession of the Prophet or the Imams. Wahhab viewed the granting of godly powers to Muhammad and others as a violation of Islam's strict monotheism. Wahhab's movement labeled all other Muslims as polytheist. They called themselves "Unitarians," or simply Muslims. Others called them the Wahhabi (Wahabi).

Wahhab was forced to flee from Medina, he was adopted by the Saud family. In 1803 they attacked Mecca and, aware of the slaughter in Kabala, the Meccans opened their town to Saud rule. In 1813, the Ottoman sultan sent expeditions against Wahhabism. The defeated head of the Saud family was taken in a cage to Istanbul and beheaded.

In 1914, before the war, Ibn Saud allied himself with the Turks, agreeing that he should have relations with no other foreign power and be committed to joining Turkish forces in resisting any aggression. When war came Saud opted for neutrality and kept his options open. Then he allied himself with the British, who offered recognition of the middle of the Arabian Peninsula (namely the Nejd and Hasa) as his and that of his father before him and his descendants after him -- with the proviso that he and his heirs not be antagonistic toward Britain.
Ibn Saud agreed not to enter into relations with another foreign power and promised to come to the aid of Ibn Saud should he be the victim of aggression. Britain lent Ibn Saud £20,000, 1,000 weapons and 200,000 rounds of ammunition. Added to this was a subsidy of £5,000 per month. This strengthened Saud against a territorial rival, the Hashim (Hashimite) family, which in 1915 was allied with Britain's enemy, Turkey.

Matters became more complicated for Saud in 1916, when the Hashim family broke with the Turks and went over to the side of the British -- what became known as the Arab revolt. Britain began looking after the interests of both ibn Saud and his enemy, and the British would draw territorial lines that were not to his liking -- especially regarding Kuwait. The Rashid family, however, remained allied with Turkey and supplied by Turkey and the dominant power on the Arabian Peninsula.

In May 1919 and in 1920, Ibn Saud marched against the Rashids. He defeated them in 1921, reconciled with them, marrying the widow of their now dead ruler. His territory now extended north to territory that the British had given to the Hashemite brothers whom they had made kings of Transjordan and Iraq.

In 1932 Saud gave the name of Saudi Arabia and declared himself king. he forbade the name of the prophet Mohammed in Mosques and many other laws related.

In 1933, Saudi Arabia and the United States established diplomatic relations, and that year the kingdom granted a concession to Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) to explore and to produce oil. A commercially significant amount of oil had been discovered in Iran around 25 years earlier and in Iraq four years earlier. The Saudis were not very hopeful, but they had made their agreement with a U.S. company, which had the advantage of not being British -- Britain being the dominant power in the region and not well liked by Saud (now).

In 1938, while searching for water, United States geologists in Saudi Arabia found oil instead -- much of it. The largest known source of oil in the world were discovered. Needing people who knew how to develop and operate oil fields, ibn Saud invited U.S. oil companies to his kingdom, the king's government facing criticism by some who believed that inviting foreigners to the kingdom was un-Islamic. Many in Saudi Arabia remained hostile to foreigners. The monarchy clung to practicality and set up a joint enterprise with a number of U.S. oil companies.




In conclusion; Without the Biriths and the Americans, this country wouldnt have been what it is today and everyone in the Muslim world knows that this family is full of corruption. I know many many people from Saudi Arabia and they hate their country specially because teh wealth is not distributed equally like other rich Muslim countries like the Emirates.
They have extreme regulations against demonstrations and anything to do with being against their own country which siw hy you never see anyone saying anything in Saudi Arabia or at least it doesnt get out of the country.

All of this regulations are under the Salafi school, nothing to do with the fundamental Sharia Law. Sharia Law varies from country to country. I f you visit Morocco, which is under Sharia Law you can see the many dfferent variations. In Morocco you can find alcohol, you can choose to wear a scarf, West clothes, etc. There are Jews in Marrakech for example living in the Mellah (Jewish quarter) living side by side with the Muslim Moroccans. There is also Sufism Islam which is prohibited in Saudi Arabia.

I believe one of the reasons America sniffing about in the area is because they knew there was oil around there and they didnt have any proof. Might as well help and finance a country, be a "friend" and later milk their resources.
Please, do not be so bigoted and ignorant when you give opinions in a topic that you clearly dont have inverstigated enough about.

You really think Saudis are against Americans? Every time I talk to Saudis and I talk to many as it is part of my job, they praise America as the ultimate perfect country to live. You clearly have never talked to a Muslim, never have talked to a Saudi or never have visited a Muslim country.
edit on 3-12-2011 by azulejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
In Morocco they are allowed to vote, to demonstrate against the goverment as they are doing now, to wear jeans, to not wear a scarf, to wear colorful dresses, to smoke, to drive motorbikes and cars, to work in anything they like, to beat men in streets because they were innaproppiate. I have seen it all in Morocco with this women and I tell you something I will never mess with a Moroccan woman unless I would like my ass whipped!

I ahve even seen transexuals in Morocco, dressed with their femenine jillabah and all!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


All these proposed implications of this article only betray your own prejudices that you probably have either towards the Middle East or the media. While in the US you risk fines for driving without a license, it would be illegal and make front page headlines and cause viral videos if you were to be lashed by local government for it.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vardlokkur

While in the US you risk fines for driving without a license, it would be illegal and make front page headlines and cause viral videos if you were to be lashed by local government for it.


But why do Saudi women have no license?

Because only men are allowed to drive in Saudi.

But we shouldn't expect Saudis to be too enlightented.



As recently, as 1950, it is thought that 20% (450,000) of Saudi Arabia’s population was slaves.

Slavery wasn't made illegal in the Arabian Peninsula in 1962.

en.wikipedia.org... africanhistory.about.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Misogyny is not a cultural value.

Why apologize for the actions a clearly deranged, vile culture that can only find expression through violence?


I am not apologizing for anyone.

I am criticizing "our Western culture" which thinks it has the right to go everywhere around the world and dominate other people's culture and force them to change their society to fit our standards. Meanwhile we allow our own cultural, economic, political, etc standards to erode even further down the drain. It's pure hypocrisy.

This article only serves one purpose, to dehumanize Muslims and condemn their way of life. And I won't put up with it. We ought to mind our own business, IMHO.


That is not the point at all.

Must we be so self-serving that we should only worry about what is happenin here in the west, ignoring injustice on the other side of the world?

And maybe the point is to apply political pressure rather than military. Boycot Saudi oil! You people who defend this kind of this make me sick. This is no different from telling blacks they cannot drive. I suppose you supported South Africas right to apartheid?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
That's funny because homosexuality is rife in Saudi Arabia.

www.theatlantic.com...

One day; they'll jump out of the closet with a flourish.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Yet the Saudis have spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere.

National Review


I didn't know that.





top topics
 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join