You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Saudis Deny Persecuting Christians
2005-06-08
A Saudi official denied allegations that the kingdom has arrested and tortured Christians, saying such actions run counter to Islamic tolerance.
Then his lips fell off.
The remarks to the official Saudi Press Agency came in response to reports in Iranian papers of recent arrests. The official, who spoke to SPA on condition of anonymity, said the allegations "don't go with the principals and values of the kingdom and above all our tolerant Islamic belief which guarantees the rights of Muslims and residents of different religions and ethnicities alike."
"Nope. Nope. Never happened!"
Members of other religions in the conservative Islamic kingdom generally are allowed to practice their beliefs in private but are prohibited from seeking converts or holding organized religious gatherings. The Washington-based watchdog group International Christian Concern, a nonprofit organization, reported last week that Saudi security and religious police have engaged in a major crackdown against Christians, saying it had received reports of 46 confirmed arrests of Christians in the wake of reports of the desecration of the Quran at the military prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba.
Posted by:Fred

#5  
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-06-08 13:54  

#4  Oh it's the good old "tolerant" religion tripe yet again. Maybe it's just a translator error. Maybe the word has a very different meaning for Saudis. Either way, methinks nasty little official saudi troll can rot with the rest of em when the oil runs dry and the party ends.
Posted by: Tkat   2005-06-08 10:10  

#3  Ok then Mr Islamic tolerance, allow Bibles in the country and allow Christian churches and Jewish synagouges to be built. Allow Christians to worship openly and in public and to be free to promote their religion.

Or is it that the West of Christian heritage is just profoundly more tolerant than the shriveled and pathethic notion of islamic tolerance? I wonder how this supposed inherant tolerance of islam gets around the absolute fact that mo's dying wish, his last words were to purify the Arabian penninsula of all Christians and Jews. I wonder how they get around the idea that it was mo himself that instituted dhimmitude and prohibited Christians from fully practicing their faith by prohibiting them from spreading their faith or openly promoting it in any way, a prohibition that contradicts the Great Commission of Christ.

'slam was never as tolerant as we are now and never will be as tolerant as we are now. The proof is there for all to see. Its a myth contradicted by cold bare facts and historical evidence. And anyone who says different is a bald faced liar.

Posted by: peggy   2005-06-08 09:38  

#2  Semantics and showmanship. Purest bullshit.

I know, for a fact, of several instances of intimidation against Christians. My favorite is when some muttawas - self-annointed Muzzy protectors of the faith - broke down the door of a friend's house and ripped the single little strand of blinking Christmas lights he had put up around the ceiling in his den. Apparently they were able to detect the blinking multi-colored frivolity through a slit in his drapes and it drove them insane. The funny thing is, they wouldn't have detected it driving by, they had to be up at the window, peeking, to have seen anything. Otherwise, it could've been the TV causing the only barely noticeable changing levels of illumination behind his thick drapes. Oh, did I mention that it was a side window, not the front, to boot? Details. They must've sensed it with their highly developed keen awareness of frivolity, methinks. He was single then, so there was no woman to peek at... which makes it even more, um, disconcerting.

And this was inside Aramco Camp, not out there, in the shit. He was protected by being an Aramcon, from physical arrest and detainment. Out there, it would've been jail - and there they can do any damned thing to you they feel like. That he had received them in a personal effects shipment which wasn't closely checked indicates the special status / more relaxed attitude accorded Aramcons.

I was sent a box of cookies by a former girlfriend, once. I received a box of crumbs. Every single cookie they didn't eat was crumbled to sand grain size. I guess they were checking for (cue hacksaw jokes) crucifixes or drugs or contraband pr0n or something, baked into the cookies. Luckily, they were just cookies or I would've been grilled for it.

I've dumped a few other stories here for their amusement value, such as the famous photograph of Einstein that my Indian friend, a physicist, was able to convince the customs guy was his uncle. Otherwise they would have confiscated it cuz it was a Jooo - oooooh! - and gone through everything else 10x more closely.

But to say that any expression of Christianity (or Hinduism or Buddhism or, gasp, Judaism) is even tolerated in private is total bullshit. The muttawas must be getting antsy to prove how Islamic they are, too. Not being able to string anyone up must be painful. Jealousy is an ugly thing.
Posted by: .com   2005-06-08 02:56  

#1  Then they won't have a problem when Liberalhawk and I open up a Jewish synagogue in Jeddah, right? Because it will suddenly be legal for us to enter their country?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-06-08 00:25  

00:00