Skepticism is called for. The prohibition on women going out without a male guardian is not “extremism.” It’s basic, mainstream Sharia: “The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home…because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet…said, ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out of it if he is averse” (Reliance of the Traveller m10.4).
The Saudis are unlikely to go against a command of Muhammad. This relaxation of the prohibition is likely to be window dressing designed to improve Saudi Arabia’s international image.
“Saudis to Let Women Travel Without Male Permission, Newspaper Says,” by Vivian Nereim and Sarah Algethami, Bloomberg, August 1, 2019:
Saudi Arabia will allow women to travel abroad without permission from a male guardian, ending a restriction that came under heavy international criticism and led some women to take extreme measures to flee the country, local media reported.
Authorities have approved amendments to laws governing travel documents and civil status, allowing women over the age of 21 to obtain passports and leave the country without securing the consent of a guardian, Okaz newspaper reported on Thursday, without saying where it got the information. The English-language Arab News daily said King Salman Bin Abdulaziz approved the changes in a royal decree.
The kingdom’s official gazette tweeted that amendments to travel rules, the labor law and civil status law would be included in its next edition.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has put loosening social restrictions at the heart of his economic transformation plan for Saudi Arabia, which relies on diversifying away from oil and attracting foreign investment.
The government has clipped the powers of the kingdom’s infamous religious police, relaxed gender segregation and lifted a ban on women driving. At the same time, authorities have clamped down on domestic criticism and arrested some of the kingdom’s most prominent women’s rights activists.
Long CampaignThe latest changes remove language that dictates a woman’s place of residence is with her husband and will allow women to report marriages, divorces and births similarly to men, Okaz reported.
Saudi women’s rights activists have campaigned for years against the conservative Islamic kingdom’s guardianship system, which renders women legal dependents of a male relative throughout their lives. Women currently need permission from their guardian — typically a father or husband, but sometimes a brother or son — to marry, apply for a passport or leave the country.
Many of the women who fought for an end to guardianship are currently banned from travel or are behind bars, including Loujain Al-Hathoul, an activist who turned 30 in jail this week….
lebel says
“Skepticism is called for. The prohibition on women going out without a male guardian is not “extremism.” It’s basic, mainstream Sharia:”
Fine, so conclusion: are the Saudi going against Sharia? if so (and it appears to be the case), can they still be considered a Muslim Government?
In other words, what does this mean?
Steve says
So if the husband is OK with his wife traveling without him, or a proper male guardian, then so be it, but if he’s not, he can just say I divorce you, 3 times over. Same thing with women driving. Looks good for a tiny few but certainly not for the majority.
gravenimage says
Does lebel have a problem with women being treated like possessions? Not so he says…
lebel says
I think the actual quote from me is: “I, Lebel, have no problem with women being treated like possessions. That’s right, I said it and I don’t care who knows it.”
Once again GI does the investigative work to unmask the slippery, slimy and sneering Lebel. Bad Dhimmi!
Carol the 1st says
That’s male supremacist thinking and it doesn’t have the stamp of approval in the “dhimmi” world. Even the unbalanced UN likes to at least appear more egalitarian, decent and clever:
The United Nations defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or *arbitrary deprivation of liberty*, whether occurring in public or in private life.”
gravenimage says
Note that lebel will not condemn this Shari’ah horror–instead, he pretends that sneering is sufficient. Then, how would “bad dhimmi” apply here? Infidels–including dhimmis–don’t act like this.
saturnine says
It means history is repeating. The House of Saud is indeed flouting the Sharia, as it did in the 1970s.
They won’t be caught by surprise again [1]. State repression of fundamentalist elements (i.e., anyone who suggests the House is insufficiently Muslim) will be relentless. But the more the House deviates from the Sharia, the greater the pressure for revolt. The only question is when.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Grand_Mosque_seizure
lebel says
OK but where is it going? do you mean that they will continue these reforms until a backlash occurs and then reverse course?
What about the general population? do they agree with these reforms? It appears for example that most Saudis agree that women should be allowed to drive:
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1177691/saudi-arabia
gravenimage says
Saudi Arabia has always been one of the worst Shari’ah states.
lebel says
Does Lebel have a problem with the rape and torture of innocents? not so he says…..
Did he stop beating his wife? not so he says….after all it’s in the Quran
gravenimage says
Again, sneering is *not* a denial–as lebel well knows.
CRUSADER says
Face it, lebel, Irshad Manji wins in the long run….
lebel says
Hopefully her sweet, sweet sweet, sweet taqqiya will work, yes. We already managed to infiltrate Obama and he was able to implement sharia with his health care plan and environmental policies.
gravenimage says
Would lebel actually have any pro0blem with the horrors of Shari’ah being imposed in the West? Of course, he will not say so.
Angemon says
“can they still be considered a Muslim Government?
In other words, what does this mean?”
That depends: do you believe that one calling himself “muslim” must, and do, at all times, follow islamic commandments, including those found in sharia?
Of course, if one were to say “muhammad said that war is deceit so it’s perfectly permissible, under sharia, to pretend to ignore sharia law if it is done temporarily to advance islam” them I’m certain your response would be “if the saudis didn’t do this it was sharia, now that they do it’s taqiyyah, it’s a catch 22, they can never with with jihadwatchers”, etc….
lebel says
“Of course, if one were to say “muhammad said that war is deceit so it’s perfectly permissible, under sharia, to pretend to ignore sharia law if it is done temporarily to advance islam” them I’m certain your response would be “if the saudis didn’t do this it was sharia, now that they do it’s taqiyyah, it’s a catch 22, they can never with with jihadwatchers”, etc….”
Well the catch 22 is simply a reality but let’s put that aside and assume that the Saudis are “doing taqqiya” here to advance Islam. The first thing I would ask is why would other prominent religious Muslims oppose this to the point of violence if it’s taqqiya? Surely the Saudi authorities could organize a secret meeting with those opposed to these reforms and explain that this is taqqiya (and every Muslims knows about taqqiya) to advance Islam. instead, they never seem to be aware of that. They very publicly criticize the Saudi authorities and end up in jail. One could of course say that it’s all a big masquerade and the guys are not really jailed etc but given that some people are put to death for such criticism it seems unlikely.
Angemon says
“Well the catch 22 is simply a reality”
It is a reality – unless, of course, you’re going to argue that islam does not mandate lying to advance its cause.
“The first thing I would ask is why would other prominent religious Muslims oppose this to the point of violence if it’s taqqiya?”
There are viable reasons to do so. You simply fail to see them because a) you see all muslims and all strains of islam as a single, homogenous monolith, b) you won’t take into consideration that individual muslims can be influenced by things other than islam, and c) you need to distort and play loose with facts to pretend JihadWatch is a hate site and that everyone posting here hates muslims. That was made more than obvious in a recent article where Mr. Spencer’s opening statement read “This Eritrean migrant may or may not have been a Muslim, and there is no indication at this point that this was an act of jihad” and you commented “he’s Muslim because he must be Muslim or the world of jihadwatchers no longer makes sense. It is important to link this attack to Islam which is exactly what RS did and jihadwatchers thank him for it”. Dishonest much?
“Surely the Saudi authorities could organize a secret meeting with those opposed to these reforms and explain that this is taqqiya (and every Muslims knows about taqqiya) to advance Islam.”
See my points a) and b). Because you’re a bigot and imagine islam as a single monolith and muslims as mindless drones who must all think and act the same, this makes sense to you. Speaking of which, I asked you this: do you believe that one calling himself “muslim” must, and do, at all times, follow islamic commandments, including those found in sharia?
Carol the 1st says
Aren’t the Saud royals known hypocrites who appease and have their dance cards messed with by the Wahhabis? The Sauds giveth and the Sauds taketh away as strategically as strikes their fancy and their aims. Allah can usually jerk the chain to their brains but “the times they are a’changin” so we’ll all have to wait and see.
BTW they say more muslims have converted to Christianity in the age of the Internet than in ALL the 1400 years of Islam.
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
It probably means the handful of women who need to travel for business purposes can now do so.
keith says
And of course it will be a simple matter for the husbands to cut off any money from the wife so she can’t travel or do anything for that matter, without the males approval.
Different means, same end. Total control!
Naram-Sin says
Now, if they just allowed them to go outside and withdraw money from the bank without the male guardian’s permission, they might be able to buy a ticket to leave Saudi Arabia.
gravenimage says
I’ll believe this when I see it.
seabird says
Wow, “you’ve come a long way, baby”.
Just stop by our Kingdom’s consulate where
we have some littles paperwork to sign and you can be on your way.
Update on burqas in swimming pools;
I spoke to a friend who professionally cleans pools and he said allowing your dog to swim in your pool creates contamination equal to about 40 humans. (!).
He estimated contamination from a burqa swimmer (in a pool) to be about 20 human swimmers.
In an ocean or lake, contamination would be minimal and I have no problems with that.
You should see what they wear on the beach here-why should I care?
mortimer says
Many women will now leave Soddy Barbaria and never return. The misogyny of this backward, medieval kingdom will gradually unravel and women’s rights will increase all the while undermining the misogynistic fabrications of Islam and the belief in Islam itself.
Within 20 years, Muslims worldwide will be fed up with this backward Death Cult and give it the heave-ho. We must hasten this moment by supporting counterjihad authors.
Carol the 1st says
Once Islam disguises what’s bad (especially for others) all that remains is pablum and Moe’s control grid loses it’s snakelike fascination. Forget nonsensical reform efforts and drive it back under those two rocks like the horrific joke it’s always been. Some stains can’t be washed away (per Lady Macbeth) and we’re in the 21st century now and would like to stay a little longer.
CRUSADER says
But did Mohamhead exist? Or was he an excuse that was made up — as with the Queer’an by an early “caliph” to instill rule over a burgeoning empire?
Carol the 1st says
Maybe he was a bit of an amalgam or contrivance like Robin Hood. The latter really struck me as I read about his beginning attacks in The History of Jihad earlier today. All ever so transparently justified or foreseen in order to make of the creed something it wasn’t and isn’t. A war drum with delusions of grandeur and excuse for the simpletons.
ninetyninepct says
Does that picture show a Muslim beauty pageant?
Crusades Were Right says
The hussies showing their naked hands were disqualified. lol
Walter Sieruk says
If and that is ,indeed, “If” really true that the authorities will now allow women of Saudi Arabia to travel aboard without a male guardian then that is tremendous . Likewise if this law is real and not, later, overruled by other officials on the Islamic kingdom that this literally a giant leap forward for that oppressive misogynist state .
Nevertheless its far too late for other young females victims of that nation
The Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a kingdom of callous brutal misogyny of the most heinously heartless kind there is. An example, only a few years ago in Saudi Arabia a girls dorm caught of fire, the girls naturally rushed out of that dorm that was on fire . In their hast to escape the flames they forgot to take and put on their face veils.
Those Islamic state police of Saudi Arabia with this totally unreasonable and heartless Islamic mindset forced all the girls back into the dorm that was on fire. Only because they didn’t have their face veils. So all those girls did a horrible painful death .This is worse than tragic and sad, this is the murderous misogyny of the Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Sabboleh says
The only reason this is happening is because rich and powerful democratic countries exist. Once those countries are subverted then the rule will return.
DP111 says
Newspaper says authorities are going to allow women to travel abroad without a male guardian
Whats the world coming to.