Talk:Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

For a January 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia

I urge all members to be on the lookout for OneGuy who has slapped a VFD on all discrimination articles against Islam. Kindly refute this effort by cross voting on all other discrimination pages

  1. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan
  2. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Sudan
  3. Islam and Mauritanian law
  4. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran
  5. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia
  6. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan
  7. Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

We need your votes so this can remain wikiepedia and not become Meccapedia--Malbear 05:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just be careful about one thing: Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to an ally that the US has in the Arab sphere. I worry that singling it out for criticism may have a bad effect. Kind of like the way Chomsky leans harshly on human rights abuses by dictatorships friendly to the US, while maintaining near-absolute silence about Communist abuses 100s or 1000s of times worse!

Although Chomsky says he does this only because it's better to criticize someone you have a chance of changing, that doesn't convince me: it has the effect of setting up a double standard that leads to horrible suffering of millions of people!!

So, may I suggest that we work toward a more general article about the ENTIRE Islamic sphere and its treatment of non-Muslims. Let's not pick on the only Arab country who sent Bush a nice note of commiseration and sympathy after 9-11. (I have to look it up again, but the crown prince said something rather noble and majestic...) --Uncle Ed 22:11, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure that the whole Islamic sphere should have the same apporach as freedom and laws concerning other religions are different in other Arab countries. Additionally chosing not to remark on what your personally disagree with because a country is an ally is hypocritical. The same sort of attitude is why Saddam Hussien was armed mainly by the West only for it to turn sour in the end. I am not implying that Saudi Arabia should or should not be considered the same, but I am saying that personal convicions sould not becompromised just because another appears to be on one's side. I have no grind with Islam, but I do with a state that imposes any faith as it should be one of personal choice.

Saudi Arabia has been given an unfair media attention. The king of the country is a liberal trying change the country into a more open one. The tradionalists are few and far between but they do have alot of power like judges. Alot of Saudi's actually want a open country. Furious Stormrage


Uncle Ed, thank you. your're a logical man. S_n_b

I find it highly interesting and amusing that registered users are debating openly about how to bias and tilt articles in such ways that it may promote an ideal political good, and congratulate each other on the effort. 81.107.198.181 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Religious freedom in SA

I spent two years in Saudi Arabia. To gain entry to the country, I was required to show adherence to a recognized religion. So, atheists would show up as having some religion. Although not officially mentioned, it was known that you could not specify Judaism as your religion and gain entry. If you had a stamp from Israel in your passport, you could not enter. Israel will stamp a paper, removable from your passport, to circumvent this problem.

That said, during my time there, I never saw or heard of anyone arrested for religious observances held privately. SA holds Islam's holiest sites and the government feels the responsibility of keeping these sites Islamic. If they did not hold the line against Christians, how long before Evangelicals would be accosting Muslims in the street and exhorting them to switch to Jesus? Baghdad had hardly stopped smoking from the bombs before Evangelicals were bundling thousands of bibles off to missionaries there. --LesAldridge 22:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the problem is? Isn't it the right of any religion to engage in proselytization in any country it wish to? Why do you think that right should be limited? And what about other countries? Should Italy also have the right to "hold the line" against Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims because the Vatican is is placed in Italy, and because Buddhists (+whatever) might "accosting Christians in the street and exhorting them to switch to Buddah?" YusufDepe 09:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh don't start this. The fact is that Buddhists don't send people out to convert poor and desprate people. The other fact is No Religon allows others who aren't of that religon from entering the holy site. The Cities Mecca and Medina are big holy sites. All of it. Not parts all of it. Give me an example where a The Vaticans let non catholics to go to there sites. Furious Stormrage

Furious, you missed his point by a mile. He wasn't talking about the Vatican, he was talking about Italy; The Vatican is to Italy as Mecca is to Saudi Arabia. Italy indeed does have other religions and even evangelicals and proselytizing isn't restricted, so you're wrong. You might be interested in knowing that non-Catholics enter the Vatican every day as tourists. none

1. The Vatican is goverend by the Holy See not Italy. 2. Based on the argument that “If you had a stamp from Israel in your passport, you could not enter. Israel will stamp a paper, removable from your passport, to circumvent this problem.” I would like to advice you that “If you had a stamp from Cuba in your passport, you could not enter The US. Cuba will stamp a paper, removable from your passport, to circumvent this problem...Please be objective in dealing with matters that are beyond individual preferences. I don’t find it contributing to list the political game of every regime on the planet, we will need a sullen wikipolitics. S_n_b

Furious, quite honestly, the Vatican and even the Christian Holy sites in Jerusalem do not forbid non-Christians from entering. In fact, they DO enter, daily. So please, don't generalise. Also, Les Aldridge, I lived in Saudi for a good 13 years, and during that time my relatives and friends have been subject to downright demeaning behaviour and treatment. Once at the Dhahran airport, a Christian was carrying a Bible in his suitcase. The customs officer took it out, proceeded to tear it in front of him and then threw it in the dustbin. My family friend was arrested because he was celebrating Easter 'inside his home'. Anthony Permal 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there's always people going to strict; just because some police do that doesn't mean that it is part of the law. I mesan there's some police that do hit children; its not right and not part of the law but still happens.

The thing is that the Kabbah is to be protected from anyone who may oppose it. The building has already been used for polytheism and idol worship (a sin in Islam) in the past. It was restored twice, once by Ibrahim (Abraham pbuh) and the also later by Muhhamad (pbuh).

The Saudi government would obviously like to protect it and the rest of the country from those that may ill-treat the building. I mean there is so much Islamophobia and misunderstandings of Islam in the world. There have been pictures of the Kabbah that have been photoshopped to make it look destroyed; so you can see that they would like to keep it safe.
Also the thing with Israel is understandable as mentioned above there's the same thing with Cuba in America. SA supports Palestine; and tell me that Britain wouldn't have stopped Germans coming over during WW2. It's not always right everything that happens, sometimes the governments dont do what's right but what their people would expect; and many Saudis may have disliked Israelis coming to SA.77.99.102.81 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article fails to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) policy, although it is largely factual.

Below are some specific examples that exist at the time of this writing:

"Freedom of religion does not exist."

This is an overreaching statement.

"The Government has stated publicly, including before the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship privately; however, it does not provide explicit guidelines--such as the number of persons permitted to attend and acceptable locations--for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear. Such lack of clarity, as well as instances of arbitrary enforcement by the authorities, force most non-Muslims to worship in such a manner as to avoid discovery by the Government or others."

This statement is arguable and not well substantiated.

"However, there was a report that prior to the period covered by this report, at least one U.S. citizen child in the country was subjected to pressure--and at times force--by her Saudi relatives to renounce Christianity and conform to Islamic norms and practices. The child has since returned to the United States."

This has little to do with the Saudi government and furthermore a sample of one is too small to present as an argument.

"Saudi Arabia publishes and distributes many books and articles promoting anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism."

Anti-Judaism is a better term where race is not the basis of discrimination. Anti-Zionism is not relevant within the context of religious freedom. Other than one quote from Al-Riyadh, this whole section is not well substantiated. Both external links are broken, and do not seem to refer to Saudi governmental policy anyway.

"According to reports from the U.S. Department of State, non-Muslims are discriminated against in many nations. This is discussed in the following articles: Religious Freedom and the Middle East at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy PolicyWatch"

The external link provided at the end of the article is to an article by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is a well-known and highly partisan neoconservative think tank. The article is not the US State Department report itself, but rather a WINEP commentary on it.

More important than these specific points of bias is the fact that this article falls extremely short of the Fairness and sympathetic tone NPOV sub-guideline.

This is not to say I disagree with the article as a whole. Indeed, I agree that religious freedoms are severely limited in Saudi Arabia.

However, as per the one-sided nature of the article, I am adding the POV-check template. Please do not remove until the abovementioned Fairness and sympathetic tone issue has been rectified to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

Splitpeasoup 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Freedom of religion does not exist" may be "overreaching", but it does accurately describe the situation: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize a legal right to freedom of religion. Some people regard freedom of religion as a bad thing, and are happy that it does not exist there, so it is not POV to say so. But it no longer says that.
I am sure there is more than one non-Muslim religious organization that could substantiate the claims about public and private worship, but I don't have access to the information right now. I agree that the promotion of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not strictly a matter of religious freedom within Saudi Arabia, but I think it is a fact that should be acknowledged, and would support removal of that section only if the information were retaied somewhere else.
Material regarding the religious basis of Muslim attitudes to other religions is not appropriate to this particular article. Myopic Bookworm 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
PS I think the article is as fair and sympathetic as it is practical to be on the topic of violent religious oppression. The article appears to be factual, and any further 'fairness' towards the Saudi Arabian government would head towards being POV in favour of religious persecution. The most one could do is provide a couple of links to a balanced discussion of Islamic attitudes to non-Muslims, and of the role that the government in Riyadh considers it should have regarding the Muslim holy places, which happen to be under its control, though on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. If such links can be provided, then I propose the removal of the POV-check template. Myopic Bookworm 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The article looks much cleaner after your edits. I still have a minor and major gripe however:
My minor gripe is that the section on Anti-Semitism still looks colored. Most of it centers on ghastly representation of Jews in the media, but it is not clear whether this is reflecting the typical stance of Saudi media, or cherry-picking some inflammatory statements to press the point.
My major gripe is that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is still listed as a reference (I had removed the link on grounds of bias, but it was reinstated). WINEP is a heavily partisan think tank, it cannot be considered neutral by any stretch.
I suggest the WINEP link be removed (after consensus, if this is controversial) and be replaced with more neutral external sources.
Once the above two points are addressed, IMHO, it would be OK to remove the POV-check tag.
--Splitpeasoup 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can require external links to be NPOV sites. The link to the Wikipedia article on WINEP is there if anyone wants to know the backgoround of this organization, just as I have given a link to the ICC website so that everyone can see it is a specifically Christian site, and so naturally has a strong POV on the topic. Perhaps you would consider it sufficient to put a note above the external links disclaiming any suggestion of NPOV in the linked material? I'll continue thinking about what to do with the anti-Semitism material. Myopic Bookworm 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've moved the material on anti-Semitism out of the article entirely, and added a disclaimer to the External links section. I think the article as a whole still needs tidying, to ensure that the separation between 'policy' and 'instances of abuse' is maintained. It may also be worth separating out under little subheadings sections about particular groups such as Shia Muslims, Christians, and other faiths; but that's more than I have time for. Myopic Bookworm 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks pretty good right now, neutrality-wise. I'm removing the POV-check tag I had inserted as I don't think it's necessary any longer. --Splitpeasoup 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Certains things out there sound like it has a POV and this one really does

[edit] Population

Saudi Arabia article says 25 million, this one says 19. Some gap. Medico80 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

This merge tag has been sat on Religious Freedom in Saudia for ever but no tag had been added to this page. This could do with being sorted - by someone with expertise - sooner rather than later to avoid any more parallel development. Madmedea 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Religious Freedom in Saudia page duplicates all the info on this page and has been around for a while, so I'm going to go ahead and slap a redirect down there. -- DSGruss 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Demography

I provided a source for the Shia Muslim minority forming 15% of the NATIVE population, so please stop changing it to 3% without even providing a reliable source. KMF

Lol 15%, what made you think that there are 12% more shiites? --Yu5uF 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just observing from the sidelines here, I see that the cited source (a Council on Foreign Relations background paper) said: "Shiites make up strong majorities in Iran (90 percent), Bahrain (75 percent), and Iraq (close to 60 percent); Lebanon, too, is primarily Shiite. Small but potentially powerful Shiite are found throughout the Gulf States, as well as in Pakistan (17 percent), Saudi Arabia (15 percent), and India (around 2 percent)." I would nitpick that the cited source does not appear to suport the assertion in the article that "They form around 15% of the native population." The cited source appears not to distinguish between native and non-native residents (however the difference between "native" and "non-native" might be defined). If the word "native" were removed, it would seem to me that the cited source supported the assertion made in the article. -- Boracay Bill 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I move that the content of Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Religious_apartheid be merged into this article as this has the more neutral title and as there is already conent on this topic here. Lothar of the Hill People 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree. i see no reason for the content forking. ITAQALLAH 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Religious freedom = ability to PRACTICE one's religion freely. This is not the same as what exists in Saudi Arabia where those who practice other religions are not allowed in the country or into certain parts of the country. This is like South African apartheid (certain areas only for Whites, etc) and not simply a "freedom" issue. Bigglove 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what any article named "Status of religious freedom" is about. Why do you think that "Status of religious freedom" would only apply if religious freedom exists? The word status is about the state of the concept,ie whether it not it exists, not an assertion that religious freedom exists. Lothar of the Hill People 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, you missed my point because I didn't phrase it well. If it were a religious freedom issue, then people of other religions could go where they wanted in the kingdom, albiet while not free to practice Christianity, Judaism, other schools of Islam, etc. In Saudi, however, Jews can't even enter the kingdom and no one except Muslims can use certain roads or go to certain places. That is why it is Apartheid. There is country wide separation between a certain kind of Muslim and everyone else. The people are kept apart or are excluded. Bigglove 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid." That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries. A global solution is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid, specifically a proposal (which I support) that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles. 6SJ7 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A precedent has been set in various AFD articles to deal with the articles separately - that's why some of them have been deleted while others have not. Lothar of the Hill People 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7 said it best. Just to repeat what I said before: Saudi has got be the closest to an apartheid state there is on the planet, to the best of my knowledge. If any country practices apartheid, they do. IronDuke 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose this attempt to accomplish what AFD did not. IronDuke, 6SJ7 are correct. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AGREE with the above. Bigglove 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article's Title

I wonder if the current title of this article ("Limitation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia") might be improved if it were simply "Religious freedom in Saudi Arabia."

The current, clear concensus of the editors is that the state of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is indeed limited -- a position supported by a large amount of referenced sources. However, it appears to me that any possible future changes in laws increasing religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, or in granting limited religious freedoms to particular groups, may fall outside the scope of this article, because the title specifies limitations only and not the state of religious freedom in general.

Since the article in its current state does, nevertheless, address some of these issues, it appears to me that widening the scope of the article's title may have the dual benefit of bringing it in line with the article's content and reducing any appearance of POV forking. I'm not sure that an argument of POV forking is likely, given the evidence of limitation, but given that a search for "Religious freedom in Saudi Arabia" currently redirects to "Limitation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia," this issue may come up. We may be able to preempt such a discussion by making the title more comprehensive.

In addition to the rationale mentioned above, my other motivation for doing this is that having a "Religious freedom in..." for all countries would seem more encyclopedic to me (and actually a pretty good idea) than having a "Limitation of religious freedom in..." for all countries. This would go along with having separate articles for each country on the state of their economies, criminal justice systems, human rights, etc., rather than articles specifically detailing only their limitations in these areas. Any thoughts? -DavidGC (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)