supermarket westernization

[happythoughts 0]

cashiers

Quote

Sheik Youssef al-Ahmed had urged people not to shop at Panda Supermarket because women there work in jobs that allow for the mingling of the sexes, which the cleric said was a violation of Islamic law.

Quote

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam and religious leaders have strong influence over policy making and social mores. Sexes are segregated in schools and public places. Women are not allowed to drive or vote, and physical education classes are banned in state-run girls' schools.

Quote

Al-Ahmad said having women work as cashiers was a step "toward adopting a Westernized project."

"This is a project of the hypocrites that must be stopped, it's a violation of the country's laws," he said in the show.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm much more interested in the topic of that story: the fact that the Saudis are telling some of the reactionary/ fringe/ radical/ conservative/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it clerics to fuck off.

Quote

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A conservative Saudi cleric was told to stop giving unauthorized edicts after he called for a boycott of a supermarket chain that employs women as cashiers, the office of the kingdom's most senior religious leader said Thursday.

The move is the first public reprimand of a prominent cleric following a royal decree that limits the issuance of fatwas to the country's most senior group of clerics. Fatwas are religious edicts that provide guidance in matters of everyday life to pious Muslims.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 2]

My 20th/21st Century Western sensibilities generally make me disagree with the strict, religion-based social segregation of the sexes that effectively relegates women in Saudi Arabia (and some other Muslim countries) to 2nd, 3rd or 4th-class citizenship.

That being said, just as "the American way of life" has been a revered slogan in the US since before WWII, there also exists such a thing as a "Saudi way of life" in Saudi Arabia. We "modern" Westerners may dislike it, and see its injustices from our Western points of view, but it does exist. And what this cleric is doing (his government's reaction aside) is reflecting the reaction of a certain segment of Saudi society toward what they perceive as a threat to a core tenet of traditional Saudi way of life: the strict segregation of the sexes according to their orthodox interpretation of the Qur'an.

By way of (imperfect) comparison, in the US, many very religious Bible-Belt Christians once felt (and some still feel) that such things as men and women dancing together, or listening to popular music, etc. should be banned as the devil's handiworks. To me, that would be silly, but to them, it was/is very serious business. So all I'm saying is: try to understand other cultures from the other guy's shoes.

(Now, I hope nobody tries to spin what I've typed to make more of it than what I've actually said, e.g.,: "Oh, so you're OK with beating or stoning Saudi women because that's the traditional Saudi way of life??" No, I'm not. So let's not even go there.)

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

That being said, just as "the American way of life" has been a revered slogan in the US since before WWII, there also exists such a thing as a "Saudi way of life" in Saudi Arabia. We "modern" Westerners may dislike it, and see its injustices from our Western points of view, but it does exist. And what this cleric is doing (his government's reaction aside) is reflecting the reaction of a certain segment of Saudi society toward what they perceive as a threat to a core tenet of traditional Saudi way of life: the strict segregation of the sexes according to their orthodox interpretation of the Qur'an.

Of course, the problem with the Saudi Way of Life is that it is imposed on everyone, not just the certain segment that wants it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

That being said, just as "the American way of life" has been a revered slogan in the US since before WWII, there also exists such a thing as a "Saudi way of life" in Saudi Arabia. We "modern" Westerners may dislike it, and see its injustices from our Western points of view, but it does exist. And what this cleric is doing (his government's reaction aside) is reflecting the reaction of a certain segment of Saudi society toward what they perceive as a threat to a core tenet of traditional Saudi way of life: the strict segregation of the sexes according to their orthodox interpretation of the Qur'an.

Of course, the problem with the Saudi Way of Life is that it is imposed on everyone, not just the certain segment that wants it.

This reminds me of the statement of faith of this one Baptist Church that I started to attend yesterday.(primarily because they are the only ones that I can find around here that preach expositionally.)

It was very refreshing to hear:

10. Religious Liberty: We believe that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority; that, therefore, church and state must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other. (Galatians 3:26-29; 5:16-25; Romans 13:1-7; 14:1-5; Hebrews 4:14-16; 13:7,8, 15-17; Acts 4:19,20; 5:27-42)

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I'm much more interested in the topic of that story: the fact that the Saudis are telling some of the reactionary/ fringe/ radical/ conservative/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it clerics to fuck off.

Not that surprising to me.
I've read all the books on the Mideast written by ex-CIA agent Robert Baer.
(The movie "Syriana" was an adaptation of part of one book).
In describing the Saudi royal family, there was one particular guy who seemed not to fit in.
He lived in relative austerity compared to the others, and seemed to not be preoccupied with wallowing in wealth.
It was a pleasant surprise to see him become king when Fahd died.

But be aware of delicate arrange the House of Saud has with the Wahabi.
The House of Saud supports the crackpot religious edicts of the Wahabi,
in exchange for the Wahabi supporting the political power of the House of Saud.
If either side dropped it's support, the whole political/religious power structure could collapse.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

(Now, I hope nobody tries to spin what I've typed to make more of it than what I've actually said, e.g.,: "Oh, so you're OK with beating or stoning Saudi women because that's the traditional Saudi way of life??" No, I'm not. So let's not even go there.)

I'm not claiming anything about stoning or beating. but the "Saudi Way Of Life" is another story. It does seem that what you are saying is that human rights are subjective to what country you live in.

That simply is not true.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

That being said, just as "the American way of life" has been a revered slogan in the US since before WWII, there also exists such a thing as a "Saudi way of life" in Saudi Arabia. We "modern" Westerners may dislike it, and see its injustices from our Western points of view, but it does exist.

Sure, but things like this are what angers these clerics.

Of course, opinions vary. In SA, women are not allowed to drive cars
or work as educators beyond the secondary school level.
In Iraq, before the war, women could drive cars and
be educated at a university level.

Two countries separated by only a border, with the same religion,
but different in its interpretation and application.

So, this a control issue. The Taliban will continue to fight the west because it allows women to function at even the minimal level of adulthood.
(...or does anything that the Taliban objects to.)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It does seem that what you are saying is that human rights are subjective to what country you live in.

That's not really what I am saying, because I view the concept of "human rights" as more of an absolute that transcends culture or nationality (which I think is your point, too). On the other hand, it is the case that one's perception of the scope of permissible civil liberties does seem to be subjective in that fashion.

For example, the beating of women for the offense of not wearing a veil or speaking to a man not her husband outside the presence of her family is something I would never, ever be open-minded about. That is a human rights concern. On the other hand, on religious grounds, for example, women in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to drive; and up until fairly recently, artificial birth control was unlawful in Ireland. While I might think that each of those restrictions are ridiculous, those are mainly civil liberties issues, not human rights issues.

As an aside, while human rights and civil liberties are separate concepts (as I use them), I do acknowledge that there is some grey-area/overlap between them.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

For example, the beating of women for the offense of not wearing a veil or speaking to a man not her husband outside the presence of her family is something I would never, ever be open-minded about.

So? You can be ok with it, or not. They aren't open-minded
about it at all. The great part is, they aren't going to accept the western view on this Ever.

It is apparently, just one of 500 things that angers the Taliban.
There will always be a reason which the Taliban
will identify as a reason to kill westerners.
Each week there is a new angry protest.

Your sister doesn't need to burn a Quran to deserve a gruesome death,
she just needs to talk to a man who is unrelated to her.

If people want to post that they believe that the west can placate these boneheads, they are deluding themselves.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

those are mainly civil liberties issues, not human rights issues.

What's the difference if they are actual enforable laws with consequences vs. just what a religion decrees?

Big difference between religion A saying you can't wear blue hats and a law saying wearing blue hats is illegal and there is a $500 fine for wearing them.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,587]

One of the Taliban's first public moves was the capturing and hanging of the commander of a group who had kidnapped 2 girls, shaved their heads, and gang-raped them. Their next public move was to free a boy who had been kidnapped for the same purpose. So they were vigilantes.

They had some popularity, then they got power, and they ran with it. They figured that people who thought just like them were best, so they enforced that. We have no shortage of people who can't see other ways of being. But our system is strong enough to prevent them from forcing it on others.

The Taliban are proof that our system(s), disorganized though they might be, with their ability to change government regularly, is a great thing. Because we trust that no matter how bad the current administration is, we can change it if we need to, and so we wait for the next legal opportunity.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

As an aside, while human rights and civil liberties are separate concepts (as I use them), I do acknowledge that there is some grey-area/overlap between them.

Does speaking to someone other than yourself a religious or civil issue?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

But our system is strong enough to prevent them from forcing it on others.

Really? I've seen 200 posts here about, "don't... because it might jeopardize our troops because it will anger the Taliban."

They burn American flags in weekly protests.
Let's see what would happen if someone in the US burned the Taliban flag.
"Oh no... we don't want to upset them..."

They are effectively controlling the actions of the American public.

In 10 years, women in the US will have to head scarves.
Life in the 14th century.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

But our system is strong enough to prevent them from forcing it on others.

Really? I've seen 200 posts here about, "don't... because it might jeopardize our troops because it will anger the Taliban."

They burn American flags in weekly protests.
Let's see what would happen if someone in the US burned the Taliban flag.
"Oh no... we don't want to upset them..."

They are effectively controlling the actions of the American public.

In 10 years, women in the US will have to head scarves.
Life in the 14th century.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

One of the Taliban's first public moves was the capturing and hanging of the commander of a group who had kidnapped 2 girls, shaved their heads, and gang-raped them. Their next public move was to free a boy who had been kidnapped for the same purpose. So they were vigilantes.

I understand the history of the Taliban.
I worked with a Muslim from Pakistan for a year and discussed this at length. College-educated, married, 3 kids.
Talib is essentially a word meaning student.

If you have read the Asimov Foundation series, it talks
about the period following the dissolution of the central govt.
He called this period of barbarism and lack of govt, the interregnum.

Quote

An interregnum (plural interregna or interregnums) is a period of discontinuity or "gap" in a government, organization, or social order. -Wiki

After the Russians left, the Afghan army had no job (and no pay), so they resorted to collecting money from travelers.

This could have been an isolated solution. Instead, this emergency step, became the organizational structure. The problem is that it was the context of the 14th century. Hence the problem.

[wmw999 2,587]

It goes both ways. How many doctors openly provide abortions? How many women are willing to admit they've had an abortion and still think it was the right thing to do? How free is a Muslim group to have prayer meetings in a Mississippi school? How free are gay students in an Alabama school to go to the prom?

People should always consider where they are before any action, because reactions are human things.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

This could should have been an isolated solution. Instead, this emergency step, became the organizational structure

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

One of the Taliban's first public moves was the capturing and hanging of the commander of a group who had kidnapped 2 girls, shaved their heads, and gang-raped them. Their next public move was to free a boy who had been kidnapped for the same purpose. So they were vigilantes.

They had some popularity, then they got power, and they ran with it. They figured that people who thought just like them were best, so they enforced that. We have no shortage of people who can't see other ways of being. But our system is strong enough to prevent them from forcing it on others.

The Taliban are proof that our system(s), disorganized though they might be, with their ability to change government regularly, is a great thing. Because we trust that no matter how bad the current administration is, we can change it if we need to, and so we wait for the next legal opportunity. Wendy P.

In doing what you've described, the Taliban were following a tried-and-true historical model of a guerilla group acting first as vigilantes, then coming to power in bloody revolutions, then engaging in a months- or years-long "reign of terror" of mass purges, executions, torture and imprisonments.

Some historical examples - during/after:
- the French Revolution in the 1790s
- the Russian Revolution(s) in 1917
- the Chinese Communist victory over the nationalists in 1949
- the Cuban Revolution's victory in 1959
- the Communist victories in Vietnam in 1975
- the Khmer Rouge victory and successive holocaust in Cambodia from 1975-79
- the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua in 1979
- the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979

[muff528 3]

[reply..........
Of course, opinions vary. In SA, women are not allowed to drive cars
or work as educators beyond the secondary school level.
In Iraq, before the war, women could drive cars and
be educated at a university level.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

[reply..........
Of course, opinions vary. In SA, women are not allowed to drive cars
or work as educators beyond the secondary school level.
In Iraq, before the war, women could drive cars and
be educated at a university level.

Well.... the ones that weren't gassed. You know, ... the ones that say things were much better under S.H.

Ya can't make everybody happy.

Perhaps they should have drove their darned cars.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

[reply..........
Of course, opinions vary. In SA, women are not allowed to drive cars
or work as educators beyond the secondary school level.
In Iraq, before the war, women could drive cars and
be educated at a university level.

Well.... the ones that weren't gassed. You know, ... the ones that say things were much better under S.H.

Ya can't make everybody happy.

Perhaps they should have drove their darned cars.

I suppose you can make everyone happy if you could just exterminate all the debbie-downers.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

For example, the beating of women for the offense of not wearing a veil or speaking to a man not her husband outside the presence of her family is something I would never, ever be open-minded about. That is a human rights concern. On the other hand, on religious grounds, for example, women in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to drive; and up until fairly recently, artificial birth control was unlawful in Ireland. While I might think that each of those restrictions are ridiculous, those are mainly civil liberties issues, not human rights issues.

Ah, well if that's the way you're looking at it, I say fuck the Saudi way of life.

I don't give a toss if it's "their culture" or "their tradition" - it is unjustifiable to impose those restrictions on people who have not chosen them and do not want them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

For example, the beating of women for the offense of not wearing a veil or speaking to a man not her husband outside the presence of her family is something I would never, ever be open-minded about. That is a human rights concern. On the other hand, on religious grounds, for example, women in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to drive; and up until fairly recently, artificial birth control was unlawful in Ireland. While I might think that each of those restrictions are ridiculous, those are mainly civil liberties issues, not human rights issues.

Ah, well if that's the way you're looking at it, I say fuck the Saudi way of life.

I don't give a toss if it's "their culture" or "their tradition" - it is unjustifiable to impose those restrictions on people who have not chosen them and do not want them.

by "people who have not chosen them and do not want them", you are speaking of... the human race?
those people? people who want to talk to other human beings without being killed?

probably a short list. write them down alphabetically.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For example, the beating of women for the offense of not wearing a veil or speaking to a man not her husband outside the presence of her family is something I would never, ever be open-minded about. That is a human rights concern. On the other hand, on religious grounds, for example, women in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to drive; and up until fairly recently, artificial birth control was unlawful in Ireland. While I might think that each of those restrictions are ridiculous, those are mainly civil liberties issues, not human rights issues.

As an aside, while human rights and civil liberties are separate concepts (as I use them), I do acknowledge that there is some grey-area/overlap between them.

sorry, there is no grey here. Reproductive health is a basic human right. And civil rights that are determined by sex or race are human rights violations. If no one is allowed to drive, that's a civil rights issue. If women or blacks can't, no, it goes beyond that. Equal treatment in society is a human right. The West may fall short of delivering this, but it doesn't codify the inequality into law.