Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and motley moose)

A woman has been arrested in Mecca in Saudi Arabia for driving a car.  

Arab News reported that the woman was arrested after her four-wheel-drive Lexus crashed into another vehicle. Investigators are looking into the incident, and the woman has been handed over to the Prosecution and Investigation Commission.

Women are prohibited from driving on all public roads in Saudi Arabia, a ban that has triggered several high-profile protests by women's rights activists.

CNN notes that more than 125 women last year signed a petition sent to Saudi Interior Minister Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, asking that the ban be overturned. That ban has even, in some cases, been extended to golf carts -- a vehicle some women used to get around their transportation limitations.

Back in late January, it was reported that Saudi Arabia was to lift its ban on women drivers later this year - however apparently this has not come into affect yet.

The woman's name and nationality have not been announced.

Tags: Ban, driving, Saudi Arabia, Women (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

please resist making any women driver jokes...

by canadian gal 2009-03-07 05:06PM | 0 recs
RECIPROCITY

We should enact laws that prohibit all Saudi men from driving while in the US.

If Saudi males visiting the US were not allowed to drive, unless accompanies by a responsible woman, that would get the point across well.

by architek 2009-03-08 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: RECIPROCITY

yes because taking an equally absurd stance on an issue always gets the job done.

You have never been anything more than a rabble rouser and complete fool. Its kind of sad really, because you have great priorities. You are just always more interested in making a scene than accomplishing something.

by JDF 2009-03-08 08:24AM | 0 recs
Thanks!

I'm more than willing to act foolish if it encourages people to think about an important issue.

by architek 2009-03-09 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks!

You could have just said that you are more than willing to act foolish, which you are.

by JDF 2009-03-09 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: RECIPROCITY

I'll ammend your excellent suggestion and make it a law that Saudi men aren't allowed to drive in the US, unless they dress like a woman!

-gadfly

by the national gadfly 2009-03-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Gotta love it..

That would be hysterically funny.

But its deliberately humiliating and for that reason, I think it would be wrong. Evil, even if there is a poetic justice to it.

We should simply ask that Saudi men experience whatever they do to women in their own country. That they endure what they make their wives, their daughters, their mothers do, whatever that is, until they stop.

That might be something like always hire a woman to drive them while in the US. (Thats what Saudi women have to do, I think)

by architek 2009-03-09 04:29PM | 0 recs
I hate radical Islam

its a shame we can't eliminate it from the world by force. Our new diplomacy and foreign policy better work, which I'm confident will help if not bring down radical Islam, at least tempter its rise.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-07 05:33PM | 0 recs
em...

radical anything i think you mean.  and didn't you learn the lessons of the past 8 years.  eliminating anything by force (on its own) doesn't work or is particularly moral.

by canadian gal 2009-03-07 05:37PM | 0 recs
I legitimately meant that we cannot

exterminate radical Islam by force, and yes I do hate most radicalism, but the content of this diary reminded me of my disdain for religious fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism being even worse than Christian fundamentalism, which at least doesn't arrest women from driving cars. But I still hate Xristian fundies too.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-07 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I legitimately meant that we cannot

"Islamic fundamentalism being even worse than Christian fundamentalism, which at least doesn't arrest women from driving cars."

No, Christian fundamentalism just lead to the crusades, war and persecution in Europe, remember the inquistion? Or how about today's Christian version of the taliban with the Christian camps where they are teaching young kids to hate and kill muslims. Yes, this is sooooo much better than Islam. puhleeze know what you're talking about.

by SocialDem 2009-03-08 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I legitimately meant that we cannot

I forgot to add my point, ALL religion is bad moderate and extreme. It makes people beleive in irrational things and that leads them to do irrational actions because of a perceived need to please an invisible old man who lives in the clouds.

by SocialDem 2009-03-08 11:31AM | 0 recs
From everything Ive read about Mohammed

HE would have hated radical Islam.

Do people realize that Mohammed's first wife worked? Not only worked, she owned her own business.

That's according to Huston Smith's excellent book on the world's religions.

Extremists are almost always very resentful, hateful people. If they could not twist and exploit the words of the real spiritually aware - people like Jesus - and Mohammed - they would hate them.

Jesus and Mohammed and others like them preached a gospel of inclusion and tolerance and sharing BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT OUR VERY SURVIVAL AS THE HUMAN RACE IN EVERY WAY DEPENDS ON IT.

by architek 2009-03-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
Social Dem

Okay, I don't really know that much about this, but as I understand it, Christianity is not what you describe in its original form.

It went through a split around the second or third century during which the factions that had actually known Jesus personally and knew his priorities were eclipsed by those who thought that a official new "Church" and doctrines were more important.

That was where Christianity started becoming something other than what it originally was, a radical understanding of the power of love to transform humanity. Not a religion, per se.

For example, I think that there was a great deal of evidence that Jesus thought that what people did was far more important than what (or if) churches they belonged to or didn't. he felt that there were many ways to Heaven, and that didn't depend on one being in a church. (it did depend on being good, though. And helping the weak and poor.)

Jesus had a brother too, I think..

by architek 2009-03-09 04:44PM | 0 recs
My point is simple

I don't care if you're a moderate religious follower, or an extremist. The point is religion leaves people vulnerable to manipulation and fills their head with a false sense of hope and a false perception of how the world really works.

I always find it fascinating when people imply that happiness can only be found through Jesus. When in fact the whole premise that supposedly makes people happy is a fraud. The moral teachings of religion may have value as to how to philosophically live a just life, but the potential for manipulation is dangerous and frankly bad for wo/mankind. And it is exactly this power that the church/rabbi/mosque has over what is considered "christian" enough, or "jewish" enough or "Islamic" enough, etc. that gives power to these radical elements. After all when you live in a society such as Saudi Arabia where it is gov't policy to follow to an arbitrary set of so called moral beliefs set not by god, that would be impossible, but instead created with the filter and selfishness of man do you really expect people with almost unlimited power to be fair, or just, or believe in equality?

The same can be said about born again evangelicals in the United States. Ban abortion, birth control, censor entertainment, it's not different than the corruption of the religion than what is practiced in Saudi Arabia.

by SocialDem 2009-03-09 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

Neither religion nor secularism are guarantors of compassion, reason, tolerance, or justice.  Is your wholesale and oversimplified rejection of religion a sign of your compassion, reason, tolerance, justice, or intellectual openness?  The broad brush is the bigot's favorite tool.

by Strummerson 2009-03-09 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

Where did I argue that secularism is somehow the savior for peace on earth? My so called "oversimplified rejection of religion" has nothing to do with tolerance, justice, or intellectual openness but rather a realization of the evil religion can become. If you would actually have read my post I did concede people do have some things to learn from religion. It is not the concept of being good to your neighbor that I have a beef with, but rather the vehicle that religion provides to charlatans to do evil.

Why is it when one criticizes religion it makes one a bigot, but when you tell me that your religion is the true moral way in life it is considered all in good faith? Why is it okay for religion to criticize but not for one to criticize religion itself? Maybe you are the bigot for your wholesale defense of religion and oversimplified rejection of my argument? Instead of implying ad hominem attacks why not answer my questions?

by SocialDem 2009-03-09 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

It is not the concept of being good to your neighbor that I have a beef with, but rather the vehicle that religion provides to charlatans to do evil.

"Religion" cannot provide a vehicle as it's neither a unified or animate entity.  Religions are no more nor less exploitable, fallible, or corruptible than other cultural mechanisms and/or systems.

Why is it when one criticizes religion it makes one a bigot, but when you tell me that your religion is the true moral way in life it is considered all in good faith?

1. When one criticizes any complex and heterogeneous group of beliefs and/or actors by homogenizing them into a singular straw man, one is engaged in bigotry.

2. I didn't tell you that my religion, whatever you assume it to be, is true, moral, or exclusive.

3. I oppose religious forms of bigotry no less than anti-religious forms.  This is nothing more than putting words in my post in order to make me into a straw man.  This is simply bald obfuscation.  A little odd coming from someone complaining I didn't read their post.

Why is it okay for religion to criticize but not for one to criticize religion itself?

Religion does not criticize.  Religious people criticize all sorts of things on religious grounds.  There are positive and negative instances of religious people doing this.  I reject criticism of "religion itself" as I think that this constitutes an unhelpful and inaccurate homogenization of a wide range of phenomena and forms.

Maybe you are the bigot for your wholesale defense of religion and oversimplified rejection of my argument?

Opposing wholesale critique of religion, or at least a critique that does not adequately recognize religious diversity, does not constitute a wholesale defense of religion.  This is a blatant logical flaw.  I do not consider my rejection of your argument "oversimplified" as I rejected it based on its premise, i.e. that religion is a unified phenomenon that can be criticized or for that matter defended as such.

Instead of implying ad hominem attacks why not answer my questions?

Well this is interesting.  Here you suggest that I should have answered your questions before suggesting that your post was using an overly broad brush.  But you hadn't posed your questions yet.  I'm not sure, then, how I might have answered them.  Can you answer questions before they are asked?  Now that you have asked them, I answered them directly, and I believe respectfully.

I apologize that my disagreement offended you.  You seem to have a particular axe to grind here.  If you don't want honest engagement, I'll try to remember in the future and withhold responding.

by Strummerson 2009-03-09 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

""Religion" cannot provide a vehicle as it's neither a unified or animate entity.  Religions are no more nor less exploitable, fallible, or corruptible than other cultural mechanisms and/or systems."

Religion does and can provide a vehicle or justification for acts that are oppressive. I'm not saying religion as an entity does this, but rather actors use religion for their own self-interests. This is contradictory to what Christianity is about no?  This diary is one example of that. Yes you could have very well have had Saudi culture determine the same thing but my point is religion just provides an excuse. The second part is exactly what I am arguing. And because of the possibility of corruption religion can and does cause harm to the world. Do you at least agree to that?

"1. When one criticizes any complex and heterogeneous group of beliefs and/or actors by homogenizing them into a singular straw man, one is engaged in bigotry."

Again, I was not lumping all religions and/or religious people into one category, merely pointing out that religion can and does cause harm to the world in the name of god. I am not saying all religious ppl are inherently like this but rather people do use it for harm. I am sorry I was not more specific.

"2. I didn't tell you that my religion, whatever you assume it to be, is true, moral, or exclusive."

This was just a general question. I did not mean it specifically to you.

"3. I oppose religious forms of bigotry no less than anti-religious forms.  This is nothing more than putting words in my post in order to make me into a straw man.  This is simply bald obfuscation.  A little odd coming from someone complaining I didn't read their post."

I am not "anti-religious" but am against those who would take advantage of something that is very very dear to some people. I was pointing out in frustration, assuming that you were trying to be trollish, that when someone criticizes religion right away the bigot card is thrown.

"Religion does not criticize.  Religious people criticize all sorts of things on religious grounds.  There are positive and negative instances of religious people doing this."  

And those religious leaders are supposed to represent their church/mosque/temple correct? And when the priest or rabbi goes to the pulpit and declares homosexuality as a sin, as an evil, is that not criticizing people? Then when someone criticizes the church for teaching it they are treated very badly but yet we are all supposed to have this form of respect just because it is religion? Maybe I should stop using the general term religion and be more specific.

"I reject criticism of "religion itself" as I think that this constitutes an unhelpful and inaccurate homogenization of a wide range of phenomena and forms."

Well I am going to have to agree to disagree. I think you are confusing what I really meant in that you think I am generalizing when I am actually not. I am sorry I was not more specific. But I am not trying to paint every religious person as somehow bad or wrong.

"Opposing wholesale critique of religion, or at least a critique that does not adequately recognize religious diversity, does not constitute a wholesale defense of religion.  This is a blatant logical flaw."

I know that I was playing with your words. I did not recognize it in what I was trying to tell Lacrosse in the first place before it turned into this. I was telling him/her the very same thing you are saying is wrong with my argument, that to paint Islam as a violent religion is wrong and that there are many examples of Christianity and Judaism being violent. I then went on to say that all religion is harmful but I also did concede that religion can and does bring much good. If you want to argue what sects or populations of the religions aren't harmful that is fine because I am not saying ALL populations or sects of a particular religion harmful.

"  I do not consider my rejection of your argument "oversimplified" as I rejected it based on its premise, i.e. that religion is a unified phenomenon that can be criticized or for that matter defended as such.""

No disagreement here. But I was not trying to say that religion is a unified phenomenon generally, but rather some specifics are.

"I apologize that my disagreement offended you.  You seem to have a particular axe to grind here.  If you don't want honest engagement, I'll try to remember in the future and withhold responding"

Am not looking for a fight here. I appreciate the clarification in this post. However, I think you did misunderstand what I was getting at as much as I perhaps misunderstood your intentions on that last post.

by SocialDem 2009-03-09 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

Okay.  I'm glad to find that we can indeed have a conversation here.  First, perhaps I was remiss in not attending to the thread.  I responded to one post and may not have taken its context into account as fully as I should have.  For that, I owe you an apology.  I assure you that I was not taking Lakrosse's side, or anyone else's.  I certainly find exceedingly little common ground with Lakrosse in particular.

I do think that it's important not to single out religion as structurally different from non-religious cultural systems of convention and belief.  In fact, I think if religions are distinct in a particular way it's that they are often more transparent with regard to the grounds for their claims than others and that this can be helpful.  But I reiterate that I think it much better and more accurate to phrase things to reflect how people articulate positions through religions, and how religious systems function in ways that motivate a range of actions and positions, than to claim that religions actively do, or criticize, or provide things.  When a Rabbi, Priest, Minister, Imam criticizes or lay believer endorses something, it's not the religion but the religious figure representing that religion who does so and not that particular religion or religion itself.

But this leads to a slightly different point.  It seems as if you distinguish authentic religious belief from its exploitation by 'charlatans' based on whether you agree with the particular sentiment.  If so, I cannot agree with you.  A Muslim may argue that al Qaeda's ideology represents a perversion of Islam.  I am not in a position to do so.  As far as I can see, al Qaeda is an authentic expression of Islamic tradition.  But this, OF COURSE, does not make it reasonable to assume that all Muslims do or should interpret their religion similarly.  In fact, to do so is empirically UNreasonable.  My point here is that there are authentic and cynical expressions of religious belief that undergird actions I sympathize with; and there are authentic and cynical expressions of religious belief that undergird actions I abhor.  It seems deeply problematic to divide authentic religious behaviors from exploitative ones based on sympathy.  As a Jew, I abhor 95% of the settler ideology and oppose it on a range of grounds, including its interpretation of religious texts, both biblical and rabbinic.  But that doesn't mean it's an inauthentic expression of Judaism.  Rather, I think it's a deeply violent and destructive one.  As all religions may be interpreted variously (though generally not infinitely) I think it's a bad option (to venture and understatement) and one that can be critiqued imminently, i.e. on the grounds of it's own textual authorities.  But that doesn't make it inauthentic.  It's authentic, and can and must be authentically opposed.  In the nineteenth century, Christians used the Bible both to defend slavery and call for its abolition.  Both were authentic expressions of Christian belief and used structurally valid interpretations of biblical texts for support.  The fact that one position is morally superior (another vast understatement) doesn't mean it was religiously more authentic.

by Strummerson 2009-03-10 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

I am trying to argue whether one's interpretation of religious text/teachings etc. are better than the others. I am merely pointing out that people can use religion to persuade people to do things that without such an emotional attachment to the particular religion they would not logically assume is moral. Religion to me is a double edged sword. However, I find religion impure for lack of a better word, when actors use it as a means to either enrich themselves, maintain political dominance, or even in many cases racial dominance.
I was raised a Catholic but can not morally be part of the church for the many priest scandals. This is in my mind equivalent and no different than a doctor who molests children and tells them its just part of their physical. There is NO religious context for this sort of action and perhaps if the child hypothetically (I am making an assumption here) was not so convinced that his/her priest or doctor had some kind of authority it could have been prevented. This is a bad example and I don't know if I quite explained myself correctly here. It is this power of authority and appearance that your preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, etc. knows what is best that is a major flaw of Religion.

I do understand that not all Catholics have the same idea of what is really christian (or enter in any other faith) but I am not talking about the followers necessary but rather the people who pull the strings. There are many good examples of good actors too. I just realized I ran out of time, but I will finish later.

by SocialDem 2009-03-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: My point is simple

Why is religion different from patriotism?  Try this: 'people can use patriotism to persuade people to do things that without such an emotional attachment to the particular state they would not logically assume is moral. Patriotism to me is a double edged sword.

The problem is not the cultural and/or ideological mechanisms of identity as such, but the ways in which these mechanisms engender both positive and negative actions and the degree to which a particular tradition responds to and engages and even generates criticism among its constituents.  

It is this power of authority and appearance that your preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, etc. knows what is best that is a major flaw of Religion.

The problem here is that you imply that preachers and priests and rabbis and imams all wield the same kind and degree of authority.  Not only are religions formally different in this regard, but some religions are quite heterogeneous in themselves.  Your critique of "religion" fails to acknowledge this and in doing so obscures it.

by Strummerson 2009-03-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
I said "is," not "was"

as in present tense, present day. In 2009, Islamic terrorism is far worse than 2009 Christian fundamentalism.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-08 01:15PM | 0 recs
My point is still valid

"Or how about today's Christian version of the taliban with the Christian camps where they are teaching young kids to hate and kill muslims."

CNN did a special on this and these camps are brainwashing children in the name of the CHRISTIAN lord to believe that there is a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam, very comparable to your modern day extremist madrassa(sp?). There is no difference between a Christian nutjob, and a Islamic nutjob, BOTH have very very radical elements. Stop trying to create the perception that it is only Islam that violent, ALL religion is violent, contradictory, and flat out fraud.

by SocialDem 2009-03-09 01:50PM | 0 recs
how many 9/11s and Pan Am

whatever the flight number was were done by Christian fundamentalists? How many cafe's in recent times have Christians blown up with suicide bombers or buses? How many beheading videos made by westerner religious fanatics? Oh yea, NONE! hard to believe, but Pat Robertson is less nutty than OBL, suprisingly. Not that I support him, but you cannot compares apples and grapefruits.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-10 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I legitimately meant that we cannot

What would make Zionism "radical" in your mind?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-08 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate radical Islam

Why don't you work on tempering your own bigotry first? And then work on the bigotry propagated by your religious/ethnic group.

And then you can worry about women in Saudi Arabia.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-08 10:42AM | 0 recs
This is a human rights violation at the core

Sexism of this kind cuts to the bone on human rights issues. Yet even here in the good ole US of A we allow woman's rights to be abused under the protection of religious rights. Radical Mormonism comes to mind.

by nikkid 2009-03-08 08:55AM | 0 recs
Arabs bad to women; must dominate Arabs.

One of MyDD's biggest Israel hawks is distraught over the poor treatment of women in an Arab country.

But when Bush 41 and Clinton were yucking it up over a joke based on the stereotype feminists being ugly, Canadian Gal defended Clinton.

Zionists argue that the United States should support Israel because of "shared values".

But Israel doesn't need U.S. support to share our values on gender issues.

Israel--and its supporters, like Canadian Gal--wants U.S. support in denying Palestinians basic human rights.

The anti-Arab propaganda serves the purpose of dehumanizing Arabs. Canadian Gal may not be consciously dehumanizing Arabs, but Zionists and other Right Wingers have engaged in a longstanding campaign to dehumanize Arabs and Muslims to justify the use of violence and oppression against Arabs and Muslims.

Does it make sense that someone who would defend Israel bombing civilians from aircraft would get all distraught about a woman not being able to drive in Saudi Arabia? How does this prioritization make sense?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-08 10:40AM | 0 recs
yes - this zionist supports women's rights.

just like obama.

you on the other hand clearly don't seem perturbed by much of society's ills save for israel and the role of jews in the US.  but this diary isn't about that is it?  

so kindly please take your crap elsewhere - you did this in another diary of mine about acid in faces of young women and brought up the zomg zionists! at that time too - i let it slide for the most part then - this time HR's will come of every time.  how you haven't been banned is beyond me.

by canadian gal 2009-03-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: yes - this zionist supports women's rights.

Did you defend Israel's decision to drop bombs on urban areas?

Did you support the rights of the civilian women killed in the bombing campaign you supported?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-08 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

I wouldn't care to corrupt this diary with IP issues, and I don't think that some of Israel's extremist religious groups, who also disparage women, should be brought up in this regard. That probably deserves a diary of its own.

I'm more concerned, as is Nyberg, that this diary would also fit in the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab agenda of right wing sites like Little Green Footballs.

Women deprecation in Saudi Arabia should probably also be contrasted with the status of women in other Islamic countries such as Indonesia and Turkey. It would dispel the notion that Muslim peoples are being singled out and are implicitly anti-feminist. In that context, one could accept the idea that women's rights are diminished in all Judaic-Christian-Muslim groups that are extremist. Ergo, religious extremism is bad for equality among the sexes.

by MainStreet 2009-03-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

I invite you to write a diary about extremist Christian or Jews whom refrain from providing their female polpulations from driving.  I couldn't find any which is why there was none included in the diary.  as to your claim about this being suitable for lgf- fail.  

if you check the links above they include mainstream and Arab media who reported this as well as several womens groups. but unlike another troll in this thread I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  and will say that this topic - WOMENS RIGHTS TO DRIVE A CAR has nothing to do with Israel.  if you choose to co opt this thread any further with a topic that is not relevant to the diary I will HR.  sorry.

by canadian gal 2009-03-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

If the subjugation of women were limited to the right to drive, we could look forward to sexual equality in short order. I'm afraid that it is not. At this point, I don't need to go into the theme and variations of deprecation of women in religious societies around the world, including the Christian and Judaic varieties. It seems to be built into old religious edicts, which the extremists are willing to follow.

So no, there is no equivalent prohibition against women driving that I know of elsewhere. Want to discuss the other pathways to kicking women down a few pegs? On the other hand....

by MainStreet 2009-03-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

great on topic.  by no means are Muslim extremists the only group to propigate and mollify women.  in fact One needs to look no further than their own backyard to find inequality.

in this case the Saudis are more than extreme.  but the subtle suggestions that in some way this diary purports to be anything other than that reeks of an alternative agenda.  

by canadian gal 2009-03-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
perhaps self-reflection is in order...

Why is so much of your energy put into raising issues of women being oppressed when the oppression can be linked to Islam, but so little effort into social justice, including discrimination against women, closer to home?

And why do you feel the need to stifle criticism of your position by giving troll ratings?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-08 09:10PM | 0 recs
because the oppression

radical, not supposed mainstream Islam imposes on women is so horrid, buried back before middle ages or around then, that one who cares about world human rights cannot help but point them out.

I'm sorry if Islam, a not too popular religion in the West has its critics of radicalism. Sorry the whole "workers of the world, unite" ethos hasn't worked out for some of us.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-08 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: because the oppression

Not too popular with Little Green Footballs at least, or you, perhaps, but defaming a religion on the basis of its small radical elements would also take down Christianity and Judaism.

by MainStreet 2009-03-09 02:23AM | 0 recs
I never defamed the religion on the whole

where did I do that? Did I ever call "Islam" without the word "radical" in front of it a "violent religion," or the Koran a "hateful book?" NO, I merely pointed out the danger, of radicalized Islam, responsible for the death of 3000 Americans and opporession of countless people around the world, FAR HIGHER IN NUMBER TODAY than any radical Christianities or Judaisms. I'm interested in today, not ancient history, so radicalized Islam, not the Crusades, is the topic here.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-09 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I never defamed the religion on the whole

The extremist Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam from which Al Qaeda derives constitute only .0008% of the 1.2 billion people who follow Islam.

If you are talking about Al Qaeda you should make that clear rather than to suggest that radical Islam represents a wider portion of this population, especially Hezbollah and Hamas, resistance groups to Israeli occupation that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, even so some of the propagandists would like people to believe that to be the case.

by MainStreet 2009-03-09 07:23AM | 0 recs
I am also talking about the goverments

of these Arab countries which afford women no rights, which includes countries not just run by Al Qaeda but many others, such as Jordan, Syria, Pakistan now in its little taliban deal. Those are a small but sizeable portion and must stop their oppression.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-09 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I am also talking about the goverments

Wow, I don't think you could have named three more secular countries if you had tried.  Jordan?  Syria? Pakistan????  They elected a woman the leader of their country.  When do you suppose we might do that?

People already think you lump all muslims together and with that statement you've kind of demonstrated it.

by Jess81 2009-03-09 09:44PM | 0 recs
ok then how about

Yemen, UAE, Oman, Qatar, et. al.? Saudi Arabia's treatment of women isn't exactly tops either, but as their number 1 consumer of their oil, we kiss their asses. Tell me about those homes of the braves and lands of the free.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-10 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: because the oppression

Do you consider the oppression of Zionism to be radical? Extreme? Racist?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-09 05:05AM | 0 recs
there is no Zionist oppression

except oppression unto the Zionists themselves by anti-Semitic pro-Islamics like yourself.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-10 06:24AM | 0 recs
buddy, this diary was about Saudi Arabia

and no you cannot find many other states that denigrate women in this extreme a manner. Most of these kind of states are Islamic states, sorry the truth hurts. Islamic radicalism is a cancer, which if only we could cure, as its far worse, TODAY IN 2009 than other radical religions.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-08 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: buddy, this diary was about Saudi Arabia

And just who do you include in the notion of "radical Islam?"

And so then we must discuss radical Christianity and radical Judaism, but we seldom hear about them, even though their extremism is also harmful to basic civil and human rights.

by MainStreet 2009-03-09 02:20AM | 0 recs
Good news.

Before we wipe Islam off the map, as someone suggested, read about what nonviolent protest can sometimes do.

Saudi Arabia is to lift its ban on women drivers

By Damien McElroy
21 Jan 2008

Saudi Arabia is to lift its ban on women drivers in an attempt to stem a rising suffragette-style movement in the deeply conservative state.

Government officials have confirmed the landmark decision and plan to issue a decree by the end of the year.

The move is designed to forestall campaigns for greater freedom by women, which have recently included protesters driving cars through the Islamic state in defiance of a threat of detention and loss of livelihoods.

The royal family has previously balked at granting women driving permits, claiming the step did not have full public support. The driving ban dates back to the establishment of the state in 1932, although recently the government line has weakened.


by MainStreet 2009-03-09 02:48AM | 0 recs
by MainStreet 2009-03-09 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Good news.

honestly - did you even READ THE DIARY - the link is in there.

by canadian gal 2009-03-09 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Good news.

Now that you mention it...

But the Saudi reconsidertion of the driving restriction was reported two weeks ago, and was a positive development diminished in your report. It might also have been more positive to emphasize the women's movement within Saudi Arabia to change this driving restriction. That's important stuff.

I now wonder if the woman you reported on wasn't just part of the protest movement.

by MainStreet 2009-03-09 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Good news.

for someone so single-minded in their own diaries - don't you think your continued suggestions about this diary seem a bit heavy-handed?

look i already told you that i agree with you and that inequality is by no means a saudi-only infraction.  your suggestions are great - why don't you write your own diary on them?

by canadian gal 2009-03-09 03:48PM | 0 recs
Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingl

And it just keeps getting better.

Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/0 9/saudi.arabia.lashes/

Some of the extremistly frightening parts of the story (emphasis mine):

Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports.

Beating a 75 year old woman. Can it get much worse than that?

According to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan, troubles for the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, began last year when a member of the religious police entered her house in the city of Al-Chamli and found her with two unrelated men, "Fahd" and "Hadian."....

...The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, feared by many Saudis, is made up of several thousand religious policemen charged with duties such as enforcing dress codes, prayer times and segregation of the sexes.

How is it possible that we continue to have diplomatic relations with a country that has no respect for human rights, but we can't have relations with Cuba? Never mind, I already know the answer.

by LakersFan 2009-03-09 11:42AM | 0 recs
Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi

And apparently she had been a nursemaid to one of the men.

The seventh century values of a desert people. That's something to strive for.

by Charles Lemos 2009-03-09 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

Feminist will surely not like this kind of news.  When will Saudi Arabia open its eyes that it is about time to alter their belief on women.  I really hate it when people look at the women as the second class citizen only.  People ought to realize that we are all created equal in the eyes of our Creator.

by cindy rhyes 2009-03-09 10:50PM | 0 recs
Maybe one day

Humankind will evolve beyond the need to seek metaphysical guidance and support for their troubles and fears and we can all take responsibility for our own actions and accept the consequences thereof.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole religion this has been nothing but trouble and we should demand a refund.

by mydailydrunk 2009-03-10 02:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

So then, we can all agree on one thing: that religious extremism breeds violations of women's rights and inequality whereever it is found.

Whether it is prohibition on women driving in Saudi Arabia, laws requiring women to sit in the back of the bus in Israel, or enslavement of women by polygymist men in Utah, all kinds of extreme religious orthodoxy violate the principle of gender equality and subjugates women to a reduced status.

Let everyone agree that a lot of work still has to be done at home and around the world on behalf of gender equality.

by MainStreet 2009-03-10 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

i take no exception to your comment save for part that states that their are laws in israel that women have to sit on the back of a bus.  there isn't.

there are the "mehadrin" bus lines in which a bunch of wingnutty jews attempt to enforce separate gender seating, however it is not a state-sanctioned law that is enforced by a government organization.

other than that i commend you for actually attempting to address the content in the diary in a progressive way - even though somehow you managed to bring around an israel reference in there.

by canadian gal 2009-03-10 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

SOrry for the error.

However, my point was that your diary lacked the expansive mode it needed to bring into the arena ALL religious extremism that participates in subjugating women.

The appearance you left with many is that only extremist Muslim sects leave women in the lurch as far as equality is concerned. If that was your point, considering your past comments on IP, it is a sad use of International Women's to defame Islam and pump p the pseudoIslam-West confrontation.

So why didn't you mention the others since this is a worldwide problem?

by MainStreet 2009-03-10 08:26AM | 0 recs
Yes, you should say sorry.

This is how it works for you.

When Israel is bad, it's all 'BAD'. Israel owns 100% of the 'bad', no need to even discuss sharing the blame.

But, when a Muslim nation or Islam is 'bad', then of course the explanation is that all religions or nations are bad so one can not focus on, say, Saudi Arabia, because Israel is bad too for women.

If I were a woman and God gave me a passport to only 3 countries, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Utah (yes, it should be it's own country!) and I had to choose one to spend my life in and guarantee you I would not choose Saudi Arabia.  Womens rights can improve everywhere, but let's stop the intellectual dishonesty of saying there is no difference between Saudi Arabia, Utah or Israel when it comes to womens rights.  That's just anti-Zionism desperately trying to defend itself.

by oc 2009-03-10 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

you have now lost that benefit of the doubt that i extended earlier...  as i said before - WRITE YOUR OWN DIARY about the issues that you deem worthy of discussion.  

the consistent attempts to bring back the topics to israel yet continued excuses for saudi arabia expose an alternative agenda which has no place on a progressive website - just ask shergald - he too was victim of progressive bloggers that demanded, you know - progressive ideals.  that is all i have to say to you at this point since i generally do not reply to insincere people and in this case it would seem a more than fair characterization of your arguments.

by canadian gal 2009-03-10 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Woman Arrested in Saudi Arabia for... Driving.

Oh, please.

There are many examples around the world where religious extremism hands women a raw deal, a second rate life, which I must say, enriched your diary (unbiased examples of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity given). But you were only interested in emphasizing "radical Islam" in Saudi Arabia. I don't disagree with the criticism, at face value.

As a strong supporter of Israel in its expanionist effort at the expense of the Palestinian nation, however, you can understand that it is perhaps your bias that here becomes evident, especially as there is a vigorous proZionist propaganda effort going on for several years to defame Islam as Israel's greatest enemy. (Check out David Horowitz's site, where this defamation extends to Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations which are simply fighting Israeli occupation.)

by MainStreet 2009-03-10 02:03PM | 0 recs
Our friend in the middle east

Why? Oh yes, Oil.

by southasiawatch 2009-03-10 06:47AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads