The End - 2000 to 2009

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Dismisses Chief of Religious Police

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Saudi king on Saturday dismissed the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing the owners of TV networks that broadcast “immoral” content, signaling an effort to weaken the country’s hard-line Sunni establishment.

The king also changed the makeup of an influential body of religious scholars, for the first time giving more moderate Sunnis representation to the group whose duties include issuing the religious edicts known as fatwas.

Not really sure if these are good things or bad things, but at least promotion of violence and killing are not tolerated anymore by the Saudi government.

Source


  • RSS feed for comments on this post

  • 25 Responses for "Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Dismisses Chief of Religious Police"

    1. ilyas February 16th, 2009 at 1:08 am

      An intersting development.

    2. Qas February 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am

      Bro MR,

      You said “at least promotion of violence and killing are not tolerated anymore by the Saudi government.” … when was vigilantism ever officially tolerated by the Saudi government?

    3. Sulayman F February 16th, 2009 at 3:03 am

      Don’t forget, they now have a woman in government for the first time as a deputy minister for education.

    4. Ahmadi February 16th, 2009 at 7:00 am

      Im not fond of the Saudi setup, but at the same time I know there is a lot of outside influence and pressure on the country. I a fear this could lead to a country that eventualy loses its Muslim-focused identity and becomes more of a secular state rule or that of Hosni or King Abdullah of Jordan sort of rule.

    5. Kalimat February 16th, 2009 at 8:01 am

      Ahmadi

      How is Saudi Arabia different to Egypt or Jordan? I would not describe all three as Islamic or secular but monarchies and dictators.

      The cleric retracted his statement after he was quickly reminded that the TV networks he was alluding to are owned by Saudis.

    6. MR February 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am

      @Qas – The article said:

      “…a cleric who condoned killing the owners of TV networks that broadcast “immoral” content…”

      That is violence. Just because people are committing sins, doesn’t mean they need to be killed.

    7. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

      “That is violence. Just because people are committing sins, doesn’t mean they need to be killed.”

      They were not simply “committing sins”. They were spreading fitna, calling people into sin, ruining peoples faith, lives, marriages and families and inviting them to behave like animals. They earned their living by spreading sin; please don’t tell me that doesn’t mean that they didn’t deny it was sin (remember, if a person denies sinfulness of something which all Islamic scholars consider to be sin, he is a disbeliever). But I suppose that a non-Saudi non-scholar knows better whether such behavior deserves capital punishment than a leading Saudi scholar…

    8. MR February 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

      @Mustafa
      “But I suppose that a non-Saudi non-scholar knows better whether such behavior deserves capital punishment than a leading Saudi scholar…”

      Yeah, his name was Prophet Muhammad (saas). Apparently the leading Saudi scholar forgot about all the Satelite dishes bringing American channels into the country in cities like Makkah, Madinah and Jeddah. They are halal so we don’t need to kill them.

      Oh yeah, smoking is halal too. Selling cigarettes is perfectly fine, We don’t need to kill them.

      Oh yeah, donating to Sudan or Somalia is haram, becuase the Sudanese and Somalis are sinners. They should be killed, including the ones in Darfur. They aren’t even Arabs. Those “abds”.

    9. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

      When I said “But I suppose that a non-Saudi non-scholar knows better whether such behavior deserves capital punishment than a leading Saudi scholar…” I meant you; your invocation of our Prophet, s.a.w.s. has led you into some very dangerous territories. As far as the rest of your reply is concerned, it simply shows that you’re out of arguments in this case so you have to change the topic. I was in no way defending everything Saudi scholars say or do (or better, everything which they don’t do); but I think that the last thing we and they need when they actually decide to speak up and do something is to patronize them, treat them as unenlightened hillbillies, especially since we don’t live there, don’t understand the pressures they’re under and are nowhere near them in terms of knowledge.

    10. MR February 16th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

      @Mustafa – Show me in the Qur’an or Hadith that allowed to kill those who “earned their living by spreading sin”. As far as the “leading” Saudi scholar. He is not like Sh. Albani or Sh. Uthaymeen or Sh. ibn Baz, or Sh. Munajjid.

    11. AnonyMuslim February 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

      “Not sure if this is a good thing..” Br, how can you not be sure that removing someone who is openly calling for murder, against the writ of law, is a good thing? Let’s not equivocate on these issues, Saudi is dominated by religious radicals who think they can impose their twisted idelogically driven understanding of Islam on the entire world without any scrutiny…It’s about time someone – even a corrupt monarch – stepped in and put these dangerous people in their place.

      As for the original poster – does he think they can “stop fitna” by murdering television station owners? what about rule of law my misguided brother, does violating that not cause fitna? this is the problem with people who don’t adhere to islamic values – UNISLAMIC, IMMORAL, MURDEROUS ENDS never justify the means…

    12. Muslim in America February 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

      I was speaking to someone from Saudi about this and he was telling me the government only does what is in its best interest. The chief of the moral police was making Saudi look bad on an international stage so they had to fix it. He also told me that the past 3 grand muftis of Saudi Arabia have been blind and have been chosen because they are blind. Since they can’t see, they aren’t truly aware of the situations that are taking place. Too often the truth is bent when it is told to them.

      May Allah guide us all.

    13. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

      “Show me in the Qur’an or Hadith that allowed to kill those who “earned their living by spreading sin”. As far as the “leading” Saudi scholar. He is not like Sh. Albani or Sh. Uthaymeen or Sh. ibn Baz, or Sh. Munajjid.”

      From the article: “Abdullah also removed Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan, chief of the kingdom’s highest tribunal, the Supreme Council of Justice. Al-Lihedan issued an edict in September saying it was permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV stations that show content deemed to be immoral. It was denounced across the Arab world. ”

      You can think of Saudi what you wish, but I don’t think anyone would argue that someone who is not knowledgeable of the Law of Allah s.w.t. could occupy such a high position there. Whatever fatwa he issued, we can rest assured that he didn’t do it off the top of his head. As far as the death sentence is considered, I repeat that it is a consensus of the ulama that to deny the sinfulness of a certain act, provided that there is no disagreement over it’s sinfulness, is disbelief. Imam Tahawi explained this very well in his famous treatise: “57. We do not consider any of the people of our qiblah to he unbelievers because of any wrong action they have done, as long as they do not consider that action to have been lawful.” (http://www.islamselect.net/en/mat/54692). Again, are you saying that these broadcasters believed that what they were doing is unlawful but simply couldn’t resist it?

    14. Akhee February 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

      @Mustafa – You do realize that all the “scholars” and “muftees” that are hired by the KSA are not really true like those who aren’t paid by the government. Being the Chief of religious police doesn’t mean a degree in sharee’aah. Just add Shaykh to his name and give him the title of Chief of Religious Police and suddenly he is a scholar?

    15. Abdu l-Ghaffur February 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

      Mustafa,

      As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,

      “Again, are you saying that these broadcasters believed that what they were doing is unlawful but simply couldn’t resist it?”

      Many, many brothers and sisters are aware of their sins and what they are doing is wrong (alcohol, fornication, killing other Muslims, robbing them etc.) yet they still do it. So, the answer could be “yes” to your question, without a single doubt. Add to that the fact that no one is killed until proven guilty in a legitimate court of law; also, the person is given the chance to repent, is he not?

      You seem all too eager to call Muslims who sin kuffar?

      And are you yourself a scholar? Do you have the right to quote imam at-Tahawi and apply it to the situation at hand? Circles, man. Circles.

      Salam, brother, may Allah Ta’ala bless you and every one of us.

    16. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

      “@Mustafa – You do realize that all the “scholars” and “muftees” that are hired by the KSA are not really true like those who aren’t paid by the government. Being the Chief of religious police doesn’t mean a degree in sharee’aah. Just add Shaykh to his name and give him the title of Chief of Religious Police and suddenly he is a scholar?”

      Of course an independent scholar is more credible then the one working for the government; does that mean that the one working for the government is necessarily a non-expert? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about? He cannot be be truly knowledgeable simply because he is close to the establishment ( that makes shaykh Bin Baz “not really true” as well)? Even when he gives fatwas which the establishment detests?

    17. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

      “Many, many brothers and sisters are aware of their sins and what they are doing is wrong (alcohol, fornication, killing other Muslims, robbing them etc.) yet they still do it. So, the answer could be “yes” to your question, without a single doubt.”

      Committing sin is one thing. Making a business out of it is something completely different. When “brothers and sisters” commit these sins, it’s usually because they can’t handle their lowly desires. Making business out of someones inability to control him/herself requires a completely different mentality, a one that sees nothing wrong with neither committing sin, nor promoting it, nor making money out of it.

      “You seem all too eager to call Muslims who sin kuffar? ”

      No, elhmadulillah, I’m not a takfiri. And it’s not about sinning, it’s about not considering sin to be sin, which, obviously, is the case here.

    18. Mustafa February 16th, 2009 at 7:26 pm

      Another important thing to consider is this. The article say that this shaykh “condoned the killing the owners of TV networks”. Condoned is not the same as ordered; had he proclaimed them to be apostates, he would have ordered their killings. By condoning it, he might have meant that one must try to force them to stop broadcasting immoral content, and if they refuse and resist violently, one is allowed to kill them if necessary. Forcible prevention of sin should not be an issue to any Muslim, especially when we are talking about a Muslim country, ruled by Shariah. There isn’t enough information in the article to support this, but it’s a possibility. And Allah s.w.t. knows best.

    19. MR February 16th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

      @Mustafa – After reading your comments, I realize that I am wrong. May Allah (swt) forgive me.

    20. Qas February 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

      I pray Allah makes me as humble as you, MR, to accept when I am wrong. (not being sarcastic, I really mean it)

    21. Mustafa February 17th, 2009 at 2:50 am

      I say ameen to Qas’s dua, and I ask Allah s.w.t. to forgive met as well if I said something which is not true. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that these people have not done anything which constitutes kufr.

    22. Albert Howard February 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am

      Financier Albert Howard is the creator of Operation “King of Islam” which seek to ban the Quran and all mosques in North America, Europe and Canada.

    23. muslimah February 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

      well, i for one would love the caliphate to be established in saudi arabia. you get to be the ruler b/c you happen to have *royal* blood. how fair is that? Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu’alaihi wasallam) said ‘if you appoint a leader knowing that there’s someone more religious out there, you have failed the muslims’. only a saudi born into the royal family can get to be a ruler. pathetic. it’s clearly the end of times..

    24. umar February 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm

      why? saudi is not a muslim state.. it’s a monarchy

    25. sohaib August 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

      Assalaualaikum wa rahmatullah!

      I think this is a bad step.. if they removed shaykh Muhammad Luhaydan!

Your Ad Here

MRecent Talk

MRecent Posts

MRespected

MRecognize

MReads

Syndication

Recent comments