Saudi women get to vote – in 4 years, with husband’s permission

Still legal to beat your wife. Women not allowed to drive

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:15)…from Muslims Debate

Saudi Arabian despot King Abdullah just declared by royal fiat that women may now vote in municipal elections.

Oh… not in this Thursday’s election, mind you. Saudi women have to wait four years for the next election and they will not be allowed to be part of the national government.

And when that election arrives in four years, Saudi women will still have to have their husband’s or male family member’s permission to leave the home to vote. They won’t be able to drive to the poll and they had better behave themselves because it is still legal for husbands to beat any of their women.

If Saudi women try to go outside without a head covering, the religious police will beat them as per usual. How important is the head covering? The Saudis would rather see young women burn to death than be seen without a head covering. In the UK, Muslim clerics urge Brit Muslims to beat women for not wearing the hijab. In Barbados, Muslim girls are taught that wearing hijab is mandatory.

Not to forget that Saudi Arabia punishes rape victims for failing to prevent their own rapes.

Progress? Saudi Spring? A grand celebration of the dawn of human rights in Saudi Arabia?

Our comments are open for discussion: but only for men. We’ll allow the women to take part in this political discussion in four years – if their husbands give them permission.


Filed under Barbados, Culture & Race Issues, Human Rights, Religion

10 responses to “Saudi women get to vote – in 4 years, with husband’s permission

  1. barbadian

    FOR thE GOD oF This World The Devil HAS BLINDED THEM . Cause they believed a LIE and he is the father of Lies ..

  2. So What?

    Saudi Women can vote? So what?

    Offering Saudi women the right to vote in a country that doesn’t offer its citizens even the semblance of any real choice in the voting is a hollow victory at best. How excited would you have been if you had heard that some previously disenfranchised group had finally been awarded the right to vote in Stalin’s Russia?

    Nevertheless, some of the perennially starry-eyed may think that King Abdullah, in announcing this great breakthrough on Sunday, was paving the way for further advances in Saudi women’s rights. The reaction from Washington was predictably fatuous: National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the move recognized the “significant contributions” women have made in Saudi Arabia, and will give them a share in making “the decisions that affect their lives and communities.”

    Who knows? Maybe King Abdullah’s generous decree is a harbinger of more good things to come for Saudi women, who have made so many “significant contributions” to Saudi society, by having many Saudi babies, and cooking many Saudi meals, and cleaning many Saudi floors. Maybe this is just the beginning. Maybe in another year, the Saudis will let women leave the house without being chaperoned by a male guardian.

    Maybe in two years the testimony of Saudi women will no longer be valued as only half that of a man. Maybe in three years women will be able to inherit a share equal to that of men if the person writing the will so desires. Maybe in four years women will be able to have some recourse when they are beaten. Maybe in five they’ll be able to protest when they’re used as commodities in business deals, given in arranged marriages the way others trade horses or cows. Maybe in six they’ll be able to speak out against the dehumanization of polygamy, and in seven years, who knows? Maybe pre-pubescent girls will be able to reject being married off to men decades older than they are.

    But these further advances are, in fact, unlikely. For unlike the restriction on voting, these other limitations on the lives of women in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places are rooted directly in Islamic law, and thus are not likely to be revised or discarded by a regime that is not only explicitly and self-consciously based upon Islamic law, but is beset by hardliners who believe that it is nonetheless still not Islamic enough. Al-Qaeda and other Islamic jihadists deride the Saudi royals as hypocrites already; imagine their fury if those royals started letting Saudi women be loosed, even just the tiniest bit, from their gilded shackles.

  3. Salahuddin

    *FP should study Islam and stop copy n pasting (as they do with almost every 3rd article). Especially when it comes to quoting from the Quran. Case in point, the above verse…sura 43:15…..the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom”.
    If they had an iota of common sense they would learn that this verse refers to what pre-Islamic Arabia used to think of “girl children”.
    For all those who want to read the whole chapter instead of taking a line out of context, here it is….
    [43:15] They even assigned for Him a share from His own creation! Surely, the human being is profoundly unappreciative.
    [43:16] Has He chosen from among His creations daughters for Himself, while blessing you with sons?
    [43:17] When one of them is given news (of a daughter) as they claimed for the Most Gracious, his face is darkened with misery and anger!
    [43:18] (They say,) “What is good about an offspring that is brought up to be beautiful, and cannot help in war?”
    [43:19] They claimed that the angels, who are servants of the Most Gracious, are females! Have they witnessed their creation? Their claims are recorded, and they will be asked.
    [43:20] They even said, “If the Most Gracious willed, we would not have worshiped them.” They have no basis for such a claim; they only conjecture.

  4. Salahuddin

    Here is another one…..
    “When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! with shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an EVIL (choice) they decide on? (16:57-58)

    Now tell me, does that sound like the Quran condoning such behavior? or abhorring it ?
    (I highlighted the word EVIL.)

  5. BFP

    Hi Salahuddin,

    Perhaps YOU should talk to the Saudis who, according to you, misunderstand the Koran.

    You see, they still think that women are property and they won’t let them drive or even walk out of the house without a male family member giving permission.

    In today’s news, the Saudis are going to try many woman who drove an automobile. Some already did ten days in jail but they want more punishment for this terrible offense. Please call the Saudis up and tell them that they have the Koran wrong!–saudi-authorities-to-try-woman-for-violating-driving-ban?bn=1

    “Activists in Saudi Arabia and abroad welcomed the changes as a step in the right direction. But some also pointed to the case against Najalaa Harriri, who was among the dozens of Saudi women to challenge the country’s longtime ban on driving in a campaign that began in June.

    She was summoned for questioning on Sunday by the prosecutor general in the city of Jeddah, according to attorney Waleed Aboul Khair. She will stand trial in a month, joining several other women currently on trial for driving.

    Activists say the trials reveal a gap between the image the kingdom wants to show to the outside world and the reality on the ground in the ultraconservative nation.

    “I believe that Saudi Arabia has always had two kinds of rhetoric, one for outside consumption to improve the image of the kingdom and a more restrictive one that accommodates the religious establishment inside,” Aboul Khair said.

    In Saudi Arabia, no woman can travel, work, marry, get divorced, gain admittance to a public hospital or live independently without permission from a “mahram,” or male guardian. Men can beat women who don’t obey them and fathers or brothers have the right to prevent their female relatives from getting married if they don’t approve of her suitor.”

    GO AHEAD Salahuddin: Call up the Saudis and explain to them that you understand the Koran but they don’t.

    Please let us know of your success. We’re waiting!

  6. creep

    I am glad I am not a muslim woman. An entire religion that hates women then denies it everytime. To the point where their very faces must be covered as if they are soulless. Why, because muslim men cannot control their sexual urges? If they see a womans face will they be compelled to rape her? Her very face is an obscene and lewd thing – dirty. Women are only valued for their genitals. If this faith is not the craft of demons what is?

  7. Salahuddin

    Fortunately, my parents spent their hard-earned money to educate me both religiously and secularly. Many Muslims dont get either of them. If only the U.S./western educated puppets educated their people. But then, it suits the rulers and the west that Muslims should be illiterate. If they only knew.

  8. Rasputin

    What a laugh. Salahuddin is saying it is the West’s fault that Muslims in Mecca put bags over their wives heads and don’t let them drive and beat them with the approval of the Sharia and the Koran. Is it the West’s fault that non-Muslims in majority-Muslim countries live in fear? Is it the West’s fault that Muslims still stone and cut off hands? A joke. He makes a joke.

  9. 84

    ‘slam is deliberately backwards and loves it that way. They keep their women as slaves, and they like it that way! the whole sordid tale reeks of seventh century, and they like it that way. drag them kicking and screaming into the present? -I keeeel you! -the standard response. steeped in terrorism and don’t even know it. a-holes deliberately backward a-holes and they like it that way

  10. 9

    My brother saw how Islam treats there women and his response was ” I would not do that to a dog”. I have had my own run in with Muslim men and it was awful.