Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Saudia Arabia

The Saudi Arabia article needs to include the long practice of the Saudi Arabia government / royal family presenting one picture to the western world and another one to the Islamic world. For example, the Saudia Arabian government / royal family publicaly opposes the Israel security fence between Israel and Palestine but builds a security fence between itself and Yemen.

^^- If you want to shun and smear Saudi Arabia's image, at least have the decency to spell it correctly.

Discussion

The wording Culture section is too colloquial. "For those rare days when it gets a bit chilly, Saudi men chuck..." and "...only their family gets to see them in all their glory..." sounds like a 10-year-old wrote it.

That kind of writing has no place in Wikipedia. I fixed up the whole section. Barfooz 08:12, 19 March 2005 (UTC))

---

More Saudi-bashing under Saudi culture I see. How about some positive aspects to give balance? And why here anyway, since there is a separate Saudi culture page. Anjouli 05:47, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Now it's fixed Anjouli 07:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC))

On further reflection, should this be under culture at all? Would a section on Saudi law not be better? Anjouli 06:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed this sentence from the Culture section: "Saudi religious police incarcerated foreign workers because they owned a rosary." Is there any attribution known, or more information? BCorr¤Брайен 21:29, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

You are mistaken: no religion is tolerated in Saudi, but Islam. Saudi Religious Police cannot look everywhere, but do not confuse this ineptitude with tolerance (Thomas Ludwig)

First I'm not aruging that I know it's untrue, so I don't think I'm "mistaken" per se -- I'm just saying that it's an example that's taken out of context and doesn't give any backup. The website you give as a reference seems to be a pro-Christian site -- I don't think it's a very good reference -- is there something that comes from a major wire service or newspaper?

Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 21:29, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 20 years and can tell you that much of what Thomas Ludwig has inserted, although no doubt done with honest intention, is totally inaccurate. There is a huge amount of anti-Islamic and anti-Saudi propoganda on the web and references must be chosen with care. If you based an article on Israel or the USA on similar propoganda, it would start by saying that Mossad and the CIA were respopnsible for 911! Saudi Arabia has a long way to go and I am not an apologist for their many shortcomings - but we should remain NPOV and anything controversial should be carefully sourced. The Mutawwa ("religious police") in Saudi Arabia are a spent force. Any influence they had with the government vanished with 911. They are now seen as a disruptive anti-(Saudi)government organisation and suspected supporters of terrorism. "Religious police" is in any case a bit of a misnomer. These people have no more legal authority than do the "fashion police" of New York. They are small in number and are basically thugs. Religious vigilantes would be a more accurate description. The government is now replacing all major religious post holders with their own Islamically-moderate stooges and the extremists are mainly in jail. It is many many years since amputation and flogging have been practised in Saudi Arabia, other than in a few remote areas where the local fundamentalists do manage to slip one past the authorities from time to time. There are regular Christian services in Saudi Arabia for the many Christian ex-pats. These take place mainly in Consulates and Embassies, but are certainly not secret from the Saudis! What is usually described as "flogging" in Saudi Arabia mostly refers to a ritual punishment in which a fully-dressed person is stuck on the back with a light stick by a person (usually an elderly cleric) who must hold a copy of the Qu'ran under his armpit whilst delivering the blows. It is mainly a matter of shame and certainly causes less pain that the corporal punishment used in American private schools to this day. This is not to defend the practice, but it is almost unknown these days and the Saudi government is doing its best to stamp it out completely. It should not be confused with the practice of the Taliban, where people were flogged almost to death with a bullwhip. Saudi Arabia has a long way to go, but they are trying their best in the face of a small minority of Islamic fundamentalists who by no means represent the majority of Saudis. Inaccurate and NPOV Saudi-phobic articles on WP do nothing to encourage progress or understanding on either side. Anjouli 08:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Mme. Anjouli maintains considerable financial interests in Saudi Arabia, which makes it important to her that the current state of affairs stays as is. Human rights must step back a bit in the process. (added by Thomas Ludwig)

Anjouli is a respected and longstanding editor who is an authority on Saudi Arabia and Islam. As she says, she is not a Saudi apologist and quickly points out their errors. If you look at her home page you will see she is in fact of Jewish ancestory! I would be interested to know where you obtained information about her financial interests. Or are you just making it up as you have made up the other information you have posted. SpellBott 13:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You flatter me. But it does not take much of an authority to see that "public beheadings can be observed on a daily basis" is a lot of rubbish. Anjouli 15:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Ludwig: Your repeated edits of the article to include you opionion about what is wrong with Saudi Arabia are not in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Phrases like this one are factually inaccurate and inappropriate: "public beheadings can be observed on a daily basis" -- please respond to the facts that Anjouli mentioned, as opposed to you "analysis" or her motivations. -- BCorr¤Брайен 12:50, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Thomas. Your personal remarks about me on Talk:Saudi Arabia are inappropriate, as are your constant reversions. There are many bad things about Saudi Arabia that could properly be included on this page. But your current edits are not only POV, they are factually inaccurate. If you want to use Talk:Saudi Arabia to discuss with other WP users how the page should look and come to a majority agreement, then you have my full support. If you keep blindly inserting your own "facts" and refuse to discuss them, then people will think you are a vandal and you will get blocked. Another user has already listed you as a vandal, but I have asked that you not be blocked yet. Please remember that if you exaggerate and include obvioulsy inaccurate information, nobody will take the "information" on the page seriously and the credibility of WP as a whole will be damaged. I am sure that is not the outcome you desire. Let's work together to make this article fairly represent both the good and bad things about Saudi Arabia. What do you say? Anjouli 16:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was in Saudi Arabia in the early 1990's just after First Gulf War.

Here is what I found out while I was there.

1) There are beheadings. Very rare and usually done to a foreign worker from a country without a lot of political influence.

2) Islam is the only legal religion. Religious rites performed at embassies are exempt because embassies are considered to be foreign territory and thus not part of Saudi Arabia.

3) The religious police have NO power to arrrest anyone. All they can do is vigorously persuade an actual police officer to arrest soemone.

4) Drinking alcohol is illegal.

5) The police are very reluctant to get involved. In fact I would say their attitude is 'I do not want to be involved.' I was in a traffic accident while I was there, the driver I was with ran into the back of another car, HARD, then let of the brakes before his car had fully stopped and rear ended the other car again. There is a law that says you cannot leave an accident before the police arrive. A policeman arrived, he had a Colonels insignia on his uniform, saw no one was bleeding to death, and waved us on. No police report.

6) Punishments are severe, but usually only for those who are very indiscreet. You can get away with more there than you can in western countries, because the police do not want to involve themselves unless there is no other choice.

Legal system and punishments

The punishment meted out by the Saudi Arabian court are unusual and certainly deserve to be noted. Rmhermen 15:47, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I do agree completely. But let's keep it accurate and NPOV. Public beheadings on a daily basis is utter nonsense. Saudi Arabia executes fewer people per year than the State of Texas and the government is trying (with great success) to stamp-out amputations - but it is a mistake to think the government has complete control of this, anymore than the Kennedys could stop all racial segregation instantly. I did try to edit-in a fair and NPOV paragraph about this, but as you see all my edits just get reverted. I'm happy to cooperate on this if Thomas will cooperate with other users. Right now it's pointless. Anjouli 16:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Ludwig: The exact number of beheadings is not known. Browsing the net, I frequently find numbers close to 100 per annum http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/27/saudi.beheadings.ap/

I was quite astonished to see the Saudi Arabia article free of any mentioning of human rights abuses, and someone who obviously profiteers from the status quo in this country acting as a "respected" editor of this article, who sanitized it from any criticism. Those who see no wrong in this must ask themselves serious questions about their political education.

Otherwise: 1. There is a set of UNDENIABLE Human Rights 2. To discuss Human Rights in a "cultural context" is a tactic heavily used by perpetrators and dictators 3. The first instituion responsible of what happens to human rights in a country is the government of that country. Arguing that the super-rich Saudi clan unfortunately cannot control the violation of human rights is very weak defense tactics. 4. Wikipedia users, in ther strive for "Neurality" must not revive the odious Appeasement policy approach of the Nazi era.

Which Human Rights dogma do you subscribe to? There is no such thing as universal rights, because all such rights are defined by the highly subjective minds of humans. 203.208.80.13 03:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Dialogue

Hello Thomas. Well now we are talking together, which is a start. I am sure we are both good people who want the same thing. You will probably be amazed to hear that I am a paid-up member of Amnesty International, which perhaps illustrates the degree of misunderstanding between us. And I lost a lot of my family in Hitler's concentration camps - so I understand what you mean about appeasement.

A few points:

• Please sign all your posts with ~~~~. This inserts your signature and the date - otherwise we need to look in the page history to see who wrote what.
• Edit wars solve nothing. Note I have not edited the current page, although I disagree with much of it. I want to come to agreement with you first, since this is obviously something you feel deeply about.
• No personal attacks or vandalism of my home page please, whoever it was. NB I'm not saying I think it was you, but it was apparently related to this discussion.

General matters:

• Whilst totalitarian regimes should be criticised for their abuses, it is important that this criticism be accurate and factually-based. It should not be unverified personal opinion or rumour. Above all it should be NPOV. It is also important that reforms and progress be given due credit. If not, and a country is painted blacker than black whatever they do, then they will not be sensitive to world opinion and will feel any efforts at reform are pointless. You will find this opinion is shared by almost all human rights organisations.
• There ARE still human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.
• There has been a great deal of progress in recent years. Most criticisms leveled against Saudi Arabia are historic and do not reflect the current situation.
• Saudi Arabia is about to join the WTO and is restructuring much of the judicial and legal system to comply with WTO requirements.
• This month a completely independent Saudi human rights organisation was formed, with full government support.
• Most abuses are not condoned by the government, although they must bear responsibility for lack of oversight of prisons etc.

Wikipedia country pages:

• Wikipedia country pages should match the format of other country pages. It is not appropriate to include large quotations or to have hot links to Google searches - whatever your politics. This kind of thing should be handled via short links to sub-pages, e.g. Human rights, Judicial system etc. This is the proper way to do things, whatever your opinion.
• Anything on WP should be verifiable from reputable sources. It should not be personal opinion or conjecture. If not, it should be removed.
• Anything on WP should be NPOV (Neutral Point of View). "Spiders eat flies" is acceptable. "Spiders are horrible creatures because they eat flies." is not.

The Saudi Arabia page:

• Much to talk about, but let's start with something simple. The present page says Saudi Arabia carries out crucifictions. I propose to remove that as I think it is factually inaccurate. Would you object? If so, can you provide a reference to substantiate this? I'll agree to leave it in if it is a sensible reference.

And that's how we do things on Wikipedia. Your move. Anjouli 15:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Ludwig - I was very annoyed to see human rights abuses COMPLETELY missing - just compare the article about North Korea, which is "undisputed".

I also subscribe to proper investigation (I did NOT insert the sentence that SA is behind the 9-11 attacks)

<< Above is by Thomas Ludwig. Ok. I have moved human rights to a separate page as the present article looked like a bit of a mess. Please note that I have not changed the content at all. Before we get into verifying facts, let's at least get the format tidy. (Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. ) Anjouli 04:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

'Culture has only very narrow avenues of expression and is heavily censored. It has to be "traditional"and has to serve Islam.'

Where does this information come from? Deus Ex 23:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Is the "factual accuracy" of this page still in dispute? It seems fine now... Quite a good page, in fact. user:J.J.

Religion

Amazing... no prominent mention of Saudi Arabia's role as the country which is home to Mecca; no major header section on religion at all for a country completely dominated by a religion, and the center of the world for that religion. Wahhabism is mentioned in the political section, and then only buried in the middle of the text. A country where everything is influenced by religion, and the article barely mentions religion ChessPlayer 05:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to the "edit this page" link at the foot of the page. - Montréalais 02:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a modern political entity. Mecca is an "old" holy site. The country of S.A. itself is not considered "holy".

To many or most Muslims, Saudi Arabia is considered special because it is home to the holiest sites of Islam. The government of Saudi Arabia accepts its responsibility as keeper of these sites and, accordingly, applies strict religious laws to everyone who spends time within its borders. In the U.S., many states try to impose Christian values on their citizens. Paramus, New Jersey, last I heard, still refuses to allow anyone to work on Sunday. And is there anything, anything at all, special about Paramus, New Jersey (religiously speaking, of course). --LesAldridge 22:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia

If anyone thinks the title of the article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia is not neutral .. please go there and vote OneGuy 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous editor's recent edits: While I agree with the statement that Islam usually treats other religions with respect, is this true of (esp. of Judaism) in Saudi Arabia? My research indicates that it would be unwise to admit being Jewish in S.A. and that you should not have any Israeli visa stamps on your passport when entering S.A. The article referenced above (Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia) reinforces my current understanding. Thoughts? -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 20:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That is true, but it says that "Muslims generally regard" which is different. SA does not represent all of Islam ofcourse. But I understand that there are political issues between countries (i.e SA and Israel). But Islam itself tells Muslims to respect other religions. Overall, I think more about Saudi Arabia's culture needs to be added rather than just info about Islam. The section labelled culture is probably not the best place for Islam's relationship with other religions. Hope that helps, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is SA singled out for its abuse of Human Rights?

If one goes to the main page for China, one does not find 'Human Rights' as the third heading. China has a horrible human rights record. Witness Tienammen Square. Even today, dissident voices are stilled. But China is a most-favoured nation with the U.S. It's a trading partner with billions of consumers, a huge army and arsenal. Saudi Arabia's human rights record may be bad but it doesn't deserve to have its record discussed as a primary (or tertiary, I guess) item. It is a great culture with many positive aspects which may be discussed ahead of any discussion of its rights record. This is like finding a discussion of Guantanamo or Abu Graib on the title page of an entry for the United States. --LesAldridge 21:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with LesAldridge. Better to have the main page for Saudi Arabia non-disputed and more about the country and its people, and give the disputed human rights issues their own article(s). Bashing doesn't solve problems. 4 Feb 2005

"Oil Legitimacy"

I was amused to read in the current text that the discovery of oil "has given the kingdom great legitimacy over the years"! Political weight, the effect of strategic oil and the weight of money, these are the equivalent of "legitimacy" it seems.....

Think about the important stuff!

I see that most of the discussion topics are small priorities, if people don't like the human rights there or discrimination, they should think of reform, you see there is a case in which three men called for changing the political systen to a constitutional monarchy, but since this IS S.A., instead of humoring them, they were arrested instead, them and others for signing a statement asking for it, but rest were set free except for them.

I am a Shi'tte Saudi, and being so I know what matter's most to the country, most people here are thinking of political reform and you guys are debating over oil legitimacy and beheading? What the hell is this? People you need to think of the important stuff here.

Here are links about that case here http://www.cdhr.info/pressroom_news.asp

This is another page but I couldn't find the original page so I disclaim it.

"U.S. quietly following trial of democratic activists in Riyad

Want to see the real test in future U.S.-Saudi relations? Try monitoring the trial this week of three Saudi democracy leaders in Riyad on charges that they published literature that called for political reforms in the kingdom.

Ali Al Domaini, Matrook Al Faleh and Abdallah Al Hamed are not oil barons or Al Qaida guns. Al Domaini is a poet and Al Faleh and Al Hamed are professors — all of whom were arrested March 16 with eight other democracy activists. The eight others were released but barred from travel or public comments.

The Saudi indictment charges the three with the kind of activities encouraged daily in the United States. The charges include collecting signatures on a petition calling for reform and holding meetings to coordinate pro-reform efforts. None of the charges involved violence.

But here's how the indictment translates calls for reform. The three Saudis were charged with "damaging the reputation of the Saudi government," "justifying violence and terrorism," "doubting the independence of the Saudi justice system," and "pressuring the government and influencing public opinion to pressure government leadership." In Saudi Arabia, where there are no elections and the king is the keeper of Islam, these are all crimes.

The Saudi royal family has not been immune to U.S. pressure. In an unprecedented move, the trial, which began on Aug. 8, was open to the public and attended by the relatives and supporters of the defendants.

The United States has been careful in dealing with the Saudi trial. No statements have been released by the administration and State Department and U.S. Embassy officials have not attended the trial."

Think about the important stuff!

I see that most of the discussion topics are small priorities, if people don't like the human rights there or discrimination, they should think of reform, you see there is a case in which three men called for changing the political systen to a constitutional monarchy, but since this IS S.A., instead of humoring them, they were arrested instead, them and others for signing a statement asking for it, but rest were set free except for them.

I am a Shi'tte Saudi, and being so I know what matter's most to the country, most people here are thinking of political reform and you guys are debating over oil legitimacy and beheading? What the hell is this? People you need to think of the important stuff here.

Here are links about that case here http://www.cdhr.info/pressroom_news.asp

This is another page but I couldn't find the original page so I disclaim it.

"U.S. quietly following trial of democratic activists in Riyad

Want to see the real test in future U.S.-Saudi relations? Try monitoring the trial this week of three Saudi democracy leaders in Riyad on charges that they published literature that called for political reforms in the kingdom.

Ali Al Domaini, Matrook Al Faleh and Abdallah Al Hamed are not oil barons or Al Qaida guns. Al Domaini is a poet and Al Faleh and Al Hamed are professors — all of whom were arrested March 16 with eight other democracy activists. The eight others were released but barred from travel or public comments.

The Saudi indictment charges the three with the kind of activities encouraged daily in the United States. The charges include collecting signatures on a petition calling for reform and holding meetings to coordinate pro-reform efforts. None of the charges involved violence.

But here's how the indictment translates calls for reform. The three Saudis were charged with "damaging the reputation of the Saudi government," "justifying violence and terrorism," "doubting the independence of the Saudi justice system," and "pressuring the government and influencing public opinion to pressure government leadership." In Saudi Arabia, where there are no elections and the king is the keeper of Islam, these are all crimes.

The Saudi royal family has not been immune to U.S. pressure. In an unprecedented move, the trial, which began on Aug. 8, was open to the public and attended by the relatives and supporters of the defendants.

The United States has been careful in dealing with the Saudi trial. No statements have been released by the administration and State Department and U.S. Embassy officials have not attended the trial."

--Nay1989 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)Abduljabbar 14/2/2005

Source of terrorism in the world

I find it hard to believe that the article on Saudia Arabia does not contain "Terror" or "Terrorism". Saudia Arabian leaders have funded and praised terrorist acts on many occasions. I am also suprised that the article does not contain any mention of Saudia Arabia's charity work in funding Islamic boarding schools around the world whose faculty are indoctrinating students that terrorism is an approved method to fight the enemies of Islam (such as western countries).

Plz consider the fallowing passage:

"The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [1] are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.

The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!

Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…

These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"

What are you talking about? ''Their women live a life less than human beings." Did you ask the saudi women how they live? I'm Saudi woman, and I have a life better than most American or European women. In SA parents don't kick their doughters out of the house when they turn 18. Don't talk about Saudi Women when you apparently know nothing about them.

FactFinder

LOL, so you're from pakistan? and you know all these things about Saudi Arabia and Iran just by the attempt of a "pakistani terrorist" to "throw acid" at your face? so your government is a "terrorist" government and Benazir Bhutto never been a "prime minister" (or maybe she is not a woman =D)?

As for the "four wives" thing .... what I know is that the quran allows polygamy, not the SAUDI GOVERNMENT ... and you said that you're a muslim =D.

Quote: "The most impressive thing about this piece is that you have Saudi women talking about what it is like being a Saudi women. It is sad that this notion is revolutionary in the world today. If we want to know about someone, some place or some people we should ask them instead of formulating our thoughts based on secondhand information. Why is it that most of the experts on Islam in the media are themselves not Muslims?" -- Joe Bruin, LA, USA, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4398295.stm#abla --212.138.47.16 11:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mutaween

I beleive there was loss of life in the incident about the girls in the fire. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Nobs 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you can get exact figures and source them then that would be good.Yuber^(talk) 00:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yuber is being a POV pusher again: he removed the LINK TO THE ARTICLE with that information in his earlier edit.KaintheScion

Re-added the link and the figures.Yuber^(talk) 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Factual corrections

Yuber, I have made the following factual corrections:
1 - The Saudi religious police have the authority to enforce certain punishments without court order, and to ban "un-Islamic" consumer products (music, videos, barbie dolls, etc) from being sold in the Kingdom.
2 - Mutaween or similar groups exist in Iran, existed in Talibanic Afghanistan, and exist in various African nations where Shari'a is enforced. Your assertion that they only exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia is flat-out wrong.
3 - Fixed your formatting on the deaths of the 15 girls(references go in the reference links, please!).
4 - Re-added the fact that the Mutaween are the focus of many human rights reports on religious persecution: this is A FACT.
5 - Added mention (and included link in References section) that they recently opened a website for people to anonymously report "un-Islamic" activity.

They do not have greater power than secular police, so I removed that part. They only exist in Iran, they don't exist in Afghanistan anymore, so I removed that part. If you think that religious police exist in african countries please source that. Other than that it is fine.Yuber^(talk) 00:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Then make edits instead of being a POV-pushing Revert Monkey.KaintheScion

I did make the edits, it's a NPOV section now. Read it over again and tell me what problems you have with it. I included almost everything you put in except the non-factual parts about the mutaween existing in most muslim nations and that they have more power than secular police.Yuber^(talk) 01:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Religious Police exist in just about every Muslim nation, whether part of the national government or on the level of local police. Further, they enforce a larger body of law than do normal police, and have the authority to enforce punishment on the spot.

As far as Africa, you might want to look to Egypt (where they have an authority set up with the power to ban "un-Islamic" products and enforce religious oppression on Christian churches), and to the Sudan, and to Nigeria1

. Now stop being a POV-pushing revert monkey. KaintheScion

You've called me a monkey about 10 times, I don't see the humor in it. Just about every Muslim nation? Please source this claim. I don't see any religious police harassing people such as tourists in Egypt. As for the genocide in the Sudan, it is Muslims killing Muslims. Perhaps you would like to give your expertise on that article, I'm sure it is much needed.Yuber^(talk) 01:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Where does the Anglo-centric assumption that Saudi Arabia has "secular police" come from? Nobs 01:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but KaintheScion seems to want to label them as secular police. They should be differentiated, as the mutaween doesn't literally mean police in Arabic.Yuber^(talk) 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, stop being a revert monkey and stop pushing the blatant lie that religious police are only to be found in Iran. I am including in my next edit a link to one of the exploits of Egypt's religious police as well. ALSO, stop murdering my formatting, there is no reason for you to try to stuff everything into one unreadable paragraph. No other section of the article is formatted the way you are trying to format things. KaintheScion

This article isn't about Egypt, and besides, there ARE no mutaween in Egypt. Here is the source [[2]], control+f mutaween.Yuber^(talk) 01:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Link right here, Yuber: Egypt authorizes force to police 'unuthorized' Islamic tracts. Yes, they have more limited range (thankfully) than the Saudi Mutaween, no doubt due to Egypt's own issues in policing groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. KaintheScion

You need to work on your reading comprehension. It clearly states in that article that "Egypt has bolstered the authority of state-employed Islamic clerics in what could be a prelude to the formation of a religious police force." Therefore, there is no religious police force, but merely a law that may be a prelude. Nice try though.Yuber^(talk) 01:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thus the NPOV words "VARIOUS FORMS" in the article, POV pusher. Iran, it is true, is the only other nation to call theirs "Mutaween". Not even the Taliban called their religious police Mutaween, but you at least admit they HAD them. Egypt enforces it as a special division of state-employed clerics. Yemen uses theirs to enforce the state's version of Islam as well. Now stop trying to insert factual inaccuracies into the article! KaintheScion

Kain, please calm down and review the section. It is NPOV now and you have contributed much to it. Egypt does not have religious police, stop lying. Ask anyone who has been to Egypt if they are supposed to cover up or are restricted from socializing or even showing public affection.Yuber^(talk) 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The power to make seizures is a police power. The clerics definitely are in the employ of the state. As the article says "supervise and seize", i.e. investigate and make seizures, to use Western idoims. Nobs 02:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article also says they are not religious police. I don't see what is so unclear about that. If KaintheScion wants to add information about Islamic clerics in Egypt he should go to the Egypt article.Yuber^(talk) 02:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop stripping out factual information Yuber, and stop introducing lies. The concept of religious police and police forces dedicated to religious enforcement is NOT unique to Saudi and Iran and you damned well know it. KaintheScion

You have been reported for the 3RR. I really thought we had a NPOV consensus going until you started adding the stuff about Egypt and other countries in an article where it doesn't belong.Yuber^(talk) 02:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, if you keep trying to insert that Iran is the "only" Muslim nation which employs police forces as religious enforcement, I'm going to have to keep pointing out that you're lying. It's been proven to you, not just by me, but by Nobs as well. Repeatedly pushing factual inaccuracies into an article is vandalism and you KNOW that. What is amazing to me is that you ignore this and keep on trying to POV push anyways.

The only reason I put in the stuff about Egypt is that YOU kept whining about adding qualifiers, wanting sources, and kept reverting the wording. But since YOU won't accept "and in varying forms in other Muslim nations" as being sufficiently non-POV, we have to get specific.KaintheScion

I would tend to agree the information about the mutaween in Iran, Eygpt, etc, while interesting, is extraneous to Saudi Arabia. That information simply needs to be inserted into a mutaween page. Nobs 02:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Only problem is, there are no mutaween in Egypt. I would be happy to work on a mutaween page if it included the fact that only two countries actually have them are Iran and Saudi Arabia.Yuber^(talk) 02:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, whether the WORD Mutaween is used or not is immaterial. The concept of a division of police - whether folded into the normal police forces or their own separate entity - dedicated to the enforcement of religious law IS in place in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What about the phrase "in varying forms" are you having trouble understanding? KaintheScion

Once again, provide proof. There are no mutaween in Egypt, all you have shown is that there are Islamic clerics that were given more power over a year ago (that article is out of date). I am sure that with up to date sources that would be proven wrong as well. In Sudan there is a genocide going on, where are the Mutaween there? As for Nigeria, provide proof, I see nothing of your claims on the Nigeria wiki article.Yuber^(talk) 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Right here, POV pusher.

Also Here.

Zamfara state maintains an "Islamic Unit" similar to Saudi Arabia's "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," otherwise known as the Muttawa religious police. One of its officials, Alhaji Bello Kuceri, defended their practice of raiding Christian quarters to enforce "Islamic" standards on the grounds that "we are paid to do so, and anybody caught will face the wrath of the law."

Get it YET, Yuber?KaintheScion

As for the word mutaween, is it of Arab or Persian origin, seeing supposedly it exists in both Iran and the Arabian Penninsula. A mutaween page could be started, with the idea of explaining it as a "religious police" or "clerical police", begining with the Saudi Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, than listing all other quasi-governmental-clerical bureaus in other Islamic states entrusted with enforcing al Sharia Nobs 03:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the etymology of the word has much to do with it; the idea of religious police is pretty common on one level or another in almost all Islamic countries. It takes various forms depending on what the government decides to do, naturally; the more religious-theocratic the government, the more likely it'll be a full branch of the police or even its own group. Take its incarnation in Saudi Arabia and compare it to the village enforcement groups found in northern Pakistani villages, for instance. Or the versions in Egypt and Yemen, which have (at least at this point) more to do about making sure that the only version of Islam practiced is the state-sponsored one. Overall, the fact remains that MANY Islamic nations have religious police of some form or another, and leaving out the fact that it is NOT an institution unique to Saudi Arabia is inaccurate, as is claiming that it "only" exists in Saudi Arabia and Iran. KaintheScion

Good, you may add Nigeria to the description of countries that have mutaween. It s inclusion in this article is as Nobbs has said, extraneous.Yuber^(talk) 03:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You have YET to explain what about the phrase "and in varying forms in other Muslim countries" you find objectionable, POV pusher. KaintheScion.

There I began the mutaween article; now I need help with it. Thx. Nobs 03:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Since there is now an artice on the Mutaween (thanks Nobs), the material about religious police in other countries can be removed, are there ay objections to the following appearing in this article:

An institution found in Saudi Arabia is the mutaween, or religious police. The Saudi Mutaween also go by the name of Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

Their duties consist of enforcing religious doctrine (Muslim Shari'a law as defined by the Saudi government) and rooting out "Un-Islamic" activities. They have the power to arrest any unrelated males and females caught socializing. They also have the power to ban consumer products and media as "un-Islamic", such as the Barbie line of dolls and various Western musical groups and television shows. The Mutaween of Saudi Arabia recently launched a website where people can anonymously file tips about "un-Islamic" activities in Saudi Arabia.

An incident attributed to the mutaween occurred when they prevented girls from escaping a burning building because they did not have proper headgear on. Fifteen girls died as a result. There was widespread public criticism and the Saudi government condemned the Mutaween for their actions. The Mutaween have also been the focus of many human rights reports on religious persecution in Saudi Arabia.

I will change the text and unprotect if this text can be agreed upon. --nixie 04:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree now that the mutaween article exists.KaintheScion

Text looks good except for a question whether they enforce Sharia law as defined by the "Saudi government" or the Koran (assuming the Saudi gov't claims its interpreation is Koranic). Also I'd like to perhaps include minor details of the fire incident, "prevented schoolsgirls from escaping from a burning dormitory". Thx. Nobs 05:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article about the fire is listed in the reference section for further information, as for your other point, I really can't comment on the technicalities. I'll make the edits I suggeted (just removeing the detail now in the new article) and unprotect the article--nixie 05:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR rule

That's FOUR for you today already, Yuber. I'm assuming good faith and not going to report you on it yet. Knock it off. KaintheScion

You have 5 or more reverts. My last edit was not a revert, I simply put what you did into paragraph form and removed a redundant sentence. Like I said, your edit was pretty NPOV.Yuber^(talk) 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Revert Monkey, I have precisely three Reverts and two Edits today. Though it's about to be THREE EDITS because you insist on trying to bastardize it all into one paragraph, despite the fact that no other portion of the article has been given that treatment.KaintheScion

There, broke it up into two paragraphs. Your version had one sentence per paragraph and was hard to follow.Yuber^(talk) 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea whether English is your first language or not, but a sentence should never be shoehorned into the end of a paragraph if it does not fit the paragraph's topic. Just something to keep in mind.

Protected

I've protected this page following Kain's latest report of vandalism, and because one or both of you is going to end up being blocked for 3RR. Kain, Yuber's edits are not vandalism, any more than yours are. I can't honestly see the big difference between your versions. I'm going to leave it protected for a day or so, so please sort out your differences here in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see a huge difference between the two versions. But I do think that User:KaintheScion's actions - specifically, false reports of "vandalism" and repeated namecalling - are unacceptable and must stop. Firebug 04:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is trying to alter a section that was agreed upon by group consensus after an earlier revert war that he started (see last version by Admin user Petaholmes here right before he unlocked the article). This is operating in bad faith and counts as vandalism. KaintheScion

I don't seen evidence of group consensus. It should be possible to resolve this dispute by both of you citing authoritative sources for your edits. Kain, someone inserting material you disagree with doesn't make it vandalism. He just disagrees with you, that's all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's value in giving the names of the countries that have a mutaween, as Yuber has it, rather than saying in some other Muslim nations, which is rather open-ended. If we can source other places, then they can be added. I think that's quite fair. Grace Note 06:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why any other country has to be mentioned, if it's causing a dispute. This is about SA. Why not say they have religious police and leave it at that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

As KaintheScion has been temporarily blocked, I've unprotected the page, but Yuber, please don't take advantage. And note that Kain is likely to be back. Try to provide a reference if you're going to make an edit you think someone will dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note sees it my way. I was the one who originally added the mutaween section!!!! Then Kain came here and changed it to found in MOST muslim nations. I told him that's totally false and he got into an edit war with me. I told him only Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi have religious police and he still wouldn't believe me.Yuber^(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, just make sure you source whatever you add. If you want to say only these countries have religious police, try to find an article that backs you up. Also, another of the disputes was whether to use the word dormitory or building regarding the 15 girls who died when the religious police wouldn't let them leaving their burning school because they weren't wearing headscarves and abayas. School would be more accurate than dormitory or building. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't see how that's a POV edit, maybe you can explain... Nobs proposed that their should be more detail about the site of the fire and I just added dormitory, how that is more POV than building is beyond me.Yuber^(talk) 21:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mutaween in Malls in Saudi Arabia--Sheikhu 06:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Trafficking in Persons Report 2005"

NPOV would consist of well-referenced information that trafficking in persons is not permitted in Saudi Arabia, that those who engage in trafficking are prosecuted, that victims of trafficking are protected, and that concrete and effective steps are being taken to prevent trafficking. Fred Bauder 15:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) See Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia Fred Bauder 15:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Asking Yuber to back up his edits is a lost cause, Fred.Enviroknot 02:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BBC Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue--Sheikhu 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the King is dead

I've altered the infobox to reflect the King's death. AFAIK Abdullah doesn't automatically ascend the throne (as in the UK). He must be proclaimed by the other Saudi princes. Alphaboi867 07:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• He is now the king. Sultan is the crown prince. -- Eagle^amn 08:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am a Saudi and a "mutawa" as they call it

People from various places around the world are talking about reforming SA! I'm a Saudi and I'm what they call a Mutawa, meaning a person who is following the Islamic rules according to Qur'an and Sunna.

Every country around the world has its own system to govern its people and you can't say that what fits in US will fit in SA. Both countries have their own people, culture, and way of life.

All the Saudis in SA owe the royal family their safety and peace. Without King Abdluaziz, may Allah bless him, Saudis would not have this peace and safety in their life. I can leave my door open and go sleep in my bedroom without worrying about a thief or anything. and I thank Allah for giving us such a good gov. who due to their concern apply the Islamic rules and obligations on the people.

About a man having 4 wives. I say if every man had only 1 wife wouldn't that leave many women not being married? it is known that the number of women is greater than men in most countries so how would we solve this problem? And if we leave those women without being married it'll cause a huge problem for many women whose dream is to have a baby to raise and a husband to take care of. Also it will push women to have sexual relation with various men and will cause diseases to spread as we have seen how AIDS killed millions of people around the world through sexual practises. If these countries applyed the rules of Islam they will not face this disaster and they would save many lives!

Anyway lets jump to results of applying the Islamic rules in SA:

1. SA the one of the safest countries in the world!
2. The islamic countries and specfically SA is the less coutnry for having dagerous diseases such as AIDS.
3. The most countries who give charity to the poor are the muslims. you can't see anyone sleep in the streets in SA. unlike what we see in LA for example!

i really want to type more but I've got to go now and I hope that you've benefited from what I've said.

Thank you all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.113.13 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 September 2005

Well, I'm afraid I don't agree. I live in Saudi Arabia (Eastern Province specifically), and it has historically always been safe here (yes, before Ibn Saud), except from attacks of bedouins from the west (you do know who I am referring to here). Speaking of history, early Americans have built this country from deserts of endless nothingness to what it was in the 1990's. We have always lived in peace here (now I'm talking about the period from the early 1930's to 1998), until the very same bedouins (or should I say thieves? terrorists?) came along with their Wahhabi mentality, especially after the Oil boom and when Aramco was transfered to Saudi Aramco and brought unqualified workers from places where they have never heard of oil before. That being said, from the thirties to late seventies, Shiites and Sunnis lived and worked together (most notably in the Arabian American Oil Company), without bad feelings whatsoever (by Sunnis, I do NOT mean Wahhabis, just moderate Sunnis, and by Shiites, I do not mean Irani-affliated, just moderate Shiites. Both did exist it before Wahhabis became dominant). Although the Americans here have always lived in their own quarters (such as Dhahran), they were invited to local weddings and everything was just normal. (example was struck after intentional misuse, I just wanted to illustrate the point)

In response to "I say if every man will having only 1 wife wouldn't that leave many women not being merried," according to statistics, there is 1.34 males/female in Saudi Arabia. I rest my case. (no need for arguement about morality as it doesn't fit here). And by the way, you have no authority to apply your rules on anyone else. Let alone killing people just because you think they don't deserve to live, that is, because they don't follow your ideology. (Examples are too many to list, SINCE the Wahhabi raids on Najaf beginning in 1801 TILL the current terrorist attacks around the world, including suicide terrorist attacks against coalition forces AND civilians alike in Iraq)

Claiming that Saudi Arabia is the safest country in the world needs a solid proof. Just because statistics are not availble (and there is a clear reason for that) does not mean it is safe. Moreover, being safe does not mean life is perfect here. I claim that the streets of North Korea are even safer than those of Saudi Arabia, the same way Iraq was during Saddam's years.

To sum up, Saudi Arabia does not need reformation, it needs restoration, 30 years back or so... before the influence of Wahhbis became as strong as it is now. -- Eagle^amn 09:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to correct you Eagle, attacks against coalition forces do not count as terrorism because it is against a military force. If anything it is called resistance. Secondly, I say this as an American: what you just said about Wahabbis doing to others is exactly what the US is doing now. We are applying our rules on others through terrorism with our military. In this case, I can say what the US has done is worse than many extremists around the world. Besides wahabbism is just another ideology, it is not necessarily extreme. Infact the only reason people call it that is because the US has been accusing it for years. Also, I don't know whether SA is the safest country but it is definitely safer than many others because of stricter laws. The anonymous 'mutawa' makes fair points about why certain things are the way they are in SA. Every country can't just be like the USA and love Americans and "invite them to weddings", especially after what is being done in Iraq. Just my 2 cents, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting though that this is the same "person" who did this.. There should be clear distinction between "mutawa" and "terrorist". And I think this "person" is clearly not "mutawa" as much as the latter. -- Eagle^amn 22:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we haven't seen him blow anything up so we can't really make accusations. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes SA is a very safe place, as long as you fit in! Woe to those that don't fit the mold whether or not the pose any actual direct or indirect threat to anyone. And using the same logic that monogamy or polygamy mitigates the risk of AIDS you could link athiesm to a tendency to shun violence as athiests are underepresented in populations that tend to commit violent crimes. Both arguments are complete nonsense as it happens, as there are many ways to mitigate the risk of AIDS, not just polygamy and monagamy, most populations in developed countries have a very low risk of contracting AIDS because of safe sexual practices, due to public education, whether or not they engage in promiscuous behavior just like most religious populations don't tend to be violent.)

Oh, and the female to male ratio differs insignificantly from 1/1 (its only very very slightly skewed towards females--thats worldwide, not Saudi Arabia), certainly not even close to 2/1 , so your argument about there not being enough females doesn't work in the slightest--perhaps if there was some way that a man could have 1.012 wives, but unfortunatley wives are only of any use as one whole unit. Perhaps you could give your argument a little boost by allowing for gay men to marry? Then the supply of women would be boosted a little if you don't count homosexual men.

For the record I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to have multiple partners in a marriage, just like apparently you don't, as long as all partners are willing without any social or legal pressures to enter into such a situation (which I don't know if you would agree with). The only problem is that I think its absolutely atrocious that a government would require a cerain sex ratio in such relationships! In this case 1 man to however many women. Why not the other way around? Or 3 men and no women? or 3 women and no man? --Brentt 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Saudi and I totally agree with the first poster, great job brother, I will add more comments ASAP.

I am also a Saudi and my opinions are kinda all over the place:

First off, very,very,very few men marry more than one women at a time. Most of the time it's older men who are rich and influental. Second, a women cannot be forced to a marry a man she doesn't want to marry(People do violate this law though unfourtantley).Third, a man who has more than one wife must treat all his wives equally. If a wife doesn't feel that she is being treated fairly, she has enough ground to go to court and get a divorce.

Also, people (espcially westerners) are too harsh on the mutaween. Sure, the make mistakes but every police agency in the world has accounts of police brutality. The Mutuween regular make drug and alchol busts because the normal cops really don't do shit, Their always too busy "looking for terrorists" which means any man with his beard too long. I still have more comments about the political situation but those are for another time. Burning phoneix 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Forced labour

Is it true that recently, stuffed puppets of people were used in camel races? Cheers -- Svest 22:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I have no idea. They are lighter though. :) a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense!!! The purpose of a jockey is to make the camel/horse/human/rat run in madness! Unless the puppet functions w/ a remote control, I won't believe that. Cheers Svest 22:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yeah, seems very unrealistic unless the puppet is robotic. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no puppets existing in KSA. The only exception is Hamburglar for some reasons. Cheers -- Svest 22:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Ha! He's not able to race, all those burgers give him extra weight.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What are the puppets stuffed with, though? (!) El_C 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The editor said they were stuffed w/ people, in order to not reveal their identities being kids! -- Svest 23:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

No jokes! Along with Grimace, Birdie and Ronald. I believe Birdie can take the camel to a flight but the rest of the Mc list, no! While working there for a few years, I got more complaints regarding those beefy puppets than about food itself! So a Puppet on a Camel is something that never can be! Cheers -- Svest 23:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

So it's settled then. Thank goodness! I thought we were going to have to POV tag this article! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• AFAIK, they're used in the UAE only. And they are robot jockeys, not "stuffed puppets." -- Eagle^amn 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/?cntDisplay=20&ID=199

Thanks for the info, Eagle. El_C 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Links

Under Miscellaneous Links, US Department of Justice: Foreign Agents Registration Act is a dead link

The new link seems to be http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/ but there is no mention of Saudi Arabia in it

The 19 kamikazee: why do you forget?

There isn't any mention of sheik UBL, Al-Kaida or the entirely saudi 9/11 fedajeen squadron anywhere in this article. It is a matter of fact that Osama bin Laden is the most infamous saudi person ever, past, present and future. This article is a big white-wash. Wikipedia editors use cars and know that cars run on oil, so they do not dare to write the terrible truth about the inhumane, pre-historic nature of saudi arabia and its ruling class. The fear of losing oil is keeping the world mute, which is a great shame. Zionism and Saudi Arabia, both equally evil, are the two columns of ruthless western rule over the middle east. The palestinians are 10000x more enlightened than the saudis! 195.70.32.136 11:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good comment! Those kind of info have their own articles. We don't talk about Timothy McVeigh or Michael Jordan in the main US article as we don't talk about Sulaiman S. Olayan or the squadron you're talking about in this article. Cheers -- Szvest 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yes, its all an evil conspiracy perpetrated by us Illuminati Reptile Alien Jewish CIA Wikipedia editors to use more oil. --Brentt 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Named after ruling family

"Besides Liechtenstein, Saudi Arabia remains the only country in the world named after its ruling family."

This is not quite accurate. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is also named after its ruling family. --Cam 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can Men be receptionists and/or nurses in Saudi Arabia?

I like to knew (since i think i heard that Saudi Arabia have stirct laws about what job you can do based on your gender; And i eventually heard that the two jobs i had ask were orignially jobs that women had, but now men in other countries are said to have these same job as women in these countries.) So i had ask this question 'cause what i had just said had influrence me to ask this question.So answer in time please.Thanks.

Yes, men can and are regularly receptionists and nurses. In fact, there are more men receptionists then women. However, the rate of men to women nurses in Saudi Arabia is in favour of women. Burning phoneix 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can a woman or Child has the right to sued in Saudi Arabia?

I like to know 'cause Women or children as i heard had a right to do so in this country (U.S.A.).Thanks, and answer in time please.

Population

It says that from the CIA world fact book that 100% of the population is muslim. That is an incorrect statement. I know a few people who are citizens in Saudi Arabia who are non- Muslim. Someone needs to change that fact because I can guarentee that the CIA were incorrect in that case. Most of the citizens are Muslim.

Pretty much every book or statistic states that Saudi Arabia is 100% muslim. Just because you know a few people that would make it 99.99999999% isn't enough to change that. Burning phoneix 06:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as if you're extremely proud that Saudi Arabia is nearly 100% muslim. Is this true? As a Canadian, coming from a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious, pluralistic country, this attitude is baffling and appears extremely xenophobic.

Also, I was shocked to just find out that I'm forbidden from setting foot in your country simply because I'm a Jew. Do you support that law? Loomis51 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If my prevouis comment seemed harsh then I apologize. It came out wrong. What I meant to tell that person was that his observations were not strong enough to submit in wikipedia.

before I respond to your comment, I would just like to note that I've lived 7 years of my childhood in Canada, so I know what it's like over there. :)

Why wouldn't I be proud that my country is nearly 100% muslim? I don't see anything wrong with that. :/

OK I see now.....your not seeing anything wrong in the fact your country Racist and the fact that non-Sunni muslims and other religious groups can't get citizenship due to religion.

Also, I beleive that Isreali citizens were barred from entering Saudi Arabia, not Jews.Burning phoneix 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. It is Jews that are forbidden from entering Saudi Arabia.

Its funny that the whole world (except the US) keeps calling Israel an "Apartheid" state when 20% of the population are Arabs and enjoy every civil right that their fellow Jewish citizens enjoy, including, amongst other things, the right to vote, the right to be elected to the Knesset, the right to be a cabinet member etc...The Israeli Supreme Court even has an Arab as one of its associate justices. Now compare that to Saudi Arabia where a Jew is not even allowed to enter, let alone be a citizen. But for some reason Israel is always singled out. Maybe someone can explain to me why. Loomis51 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is completely OT but you seem to be missing the point. Civil rights are not a competition. The fact that Arabs have more civil rights in Israel then Jews have in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to the issue of whether Israel's policies are fair. Although Israel does grant numerous rights to it's non-Jewish citizens, no one can deny that their policies, especially those in relation to immigration are extremely biased towards Jews over non-Jews which is what the issue is about. I personally don't agree with calling it apartheid. Although some of the policies have similarities, I think this goes too far. People throw about the word apartheid too easily not considering how extreme apartheid was. However the policies are IMHO racist and unacceptable. Again I repeat comparisons to other Arab countries is irrelevant. This is not a competition. We are not arguing which country is better. We are simply looking at the policies of the Israel in isolation. Anyway since this is so OT, will not talk or respond further. Nil Einne 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Israeli jews and as a matter of fact all jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia due to political tensions between the jews and arabs over Israel/Palestine.

Saudi Arabia explicitly forbids citizenship to non-sunni muslims, so no wonder its 100% muslim. So yes, it is a extremely xenophobic country and being proud of that fact can in my mind only be likened to being proud of being white in South Africa during Apartheit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.93.175 (talk • contribs)

I dont agree :D hehe , dont judge before u visit it , if u live in america u can easily get a visiting visa from consolates in Housten-texax , LA-Cali , or NYC or the DC itself :) and when ever u visit it im sure u'd free ur mind from all these ideas goes in yao head cuz of sick TV channels :) , have a nice day people :) --Ammar shaker 895:867, 58 March 6706 (UTC)

That explains why when Malcom X went to Makkah and the airport security saw that he could not speak Arabic and had an Amercian passport he was taken to the religious police right?

Oh yes of course you must have forgotten to show the levels of racism in your beautiful country let me show you. If an Arab national pushes a non-Arab a Non-Arab will go to jail if he pushes back. Also White people would get better treatment then that of an Oriental/South Asian. So Race does play an important role in how you are to be treated in your country. Not trying to offend you and I apologize if I have but I was born in The Middle East in Dubai and when I went to visit Saudi Arabia They labelled me as an Indian and not by my name and specifically said "INDIANS HERE" "PAKISTANIS HERE" and so on.

"Don't judge before you visit it"? Did you not just read what I wrote? I'm afraid that I can't visit your beautiful country because I'm a Jew and your country forbids me from setting foot in your country. I guess I'll just have to look at pictures of Saudi Arabia and dream of how beautiful it is. Loomis51 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to visiting this US ally, but for now am opting to have my head remain attached to my body! El_C 07:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

wellll mr.El_c make sure terrorists are busy in iraq now so u gotta take the chance and visit saudi before they come back hehe :D --Ammar shaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammar shaker (talk • contribs) 06:41, March 13, 2006

The American media keeps playing with their people's heads, filling them with ideas that are far from the truth. I happen to be a Saudi Arabian studying in Montreal, Canada. I seen shows such as American Dad from FOX and I saw how the Saudi Arabian people where labeled. To quote El_C "for now am opting to have my head remain attached to my body", that's just stupid, no body will do anything to you. Saudi Arabia is not all Sunni-Muslims! there are Shia'-Muslims and there lots of foreigners, and about Malcolm X. The holy cities (Makkah & Madina) are for Muslims only, but the rest of Saudi Arabia is open for any one (except those who have an Israeli passport). --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually according to the page, in fact the rest of Saudi Arabia is not open to anyone since atheists and Jews (regardless of citizenship) can't enter. Also, it's not just Israeli passports. Anyone with an official Israeli stamp can't enter. AFAIK, the Israeli authorities are very cooperative in not stamping your passport if requested so this wouldn't be a problem to anyone who is aware however clearly the rest of Saudi Arabia isn't in fact open to everyone/anyone (except those who have an Israeli passport) as you claim. Unless the page is wrong but I don't believe it is. Nil Einne 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK you have no clue what I meant by Malcom X and Makkah. When Malcom X went to Makkah he was taken to the reigious police because he had an American Passport and could not speak Arabic. THAT WAS IN CONNECTION TO A PERSON WHO MADE THE COMMENT ANYBODY CAN GO FREELY ANYWHERE IN SAUDI ARABIA EVEN IF YOUR AMERICAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.19.19 (talk • contribs)

Dude I told you, "he holy cities (Makkah & Madina) are for Muslims only". About Malcom X I just made a little research and found out that he was muslim, well bro you are talking about more then 40-50 years ago. Not every body spoke english so they maybe thought he was not Muslim. And yes if you are American you can come to Saudi Arabia, you just have to do the legal stuff (get a VISA and stuff) and you can come, I have invited lots of my friends from Canada over home to Riyadh. They loved it, they said aside from the women and bars, it's just like home, and a bit nicer. (They liked the big homes and nice cars everywhere). --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

yo buddy i was born in Dubai so i know what its like in the middle east and i have visted both riyadh and jeddah. and saudi arabia was a british colony so it is kind of expected that they will know english. i understand MALCOM X is kind of hard to find a muslim name but i believe that his passport gave his muslim name. also i assume that the friends you invited from canada were white people. not trying to offend you but in the middle east white people do get treated better then a sounth asian. because once i was i think riaydh and i was just playing in the ariport and an arab child pushed me and i obviously pushed him back and the police actually came and arrested me. at the age of four i had a criminal record. now please explain what just happened there. as you can see saudi arabia is a little on the racist side of things and that is something you can not deny.

So you where four and an saudi kid pushed you? You are Emarati or you where just born there? Well the thing is, it's true that they treat white people better then south asians because lot's of South Asians voulintary take lower class jobs in Saudi Arabia so some might treat them as lower class people.. I personally think that those who do are stupid so whatever.. don't take it on the whole country--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

nah man i am indian. and also now the south asian population in the middle east are now in like higher level jobs like managers and CEO's and they get treated like they are absolutly nothing. and also im talking about the whole country i talk about the average saudi. like the thing that got me angry was that a 4 year old child had a criminal record and almost was not able to immigrate because of it. wouldn't you be also a little angry at that fact, that you dont have the right to stick up for yourself. and also you are in very deep trouble if you are caught wearing the thobe and ghutra (the clothing and headress) could you explain why that is.

in reply to the indian, I must say that you need to know the history well. First of all Saudi Arabia was never a colony of britin. You can check make a search on the net and you will find that Saudi Arabia was never a colony of any nation. even in prehistoric times Arabia was not conquered by any nation. About the english language, it is just studied at high school and univeristy level as a forign language and few people speak it well in the country. Mainly highly educated, businessmen and who have to deal with non arabic people speak good english.

this is to reply to the indian guy, listen, I will be very honest with you. NO indian in Saudi Arabia has a high-class job, its just in Dubai where there are more indians then Emaratis. You will never find an Indian CEO in Saudi Arabia, and if you want to be treated nicley, Don't go to Saudi Arabia. And to reply to the guy who said Saudi Arabia was a British Colony, get your facts straight. Before the time of the British Colonization of Saudi Arabia was devided into different parts, mainly the Emirate of Najd, and the Kingdom of Hejaz, and there where different sections. Not untill 1932 that King Abdulaziz Al Saud united the Kingdom and became a nation, Saudi Arabia was never a British Colony, the Nation was Established as Kingdom. So, anything else? --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no such country as india when the british colonized it but the british still called it india. India at that time was just a bunch of states. same with saudi arabia, they wont go around just naming each and every kingdom by itself. they will use an easier termomology (Arabia). no indian CEO's in saudi arabia is not what he/she meant. i think he/she meant by indian CEO's established in India and just come to Saudi Arabia for business purposes and get treated poorly. but it doesnt matter anymore really because that person was right. there are south asians in Saudi Arabia with very high level jobs in private corperations. one of my relatives work there as a corperate director. Arabia was ruled i think to some extent by the ottaman empire though, so not colony true but ruled. and for the indian man who seems to be quite angry at saudi arabia, you seem to be forgetting that India is emerging as a superpower and produce a far higher GDP compared to what saudi ever will. so i guess let them enjoy their usage of low payed workers, because it will end soon enough.

ohhh wow,, you don't know how much I am laughing right now,,, just this paragraph above was the funniest shit i have ever heard!!... first of all, about the ottoman empire, that was not colonization, they were muslim, turks/arabs, this was our empire, we (the arabs) were one before the colonization of Britain (on SOME countries such as Emirates and Qatar, not Saudi) You are saying that Saudi Arabia will never be like India, that is absolutely true,,, Saudi Arabia will never be that low! The problem with all of you is what you don't know about the country and its people, you guys believe everything the media says about the country, if you want to see who's rich around the world you go to Forbes and see that India has 4-5 billionaires and Saudi Arabia has 2-3 ? dunno what are the numbers for India but rest assured that Saudi Arabia doesn't have 2-3,, do you think that Saudis are like all other people, they cry out loud when they have money, like Americans saying "look at me I have money". It is the exact reverse, no body says anything about their wealth, This is why Forbes has such a low number for Saudis, just prince walid bn talal and two or three more. I can assure you that there are at least 100 multi-billionaires in Saudi Arabia, who?, I'm not gonna tell you. Forbes lists King Fahad (before he died) as 20-30 billion. When he died in 2005 he left 800 billion to his family (personal family, wifes and kids). So, does that say anything to you? 10%-15% of USA's money is Saudi, London is owned by Saudi business men! come on man, open your eyes! --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that all saudi arabs love their country and that we dont immigrate to other countries no matter what. Not like Jews who just keep changing their nationalites every generation. I guess because all countries will find with time that Jews are full of hate and bad intentions as Germany found after World War I and as the Britins found and decided to get rid of you by finding you a fake country like Israel. Ekxnss 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia vs. KSA

• "Saudi Arabia": 99,700,000 Google hits
• "KSA" Saudi: 318,000 hits.

That clearly makes it less common, even though it's the IOC code. - Eagle^amn 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While that's not exactly the best way to find out, I a do agree, KSA is far less common, escpially since KSA can't be translated back into Arabic. Burning phoneix 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be less common on google, but I just came back from KSA and have seen that KSA is widly used within the country, in my opinion even more than Saudi Arabia.93.132.202.15 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know more about Saudi Arabia's history. The history section seems very small for such a large and powerful country. ( I agree with the comment above about the shallow representation showing little else other than Islam this Islam bad this bad that that by many people who never even visited KSA are writing, the proble may be the manager of this page himself :? the page looks like plain slander to me and not a wiki project. since it can be easily seen that way, it serves the slanderers right. —Preceding 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with the business about oil and military interests in the section where it mentions the abbreviation KSA? 68.118.41.239 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

I just read Lawrence Wright's excellent book, "The Looming Tower," and he said the Saudi Arabia completed an extensive census in the 1960s-70s and realized the population might be closer to seven million, but was reluctant to publish this figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.30.43 (talk) 01:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is a sizeable Shia minority in Saudi but I cannot find any reference to the its size! CIA simply says 100% Muslims but does not give a break down of each sects (as it does on other countries), has anyone got any idea? Kiumars 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guesstimate it at about 10% shias, mainly in the east of the country. I don't have a source though :(.

There aren't any official government statistics, but I have seen many local and foreign non-official sources. Most of them give it somewhere between 10 and 20%. However, the most reliable source I've seen was a loacal Saudi newspaper that gave Saudi Arabia 85% Sunni and 15% Shia.

The Shiaa are less than 5 %.

No, they are definatly above 10%, but less than 20%. So the best thing to put on wekipedia is that it is estimated at around 15%(like most sources that don't take sides do). Please don't rely on anti-Shia sources with propaganda that claim they are less than 3 or 5%, or on some pro-Shia sources with propaganda that claim they are 25%!!

If we would like to come up with the exact figure of shia in Saudi Arabia, we should look at each city seprately.

The vast majority of shia live in Al-Ahsa an Qatif. They contiribute 86% of Qatif citizin and 48% of Al-Ahsa citizin. They are also some Shia in Riyadh (1%), Dammam (8%) and Madina (4%). There are neglitible number of Shia in the rest of the kingdum.

On the other hand, Ismaili contribute 65% of Najran citizin population. If we consider Ismaili as Shia, then total numer of Shia in Saudi Arabia will be between 6% and 8%. If we take out the Ismaili, then Shia will be between 4% and 6%.

Anyway, if we assume that 60% of Eastern Province are Shia, than there population will not exceed in any circmunstances 10% of Saudi Arabia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.32.28 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation /ˈsɒdɪ əˈɹeɪ̯bɪə/ is obviously Anglicized, but I'm not sure what the Arabic pronunciation is. Is it just /ælʕɑrɑˈbiː æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/ as mentioned, or is the short form "Saudi Arabia" also used natively? Ardric47 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Saudi Arabia" is almost never used in Arabic, but I've seen few Arabic publications with "العربية السعودية" /ælʕɑrɑˈbiː æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/, probably due to mistranslation. The most common short form is "السعودية" as-Sa'udiyah /æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/- Eagle^talk 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject & Portal

Hi there, some new projects have been started to improve Saudi related topics, help is most welcomed. So if you please check out our Wikiproject Saudi Arabia which is maintaning the portal, thank you--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Life in Saudi Arabia

Could someone write up on what life in Saudi Arabia in relation to office hours, school hours etc is? I got interested in this after reading the Siesta article. AFAIK, Saudi Arabia (and a number of other Middle Eastern) countries more or less completely shut down during the afternoon but I'm not completely sure. Nil Einne 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Nil Einne, thanks for your interest in Saudi Arabia. Well, the school hours are kind of normal, but a bit earlier then the North American schools, kids usually get up at 6-7 in the morning, they get ready for school and as I remember they start at around 8:--, classes go normal, in most schools there are about 7-8 classes of 40 minutes each, there are breaks in between, at around noon there is the Dhuhr Prayer break, around 40-60 minutes (the prayer is 20 minutes and the rest is lunch break), the school finishes as early as 2:00pm and as late as 4:00pm, depends on the school, district and if it's a private or public school (some private schools have extra curricular activities in the afternoon). But for businesses, they can vary. The day starts at around 6-7 in the morning, there is a break at Dhuhr prayer at noon, some business have a long break until sunset and then start working, and start again after 6:00pm to about 9-10 pm,, but that varies on the business type as well, offices close in the afternoon but shops and stores are usually open. All business must close at prayer times, 5 times a day that last for about 30 minutes, restaurants close their doors at prayer times but if you are already eating inside you may stay in, they just won't open the doors until the prayer is over. This is different from city to city, for example Riyadh is much more strict than Jeddah. If you have anything else please don't hesitate to ask, thank you. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not all prayer breaks are for 30 minutes, right? I used to live in Saudi Arabia and remember some being for shorter periods (~10 minutes) than others.

That depends. If you go to a major brand-name supermarket/store, the break is longer, but if you go to a smaller local shop, the employee might just go to a nearby mosque,pray and come back immediatly. It's not set in stone.Burning phoneix 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And the weekedns are not Saturday and Sunday. The weekends are Thursday and Friday

This may change. There has been talk of changing the weekend to Friday/Saturday in line with Dubai.

-King Abdullah has passed a law that women are now allowed to drive! This news was so exciting to me and my family when we were living there. Could someone tell me more about that? Is it even true? No women seem to be driving even though the law was passed.

203.217.81.59 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC) richard. It would be good to discuss censorship in Saudi Arabia. I have read that English words like 'pig' and 'whisky' are masked in crosswords imported for English Language newspapers. Also the words 'Christian' and 'lust' etc are banned. Are all western DVD's allowed, or is there a board of censors who decide what is allowed and what is not? Do the morality police only exist in public spaces or do they enter homes? << another twisted shallow example, what censorship on words like 'pig' 'whiskey' 'christian' 'lust' are you talking about? where the heck do you get this info?

Makkah & Madina

Officially in Saudi Arabia it is Makkah & Madina & NOT 'Mecca' or 'Medina'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.0.131 (talk • contribs)

I believe that is true, but in most English sources you will find the spelling "Mecca" and "Medina." - Eagle^(talk) 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eagle, it's their language and they can spell it how ever they want, we [Arabic people] say the word "America" like "Am'ree'kah", we say "Paris" like "Pa'rees", "Montreal" like "Mont'ter'yal", "England" like "In'gelt'ra", "Switzerland" like "Swees'ra" and so on, so I guess as long as they know what they are talking about, they can call it whatever they want --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Population estimates

Comparison of various reputable sources for population estimates:

• UN Population Division: 24,573,100 (2005) / 25,192,720 (2006)
• Population Reference Bureau: 24,573,000 (2005)
• Saudi Arabia Census of 2004 (provisional results): 22,673,438
• World Gazetteer: 23,595,634 (2005-2006)
• CIA Factbook: 27,019,731

The CIA figure seems to overestimate the population compared to other sources. I think we should use the UN figures unless the CIA figure is corroborated by another official source. Polaron | Talk 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm,, well Saudi Arabia has a low avrage age, not because there are no old people but because there are many, many, many young people. So one year can make a one-two million and it's not getting lower (yet), so estimating can be really hard. I would say follow which ever one says (2006) but i know its not 23.9 mil, I would say 25-27 mil --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The CIA is the most modern of the above because it's 2009 estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

28,686,633 [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, in population estimates, and other statistics it is smarter to trust the UN than the CIA, for obvious reasons. The CIA, as I have said many times, continues to be a highly unreliable source for any of this kind of information, for the fact that the CIA's published knowledge is clearly United States POV. I would trust the United Nations more than the CIA, even if the UN info might be out to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative name for the country?

The articles makes the following statement: "no cheese of the House of Saud reject the family's legitimacy and decline to speak of the country as 'Saudi Arabia'." So, I was curious to know what they would call it? What are the alternative names for Saudi Arabia? I can understand if it's not really relevant or widely used that it shouldn't go into the article's text. But I'm very curious and think that this kind of trivia (if it is indeed "trivia") is always interesting to find at Wikipedia. Thanks!--Sir Edgar 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who oppose the rule of House of Saud often identify themselves by their region or province, e.g. someone from Jeddah, Makkah or Madinah prefer to be known as a Hijazi rather than a Saudi. It's probably easy to assume the answer is simply "Arabia" (without the "Saudi") but the term is too generic, something that the mostly tribal-by-nature Saudis would not associate themselves with. South of the border, I personally knew someone from South Yemen who still does not think favourably of the reunification; he does not identify himself as Yemeni but a citizen of Hadhramaut.

The translation of the English name and Arabic name are not the same (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arabic: المملكة العربية السعودية‎)). Is Saudi a kingdom or not? Kiumars 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a kingdom. "Arabia" (without the "Saudi") is one alternative name. Others sometimes refer to it as just "The Kingdom", or "Arabian Peninsula", or just "The Peninsula", or less commonly "Kingdom Arabia". Some who oppose the rule of House of Saud refuse to identify themselves as Saudis identify themselves as "Arabians" or identify themselves by their cities/villiges/tribes/region.

Sports in Saudi Arabia

I came to the Saudi Arabia page to look for information on sports in Saudi Arabia, but was disappointed to find no mention of it. If some expert could shed light on the subject (what sports are popular, satdiums and clubs, regulation, women's sports), it would be greatly appreciated. Arnob 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm,,, the information you are looking for would be found at Category:Sport in Saudi Arabia, I guess we could add a section under culture --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nightlife in Saudi Arabia?

How is the nightlife in Saudi Arabia. Do they party all night long?--Comanche cph 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Saudis usually stay up long periods of time during vacations, even though there is very little entertainment, no movies or arcades or nothing! strange huh? I'm writing this at 5:15 am and I don't plan to sleep before 10. I woke up at 4pm today. Which is totally normal :). Burning phoneix 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean by nightlife = night clubs. In case you mean night clubs there are no night clubs at all because most people are conservative and its againt Islam. Well most people stay at night if there is no work the other day. They like to go to set on the beach or just gather at relatives or friends houses. There are Arcades but no movie theater but you can rent a movie and watch home or just see it on Satellite channels.Ekxnss 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

unless you're a prince in Jeddah...in which case it's alcohol, drugs and prostititutes...Viewing cable 09JEDDAH443, UNDERGROUND PARTY SCENE IN JEDDAH: SAUDI YOUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in Saudi Arabia and we have parties. We stay awake for the next morning. We have cafes and we have a lot of fun. It's so cool to ,live there. I am so proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.178.219 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What does "under high tentions" from radical groups mean? Opposition? Please translate into proper English JohnC (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruthless cuts

I cut a lot of poorly written text which appears to be more like propaganda from the section of politics. Also, the section of economics had a well-written several paragraphs, followed by text which did not fit with the above and which was an amalgam of data, belonging to Economy of Saudi Arabia. I cut that one too.

I wonder if there are any comments on that. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How can it be racist propaganda for not mentioning China or Iran in an article about Saudi Arabia??!?!?! Is it homophobic too because it doesn't mention homosexuality? I haven't looked at the pages for China, Iran or the US yet but I daresay contentious subjects like this will also be mentioned there. I shall have a look now...

Stable versioning tested on this article.

Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on Saudi Arabia/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So tell me about Punishments for Women in Saudi Arabia?

In which I mean to tell me about what kind of punishments do Women and Girls get in Saudi Arabia? Because I really what to know all about 'cause due to that it seems that it dosn't really describe Punishments as a sorta whole thing for the people in Saudi Arabia . Do they get the death Penalty or not? And do they get less harsher punishments or not? I just want to know all this and much more. Also is their much percent of murdur and/or crime victims that are female just like in some societies? And please answer too (quickly).

Women usually receive less or equal punishment than men but I have no idea about the female crime rate.Burning phoneix 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for adultery of course.. ;) TastyCakes 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, what a nasty insight from a tasty homo thing. do you have plenty of adultry in your country?

State sanctioned anti-Jewish prejudice

I have started a stub that needs further elaboration.-- Lance ^talk 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My contribution was removed without justification or comment. The article, in its present form, is patently unencyclopedic.Lance ^talk

of course its unencyclopedic given the large number of slanderers of your kind who are interested in the subject and elaborating from the atlas and blogs.

Establishment?

It has been stated in the History section that a Saudi State was first established in 1750. Should the Establishment section of the Fact file have a slight change.

many writers and contributers here are concerned with bad Islam and political structures not allowing others to interfer easily. real history and social and cultural stuff is second priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Safest part of KSA?

Im a highly educated Saudi Female (MD, PhD). I lived all my life in Saudi, I went to school here, I went to university here and I was sent to the states on a Saudi scholarship (they pay for full fees and a salary). The people who are writing this article obviously have no idea what they are talking about! Either you are people living in the US that havent stepped out of you home town and get you info from Fox news, or you a westerner living in one of those "gated communities" and also get your info from Fox news!! We are a normal community that have a different lifestyle. We have our own culture, traditions and beliefs. We are different and we are proud about it! So make this article about Saudi Arabia and its people...and not a newspaper article were ill-informed people get to post their opinions! (Oh and yes we women do water sports, dive and shop like all you other folks...Gees!!)

I see we have some Saudis here, so I pray you won't mind if I ask a few questions. I've always wanted to visit Saudi (too bad about the 'no infidels in Mecca' thing; I'd love to see it) and I was wondering what part of the country our native chums would recommend. Riyadh is the capitol, but I hear Jeddah is a wee more liberal and open to foreigners. Basically, I would like to visit your lovely country without having my head sawn off by a bowie knife-wielding madman screaming "Allah Akbar!" Any tips? How would a 6'5 tall, white, blond, 23 year-old Irish-American young man fare in KSA? << LOL, I would worry if I were you. especially with the frequent 'highlight' on 'touchy' things. Its like, look at the number of peeps and their views about different things around the world, as a result do you expect someone to visit certain places in an honest heart? can BinLaden apply for a visit to the Pope? on the contrary, can 6'5 tall guy apply to visit Mecca? look its just a Nazi officer who wants to visit Jerusalem, no bad intentions, honest.

About entry; I've heard that Jews and atheists cannot enter. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian (Roman Catholic, to be precise). Would it be possible for me to simply not bring up my atheism and enter the country as a lifelong nominal Catholic Christian? Roland Deschain 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC) << its not about beliefs there, its about politics.

I am not a Saudi but spent some time there years ago for profesional reasons. I'll start with the entry visa. Carrying an Israeli passport would prevent you automatically from requesting a visa. You carry an American passport and not an atheist passport. So nothing to explain as long as you say that you are an American.

As for which places to visit, i'd recommend Jeddah and the Eastern region (i.e. Khobar in particular). There are many foreigners there as well so you don't have to panic thinking that your physical appearence would bring you troubles. Just be friendly and good luck. << yeah and dont bring a camera and start filming ladies in black robes for a wiseguy report, bad idea.

P.S. Have a look at Category:Wikipedians in Saudi Arabia where you'd find a few natives and foreigners for more details. Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • You're right, some Saudis aren't big fans of Americans, They like Canadians and Europeans. I brought some of my Canadian friends over to Riyadh and they loved it. You know what bro, Saudi Arabia is not really big on tourists, if you want to go somewhere nice, go to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, its full with Americans and all other nationalities, you will love it there.--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow Mo, why don't you tell us how you really feel?Jersey John (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been to Dubai and it's great. I've always wanted to travel to Saudi Arabia because it's an epoch of culture and I've always been interested in Islam. Maybe I can visit some time in the future. Thanks for the info, anyway. Peace. Roland Deschain 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC

• I believe the only way I would be visiting there would be as a uniformed member of a US military force Scott S 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to! No tourist activities! Maybe this is why Saudis would not welcome you as they would do w/ Roland. It reminds me of the stupid propaganda of the actual US admin; Iraqis would welcome us w/ flowers. Good luck. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that will greatly increase your chances of getting killed. :P Burning phoneix 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to start with the above. Where do people get these strange ideas? There are tens of thousands of Brits and Americans living happily in Saudi Arabia. Mrhawley 13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are all good points ya doctoora, but since you're both an MD AND a PhD, you have no excuse not to set up a user account and start contributing yourself. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saudi_Arabia is in dire need. Now get to it :) Slackerlawstudent 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"religious freedom and civil liberties as the West" I dont think thats true, many countries around the world dont allow different religious activities including USA, you cant build a Mosque just next to an Evanglical Cathedral or in the middle of a Catholic community. not something good, but its not the only place to point out for having differences. (COULD) have had his head chopped?? how did you know he COULD? its not 1000bc.

hi Jinjaa i just want to point some thing

• mutaween don't chop off gay men head actually there is nothing in islam about choping people head we through them off a clif and

• mutaween do not hassel girls

• from the begining of the kingdom to this day 2007/08/22 no gay man were executed

• and about someone Spitting on you i want to say that some SOME not all some Saudi hate American we are not proud of it but let not forget that there are also some American who hate saudi even some police Official

i grew up in saudi and i knew what i talking aboutArabian soul 06:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

-- "but seeing as how it's illegal to practice Christianity in Saudi" : I'm a Saudi girl, 22 y.o. living in Makkah, I want to tell you that my best friend in high school was a christian. She's Syrian born in Saudi Arabia and living with her family in a small town near Makkah. After She finished her high school degree she went to Syria to continue her Bachelor degree but her family are still living and working here. "So it's not illegal to practice Christianity here". You'll find the religious freedom here as long as you respect your religion and stick to its rules. ^{~( Unsigned by 212.71.37.92 14:45, 14 May 2007 )~}

I'm a westerner who has lived in Saudi off and on for almost 20 years. The most common remark I hear from other westerners who visit here is "it's NOTHING like I imagined from what I had read or seen on TV. Everybody is so friendly." Saudi is pretty cool and most Saudis are great. They have had a very bad rap due to a few nutters. Yes, there are things that need fixing here, but the new generations are working on it. (And the film "The Kingdom" is about as accurate a representation of Saudi as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is of Texas.) Anjouli 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly help Saudi's case that the government is being run by those few nutters. If we took the men at the helm out of the equation, quite a few countries would be a nicer place, at least as far as policy goes. But that is neither here nor there as far as Wikipedia editing is concerned. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Vandalism Issues

It seems like whole sections of this article are completely destroyed by vandalism. Can someone please clean this up so that this is a credible article again? I would but I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to completely change the sections, which looks like is what is needed.

- "Saudi Arabia is the world's leading petroleum producer and exporter." - this is contestable. Russia overtook Saudia Arabia as the world's largest oil producer in August 2006, and I haven't heard that that situation has changed since. Palefire 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, I haven't heard about that! Is there a source for this?Burning phoneix 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of sources - [4] [5] [6] [7] Palefire 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Why are there so many photos of Riyadh hotel resorts for the Saudi Arabia country article? Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? --75.31.240.212 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in riyadh and I've never seen those places but they say they are parks so I assumed that it was OK. :/Burning phoneix 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture heading vs. Culture of Saudi Arabia Article

I'm an English teacher with two Saudi students; they're writing about their homeland in English. One is doing something on marriage and courtship in Saudi Arabia; I'm having him write it in the culture article; I'm going to link the story here at the culture heading. If there is a better place for these contributions, or other suggestions for organizing this material, please advise.Nhrenton 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I have made a few amendments and additions to the very brief history of Saudi Arabia. Any comments or suggestions? Trinaw 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Saudis converting to Shia

Saudi king said last week that some Saudis are converting to Shia, is that true? Can anyone confirm it? Was he talking about Saudis being dissatisfied wit the current regime or he was talking about the public being fed up with the Western backed anti-Islamic regime of Saudi? Why these guys are so afraid of people being Muslims? Kiumars

I doubt that he stated that thet are converting to shia but rather that some people are trying to influnence modrate muslims to become shia. The situation is very critical now with sunni and shia war in iraq that some people are trying to influnce it down to the Saudi state. And they are afraid of insurgency because some people are backing up fundamental shia sects and smuggling weapons etc in the country. The major view about these shia is that they have loyalty not for the nation but for Iran.. which is dangerous for the nation's securtiy. 87.109.194.132 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They are in the eastern region, dude. Dammam, shia population is pretty high.. --Yu5uF 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Page

Why does this page indicate at the bottom that Saudi Arabia is a member of the OECD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.189.28.37 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't actually say the country is part of the group, the template is just there for some reason. I'll remove it. --Phoenix 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Education

After having read the "Education" section, I am left with the feeling that the Saudi education system is a darn good one. Heavily financed and accessible for everyone and all that... Nothing more to add to that? I have heard some numbers about very high illiteracy rates. Is it possible to rewrite this in still NPOV manner that covers reality better than it does now? Medico80 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would serouisly consider the Saudi education system to be quite bad I'm afraid. It depends on rote memorization and a large chunk of the school day is taken to religious education in addition to one class of "Watiniya" a week which translates to "Patriotism". How sad is that? Burning phoneix (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

what about religious freedom in saudi arabia

Who will write on this? some other wikipedia? -- ^{UNSIGNED : 12.7.175.2 06:16, 9 July 2007}

dont worry enough slander have been put up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Immigration/Citizenship/Nationality of Saudi Arabia

I've been trying to find the answer to, "Can I get Saudi nationality/citizenship if I marry a Saudi woman?" anywhere on the Internet. The nationality/citizenship section of this article is very weak. Also- the recent law that was passed for citizenship- does that allow one to actually apply for a Saudi passport? Or is it just an ability to stay in the kingdom without the need for sponsor?

so you are saying, can I get rid of the sponsor by screwing a girl from the internet? please look for citzenship application on another web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Passport Section

On Wikipedia, there are many sections detailing the passports of various countries. For example: Canadian Passport or Singapore Passport. Saudi passport holders aren't able to travel to several countries such as Thailand. A friend of mine traveled to Thailand indirectly on her Saudi passport and upon return, her passport was suspended for 1 year and she was fined. Perhaps this information can be placed on the 'Saudi Arabia Passport' page if one is created.

I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia until my family migrated to the United States. From what I learned from my parents, I think that one of the ways for getting citizenship in Saudi Arabia is to convert into Islam. Although I am Filipino and born in Saudi Arabia, I'm not an Arabian citizen. Bustamove34 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"as-Suʻūdiyya"

Someone (User:Slackerlawstudent) changed "as-Saʻūdiyya" to "as-Suʻūdiyya". Is that a local pronunciation or something? -- 129.78.64.102 08:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Both correct , this is a non-english speaking state , so translation depends on the simulation between arabic and english alphabets. i even recommand writing Al-Sa'udiyya  A M M A R  14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Su'udiyya" is the correct form, because "Suud" is just the plural of "Sa'd". Many non-Saudi Arabs (esp. Lebanese) incorrectly pronounce it as "Sa'udiyya", but Saudis say "Su'udiyya". "Su'ud" is also the transliteration used by Encyclopedia of Islam. -- Slacker 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Economic cities.gif

Image:Economic cities.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic details under Government heading

In the Government section the text starting with "The combination of relatively high oil prices and exports" and ending "which provide a substantial fiscal "cushion."" seem more an economical analysis which should be merged with the appropriate section. FlipC 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article leads

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of article leads, and what information might be appropriate to include in the lead for this article, so I thought I would jot some explanatory notes down here to enable editors to understand the context to my recent edit. An article lead tries to do is to summarise the most important points of the article. The lead isn't just a bland statement of basic facts about the country, although it can contain some of these if they aid with understanding. Instead it is meant to give a reader who is short of time and unable to read the whole article a basic introduction to the subject in question. It is important therefore that all of the most notable aspects of an article's subject should be reflected in its lead. Any aspect on which there is a large amount of content later in the article is a good candidate for the lead; similarly anything which marks out a country as particularly distinctive in relation to other countries should be mentioned. The article on France, for example, talks about its imperial past and its role as a founder member of the UN; the article on Panama points out that the country is a transcontinental nation; that on Bangladesh mentions monsoons. These "notable aspects" will, of course, be different for different countries; to state that if a particular piece of information doesn't appear in all country articles it shouldn't appear in any (I paraphrase) means that no country lead would contain the things that marks the country out as distinctive, by definition. A useful rule of thumb is "is this something that the country is very well known for?" - if so, the lead is a sensible place to summarise this, and there should be corresponding detailed content to back this up below. Leads should also not contain any information that is not contained elsewhere in the article, because they are summaries. So ... "info is included elsewhere in the article" is, fairly obviously, not a good reason in itself to delete content from the lead. Hope that helps. SP-KP 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly, it's highly debatable whether this is one of the three things the country is most well-known for. Perhaps this is simply the aspect that is of most interest to you. You're implying that aside from Mecca, Medina, and oil exports, the only thing notable about this large, ancient, and complex country are vague "perceptions" by Westerners about human rights. If Israel, Iran, Burma, Syria, China, and Egypt - all countries with much more notable human rights issues - don't include info of this nature in the lead, there is no reason Saudi Arabia should be any different. What makes all the teams editing those articles wrong, and your opinion correct (with all due respect)? Secondly, it's not clear whether you're talking about actual human rights violations, or simply "Western perceptions" of human rights in Saudi Arabia. If it's simply an issue of how the country is perceived by the West, then that's not terribly notable, and is much too ethnocentric. If it's the former then the text is simply too vague. If you're going to mention this in the lead, then in fairness, you should make it clear to the reader what specifically these organizations object to. Painting such a broad brush that may imply the whole range of imaginable human rights issues (some applicable to this country and some not) does not serve the reader's interest in an objective and fact-based treatment of the subject. -- Slacker 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Some good points there - the wording definitely needs an improvement - any suggestions? On the central point (include or not) it's not my opinion that I'm giving here, it's Wikipedia policy - i.e. I'm attempting to educate you, not debate with you - policy always trumps "it hasn't been done elsewhere so why here" argument (which is a good thing in my opinion, otherwise we'd never reach consensus on a whole range of things). You're incorrect in saying that information about Saudi Arabia's approach to human rights is based on vague perceptions. There is reliable, objective evidence that this is a country which has a poor human rights record. To take one example, the Economist magazine's Democracy Index ranks them the 9th lowest of all countries based on a detailed scoring system. Also, I'm not sure where the "three things" comes from - did I say that? SP-KP 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy; the policy says that notable topics should/can be addressed in the lead, but the way you insist on applying it makes it seem like the policy is "if it's in the article, it can be in the lead". It seems to me that, according to the policy, you have to demonstrate that this info is notable enough to be in the lead. This is why the other country articles are relevant; they don't "prove" that it's wrong to include the info, but when many teams of editors worked for a long time on comparable articles and concluded that this sort of info is not notable enough to be in the lead paragraph, then we can use that as guidance as to what is and is not appropriate for similar articles. Also, I didn't mean to say that human rights concerns were simply based on perceptions (otherwise I would have argued against inclusion of this topic in the body as well). What I meant was that the text you inserted seems to be speaking about Western perceptions, not the actual, objective information which you mention. Simply saying "there are Western perceptions that Saudi Arabia is a bad place" is not notable enough for the lead. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but that's what the text is saying right now. In any case, if the text stays, then I hope it would specify exactly what Saudi Arabia is accused of, because right now it's too broad to be considered encyclopedic. -- Slacker 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those clarifications. It doesn't sound like we are in great disagreement about the policy itself - I'm definitely not of the opinion that it says "if it's in the article, it can be in the lead" and I agree that I, as the editor wanting to insert the material, need to demonstrate its notability. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions you draw from the other articles though - do you have evidence that the editors of those articles have considered the specific question of whether the human rights records of those countries belongs in the lead? My experience of working on similar articles is that the lead is often one of those things that is left till last, and it may just be that the editors haven't yet done that gap analysis. It's good that we agree that the wording, if it is to stay, needs to change. Should a revised version say something more definite, then, e.g. "Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record" (perhaps backed up with examples) or would that be too strong/NPOV? SP-KP 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about issues A, B, and c in Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi government dismisses these concerns." That just feels more accurate and measured in my humble opinion. As for whether this sort of topic was discussed in the other country articles; I'll have to look at those discussions and get back to you. Thanks for your reply. -- Slacker 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it ought to be possible to find some specifics. I'll see what I can track down. SP-KP 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The most recent "Democracy Index" in The Economist holds Saudi Arabia as the seventh most authoritarian, which is only notable as a change from the listing as ninth in the above text. Krumbel (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)