What's new

Saudi website editor could face death for apostasy-

Well as far as your second argument is concerned , this is like saying that the country's law can prosecute me for first or second degree murder just because I sold a knife or gun to a person who then killed a person :) ...
This analogy fails because if you sold the gun knowing that the buyer will kill someone then its illegal or at least should be. As an editor and owner of the forum, he should have not allowed any illegal activities, given the fact that he could have prevented them. Unlike the gun salesman who had no control on what customers do with the purchased guns.
BTW not all members of the ruling family enjoy immunity from persecution. One has been executed for murder, and one is currently being prosecuted for murdering someone under the influence of alcohol a week ago. I would say, only 3 people have immunity, the king, minister of interior and minister of defence.
 
Why not? If Muslims don't like it they should move out. Something Christian Egyptians and Syrians have a problem understanding, as well as many Muslims living in the west.

Well unlike the muslim migrants to the west, the christian egyptians and xian syrians are natives to the land..arent they ?
 
This analogy fails because if you sold the gun knowing that the buyer will kill someone then its illegal or at least should be. As an editor and owner of the forum, he should have not allowed any illegal activities, given the fact that he could have prevented them.I would say, only 3 people have immunity, the king, minister of interior and minister of defence.

One cant read the mind of another human - I probably sold the gun thinking that it would be used for self defense and not for murder of another innocent human being , basically he was just allowing others to post anti-Islamic stuff on the forum , I take it you are saying ? It wasn't him , just some other posters from different countries ... How is it being considered apostasy and punishable by death ? :what:

P.S That is encouraging that at least some members of Al Saud have been tried for their crimes like anybody else in the Kingdom but still you have a long way to go ...
 
Well unlike the muslim migrants to the west, the christian egyptians and xian syrians are natives to the land..arent they ?

That's irrelevant. Also, many Muslims are 4th and 5th generation in the west. Does that make them "native" enough for you?

One cant read the mind of another human - I probably sold the gun thinking that it would be used for self defense and not for murder of another innocent human being , basically he was just allowing others to post anti-Islamic stuff on the forum , I take it you are saying ? It wasn't him , just some other posters from different countries ... How is it being considered apostasy and punishable by death ?

P.S That is encouraging that at least some members of Al Saud have been tried for their crimes like anybody else in the Kingdom but still you have a long way to go ...
He certainly didn't do anything that would be considered apostasy.
The government was aware of this website for many years and just blocked it. But now because of the intense security situation in the region, they are cracking down on many people religious an liberal.
I am 99% sure he will just sign a paper saying he wil never do that again and get out of jail in a few months. No way he will be executed.
 
The day is not far away when these guys are going to execute someone for not coughing in the right way .
 
That's irrelevant. Also, many Muslims are 4th and 5th generation in the west. Does that make them "native" enough for you?.

That entirely relevant...considering the fact the christians possibly predate the muslims by few centuries and have been living in the lands before islam arose...which is not the case of the migrants in west..
 
Sure...And those limits are locally set, meaning each country have (and should have) the right to set those limits according to local interests and sensitivity. That said...You should have no problems at all if Christian countries, including those that considers themselves 'secular', set limits based upon their local interests and sensitivities. Right?

How about no mosque or anything related to Islam in NYC?

Those so called "Christian" countries you are saying which are secular are not "Christian." They are Secular.

lol, if you say no to building a Masjid in New York City, then don't claim to be a land of freedom or a secular country.

Simple as that.

look who's talking ! a man was killed by a mob few days ago for having being accused of apostasy in Pakistan, the rimsha masee case is still fresh, a church was burned down recently,, heck the qadri guy who killed salman taseer is showered by rose petals & has been made into a hero & you have the gall to talk you should be the last person criticizing Saudis you have just embarrassed yourself & other Pakistanis with your comments the Saudis i repeat are much more tolerant then Pakistan so you should be the last one to talk .

to your unnecessary comments


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uRlNDK_Z03o/TqwNcqfvgsI/AAAAAAAAANo/Wes3uDQUSwQ/s1600/ImpliedFacepalm.jpg
 
That entirely relevant...considering the fact the christians possibly predate the muslims by few centuries and have been living in the lands before islam arose...which is not the case of the migrants in west..

lol but if their 5th generation or 4th generation Muslims then, it is their country, whether you like or not.

lol, if the Christians in Egypt and Syria became Muslims or if the Christians of Egypt or Syria or Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan leave, it is no longer their country.

Just because there is a history of Christians in a specific country doesn't automatically make it their country.
 
lol but if their 5th generation or 4th generation Muslims then, it is their country, whether you like or not.

lol, if the Christians in Egypt and Syria became Muslims or if the Christians of Egypt or Syria or Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan leave, it is no longer their country.

Just because there is a history of Christians in a specific country doesn't automatically make it their country.

Ofcourse it makes them their country...the syrian or coptic christians were there in syria and egypt long before islam was started.

And no matter for 4 or 5 generations an Arab or pakistani has lived in France, he will still never be a part of the white judeo-christian civilization which is the root of french civilization.
 
Ofcourse it makes them their country...the syrian or coptic christians were there in syria and egypt long before islam was started.

And no matter for 4 or 5 generations an Arab or pakistani has lived in France, he will still never be a part of the white judeo-christian civilization which is the root of french civilization.

How is France "Judeo-Christian?" France is a secular country, not "Christian." Of-course the Christians living in Egypt, its their country too, but obviously Egypt is not a Secular country, since they Islam as their state religion.

If you are saying the Christians have more rights than the Muslims in Egypt to change it to a secular country, then you are wrong, because Christians have become a minority now in Egypt and Egypt is not a Christian or a secular country.

Map_of_state_religions.svg


This map needs to be updated. Tajikistan also has Islam as state religion.

Ofcourse it makes them their country...the syrian or coptic christians were there in syria and egypt long before islam was started.

And no matter for 4 or 5 generations an Arab or pakistani has lived in France, he will still never be a part of the white judeo-christian civilization which is the root of french civilization.

I'm glad we are having this conversation, because How is Europe "Judeo-Christian" when most have secular constitutions.

Modern western civilization is not about Christianity, its about having as many freedoms possible.
 
Right. Just like I have no say on what cartoon Danish newspapers decide to publish, USA has no say on what rights are given to or taken from women or minorities in KSA. Everyone should mind his own business.
Good...We are making progress.

Now...Since we are talking about 'freedom of speech' in principle, which would include freedom of association which would include religious affiliations, there is usually a point where the abridgment of said freedom, in the interests of local sensitivities, where one might as well say there is no such freedom at all.

For example, it is illegal in the US to yell 'Fire' in a crowded environment when there is no fire, whereas President Bill Clinton was called anything from a sex addict to a murder, or a crucifix is bathed in a container of urine and it was called 'art, as in 'Piss Christ', and you can look it up, and nothing happened to the latter situations.

Observers would say that the exception -- yelling fire in a crowded theater -- to the 'freedom of speech' is a reasonable abridgment and in no way detract from the perception that the US honors this freedom. Whereas, killing someone for changing a religion is sufficiently serious a detraction that a country can be reasonably perceived as NOT honoring this freedom. In other words, a person who change from being a Muslim to a Christian is soooooo offensive to local sensibilities that to put him to death would make that country as NOT respecting the freedom of religion.

Do you agree?
 
The editor of a Saudi Arabian website could be sentenced to death after a judge cited him for apostasy and moved his case to a higher court, the monitoring group Human Rights Watch said on Saturday.

Raif Badawi, who started the Free Saudi Liberals website to discuss the role of religion in Saudi Arabia, was arrested in June,

Badawi's website included articles that were critical of senior religious figures, the monitoring group said.

Saudi website editor could face death for apostasy-rights group | Reuters


L O L These people are financing Freedom for Syrian Sunnis via Terrorist .:yahoo::rofl: who in their right mind wouldn't want this freedom.

victimisation for speaking against sarkari mullas.
 
Good...We are making progress.

Now...Since we are talking about 'freedom of speech' in principle, which would include freedom of association which would include religious affiliations, there is usually a point where the abridgment of said freedom, in the interests of local sensitivities, where one might as well say there is no such freedom at all.

For example, it is illegal in the US to yell 'Fire' in a crowded environment when there is no fire, whereas President Bill Clinton was called anything from a sex addict to a murder, or a crucifix is bathed in a container of urine and it was called 'art, as in 'Piss Christ', and you can look it up, and nothing happened to the latter situations.

Observers would say that the exception -- yelling fire in a crowded theater -- to the 'freedom of speech' is a reasonable abridgment and in no way detract from the perception that the US honors this freedom. Whereas, killing someone for changing a religion is sufficiently serious a detraction that a country can be reasonably perceived as NOT honoring this freedom. In other words, a person who change from being a Muslim to a Christian is soooooo offensive to local sensibilities that to put him to death would make that country as NOT respecting the freedom of religion.

Do you agree?
I agree but Saudi Arabia never executed anyone for apostasy and never will. That doesn't mean we have freedom of religion, we don't. The main restriction imposed on other religions is no public worship places are allowed except mosques.
 
Someone can correct me but historically the 'accused party' of blasphemy was given every chance to repent and become a productive part of society. In information age with so many ways to be influenced, SA would do better to adapt a more moderate approach (thats just my humble opinion, don't shoot me :D)
 
Back
Top Bottom