apparently, we're all terrorists now...

vibe666

According to the Saudis anyway. :eek:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

wretcheddomain

If being an atheist makes me a terrorist, then I'm a proud terrorist.

Pherekydes

I couldn't care less what the Saudis think.

Sulla Felix

Pherekydes wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the Saudis think.

I could. They've been bankrolling fundamentalist islam for decades. People with lots of money can change the world, quite literally.

PopePalpatine

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I could. They've been bankrolling fundamentalist islam for decades. People with lots of money can change the world, quite literally.

You could say that the Saudis have a Joffrey-class sense of irony.

wp_rathead

I can't commit myself full time to the aul terrorism..

endacl

wprathead wrote: »

I can't commit myself full time to the aul terrorism..

I can do Mondays and every second Thursday if that helps?

old_aussie

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as..........

"calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

Long live the King!

King Abdullah, you must stop hanging out with Kim Jong-un.

shruikan2553

I find it offensive to real terrorists. There are people willing to blow themselves up while we wouldnt sacrifice a biscuit.

sopretty

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

So, basically, you're a terrorist unless you are Muslim? Nice.

pauldla

sopretty wrote: »

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

So, basically, you're a terrorist unless you are Muslim? Nice.

Until they run into a conflict with one of their neighbours, no doubt. Didn't US troops during Gulf War 1 joke that the Saudi national anthem was 'Onward Christian Soldiers'?

Hibs Hearts run FR33

wprathead wrote: »

I can't commit myself full time to the aul terrorism..

I know what you mean, the farm takes up most of the day and at night I just like a cup of tea

Peregrinus

Well, if it’s any comfort, you’re not being singled out.

The Saudi notion of terrorism is, um, expansive. To most of us terrorism must, at a minimum, involve acts of violence. To the Saudis, while acts carried out outside Saudi Arabia must indeed involve violence before they can be classed as terrorist, within the kingdom “terrorism” can encompass non-violent acts. It can include any act intended to (among other things) “insult the reputation of the state,” “harm public order,” or “shake the security of society”.

Since, in the Saudi view, Wahabbi Islam is the foundation both of society and of the state, any expression within Saudi Arabia of views inconsistent with that version of Islam is at least potentially a terrorist act. Those could be atheist views, of course, but they could equally be Christian views, or Hindu views, or indeed Islamic views which don’t happen to align with the Wahabbist positions in official favour in Saudi Arabia.

And, in truth, it’s the latter views against which these laws are primarily aimed. The initial list of groups which the authorities consider to be terrorist (either inside or outside the kingdom) includes the Muslim Brotherhood. the Houthi group (in Yemen), Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (which despite the name is not a state or a government, but a political movement active in Iraq and Syria), Jabhat al-Nusra, and Hezbollah. I wouldn’t care to be an atheist in Saudi Arabia, but I don’t think it’s the atheists who will be first up against the wall.

Nodin

sopretty wrote: »

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

So, basically, you're a terrorist unless you are Muslim? Nice.

.....the right kind of muslim.....

This is real, though reported over 10 days after the press release.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/20/saudi-arabia-new-terrorism-regulations-assault-rights

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There are people willing to blow themselves up while we wouldnt sacrifice a biscuit.

Welcome to the wonderful, wonderful world of religious reality, where everything is upside down.

bumper234

Hibs Hearts run FR33 wrote: »

I know what you mean, the farm takes up most of the day and at night I just like a cup of tea

SILENCE!!!!!!!!!!!

I keel you

sopretty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if it’s any comfort, you’re not being singled out.

The Saudi notion of terrorism is, um, expansive. To most of us terrorism must, at a minimum, involve acts of violence. To the Saudis, while acts carried out outside Saudi Arabia must indeed involve violence before they can be classed as terrorist, within the kingdom “terrorism” can encompass non-violent acts. It can include any act intended to (among other things) “insult the reputation of the state,” “harm public order,” or “shake the security of society”.

Since, in the Saudi view, Wahabbi Islam is the foundation both of society and of the state, any expression within Saudi Arabia of views inconsistent with that version of Islam is at least potentially a terrorist act. Those could be atheist views, of course, but they could equally be Christian views, or Hindu views, or indeed Islamic views which don’t happen to align with the Wahabbist positions in official favour in Saudi Arabia.

And, in truth, it’s the latter views against which these laws are primarily aimed. The initial list of groups which the authorities consider to be terrorist (either inside or outside the kingdom) includes the Muslim Brotherhood. the Houthi group (in Yemen), Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (which despite the name is not a state or a government, but a political movement active in Iraq and Syria), Jabhat al-Nusra, and Hezbollah. I wouldn’t care to be an atheist in Saudi Arabia, but I don’t think it’s the atheists who will be first up against the wall.

Are they effectively outlawing the practise of any faith other than this Wahabbist faith? What about immigrants in their country?

Peregrinus

sopretty wrote: »

Are they effectively outlawing the practise of any faith other than this Wahabbist faith?

Well, broadly, yes. There may be some degree of official toleration for the practice of variety of Islam other than Wahhabism - I don't know - but I'm pretty sure those other varieties of Islam are not allowed to proselytise, seek converts or criticise Wahhabism. And the public practice of faiths other than Islam is, I think, explicitly outlawed.

sopretty wrote: »

What about immigrants in their country?

There's no distinction between immigrants and citizens; the same rules apply to all. So immigrants who are Wahhabists are just fine.

And the others? Tough.

At least, that's the official line. Unofficially, of course, Saudi Arabia wants migrant workers, especially skilled workers in the oil and gas industry, and for that purpose it they need to make Saudi at least a tolerable place to live for migrant workers. So a certain amount of discreet practice of, e.g., Christianity is tolerated in compounds for westerners. But it does need to be very discreet.

The authorities are well aware of it; some of it is organised, supported and even paid for by Saudi government-owned oil companies. But it has to be discreet and deniable.

A Saudi solution to a Saudi problem!

sopretty

Thanks for that info Peregrinus. It's not a country I know much about to be honest. I knew a girl who lived there when she was younger as her Dad worked for one of the oil companies there, but I never got the impression they were that oppressive. I actually thought they were quite a progressive, wealthy and 'modern' country! Learn something new every day!!

Peregrinus

It's certainly a wealthy country, and arguably a modern one (for certain values of "modern"). But it's only progressive if you have a very unusual notion of progress.

Brian Shanahan

vibe666 wrote: »

According to the Saudis anyway. :eek:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

So does that mean I too get 72 virgins when I decide to suicide bomb the Kaba'a?

Boskowski

I suppose whats good for the goose and all that...

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So does that mean I too get 72 virgins when I decide to suicide bomb the Kaba'a?

I'm not sure. Perhaps you should try it, and let us know how it works out?

Nodin

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So does that mean I too get 72 virgins when I decide to suicide bomb the Kaba'a?

...bearing in mind they won't be allowed work and you'll be the sole breadwinner, would you like to reconsider that?

Peregrinus

Nodin wrote: »

...bearing in mind they won't be allowed work and you'll be the sole breadwinner, would you like to reconsider that?

Plus, the deal is that they are perpetually virgin. Consider the implications of that.

The more you look into this, the less attractive the deal appears. Maybe best to call off the operation, Brian.

endacl

I don't believe the gender, sexual orientation, or even the species of these virgins is immediately available on application. Read the small print carefully!

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

...bearing in mind they won't be allowed work and you'll be the sole breadwinner, would you like to reconsider that?

Don't worry I'll make them work for me.

Hotblack Desiato

Hmmm, I'd be more concerned about transiting through Dubai or somewhere and them finding a microgram of cannabis or something stuck to the sole of my shoe.

Plenty of good reasons to avoid these places and the subject of this thread is just one more

vibe666

how about tourism or international business relations?

do passports hold religious information? :eek:

Davidius

That's good news. I was afraid that I'd lose terrorist cred going from being an Irish Catholic to an Irish atheist but looks like it'll be grand.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Hmmm, I'd be more concerned about transiting through Dubai or somewhere and them finding a microgram of cannabis or something stuck to the sole of my shoe.

Plenty of good reasons to avoid these places and the subject of this thread is just one more

Because of the law in Saudi Arabia, I'm advised to stay out of Dubai?

Generalising much?

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah, avoid any Muslim theocracy. Works for me.

Peregrinus

Dubai is a theocracy?

Generalising much?

Hotblack Desiato

It's a non-democratic country with a very strong Muslim influence on all aspects of society. Like Ireland in the 1950s was a democracy with a very strong RCC influence on all aspects of society. Not technically theocracies but when the secular rulers are doing the church's bidding anyway, what's the difference.

Peregrinus

Pretty well all societies have strong religious influences on all aspects of society. If that's your criterion, then pretty well any state which is not a democracy could be labelled a theocracy by you. Which would make the term "theocracy" so wide as to be meaningless.

robindch

vibe666 wrote: »

do passports hold religious information? :eek:

No, but on the Saudi visa application or landing card, you do have to tell them what your metaphysical proclivities are. For the sake of an easy life, I put down "catholic" - standard advice is to avoid saying "atheist" or worse still, "jew".

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well all societies have strong religious influences on all aspects of society.

Really, to the extent of contemporary Dubai or 1950s Ireland?

You are simply being obtuse here.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Really, to the extent of contemporary Dubai or 1950s Ireland?

Yes, absolutely. In most western societies the morality reflected and embodied in criminal law differs only around the margins from the morality expressed by the (formerly) dominant religious traditions, and there's no doubt that it's a religious inheritance. You notice it in the Middle East because the dominant moral tradition is different in some respects from the one you are familiar with, but I don't think it's necessarily any more religiously-influenced; just differently religiously influenced.

FWIW, Dubai does not have a particularly Islamist government. You can establish and operate Christian churches, Hindu Temples, etc, advertise non-Muslim religious festivals and services, buy pork, buy alcohol, import alcohol, drink alcohol. People come to the UAE to escape the restrictions of living in Saudi Arabia. Assuming that all Middle Eastern arab states are like Saudi Arabia is a clear sign of paying too much attention to the Daily Mail.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

FWIW, Dubai does not have a particularly Islamist government.

No, not if Saudi Arabia is the yardstick - but it's still a highly repressive state by western standards, and its drug laws are completely bat-sh!t insane.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

No, not if Saudi Arabia is the yardstick - but it's still a highly repressive state by western standards, and its drug laws are completely bat-sh!t insane.

They have a "zero tolerance" approach to drugs, and you argue that that's batsh!t insane you'll get no quarrel from me. But that doesn't make them a theocracy, though. (If it did, Singapore would also be a theocracy.)

FWIW, negative attitudes to heroin and cannabis in Middle Eastern countries have less to do with Islamic teachings than they do with memories of the role of the drug trade in sustaining Turkish dominance over, and exploitation of, the area for several centuries. The British may have used the drug trade as a tool of colonisation, but they didn't invent the strategy.