Talk:Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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

Plagiarism[edit]

The main problem with this article is that most of it has been plagiarised word-for-word from the U.S. State Department's 2002 International Religions Freedom Report (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm). An astonishing proportion of Wikipedia articles seem to include, or to consist entirely of, cut-and-paste plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.252.13 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Religious freedom in SA[edit]

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. = Saudi Arabia will hit back at its critics == Judge1999 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC) With respect to this article I feel that Isreal is the secondary issue, so the topic of Isreal must not be opened up. It is not just Saudi Arabia, but even China, Vietnam and other similar few countries which suffers from social, political, religious freedom. It is not that they are wrong but there is no one to call the council for discussion. I blame the US for creating a nuetral stand on religious views. US is a christian country and it has practised freedom for decades, with human rights and whatever council they have done previously. What matters is that US has failed to understand its own stand in religious freedom. Some point must be implemented which is as follows:- 1) Muslims must practise their own religion without force, fear or enticement from any form of source of communication 2) Muslims must get freedom in their religion first, and that with a proper education system accepted by muslims whether expatriate or ethnic caste, backward class, etc 3) Education system must be established with scholars from international & national area. 4) A council of religious discussion must be implemented as a sign of mutual agreement of religious value in human society. 5) Issues of religious tolerance and intolerance must be opened up with justifying remarks and evidence. 6) Non-muslims must not be converted to Islam without proper understanding of Islam and its law. 7) Education system must be appropriate and adequately implemented with regards to the modern generation. 8) A line must be drawn between religion and politics, educatoin and sports, entertainment and sex, womens rights and humans rights, expatraites and other similar rights. If God forbids he could open the eyes of the king of Arabia, the king could make some adjustments at least for humans rights to openup. I am sure that he will do it by 2014 or 2015 or may be 2013 anything can happen today. Once these points are implemented then Saudi Arabia will come out of its dark, doubtful, whatever one may call it, it will be a good beggining. All these problems that expatraite face even a muslim faces but they are unable to speak up due to fear from Muslim world as well as Western world. This affect especially Asian and African muslims mostly because they are not the origin of muslim but converted muslims. One of the crucial factors that make Saudi Arabia isloated from the world is that there is no International bench of discussion who is a representer and mediator for KSA. This rpresentor must be most favoured, educated, gentle, peacful, loving, undertanding and hardworking. If people find one person like this they must support him including the police, priest, and the general people. 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)jjudge 1999Judge1999 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

Yes Furious, you are dead right, that's exactly what we need: Italy and the Vatican to ban all Minarets, Mosques, and Muslims who dress in religious garb or preach on the streets... Surely the world wide muslim community would understand such reasonable behaviour in the place of residence of the Holy Father, and God's representative on earth? Also, the Dome of the Rock should be knocked down or at least converted to a synagogue, as, after all it is built on top of the holiest site of Judaism. Alternatively a lovely compromise of brotherly love and solidarity: a nice modest chapel on top of the Kabaah would surely not raise any objections from the followers of Islam, which afterall does mean peace!1812ahill (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 person was arrested. That happens when a law is broken, as codified in law (at least in civilised countries). A policeman hitting a child is breaking the law (at least in civilised countries).1812ahill (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is so much Islamophobia (which means fear of Islam, not hatred) for a very good reason: Muslims, to a far greater extent than adherents of other religions despise people who don't think as they do, and some of them act accordingly - those statements do not need a citation.
So what if there are pictures of the Kabbagh made to look as if it were destroyed - it's a photoshopped picture FFS, just like the Jyllands posten pictures! So what is there to keep safe, bearing in mind that 'infidels' are not allowed anywhere near it? Incidentally, there are plenty of genuine pictures of buildings (including holy ones) around the world that were actually destroyed - by muslim fundamentalist lunatics.
PS this is not a forum ;) lol 1812ahill (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Britain would have stopped Germans coming over in WW2, but that was a war!1812ahill (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Certains things out there sound like it has a POV and this one really does

Population[edit]

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Religious Demography[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

i agree. i see no reason for the content forking. ITAQALLAH 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose this attempt to accomplish what AFD did not. IronDuke, 6SJ7 are correct. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGREE with the above. Bigglove 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article's Title[edit]

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)[reply]

The title as it now stands, Religious Freedom in Saudi Arabia, is Orwellian. Saudi Arabia has, by most measures, the least religious freedom of any state on the planet. The article is almost entirely devoted to detailing all of the ways in which religious freedom is restricted. We should call a spade a spade.Historicist (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've added this {{fact|date=Septemeber2009}} to many unreferenced statemnts I've removed an unreferenced statement tagged in 07,added templates too--NotedGrant Talk 09:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I do not think this article has been written in an NPOV there are blatantly obvious statements here which seem to be non neutral .I wont make this some sort of a debate or anything if you do not agree with my changes simply revert them and explain them here if your explanation is satisfactory I won't argue --NotedGrant Talk 09:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "morals" back to "mores" (The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.), which better reflects the info in the cited supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting my edit --NotedGrant Talk 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like most of the changes that were suggested in the above discussion were made, and that your changes have been kept. Do you think it's okay to remove the neutrality-dispute header now? 64.134.66.137 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Metallurgist (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to Jerusalem Post article[edit]

A 2007 article in the Jerusalem Post asserted that Bibles and other non-Islamic religious items were subject to confiscation upon entering the country. Per this source, the United States State Department disputes the claims made in the article as based on outdated information. Accordingly, I've removed the claim. -- Heath 198.82.18.203 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info back in, along with the info about the State Department disputing the reports, and along with additional information and more supporting citations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on dated info and garble[edit]

I just saw this recent edit. I would have congratulated the editor involved on his talk page for making a good catch but, since the editor involved was an anon, I'm commenting here. The edit removed some text which previously read "The country’s total land area is about 1,225,000 square metres (1.225 km2) and before the recent land transfer to Yemen), and a population of more than 27 million, of whom approximately 19 million are citizens. ...", and replaced it with less-garbled text. Aside from fixing the garble there, the good catch of which I speak relates to the word "recent". Saying "recent", of course, flouts the style guideline enunciated at WP:DATED and begs the question "recent in relation to what date?" A reasonable answer to that question would be "recent in relation to the date the user is reading the article", but the actual answer is "recent in relation to the unstated date on which some unidentified editor entered this info into the article." As it turns out, this particular information was entered into the article, punctuated differently, in this January 2006 edit; "recent", apparently, is in relation to that 2006 timeframe — which is the reason for the oft-flouted WP:DATED guideline. Anyhow, nice catch. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal requirement (or lack thereof) that citizens be Muslims[edit]

There's been a mini WP:EW developing involving myself and others about this. I'm going to ask that the point of disagreement be discussed here. Relevant edits and their summaries are:

I had read the relevant portion of that 2013 source, but my botching the link in the cite may have introduced confusion about what it says. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

No law requires all citizens to be Muslim, but non-Muslims and many foreign and Saudi Muslims whose beliefs are deemed not to conform with the government’s interpretation of Islam must practice their religion in private and are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, detention, and, for noncitizens, deportation. Children born to Muslim fathers are deemed Muslim by law, and conversion from Islam to another religion is considered apostasy, which can be punishable by death. Blasphemy against Sunni Islam also can be punished with death, but the more common penalty is a long prison sentence, lengthy detention without trial, or protective custody. There have been no confirmed reports of executions for either apostasy or blasphemy since 1992.

I'm pretty sure that that last mentioned edit above by me is currently correct, so that's where I've left the article for now. It is possible that other sources contradict the one I have cited there (hopefully with the correct link this time). If such sources exist, WP:DUE describes the relevant policy about what the article ought to contain. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this source is 2012 report this is newer source that say about the law of citizenship to saudi arabia since 2013 "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship and non-Muslim places of worship are not permitted" https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html this is from the cia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.133.227 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've indented the above paragraph for readability. I see that in this edit you have removed assertion either way about religious requirements for citizenship. I'd say that not mentioning the point satisfies WP:NPOV on it, though one could say that it flouts WP:DUE, and I expect that if the disagreement between sources goes unmentioned here a POV edit one way or the other supported by one or the other of the disagreeing sources will resurface here at some point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention here for future reference in case discussion on this picks up again that the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia article says, "the Basic Law contains many characteristics of what might be called a constitution in other countries", Royal Order No. (A/91), 27 Sha’ban 1412H (or 1 March 1992), titled "Basic Law of Governance", says in Article 35, "The Law shall set forth provisions for Saudi Arabian citizenship." As far as I can tell, this document (widely available), titled Saudi Arabian Citizenship System, sets forth in English the legal provisions concerning Saudi citizenship. It says, "The Saudi Citizenship System was approved by the Cabinet according to the Decision no. 4 dated in 25/1/1374 Hijra, as follows: [explicit detail follows]" (25/1/1374 Hijra seems to be 38 years prior to the aforementioned royal order but, AFAICS, those are the current provisions). That is pretty primary sourceish, though, so there ought to be absolutely no editorial interpretation of that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this edit has added back in an assertion saying, "The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim". I've tagged that {{disputed-inline}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed that as poorly written and unsourced. Looking at the history - seems an ip added that with an edit summary citing the CIA factbook. Vsmith (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the removal. The CIA factbook isn't a great source for this sort of thing and there are is a resonable amount of sourcing suggesting the law doesn't require citizens are Muslims. See also Human rights in Saudi Arabia#Freedom of religion and belief Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. The CIA factbook is a questionable source to be using for such issues - it offers no sources for the assertion, and there are other sources covering the issue in greater depth. One only has to look at the data on religion they give for other countries to see why it is problematic - the data for Cuba for example is "prior to CASTRO assuming power". I see no reason to assume that any of this is anything more than a repetition of census or similar data (in some cases this is explicitly stated), and as such can be no better than the original source - which can of course be cited properly if located. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1207296887"