Notes on Saudi Arabia(mattlakeman.org)
mattlakeman.org
Notes on Saudi Arabia
https://mattlakeman.org/2022/11/22/notes-on-saudi-arabia/
191 comments
It's worth noting that the actual Saudis make up only 62% of the country population(according to wikipedia). The rest are mostly semi-slaves / slaves from Indian subcontinent / south east Asia.
It's not as extreme as cases of Oman or UAE but still noticeable.
Also how much males vs females. I think it is one of the countrys with the most man per women.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia
Can you clarify? By semi-slaves do you mean immigrants like the US has?
It's one of the craziest self defeating decision that the US and to a lesser extinct Europe decided to pick a side between the two horrible oil financed theocracies - Iran and Saudi Arabia - instead of simply playing one against the other depending on our self interests. That makes us complicit for no good reason in things like the Yemen war.
I'm sure the US and Britain were trying to do something like that, what with the 1953 coupe and all. It just didn't go as planned when the Iranians overthrew the Shah 26 years later and installed their own theocracy.
To be fair, Iran was a very close American and British ally, until the chosen dictator (installed by a CIA/MI6 sponsored coup) went too far, a bunch of other things happened and it all went up in flames of a leftwing/islamic revolution. Both were extremely anti-West, naturally. So the West didn't "choose", Iran chose for them.
You're right but Iran doesn't need to be pro West for a balance of terror strategy to be workable. Iran needs only to hate the US and Europe less than it hates Saudi Arabia, which I believe is the case .
As the article kinda mentions in passing, it is sad but interesting to see the standards by which Americans seem to judge Saudi Arabia. Vs. Afghanistan, DR Congo (Zaire), Haiti, Lebanon, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Vatican City, Venezuela, ...
It's almost as if those Americans were far more interested in cheaply staking out their "I'm ideologically superior" status, in their own little social contexts, than they were in the lives and futures of hundreds of millions of people in far-away places, who the Americans know ~nothing about...
It's almost as if those Americans were far more interested in cheaply staking out their "I'm ideologically superior" status, in their own little social contexts, than they were in the lives and futures of hundreds of millions of people in far-away places, who the Americans know ~nothing about...
> [...] lives and futures of hundreds of millions of people in far-away places, who the Americans know ~nothing about...
Care to enlighten them here? Or must a person have lived somewhere before being critical of anything about the place or its laws?
Care to enlighten them here? Or must a person have lived somewhere before being critical of anything about the place or its laws?
> Vatican City
really?
really?
Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf nations are a geopolitical extension of the US. So it is always funny to me when Americans criticize these countries and consider them to be the worst. I mean that is absolutely true but if you want to change things you need to tell your leaders to stop supporting those countries. Not to mention that Europe is also making bank selling them weapons. So yeah, the people criticize but the leaders support so it's all pointless in my view.
Hypocrisy and corruption are bad. Giving up only reinforces them.
It's hard to take this author seriously when he makes a big error in the first sentence (non-Muslims are allowed to enter Medina). Additionally, the population of Saudi is not anywhere near 100% Muslim.
It's correct. You can visit Medina as a non-muslim. But some parts of the city is off limit to non-muslims. It's Mecca that's totally off limit to non-muslims.
https://www.inclined2travel.com/post/medina-non-muslim
https://www.inclined2travel.com/post/medina-non-muslim
One of the very few articles shared on HN that I actually read in full! Great piece!
Four years ago, despite possessing a per capita wealth level comparable to Western Europe
How long are we going to pretend that native citizens are the only people that count in countries where half the population is foreign slave-labor?
How long are we going to pretend that native citizens are the only people that count in countries where half the population is foreign slave-labor?
Population and per-capita income figures typically include non-citizens too.
As long as our society is built on fossil energy bought from the slave owners
All civilizations from Ancient Egypt to Western Europe were built on slave labour. Ever heard of colonialism? Where do you think your Nike shoes and Apple iPhones and Starbucks coffee are produced? You think Westerners don't live off the labours of Asians and Africans on dirt poor wages?
First of all: nothing of that, even if applying, does not counter criticism of ongoing slavery.
> You think Westerners don't live off the labours of Asians and Africans on dirt poor wages?
That is far less bad than outright slavery.
> Where do you think your Nike shoes and Apple iPhones and Starbucks coffee are produced?
I do not own or owned or used any of this products and in general try to avoid such products.
> Ever heard of colonialism?
Yeah, my country was victim of it. (hilariously, there were attempt to engage in it - interrupted by getting colonised)
> All civilizations from Ancient Egypt to Western Europe were built on slave labour.
Not all of them (OK, serfdom and feudalism was really really bad but has not reached full-blown slavery).
> You think Westerners don't live off the labours of Asians and Africans on dirt poor wages?
That is far less bad than outright slavery.
> Where do you think your Nike shoes and Apple iPhones and Starbucks coffee are produced?
I do not own or owned or used any of this products and in general try to avoid such products.
> Ever heard of colonialism?
Yeah, my country was victim of it. (hilariously, there were attempt to engage in it - interrupted by getting colonised)
> All civilizations from Ancient Egypt to Western Europe were built on slave labour.
Not all of them (OK, serfdom and feudalism was really really bad but has not reached full-blown slavery).
While you're right to a degree this relationship is still beneficial to those laborers in Asia at least to some level. Due to western investment their living conditions generally have improved quite significantly to what it was in the past.
Just look at China now and 30-40 years ago. Especially when you compare it to countries which didn't become manufacturing hubs like India and some other others in the region (and especially Africa).
Just look at China now and 30-40 years ago. Especially when you compare it to countries which didn't become manufacturing hubs like India and some other others in the region (and especially Africa).
> this relationship is still beneficial to those laborers in Asia at least
I can’t take any opinion about Western saviours seriously.
Western currencies are over valued and propped up by colonial structures and theft.
Western societies exist off the back of outsourced labor - nearly equivalent to slavery, but sure let’s act like it’s /way/ better, since they’re not “owned” anymore.
I can’t take any opinion about Western saviours seriously.
Western currencies are over valued and propped up by colonial structures and theft.
Western societies exist off the back of outsourced labor - nearly equivalent to slavery, but sure let’s act like it’s /way/ better, since they’re not “owned” anymore.
> Western societies exist off the back of outsourced labor - nearly equivalent to slavery, but sure let’s act like it’s /way/ better, since they’re not “owned” anymore.
conflating this two is absurd (my current freelancing contract is also outsourced labor, allowing me to earn about 5 times average wage or 15 times minimum wage and is not slavery in any way)
some of outsourced labor is bad, but not because it is outsourced labor
conflating this two is absurd (my current freelancing contract is also outsourced labor, allowing me to earn about 5 times average wage or 15 times minimum wage and is not slavery in any way)
some of outsourced labor is bad, but not because it is outsourced labor
Most outsourced labor is bad, all /manual/ labor is bad - it’s outsourced because the non-west are seen as grunt slaves.
Please don’t be disingenuous - I’m not talking about IT desk jobs and you know that.
Please don’t be disingenuous - I’m not talking about IT desk jobs and you know that.
Not all manual outsourced labor is bad.
Also, you can have IT desk jobs with horrific condition for workers.
Also, you can have IT desk jobs with horrific condition for workers.
None of that changes the fact that all manual labor is outsourced for profit/control, and not benevolence like OP implied.
Whataboutism.
Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962...
In law, yes. In practice, your destiny is between the lips of your “sponsor”. They can demand anything from you, like monthly payments, to keep sponsoring you. Basically, the foreigners have no power and the system extremely heavily favors Saudis over everyone else.
Are foreigners free to leave their "sponsor"?
To leave the country, you need an exit visa which requires the consent of your employer or sponsor.
So, no.
Personally I would never take the risk of taking employment in an autocratic country that requires an exit visa. They could pay me annual seven figures, but it makes no difference because they'd be able to extract whatever they want from me as a condition of departure. Imagine being held in a cell at the Riyadh airport until you wire them all the money in your foreign bank accounts. Nothing at all stops them from doing that.
If you don't believe this could happen to Western expats, read this story about KPMG employees in Saudi Arabia:
https://www.ft.com/content/45f2eda8-9219-4aa5-9434-277d74ea1...
'Several former employees suspected they were under some form of surveillance by KPMG Saudi Arabia while working in the kingdom. One says he was followed by a car whenever he left his compound while exit negotiations were ongoing. He says he had safety concerns “every day” during this period “and any time I stepped out of the security of the compound”.
'Another former employee only agreed to speak to the FT from a hotel landline while travelling in Europe in case their mobile phone was being monitored. “As you know we are being watched in Saudi,” the person said.
'A third former employee says that when he finally left Saudi Arabia for good, he deliberately took a circuitous route via Bahrain so as to avoid being tracked or blocked from leaving by the firm or its government contacts. He compared the behaviour of KPMG Saudi Arabia’s leadership and the fear it instils in employees to the John Grisham novel The Firm, a thriller in which a lawyer becomes entangled in a corporate plot. “I was in fear for my own safety,” he says. “I would not have taken my young family to the Middle East had I known. [That fear] just should not exist today.”
So, no.
Personally I would never take the risk of taking employment in an autocratic country that requires an exit visa. They could pay me annual seven figures, but it makes no difference because they'd be able to extract whatever they want from me as a condition of departure. Imagine being held in a cell at the Riyadh airport until you wire them all the money in your foreign bank accounts. Nothing at all stops them from doing that.
If you don't believe this could happen to Western expats, read this story about KPMG employees in Saudi Arabia:
https://www.ft.com/content/45f2eda8-9219-4aa5-9434-277d74ea1...
'Several former employees suspected they were under some form of surveillance by KPMG Saudi Arabia while working in the kingdom. One says he was followed by a car whenever he left his compound while exit negotiations were ongoing. He says he had safety concerns “every day” during this period “and any time I stepped out of the security of the compound”.
'Another former employee only agreed to speak to the FT from a hotel landline while travelling in Europe in case their mobile phone was being monitored. “As you know we are being watched in Saudi,” the person said.
'A third former employee says that when he finally left Saudi Arabia for good, he deliberately took a circuitous route via Bahrain so as to avoid being tracked or blocked from leaving by the firm or its government contacts. He compared the behaviour of KPMG Saudi Arabia’s leadership and the fear it instils in employees to the John Grisham novel The Firm, a thriller in which a lawyer becomes entangled in a corporate plot. “I was in fear for my own safety,” he says. “I would not have taken my young family to the Middle East had I known. [That fear] just should not exist today.”
Still though, most of those people come to the gulf countries voluntarily. Not that it justifies the abuse, however I presume they are still escaping an environment that's not much better. Or at least the meager allows them to escape it to some degree. What else would expect that new people keep coming to those states?
So it seems a bit better than slavery, more like wage slavery many immigrants to North America faced during the 19th century. Of course the migrants workers in Saudi Arabia and gulf states are certainly aware that they will never will be integrated into the local society unlike the European immigrants.
So it seems a bit better than slavery, more like wage slavery many immigrants to North America faced during the 19th century. Of course the migrants workers in Saudi Arabia and gulf states are certainly aware that they will never will be integrated into the local society unlike the European immigrants.
They made some changes to their kafala system last year that makes it a possibility without needing employer's consent, but under very specific circumstances that don't apply to majority of workers.
For example one of those rules is a full year of employment, but non-skilled workers rarely stay that long to begin with.
Perfect example of doing something that counts as "progress" while not actually changing anything.
For example one of those rules is a full year of employment, but non-skilled workers rarely stay that long to begin with.
Perfect example of doing something that counts as "progress" while not actually changing anything.
no they take away your passport.
Wow 1962 seems ridiculously late, for abolishing slavery. But it checks out.
>Most Westerners could witness the change with their own eyes in 2019 when Saudi Arabia began issuing tourist visas for the first time.
The internet is a big place and most people lurking around aren't "westerners". Most people aren't arabs nor Westeners. We are also interested in Saudia Arabia and also find their extreme gender segregation shocking. I also see this when they talk about, say, democracy in China. "We Westeners have democracy so that's why we oppose China".
Am I being too sensitive? Maybe, but it makes me feel excluded and makes me think that a bit percentage of Westeners think it's them vs the topic at hand (whether it be Saudi Arabia, China, etc).
The internet is a big place and most people lurking around aren't "westerners". Most people aren't arabs nor Westeners. We are also interested in Saudia Arabia and also find their extreme gender segregation shocking. I also see this when they talk about, say, democracy in China. "We Westeners have democracy so that's why we oppose China".
Am I being too sensitive? Maybe, but it makes me feel excluded and makes me think that a bit percentage of Westeners think it's them vs the topic at hand (whether it be Saudi Arabia, China, etc).
The author isn't dismissing your existence as a non-westerner. They're describing how a foreign culture looks to someone who's a westerner.
I'm not saying the author does that. My point is that too many articles do the West vs country at hand. You can, of course, write from the perspective of South Carolina vs Saudi Arabia and make all your comparisons that way, but I think authors could sometimes take a broader perspective, since the internet is, after all, international.
Maybe more importantly, I take issue with the identification of concepts we like (democracy, human rights, etc) with being Western.
Maybe more importantly, I take issue with the identification of concepts we like (democracy, human rights, etc) with being Western.
Excellent article for anyone wishing to understand this part of the world.
"though surprisingly not all board members." reads as naive in this otherwise excellent piece, and shows what board membership is: corruption, revolving doors, and a bilateral way to influence stakeholders.
"Rundell’s take is that the Saudi state is, always has been, and always will be anti-terrorist because the ultimate goals of the monarchy are stability, stability, and stability" yet another naivitè, or rather an inability to think outside the box.
"Rundell’s take is that the Saudi state is, always has been, and always will be anti-terrorist because the ultimate goals of the monarchy are stability, stability, and stability" yet another naivitè, or rather an inability to think outside the box.
I think westerners just love to say "Sharia law" without any understanding what that actually means, as a Saudi who followed closely our recent reforms, Saudi Arabia is moving in a big way from Sharia law to a more western/international common/civil law, where's the Sharia law only remains in marriages/inheritance and many parts of that are being reformed and codified under the new legal status law.
Great! I'll come in the spring and show my face as a woman. I'm sure it'll be acceptable to have a face by spring, right?
not everything is great as everywhere, but I think because the rate of change in Saudi Arabia is so fast, we're barely keep up with the changes while the outsiders still stuck in the era before 2015. simple searches on Youtube for "riyadh boulevard" & "mdlbeast" will easily show how ignorant this comment is.
A woman can indeed uncover her face and hair in public. It’s not prohibited.
Unpopular* opinion: actually theocracy sucks
* Not
* Not
Theocracy really isn't the problem. Check the history books for how well atheist ideological authoritarian regimes worked out in Stalin's U.S.S.R., North Korea, etc., etc. (Or Churchill's famous quote on how poor a form of government democracy is, for that matter.)
Unfortunately, humans are far too obsessed with talking about gods & religions to pay much attention to the things that really matter.
Unfortunately, humans are far too obsessed with talking about gods & religions to pay much attention to the things that really matter.
Well Churchill did have some authoritarian tendencies and believed it might be the optimal form of government in countries 'inferior' to Britain.
Wahabism is an ideology. Saudi Arabia sucks because the owner of the country (yes the coutnry is owned by a family) made it a state ideology.
Atheism is not an ideology, it's an absence of one. You can be atheist and anything, including a huge arsehole like Stalin, or including the exact contrary of that.
Irony of history is that young Stalin enrolled in the Orthodox Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis and apparently was very good at that, writing poetry and everything. But obviously being power hungry, he couldn't stay there.
Irony of history is that young Stalin enrolled in the Orthodox Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis and apparently was very good at that, writing poetry and everything. But obviously being power hungry, he couldn't stay there.
> Atheism is not an ideology...
[Quip: But if you compare the social behaviors of the loudest self-professed atheists and the comparable theists...]
I was thinking that Marxism-Leninism was the Official Ideology of the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. Atheism was merely one of M-Lism's (many) points of doctrine - probably buried a fair number of slides down in the PowerPoint deck.
[Quip: But if you compare the social behaviors of the loudest self-professed atheists and the comparable theists...]
I was thinking that Marxism-Leninism was the Official Ideology of the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. Atheism was merely one of M-Lism's (many) points of doctrine - probably buried a fair number of slides down in the PowerPoint deck.
It's not very buried, Mars'x quote that "religion is the opium of the people" is famous. But it's also misquoted.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The complete quote shows that Marx sees religion as playing an ambiguous role. For him religion is often used to preach resignation "it doesn't matter what you suffer in this world, the next one is good". But sometimes it's at the center of the rebellion of the "oppressed creature". Think the black civil right movement in the US or the Liberation Theology in South America. So it's not blanket hostility.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The complete quote shows that Marx sees religion as playing an ambiguous role. For him religion is often used to preach resignation "it doesn't matter what you suffer in this world, the next one is good". But sometimes it's at the center of the rebellion of the "oppressed creature". Think the black civil right movement in the US or the Liberation Theology in South America. So it's not blanket hostility.
MBS reminds me of Thami el Glaoui in Gavin Maxwell's Lords of the Atlas in that he destituted many of his relatives.
But el Glaoui was much more astute than MBS. MBS' grandfather was known for his magnanimity as well as being astute.
But el Glaoui was much more astute than MBS. MBS' grandfather was known for his magnanimity as well as being astute.
Here is what I will say about Saudi Arabia as I lived there for 18 years from my birth as a non-Saudi:
Most non-Saudis have a job at a company. Most of my friends' fathers had large businesses of various types. And almost all the people who have jobs have fair wages.
I felt so safe living there, going out to the beach with my family at 2 am is no worry at all.
Most of the people in Saudi Arabia are very friendly.
I know I'll get downvoted, but as a Muslim, this is the best place to live. Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not.
Most non-Saudis have a job at a company. Most of my friends' fathers had large businesses of various types. And almost all the people who have jobs have fair wages.
I felt so safe living there, going out to the beach with my family at 2 am is no worry at all.
Most of the people in Saudi Arabia are very friendly.
I know I'll get downvoted, but as a Muslim, this is the best place to live. Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not.
> "...as a Muslim, this is the best place to live. Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not."
Afghanistan also has all the Islamic stuff. Is it a good place for a Muslim to live?
If not, what's the difference? Is it just the oil money that allows a class of people to live in luxury while exerting Sharia law on the others?
Afghanistan also has all the Islamic stuff. Is it a good place for a Muslim to live?
If not, what's the difference? Is it just the oil money that allows a class of people to live in luxury while exerting Sharia law on the others?
That's a ridiculously narrow view of what the OP said, and you know it. The US is deeply Christian, as is Zambia. Is Zambia as good a place to live as the US?
What makes the USA a good place to live (for many) is certainly not the borderline theocratic laws that exist in some states.
What makes the Saudi Arabia a good place to live (for some) is not the extremely theocratic laws. Muslim quality of life isn't improved by beheadings and hijabs, as evidenced by Afghanistan.
What makes the Saudi Arabia a good place to live (for some) is not the extremely theocratic laws. Muslim quality of life isn't improved by beheadings and hijabs, as evidenced by Afghanistan.
Well no, clearly the theocratic laws have improved op’s quality of life. It’s just that the oil money has too. Why does it have to be one or the other?
They seem to be trying to understand if it is the laws alone or a combination that make life there so ideal. Because a country without so much wealth may prove the law alone isn't actually that great.
> The US is deeply Christian as is Zambia.
Statisticaly no, the US is only 63% Christian, while Zambia is over 95%. Further I would argue that the actual american figure is lower due to Christianity's persistent cultural foothold in the country. If you count the number of people going to church weekly that figure is going to be much lower.
Statisticaly no, the US is only 63% Christian, while Zambia is over 95%. Further I would argue that the actual american figure is lower due to Christianity's persistent cultural foothold in the country. If you count the number of people going to church weekly that figure is going to be much lower.
Which solidifies their argument.
Im not on anyone's side, why would you assume that? Im just pointing out something that is factually incorrect.
I didn’t mean to say you were. Not an ad hom, just an observation.
Going to church != Christianity.
Explain? This isn't super helpful tot the discussion if you disagree without supporting your claim. Feels kinda Reddity.
> US is deeply Christian
US is and always was a secular state.
US is and always was a secular state.
The country with In god we trust printed on their currency, who has "one nation, under god" as part of a pledge that children learn as part of routine schooling, who has the most senior politicians and judicial representatives polarized on religion sure as hell isn't secular in practice.
I think this is a relative concept. It's less secular than pretty much all other developed nations and also less secular than many other less developed countries
The USA is more consistently secular than any other Western country. Its constitution is essentially unchanged for 250 years and is designed to separate church and state.
In the same 250 years France had swung between extremes of religious monarchy and ultra-republicanism, back and forth. England’s monarch is also the head of its national church. Even progressive countries like Sweden and Finland have national churches with taxation rights enshrined in law and automatically collected by the state tax authorities.
These are just some examples of how many European countries retain deep state-level power to the church while the society has shifted towards secularism.
In the same 250 years France had swung between extremes of religious monarchy and ultra-republicanism, back and forth. England’s monarch is also the head of its national church. Even progressive countries like Sweden and Finland have national churches with taxation rights enshrined in law and automatically collected by the state tax authorities.
These are just some examples of how many European countries retain deep state-level power to the church while the society has shifted towards secularism.
And yet no American Presidential candidate could be elected without professing faith in Christianity and Biblical literalism, because the American political system is overfitted for rural, and thus Christian, cultural influence. To the point that one of the two political parties that matter frames itself as the defenders of traditional Christian values. And thus the American Supreme Court is currently repealing decades of progressive law, removing abortion rights (based entirely on Christian principles) and making mandatory school prayer legal again.
America invokes the name of God on their money and their schoolchildren evoke "one nation under God" in their pledge of allegience. State governments constantly fight to be able to teach creationism and intelligent design in schools. Christianity is the reason you can't buy alcohol on Sundays in many places in the US. Christianity is the reason American media censors sex more so than violence. One could go on nearly ad infinitum.
Sure, there's no (officially sanctioned) national religion (It's Evangelical Christianity though) and churches don't collect taxes (rather, they don't pay taxes) but despite the secular (really, Deist) foundations of the Constitution, one would have to be blind not to see the degree to which the US is still very deeply influenced and controlled by Christianity.
America invokes the name of God on their money and their schoolchildren evoke "one nation under God" in their pledge of allegience. State governments constantly fight to be able to teach creationism and intelligent design in schools. Christianity is the reason you can't buy alcohol on Sundays in many places in the US. Christianity is the reason American media censors sex more so than violence. One could go on nearly ad infinitum.
Sure, there's no (officially sanctioned) national religion (It's Evangelical Christianity though) and churches don't collect taxes (rather, they don't pay taxes) but despite the secular (really, Deist) foundations of the Constitution, one would have to be blind not to see the degree to which the US is still very deeply influenced and controlled by Christianity.
Both of you are pretty much saying the same thing. The US is officially secular and has no state-sanctioned religion…The situation is that a lot (majority?) of Americans are Christians, so their ideologies and beliefs obviously affect how they vote and, consequently, many laws in the country.
> but as a Muslim, this is the best place to live. Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not.
Very insightful, surprised to hear people like it there, I'm glad.
I think the problem with Sharia law and such is when people come from say Saudi Arabia or similar middle eastern countries and expect to bring their backwards ass laws with them to EU countries.
Very insightful, surprised to hear people like it there, I'm glad.
I think the problem with Sharia law and such is when people come from say Saudi Arabia or similar middle eastern countries and expect to bring their backwards ass laws with them to EU countries.
Religious flamewar is not welcome on Hacker News. Please don't post like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines in other places too - please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33768659. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, so if you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines in other places too - please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33768659. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, so if you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it.
I bet white straight males who owned property loved living in antebellum south...
To be fair, thats what their religion preaches.
Problem is same with western countries (EU/US). People emigrate from western countries to Asia and bring their backward ass laws with them to Asia and want Asian countries to conform to them.
TLDR: Bigotry is a two way street. Either appreciate the differences or STFU. You don’t have monopoly on deciding whose laws are backward.
TLDR: Bigotry is a two way street. Either appreciate the differences or STFU. You don’t have monopoly on deciding whose laws are backward.
That's a pretty stupid false equivalency. I can be annoyed by Singapore's laws against chewing gums, but that isn't in any way comparable to inhumane treatment of segments of the population for who they are (women, gay, etc.) or where they come from (Indian/Pakistani/etc. near slaves) in some places.
Treating people as shit, or executing them is objectively bad. Merely for their sexual identity/preferences is objectively even worse. You don't have to be from a specific place to be able to appreciate that.
Treating people as shit, or executing them is objectively bad. Merely for their sexual identity/preferences is objectively even worse. You don't have to be from a specific place to be able to appreciate that.
> objectively bad
I agree that treating people like shit or executing them is bad and most people would agree with you, but it is not objectively bad, since "bad" in the way you use it here is a subjective value judgement, by definition the polar opposite of objective. Just saying.
I agree that treating people like shit or executing them is bad and most people would agree with you, but it is not objectively bad, since "bad" in the way you use it here is a subjective value judgement, by definition the polar opposite of objective. Just saying.
Technically maybe. Though I think it's a much stronger case for objectivity when one is murdering, imprisoning, and enslaving fellow humans to please imaginary friends or destructive traditions.
[deleted]
I think you will find that most dictionaries defines objectivity and subjectivity as binary opposites, and that there can be no such thing as a subjective opinion that can morph into objectivity, even if the phenomena are ghastly.
But I'm sure you find people who agree with you, all those who want to have their opinions elevated to objective truth, much like churches of old that claimed to have God on their side. To me such a stance is usually indications of prejudice and naïve realism [0], and perhaps worse; relieves one of the hard work of trying to see the other side, preventing one from building a solid case for ones own (subjective, but morally better) stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
But I'm sure you find people who agree with you, all those who want to have their opinions elevated to objective truth, much like churches of old that claimed to have God on their side. To me such a stance is usually indications of prejudice and naïve realism [0], and perhaps worse; relieves one of the hard work of trying to see the other side, preventing one from building a solid case for ones own (subjective, but morally better) stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
My point is not that objectivity is a spectrum. Rather that some cultural norms or traditions can be evaluated from a strictly utilitarian view, arguably approaching objectivity. For example killing or exploiting humans because they have a different skin color or refuse to wear certain clothing.
Should we dismiss all cultural critique because on some level everything is subjective, even experience and knowledge itself?
For all it's flaws and misuse, the scientific method provides the closest thing to an objective approach. Should it be discarded as well?
Now perhaps there are parts of Sharia law worth preserving. Can you steel-man that for me? Because my experience with theocracy based law has not been positive. What I've read of Sharia doesn't strike me as a good legal system.
Should we dismiss all cultural critique because on some level everything is subjective, even experience and knowledge itself?
For all it's flaws and misuse, the scientific method provides the closest thing to an objective approach. Should it be discarded as well?
Now perhaps there are parts of Sharia law worth preserving. Can you steel-man that for me? Because my experience with theocracy based law has not been positive. What I've read of Sharia doesn't strike me as a good legal system.
Looks like we are discussing two different things. From what I can glean you need to find some "close to objective" (albeit still subjective) truth, for example based on utilitarianism in order to engage in cultural critique.
On my part I too base my ethics on something universal, but it is human universality (that we at most possibly can share with a few other animal species); it bends and shifts with history, geography and social conditions, but with a common denominator and ideal that is empathy. Something entirely subjective, something hard to accomplish and ultimately not completely attainable. And it allows me to keep things like "objective truth" out of ethical considerations.
In the case of Saudi Arabia it allows me to criticize the regime along the same lines as you, but it also requires that I try to understand how things became this bad, i.e. to have some empathy with the people that one otherwise easily could string up in the nearest lamppost if we had the chance.
The scientific method is not relevant for me here at all because it doesn't give us ethical guidance at all. It is relevant only as a tool to sift false assumptions from facts, where the facts are ultimately tentative, not absolute. It can help us for example to weed out illusions like the world being flat, but it doesn't answer everything about what the world is. The world still holds a lot of mystery, and will likely always do. Which is actually a sound position to take, scientifically.
On my part I too base my ethics on something universal, but it is human universality (that we at most possibly can share with a few other animal species); it bends and shifts with history, geography and social conditions, but with a common denominator and ideal that is empathy. Something entirely subjective, something hard to accomplish and ultimately not completely attainable. And it allows me to keep things like "objective truth" out of ethical considerations.
In the case of Saudi Arabia it allows me to criticize the regime along the same lines as you, but it also requires that I try to understand how things became this bad, i.e. to have some empathy with the people that one otherwise easily could string up in the nearest lamppost if we had the chance.
The scientific method is not relevant for me here at all because it doesn't give us ethical guidance at all. It is relevant only as a tool to sift false assumptions from facts, where the facts are ultimately tentative, not absolute. It can help us for example to weed out illusions like the world being flat, but it doesn't answer everything about what the world is. The world still holds a lot of mystery, and will likely always do. Which is actually a sound position to take, scientifically.
There is nothing objective about right and wrong.
>Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not.
Doubt.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/iran-crackdo...
Doubt.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/iran-crackdo...
[deleted]
Why do so many young Saudis change clothes literally at the airport bathroom (witnessed this multiple times) party and act western every chance they get away from such supervision?
What? I used to wear western clothes. Occasionally I would wear Saudi dresses, e.g. at a funeral.
What's acting western for you? Drinking alcohol and wearing jeans?
Sure, for example.
Wearing jeans arguably hastened the end of the Soviet union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_Revolution
Alcohol is haram. I hear the attitude towards Jeans in SA is now more lenient but less than a decade ago would get you in hot water with the religious police.
You get the gist of it. The moment they leave that country many of its young people act very differently in ways that would not be allowed/frowned upon back home.
What is up with that? A decadent Rumspringa before they willingly return to the warm embrace of Sharia or an escape from a compulsory punitive society in which they are unwilling participants?
Wearing jeans arguably hastened the end of the Soviet union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_Revolution
Alcohol is haram. I hear the attitude towards Jeans in SA is now more lenient but less than a decade ago would get you in hot water with the religious police.
You get the gist of it. The moment they leave that country many of its young people act very differently in ways that would not be allowed/frowned upon back home.
What is up with that? A decadent Rumspringa before they willingly return to the warm embrace of Sharia or an escape from a compulsory punitive society in which they are unwilling participants?
> Most of my friends' fathers had large businesses of various types. And almost all the people who have jobs have fair wages
I don't think you grew up in reality that the majority of population face. Your experience is vastly different from the common folk.
> Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab
It's a shame you don't respect women's choices about that (ask Iranians living under Islamic regime) and generally support oppressive system but I guess this is in everyone's conscience.
I don't think you grew up in reality that the majority of population face. Your experience is vastly different from the common folk.
> Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab
It's a shame you don't respect women's choices about that (ask Iranians living under Islamic regime) and generally support oppressive system but I guess this is in everyone's conscience.
> Your experience is vastly different from the common folk.
Have you grown up in the reality that the majority of the population faces?
If not, it's a bit presumptuous to be telling someone who has grown up there that you know better than them what their country is like.
Have you grown up in the reality that the majority of the population faces?
If not, it's a bit presumptuous to be telling someone who has grown up there that you know better than them what their country is like.
> If not, it's a bit presumptuous to be telling someone who has grown up there that you know better than them what their country is like.
If someone has decent evidence of situation then it is not.
I have never lived in USSR but I have enough knowledge to dismiss some misleading claims, even if they are coming from people who lived there.
If someone has decent evidence of situation then it is not.
I have never lived in USSR but I have enough knowledge to dismiss some misleading claims, even if they are coming from people who lived there.
[deleted]
> I felt so safe living there, going out to the beach with my family at 2 am is no worry at all.
That sounds normal for me. Why you would worry about going out during night?
That sounds normal for me. Why you would worry about going out during night?
In some places you have to worry, I guess. Sounds like OP is from the ones where you do, and is (probably rightly) amazed by the ones where you don't.
I appreciate your comment on life in SA, but your statement on what Muslims want goes too far: you don't speak for them. I know many who hold a very, very different view.
Every individual has their own opinion.
Every individual has their own opinion.
Sounds nice, are you male?
It isn't safe because of Sharia law.
It's safe because they need foreigners to work there, since they themselves don't want to work and live off government oil money.
It's safe because they need foreigners to work there, since they themselves don't want to work and live off government oil money.
What I like about Saudi Arabia is that it knows how to play America and the West. Saudi history is inspiring to every country blessed/cursed with oil and foreign corporations.
Or you could look at actually inspiring examples like Norway...
I feel safe too and I don't live in Muslim country.
Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not
No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
Please do not take HN threads into religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face
We’re raised to cover our bodies in clothes. You accept that as normal but draw the line at covering your face?
Edit: Updated the quote I was replying to.
We’re raised to cover our bodies in clothes. You accept that as normal but draw the line at covering your face?
Edit: Updated the quote I was replying to.
Saudi Arabia has the climate that one could survive without clothes. In many other places you would be very cold.
In the coldest places it is even necessary for someone to cover their face to avoid frostbite.
Let's not pretend enforced face covering anything except the subjection of the female sex. "Enforced" includes the peer pressure to conform even if it's not breaking a law.
In the coldest places it is even necessary for someone to cover their face to avoid frostbite.
Let's not pretend enforced face covering anything except the subjection of the female sex. "Enforced" includes the peer pressure to conform even if it's not breaking a law.
> that one could survive without clothes
I'd love to see you to try and survive naked in the desert for an extended period of time. Temperature isn't everything. Also at night it might get pretty cold.
I'd love to see you to try and survive naked in the desert for an extended period of time. Temperature isn't everything. Also at night it might get pretty cold.
We are enforced to pay income tax. We accept it. And that is not a problem.
Why a religion that enforced its law to its follower become a problem?
If you can't tell the differ between paying income tax and executing women who try to resist being raped (or imprisoning those who don't), there isn't much point in having a good faith discussion with you, is it?
Well a) lots of people do have a problem with income tax but at least b) it is spent on public goods, not just burned. What is the great public good of forcing women to cover their faces? This argument is so broad as to be meaningless. Oh I'm sorry, we have income tax so what's wrong with <travesty>?
> Why a religion that enforced its law to its follower become a problem?
Does Sharia law not apply to unbelievers? Do followers choose the faith only in adulthood? Or are people involuntarily indoctrinated from birth? Are apostates and unbelievers granted the same rights and privileges as everyone else?
Does Sharia law not apply to unbelievers? Do followers choose the faith only in adulthood? Or are people involuntarily indoctrinated from birth? Are apostates and unbelievers granted the same rights and privileges as everyone else?
Umm taxes are a by-product of laws which in most cases come about by representative democracy. Not some 1500 year old book written by some randos, which happens to be set in stone.
I draw the line at the gender inequality where only women have to do this or they get beaten by men.
Probably because taking down hijab is symbol and first thing to do when there are protests against muslim religious dictatorships.
It is also a thing ex Muslim women complains about a lot. It is a thing that systematically and repeatedly ceases to be worn the moment you remove violence and threats from the equation.
Muslim states including Saudi Arabia exert considerable violence against women disagreeing with these laws. They would not needed the violence if it was all voluntary.
It is also a thing ex Muslim women complains about a lot. It is a thing that systematically and repeatedly ceases to be worn the moment you remove violence and threats from the equation.
Muslim states including Saudi Arabia exert considerable violence against women disagreeing with these laws. They would not needed the violence if it was all voluntary.
I felt the same about people wearing those non-N95 masks over the last couple of years, but a huge chunk of the population made it part of their personalities.
I'm agnostic so I don't really have a horse in the race, but it turns out a lot of people (maybe due to anxiety) actually loved an excuse to keep their faces covered in public.
I'm agnostic so I don't really have a horse in the race, but it turns out a lot of people (maybe due to anxiety) actually loved an excuse to keep their faces covered in public.
Such an ethnocentric view. If you believe the one Creator commanded you to wear modest clothing, then indeed it is most rational to follow. And covering your face also gives a kind of privacy in society that many western women would not have the luxury of.
Anyways, many commenters here could benefit from a broader cultural perspective rather than a narrow minded, tunnel visioned view of the world.
Anyways, many commenters here could benefit from a broader cultural perspective rather than a narrow minded, tunnel visioned view of the world.
Where does the belief of some creator come from?
I don't have an opinion, but I'll say that the argument form of "no normal person wants to do X; if you want to do X, there's something wrong with you" should be beneath us.
I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.
I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.
I'd just like to thank you, as a (cannibal) resident of Nukuhiva, for respecting my culture. Everything is just a matter of perspective after all, it is good to keep an open mind.
I guess maybe I should adjust the standard of discourse I expect on HN.
The other guy is right. Moral relativism is not the way.
There are limits to acceptance as you imply in your comment.
Freedom is measurable and matters.
How long is the list of things that you can do for which the state can repress you in Saudi Arabia? How long is the list in Belgium?
Is there a fair trial process?
Are there equal rights to people?
Yes, some people want to cover their faces and that is fine. Some others don't. That should be fine as well.
There are limits to acceptance as you imply in your comment.
Freedom is measurable and matters.
How long is the list of things that you can do for which the state can repress you in Saudi Arabia? How long is the list in Belgium?
Is there a fair trial process?
Are there equal rights to people?
Yes, some people want to cover their faces and that is fine. Some others don't. That should be fine as well.
Moral realism is not the way. There is absolutely no reason to believe in universal right and wrong. Might make you feel good but that doesn’t make it true
You sure seem to be absolute in that belief ;)
I try to stay epistemically humble. As far as meta-ethics go I tend to lean toward proving a positive as opposed to a negative which is why I am a relativist in the face of no proof.
No, both of you are strawmanning my argument. I said "No True Scotsman isn't a valid argument" and you got "moral relativism is OK" from that.
There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".
There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".
So, presumably there is a line after all. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with other than palatable phrasing.
I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?
I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?
It's not about whether there's a line or not, it's about the phrasing setting the goalposts in such a way that it's a circular argument that can't be argued against. Nobody can say anything because your argument is "if you want to do this, you're bad, because you want to do this".
A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
But this is easy to argue against:
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face.
You could say that some women do it willingly out of piety by buying into the cultural mores they grew up in. That from their perspective women who don't do so are crazy and debase themselves. Or throw the no true scotsman fallacy at them as you did. Technically, you've won the argument...
..unfortunately I can't be sure you're not accidentally straw-manning (why can't it be straw personing! As a scarecrow I am offended :P) the person you were replying to.
I say accidentally because I know you to always argue in good faith. And to be fair it is ambiguously and poorly phrased as you say. But lets extend this same good faith to the rest of their sentence:
> If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed.
> Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
I think that is the very heart of the matter.
Can't speak for the op and whether they meant to make that point but my reading of their full argument is:
"this is not only bad because bad people do it, but mostly because the bad people gas-light everybody about their culture and piety and the majority of women have to pretend to go along with it willingly".
No true scotsman obviously doesn't apply to, say, a situation like North Korea.
Anyway, I don't like the woke-y phrasings either but lets not be so open minded as to have our brains fall out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
When it comes to SA they happen to be correct.
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face.
You could say that some women do it willingly out of piety by buying into the cultural mores they grew up in. That from their perspective women who don't do so are crazy and debase themselves. Or throw the no true scotsman fallacy at them as you did. Technically, you've won the argument...
..unfortunately I can't be sure you're not accidentally straw-manning (why can't it be straw personing! As a scarecrow I am offended :P) the person you were replying to.
I say accidentally because I know you to always argue in good faith. And to be fair it is ambiguously and poorly phrased as you say. But lets extend this same good faith to the rest of their sentence:
> If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed.
> Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
I think that is the very heart of the matter.
Can't speak for the op and whether they meant to make that point but my reading of their full argument is:
"this is not only bad because bad people do it, but mostly because the bad people gas-light everybody about their culture and piety and the majority of women have to pretend to go along with it willingly".
No true scotsman obviously doesn't apply to, say, a situation like North Korea.
Anyway, I don't like the woke-y phrasings either but lets not be so open minded as to have our brains fall out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
When it comes to SA they happen to be correct.
But if you follow this reasoning farther, what about the women who, for whatever reason (brainwashing etc) do actually want their faces covered? Is it for us to say "no, you actually don't, you've been brainwashed and I know better than you what you want".
I'd rather say "forcing people to do things they want to do is bad", and let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
I'd rather say "forcing people to do things they want to do is bad", and let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
What about them? I guess the answer depends on whether those are closer to 1%, 50% or 99% of the women.
If you ask the French: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
> let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
Sure. Of course, not possible in an absolutist monarchy such as SA and pretending otherwise in an effort to be none-judgmental is (unwittingly, accidentally, what have you) carrying water for them. Which, I don't think is your intention.
It is worth contemplating that playing on this very ambiguity and passive tendencies - in other circumstance perhaps to be commended as sage like reservation - is what keeps places like Russia, SA, NK, Iran coasting.
If you ask the French: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
> let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
Sure. Of course, not possible in an absolutist monarchy such as SA and pretending otherwise in an effort to be none-judgmental is (unwittingly, accidentally, what have you) carrying water for them. Which, I don't think is your intention.
It is worth contemplating that playing on this very ambiguity and passive tendencies - in other circumstance perhaps to be commended as sage like reservation - is what keeps places like Russia, SA, NK, Iran coasting.
This refers to your comments more than others. There's a lot of mental gymnastics you're engaging in.
Why don’t you have an opinion? They’re treating women so bad, their policies are stuck in 1200s, and we are in 2022. Does that not bother you at least a bit?
Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?
Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?
I wouldn't make that argument that way, I'd say I don't like what they're doing. It's not useful to say "no normal being would do that", given that millions of "normal" human beings do it.
It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.
It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.
Ok, fair enough.
The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would
But that is kinda what I said though, isn’t it?
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make them sound like monsters (except the rulers, they sure are).
I’ll try to word things better, next time.
The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would
But that is kinda what I said though, isn’t it?
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make them sound like monsters (except the rulers, they sure are).
I’ll try to word things better, next time.
It's not so much about the wording, it's about this line of argumentation separating us from them. I especially dislike this line of thinking when thinking about Nazi Germany and the atrocities there, because people tend to think "no sane person would do that, and we're sane, so we won't do it".
Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".
Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".
[deleted]
This is unsurprising to hear. But the problem I have with middle-eastern countries is not how they treat straight male muslims.
This happens in many other cultures as well. E.g. Christians are super nice people. But if you reveal you're gay, then suddenly about half of them start treating you like crap.
This happens in many other cultures as well. E.g. Christians are super nice people. But if you reveal you're gay, then suddenly about half of them start treating you like crap.
You are free to live somewhere else then. I don't like the rules of Saudi Arabia so I don't live there.
You have such choice. Some 17 million Saudi women don't.
Not everything is the West's problem.
It’s not about east vs west. It’s about basic human rights.
Conception of which is purely western category of thought.
You would suddenly have a very clear and unyielding perspective on human rights if someone tried to take yours away.
Even if that was true (it isn't) it doesn't establish them as a real thing or as something that's not a western category of thought.
> Even if that was true (it isn't)
So if your nation suddenly declared that men were (for example) required to cover their faces at all times and stay indoors unless escorted by a woman, you'd respect that cultural point of view and not protest?
If you're going to say that that's not a matter of violating your "human rights," but just the rights that you think people should have, please explain how those are different things.
So if your nation suddenly declared that men were (for example) required to cover their faces at all times and stay indoors unless escorted by a woman, you'd respect that cultural point of view and not protest?
If you're going to say that that's not a matter of violating your "human rights," but just the rights that you think people should have, please explain how those are different things.
To argue for something politically I am not mentally tied to that concept (obvious problem is how human rights were introduced in the first place if there was no conception of human rights), for example looking at the morality (which is not synonymous with notion of rights), the practicality or utility of a given problem or just plain personal preference.
I believe that in the end any "right" is just a privilege, there's nothing that makes them 'happen' by themselves. Surely enough, you can strip every "human right" away even if they're declared to be inalienable and before modern times, there were plenty of regimes that violated them. If they exists as something independent of western conceptions of thought, how come they were not a thing until now? The history is much longer than the 200 or so years that they have existed in our minds.
Do you perhaps have some method by which you discover new human rights?
I believe that in the end any "right" is just a privilege, there's nothing that makes them 'happen' by themselves. Surely enough, you can strip every "human right" away even if they're declared to be inalienable and before modern times, there were plenty of regimes that violated them. If they exists as something independent of western conceptions of thought, how come they were not a thing until now? The history is much longer than the 200 or so years that they have existed in our minds.
Do you perhaps have some method by which you discover new human rights?
You didn't answer my question.
> Do you perhaps have some method by which you discover new human rights?
How does anyone "discover" moral principles? Every society has had some idea of how humans should be treated.
> Do you perhaps have some method by which you discover new human rights?
How does anyone "discover" moral principles? Every society has had some idea of how humans should be treated.
You have about 150 years of history to catch up on. Sure, human rights was founded in western culture, but has been adopted across the world since.
In a sense it's true, the western way of thinking is being exported and is dominating 'foreign' patterns of thought, subjugating cultures to one dominant, economizing mode of being.
Sometimes I have to travel through those countries. E.g. my employer demands that I take the cheapest flight to attend a conference.
> my employer demands that I take the cheapest flight to attend a conference.
WTF!
Several of my employees bowl from the pavilion end. Is utterly unthinkable to insist on them transiting through a territory so hostile to their very existence in order to save a few quid on expenses.
Your post is mind boggling to me. Is this how you expect to be treated as an employee?
WTF!
Several of my employees bowl from the pavilion end. Is utterly unthinkable to insist on them transiting through a territory so hostile to their very existence in order to save a few quid on expenses.
Your post is mind boggling to me. Is this how you expect to be treated as an employee?
Well, it's more of a question about what you're willing to make a fuss about.
What does that mean?
bowl from the pavilion end is euphemistic slang (chiefly British) for a gay man. It comes from cricket - the “pavilion end” is one end of the cricket ground.
Would you like me to draw a map for you?
Are you, though? Until very recently, women couldn't even leave Saudi Arabia without their (male) guardian's approval.
I'm sure Nazi Germany was great for some Germans too, if they willfully ignored all the bad stuff going on.
Unfortunately the Nazi regime was popular with the majority of Germans.
Do you base this on the last "free election" that literally just had a large circle for "I want Adolf Hitler to be the Führer and sole leader of Germany" and a smaller one for "no"? Because in the last election before that[1], the Nazis didn't even get 50% of the vote and that was after heavy suppression of dissent and left-wing parties.
I don't think there were any objective opinion polls you could base this on after the point at which disagreeing with the Nazi regime resulted in a visit from the police or worse.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...
This was the last federal election in Germany and followed the Nazis openly attacking left-wing parties, fully controlling state propaganda, practically prohibiting all opposition parties from campaigning and literally shutting down opposition newspapers, plus staging the Reichstag fire -- and they still only got 43.9% of the vote at a 88.7% turnout.
The previous federal election only got them 37.3% of the vote at a 80.6% turnout but this was enough to get Papen and Hindenburg to form a coalition government with Hitler at the helm.
I don't think there were any objective opinion polls you could base this on after the point at which disagreeing with the Nazi regime resulted in a visit from the police or worse.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...
This was the last federal election in Germany and followed the Nazis openly attacking left-wing parties, fully controlling state propaganda, practically prohibiting all opposition parties from campaigning and literally shutting down opposition newspapers, plus staging the Reichstag fire -- and they still only got 43.9% of the vote at a 88.7% turnout.
The previous federal election only got them 37.3% of the vote at a 80.6% turnout but this was enough to get Papen and Hindenburg to form a coalition government with Hitler at the helm.
That's just my take from reading history. I think it's the general consensus in scholars who study Nazi Germany that the Nazis had the support of the population after having gained power. Evans [1] e.g. goes into depth on this, though I, unfortunately, don't have the time now to look up any references.
[1] Richard J. Evans - The Third Reich in Power
[1] Richard J. Evans - The Third Reich in Power
I think you're conflating different factors to create a false, but common, narrative that obfuscates the banality of the Nazis' rise to power.
The Weimar Republic was in essence Germany's first real experiment with democracy so many people in positions of power were still heavily invested in the old ways (whether directly as in the monarchists who wanted to reinstate the emperor, or less directly as in those who wanted to scale back democracy to establish a form of new aristocracy). At the same time you had communist movements trying to take democracy to its logical conclusion (but they were also split into competing factions because things like the Bolshevik revolution were happening around the same time) and a general populace exhausted from a long and failed war of attrition that had seen more death and suffering than any previous war on German territory.
The Nazis didn't get into power by winning the hearts and minds of the people, they got into power by allying with wealthy conservatives who were afraid of leftists and saw the Nazis as a natural antidote against communism. This allowed them free rein to suppress the opposition while also playing out the conservatives as too timid and ineffective because they had been unable to form a stable coalition government.
The death bed wish of Hindenburg was for Hitler to step down and restore the Hohenzollern monarchy. This was after Hitler had already become chancellor and was on his way to becoming the unchecked autocrat via the Enabling Act, which the conservatives co-signed. Hitler of course ignored this but it should tell you all you need to know about the delusions of the conservatives who enabled him.
Once the Nazis were in power, of course their support in the population grew because they claimed responsibility for everything good while creating a smokescreen of grandiose nonsense achievements, breaking ties and treaties with other countries as a show of force (which after the defeat of WW1 rekindled the national pride) and eventually "fighting back against Polish aggression" to start WW2. But at that point all political opposition had been silenced or murdered so of course people were more likely to support them. Questioning the government was not just frowned upon but became actively dangerous. And of course as the war progressed for many it became a sunk cost fallacy.
Reducing this to "actually the Nazis were popular" creates a false sense that there must have been something unique about 1930s Germans to have elected such an obvious evil as the NSDAP when in reality 1) the 1933 NSDAP still allowed for plausible deniability much like certain far-right parties do today, 2) the right (i.e. conservatives) saw the NSDAP as a stabilizing force because they saw the left as a threat to order and 3) even at their peak they couldn't get the majority of votes in a fair election.
People support institutions that do bad things if those bad things are sufficiently normalized. And a good dose of nationalist fervor or revanchism helps the medizine go down.
The Weimar Republic was in essence Germany's first real experiment with democracy so many people in positions of power were still heavily invested in the old ways (whether directly as in the monarchists who wanted to reinstate the emperor, or less directly as in those who wanted to scale back democracy to establish a form of new aristocracy). At the same time you had communist movements trying to take democracy to its logical conclusion (but they were also split into competing factions because things like the Bolshevik revolution were happening around the same time) and a general populace exhausted from a long and failed war of attrition that had seen more death and suffering than any previous war on German territory.
The Nazis didn't get into power by winning the hearts and minds of the people, they got into power by allying with wealthy conservatives who were afraid of leftists and saw the Nazis as a natural antidote against communism. This allowed them free rein to suppress the opposition while also playing out the conservatives as too timid and ineffective because they had been unable to form a stable coalition government.
The death bed wish of Hindenburg was for Hitler to step down and restore the Hohenzollern monarchy. This was after Hitler had already become chancellor and was on his way to becoming the unchecked autocrat via the Enabling Act, which the conservatives co-signed. Hitler of course ignored this but it should tell you all you need to know about the delusions of the conservatives who enabled him.
Once the Nazis were in power, of course their support in the population grew because they claimed responsibility for everything good while creating a smokescreen of grandiose nonsense achievements, breaking ties and treaties with other countries as a show of force (which after the defeat of WW1 rekindled the national pride) and eventually "fighting back against Polish aggression" to start WW2. But at that point all political opposition had been silenced or murdered so of course people were more likely to support them. Questioning the government was not just frowned upon but became actively dangerous. And of course as the war progressed for many it became a sunk cost fallacy.
Reducing this to "actually the Nazis were popular" creates a false sense that there must have been something unique about 1930s Germans to have elected such an obvious evil as the NSDAP when in reality 1) the 1933 NSDAP still allowed for plausible deniability much like certain far-right parties do today, 2) the right (i.e. conservatives) saw the NSDAP as a stabilizing force because they saw the left as a threat to order and 3) even at their peak they couldn't get the majority of votes in a fair election.
People support institutions that do bad things if those bad things are sufficiently normalized. And a good dose of nationalist fervor or revanchism helps the medizine go down.
I never said that the Nazis came to power by winning the majority in an election and am well aware that they only came to power as a result of a huge mis-calculation of the conservatives.
What I claimed was that the Nazis were popular after having gained power. In fact Nazi ideology even remained popular after the Nazis were defeated. Tony Judt has survey results [1] in his book 'Postwar', e.g. a majority of Germans were of the opinion that Nazism was a good idea but poorly applied. 37% in the US occupied zone said that the extermination of the Jews was warranted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Surveys
What I claimed was that the Nazis were popular after having gained power. In fact Nazi ideology even remained popular after the Nazis were defeated. Tony Judt has survey results [1] in his book 'Postwar', e.g. a majority of Germans were of the opinion that Nazism was a good idea but poorly applied. 37% in the US occupied zone said that the extermination of the Jews was warranted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Surveys
Yes. Propaganda works. I'm not sure what your point is.
The problem with Denazification is that it wasn't very thorough. The Allied (and US's in particular) post-war plans was to ramp up defensive capabilities for the Cold War that had slowly manifested itself during WW2. While several high ranking Nazis were executed or at least tried, some fled the country, some died and some were recruited by the victors (e.g. Operation Paperclip) it was considered more important to have "qualified people in charge" to rebuild the country than to avoid putting Nazis back in their positions of power, so back in positions of power many of them went.
Modern Germany made a big show of combatting Nazism but due to the Cold War for a long time that had to go hand in hand with combatting "communism" (e.g. banning the KPD on a legal basis that is today considered to have been largely bogus), making the messaging incoherent by failing to address the disease (protofascism) rather than the symptoms (e.g. symbology).
But my point was that calling the Nazis popular at the time is in the most literal sense survivorship bias. While most people think of the people the Nazis killed outside of Germany when they think of their victims, they also killed and displaced a lot of German residents. So even without the propaganda and the appearance of prosperity, it's iffy to call them "popular" when the people they were very much unpopular with largely died, fled or were imprisoned (and in some cases continued to remain imprisoned after the war, like those accused of homosexuality or being too left wing).
The reason I object is that Nazis (and their ideological analogues in other countries and times) aren't popular. They have to lie, kill and oppress in order to acquire and maintain power and they only become popular with lies and scams: selling a narrative of a chosen people and raiding society for a fiction of wealth. It's an utterly self-destructive ideology and requires constant purges and the designation of new enemies within.
We have culturally gained an understanding in the West that the Nazis were the bad guys of WW2. Thanks to banning their symbols in countries including Germany, and thanks to a very productive movie and television industry, especially in the US. But you will still find large minorities in many countries that would find the fiction the Nazis created about themselves appealing as long as you change the labels and avoid obvious historical details. And if you give them the right justifications, they too will likely think exterminating an entire minority could be "regrettable but necessary". That's a problem.
Sorry if I'm rambling too much. This struck a nerve because the claim "the Nazis were also popular" is too often used to suggest that the Nazis gained power through being popular (which is often used to denounce any political position that's popular as inherently worthless or dangerous) or that there was something unique about Weimar Germans making them so naive or wicked to support the obviously evil Nazis (which is often used to deflect any notion that it could literally happen here/again because we're smarter and morally superior). Modern Germany's treatment of the Third Reich tends to mix the two by insisting that "the Nazis" were all just inherently evil somehow (which means any modern politican who is politically aligned with them can't be a Nazi) but "the Germans" supported them because they were promised good things (so promising good things is deceptive and we simply can't have nice things).
The problem with Denazification is that it wasn't very thorough. The Allied (and US's in particular) post-war plans was to ramp up defensive capabilities for the Cold War that had slowly manifested itself during WW2. While several high ranking Nazis were executed or at least tried, some fled the country, some died and some were recruited by the victors (e.g. Operation Paperclip) it was considered more important to have "qualified people in charge" to rebuild the country than to avoid putting Nazis back in their positions of power, so back in positions of power many of them went.
Modern Germany made a big show of combatting Nazism but due to the Cold War for a long time that had to go hand in hand with combatting "communism" (e.g. banning the KPD on a legal basis that is today considered to have been largely bogus), making the messaging incoherent by failing to address the disease (protofascism) rather than the symptoms (e.g. symbology).
But my point was that calling the Nazis popular at the time is in the most literal sense survivorship bias. While most people think of the people the Nazis killed outside of Germany when they think of their victims, they also killed and displaced a lot of German residents. So even without the propaganda and the appearance of prosperity, it's iffy to call them "popular" when the people they were very much unpopular with largely died, fled or were imprisoned (and in some cases continued to remain imprisoned after the war, like those accused of homosexuality or being too left wing).
The reason I object is that Nazis (and their ideological analogues in other countries and times) aren't popular. They have to lie, kill and oppress in order to acquire and maintain power and they only become popular with lies and scams: selling a narrative of a chosen people and raiding society for a fiction of wealth. It's an utterly self-destructive ideology and requires constant purges and the designation of new enemies within.
We have culturally gained an understanding in the West that the Nazis were the bad guys of WW2. Thanks to banning their symbols in countries including Germany, and thanks to a very productive movie and television industry, especially in the US. But you will still find large minorities in many countries that would find the fiction the Nazis created about themselves appealing as long as you change the labels and avoid obvious historical details. And if you give them the right justifications, they too will likely think exterminating an entire minority could be "regrettable but necessary". That's a problem.
Sorry if I'm rambling too much. This struck a nerve because the claim "the Nazis were also popular" is too often used to suggest that the Nazis gained power through being popular (which is often used to denounce any political position that's popular as inherently worthless or dangerous) or that there was something unique about Weimar Germans making them so naive or wicked to support the obviously evil Nazis (which is often used to deflect any notion that it could literally happen here/again because we're smarter and morally superior). Modern Germany's treatment of the Third Reich tends to mix the two by insisting that "the Nazis" were all just inherently evil somehow (which means any modern politican who is politically aligned with them can't be a Nazi) but "the Germans" supported them because they were promised good things (so promising good things is deceptive and we simply can't have nice things).
Yes, propaganda does work and I never said that there was another reason for the Nazis' popularity, though I would claim that most (or at least many) Germans at the time were attracted towards authoritarianism. It would probably have been much more difficult for the Nazis to become that successful in the US, though I could be wrong here given how an economically neglected part of the US population was drawn towards Trump.
My original post was aimed as a response to a post implicitly claiming that it was only a certain minority in Germany that sympathized with the regime. Whether that sympathy was due to successful propaganda or not isn't really the point when refuting that original statement, as is the way the Nazis came to power. From what I've read (and you also seem to agree with this) the majority of Germans supported the nazi regime while in power.
It would be interesting if you had any numbers for the number of displaced or killed German citizens. There were about 500 thousand Jews in Germany before 1933, most of which probably either left Germany or were murdered. People from the political opposition who had deeply seated beliefs that wouldn't have been subject to propaganda and who just continued to live in Germany in fear, were probably the largest percentage of those that didn't support the Nazis, but I don't have good numbers here. I would assume those would constitute at least 25% and at most something like 40% of the population, but those numbers are speculative. It does seem reasonable to assume that a majority of those who voted for the other conservative parties in the last election would have come to support the Nazis and those plus the people who actually voted for the Nazis already constituted a majority of the German population.
My original post was aimed as a response to a post implicitly claiming that it was only a certain minority in Germany that sympathized with the regime. Whether that sympathy was due to successful propaganda or not isn't really the point when refuting that original statement, as is the way the Nazis came to power. From what I've read (and you also seem to agree with this) the majority of Germans supported the nazi regime while in power.
It would be interesting if you had any numbers for the number of displaced or killed German citizens. There were about 500 thousand Jews in Germany before 1933, most of which probably either left Germany or were murdered. People from the political opposition who had deeply seated beliefs that wouldn't have been subject to propaganda and who just continued to live in Germany in fear, were probably the largest percentage of those that didn't support the Nazis, but I don't have good numbers here. I would assume those would constitute at least 25% and at most something like 40% of the population, but those numbers are speculative. It does seem reasonable to assume that a majority of those who voted for the other conservative parties in the last election would have come to support the Nazis and those plus the people who actually voted for the Nazis already constituted a majority of the German population.
Nazis weren't really that popular until the beginning of WW2, just that the opposition parties hated each other even more and were unable to unite in opposition (a bit like the Russian revolution).
The conquest of France was an unifying (and legitimizing) moment when even the people who were passively skeptical of the regime mostly got behind it (actual opponents were almost all in exile or imprisoned by that point)
The conquest of France was an unifying (and legitimizing) moment when even the people who were passively skeptical of the regime mostly got behind it (actual opponents were almost all in exile or imprisoned by that point)
By the time WWII started, opposition was closed in literal concentration camps. There was heavy suppression of oth democratic and communist parties from the moment Hitler took power on 1933.
Also, the calls for opposition to unifie miss who the opposition was. As in, it was composed of both pro democratic and actual communist party that took directions from Stalin. Who were pro dictatorship too at that point.
I mean, it is popular talking point from from tankies. But, social democrats not unifying with actual communists despite Hitler propaganda claiming they are the same makes sense.
Also, the calls for opposition to unifie miss who the opposition was. As in, it was composed of both pro democratic and actual communist party that took directions from Stalin. Who were pro dictatorship too at that point.
I mean, it is popular talking point from from tankies. But, social democrats not unifying with actual communists despite Hitler propaganda claiming they are the same makes sense.
"I’m pretty sure inhabitants will drink their own [processed] urine" this is a totally normal thing across world regions and a sign of civilization, why such funky immature stance?
Saudi Arabia is the perfect example that a lot of trade and economic exchange with a country will just stabilize a regime and not lead to more freedom and democratization.
This was trash. 6 daily prayers? really? hanbalites cant eat watermelon? mixing up saud with abdulazeez? (the big portrait)
Edit: for the record, i love reading the likes of these articles, even contrarian ones, but these egregious errors are scandalous and totally remove the credibility, totally. Shame because it as really interesting at times!
Edit: for the record, i love reading the likes of these articles, even contrarian ones, but these egregious errors are scandalous and totally remove the credibility, totally. Shame because it as really interesting at times!
This is Saudi Arabia
https://www.c-span.org/video/?188377-1/confessions-innocent-...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?188377-1/confessions-innocent-...
As is this. https://www.memri.org/countries/saudi-arabia
But Saudi seems to be progressing. In one generation it’ll likely be a totally different story.
But Saudi seems to be progressing. In one generation it’ll likely be a totally different story.
In one generation their oil will be worth far, far less than now and all countries which have their economies based on nothing else will collapse. SA’s exports are more than 75% hydrocarbons and derivatives. 57% is crude oil, unrefined[1]. Given that Saudis do little productive work now, mostly working in government sinecures or set asides in companies where foreigners do the actual work there’s little reason to believe they could deal with a massive drop in export value.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/sau?subnationalFlowSele...
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/sau?subnationalFlowSele...
That was unexpectedly fascinating. Thank you for posting it.
> I wanted to go to Mecca and Medina, but as a non-Muslim, it’s haram.
No, it's not. You can even go inside any mosque if you wear the proper clothes, as how Muslims pray.
No, it's not. You can even go inside any mosque if you wear the proper clothes, as how Muslims pray.
Um.. no?
> "Mecca is the holiest city in Islam where the pilgrimage or Hajj to Mecca is celebrated. This destination is only for Muslim tourists. At the entrance, there are several checkpoints where they will check that the visitor is a Muslim, and non-Muslims will be redirected to a highway that surrounds the city. Pilgrims must prove they are Muslim and women must be accompanied by a Mahram, also known as a male guardian."
A non-Muslim can visit Medina but the main mosque is off limits.
> "Mecca is the holiest city in Islam where the pilgrimage or Hajj to Mecca is celebrated. This destination is only for Muslim tourists. At the entrance, there are several checkpoints where they will check that the visitor is a Muslim, and non-Muslims will be redirected to a highway that surrounds the city. Pilgrims must prove they are Muslim and women must be accompanied by a Mahram, also known as a male guardian."
A non-Muslim can visit Medina but the main mosque is off limits.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Christian_Bypass.jp...
road sign with muslim-only lanes leading toward Mecca.
road sign with muslim-only lanes leading toward Mecca.
Wow, this was interesting to read, especially about your own experiences. But I am astonished about the inaccuracies of the religion section. It is almost like the author misunderstands fundamental concepts and distorts them through what I can only term as a "western" lens.
For example, you characterized the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence as "liberal" and the Hanbali school as "conservative". This is a completely inappropriate characterization of these schools and it makes a major mistake in equating them on spectrum of liberal to conservative (politically). They are orthogonal concepts.
As a brief explanation, in Islamic law (Shari'a), within the Sunni tradition of Islam there are 4 major schools of thought with regards to deriving rulings (these are called schools of fiqh, jurisprudence). All of these schools of thought accept each other as valid Islamically. They are named after the founders of the schools of thoughts, who all use the scripture (the Holy Quran), and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم peace be upon him and his companions. These schools differ in their application of methods to derive the sources of shari'a. For example, the Hanafi school is known to more heavily use Qiyas, or a type of legal reasoning by analogy, to derive rulings. Other sources of Shari'a come from what is known as 'urf, or custom of a particular locality.
To show why characterizing Hanafi as liberal and Hanbali as conservative is laughably incorrect. For example, many Hanafi faqeehs (experts in Hanafi fiqh) will consider the only seafood allowed to eat is fish. On the other hand, the Hanbali school considers fish, shrimp, crab, other seafood, etc. to be permissible to eat.
So to characterize one as liberal and the other as conservative, in general, is incomprehensible.
Next, you did not give the context of the rise of what you term Wahhabism [itself a term considered offensive to use as a pejorative by those on whom this term is applied: because al-Wahhab "the supreme bestower" is one of the names (attributes) used to describe God (Allah). Thus, to use a name of God as an epithet is considered offensive.] The rise of the movement of Abd al-Wahhab stems from the context of Arabia and Muslim practices at the time. At that time, Sufiism was the more officially influential "strain" of Islam, having been embraced by the Ottomans to an extent, and many people in this movement went to the extremes of grave worshiping, visiting shrines, and even praying to the dead for intercession. These are all practices that are outside the mainstream of Islam, but are described as having become more widespread in even Arabia and the Levant (Bilad ash-Shaam). It is in this context that Abd al-Wahhab's movement arises as a reaction. And it is a mistake to talk about Abd al-Wahhab's movement without mentioning the eminent Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who lived in the time of the Mongol invasions. But I digress for brevity.
Next, to talk about Saudi Arabia's modern history without mentioning the movements among the religious scholars is not giving proper context. For example, you did not mention the Sahwa (awakening) [1] movement among scholars, nor did you give the context of the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwaan Al-Muslimoon) and the Arab Spring, which is important to current Saudi religious clerics' attitudes towards dissent, democratization, etc. And it shapes how the Saudi government responds to these movements and those who went beyond the lines they set for them (for example the imprisonment of Salman Al-Awdah).
Next, you mentioned the claim by a cleric of geocentricity. But you are also misunderstanding the position of clerics with regards to fields they are qualified to speak about and the realm of their opinions. In their opinions they are not expert in, they can be incorrect just as an expert in history may not have authority to speak on physics. Actually you can find clips of the clerics deferring judgement of scientific facts to scientists; the authority the cleric speaks with is the evidence he brings from scripture and tradition. If a cleric says the Sun orbits the Earth, but new information comes to him, he can accept that as the realm of scientists while also upholding his own understanding from the evidences.
---
Also, I was hoping you would have a bigger section on foreign workers, because it is not simply "wage-slave" and "Saudi prince" in terms of the class structure of society. There is a rich parallel network of foreign nationals that operates under, around, and throughout the Saudi Arabian society. Anyone who has begun speaking to one of the foreign laborers in their native tongue will understand the concept of favors and advice given to one's own people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahwa_movement
For a medium-length but interesting introduction to Islamic scholarship: http://www.chriscaras.com/usul-fiqh/ijtihad/knowledge-schola...
For example, you characterized the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence as "liberal" and the Hanbali school as "conservative". This is a completely inappropriate characterization of these schools and it makes a major mistake in equating them on spectrum of liberal to conservative (politically). They are orthogonal concepts.
As a brief explanation, in Islamic law (Shari'a), within the Sunni tradition of Islam there are 4 major schools of thought with regards to deriving rulings (these are called schools of fiqh, jurisprudence). All of these schools of thought accept each other as valid Islamically. They are named after the founders of the schools of thoughts, who all use the scripture (the Holy Quran), and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم peace be upon him and his companions. These schools differ in their application of methods to derive the sources of shari'a. For example, the Hanafi school is known to more heavily use Qiyas, or a type of legal reasoning by analogy, to derive rulings. Other sources of Shari'a come from what is known as 'urf, or custom of a particular locality.
To show why characterizing Hanafi as liberal and Hanbali as conservative is laughably incorrect. For example, many Hanafi faqeehs (experts in Hanafi fiqh) will consider the only seafood allowed to eat is fish. On the other hand, the Hanbali school considers fish, shrimp, crab, other seafood, etc. to be permissible to eat.
So to characterize one as liberal and the other as conservative, in general, is incomprehensible.
Next, you did not give the context of the rise of what you term Wahhabism [itself a term considered offensive to use as a pejorative by those on whom this term is applied: because al-Wahhab "the supreme bestower" is one of the names (attributes) used to describe God (Allah). Thus, to use a name of God as an epithet is considered offensive.] The rise of the movement of Abd al-Wahhab stems from the context of Arabia and Muslim practices at the time. At that time, Sufiism was the more officially influential "strain" of Islam, having been embraced by the Ottomans to an extent, and many people in this movement went to the extremes of grave worshiping, visiting shrines, and even praying to the dead for intercession. These are all practices that are outside the mainstream of Islam, but are described as having become more widespread in even Arabia and the Levant (Bilad ash-Shaam). It is in this context that Abd al-Wahhab's movement arises as a reaction. And it is a mistake to talk about Abd al-Wahhab's movement without mentioning the eminent Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who lived in the time of the Mongol invasions. But I digress for brevity.
Next, to talk about Saudi Arabia's modern history without mentioning the movements among the religious scholars is not giving proper context. For example, you did not mention the Sahwa (awakening) [1] movement among scholars, nor did you give the context of the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwaan Al-Muslimoon) and the Arab Spring, which is important to current Saudi religious clerics' attitudes towards dissent, democratization, etc. And it shapes how the Saudi government responds to these movements and those who went beyond the lines they set for them (for example the imprisonment of Salman Al-Awdah).
Next, you mentioned the claim by a cleric of geocentricity. But you are also misunderstanding the position of clerics with regards to fields they are qualified to speak about and the realm of their opinions. In their opinions they are not expert in, they can be incorrect just as an expert in history may not have authority to speak on physics. Actually you can find clips of the clerics deferring judgement of scientific facts to scientists; the authority the cleric speaks with is the evidence he brings from scripture and tradition. If a cleric says the Sun orbits the Earth, but new information comes to him, he can accept that as the realm of scientists while also upholding his own understanding from the evidences.
---
Also, I was hoping you would have a bigger section on foreign workers, because it is not simply "wage-slave" and "Saudi prince" in terms of the class structure of society. There is a rich parallel network of foreign nationals that operates under, around, and throughout the Saudi Arabian society. Anyone who has begun speaking to one of the foreign laborers in their native tongue will understand the concept of favors and advice given to one's own people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahwa_movement
For a medium-length but interesting introduction to Islamic scholarship: http://www.chriscaras.com/usul-fiqh/ijtihad/knowledge-schola...
What a great read, thanks for sharing!
First there are 5 prayers a day not 6.
Also the official doctrine of SA’s head imams is not that the earth is flat and doesn't rotate.
On the earth is flat this has been widely mis-reported and debunked, see (https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/2hc96u/shaykh_abd_al...)
On the earth not rotating he links to a random cleric not an official position. This is no different from citing any of the random nutty clerics in the US who every once in a while make absurd scientific claims (including Ben Carson) and then projecting it as an official position of the entire evangelical movement.
An easier way to debunk the above is to note that newtonian mechanic and astronomy are taught in the Saudi curriculum in a way that is virtually identical to any western curriculum.
I think it is true that Wahhabism is one of the least progressive and anti-science mainstream modern islamic movements, but not to the extent that the author presents.
A better illustration of Wahhabism's anti-science stance is its semi-hostile position on darwinism, but this is true to many mainstream movements in abrahamic religions (including christian and jewish movements).
It is also amusing to note that Wahhabism has a more progressive stance on abortion than most mainstream American christians.