About That Saudi Girl Getting Killed For Facebook

Let me put aside the obvious shocking factor of being utterly disgusted by the event (is there a way to be shocked and yet not surprised), but there is something that interests me here and that’s the international media’s reaction. Did anyone notice that this crime took place in August of 2007 and is only now being reported by the international media? This story is being reported like it happened last week. Did something get lost in translation? Literally?

As fellow GVO blogger Jillian York points out, the main reason it’s getting picked up now is due to a recent statement made by the Saudi Sheik, Ali al-Maliki, who said said in what must have been a grand moment of lucidity for him: “Facebook is a door to lust and young women and men are spending more on their mobile phones and the Internet, than they are spending on food.”

I think some of the international press even amended their earlier articles to include the time frame after its late discovery. Reading this Telegraph article on the day of its publication, I don’t remember seeing this supposed drop-in. But I could be wrong about that and my eyes could be playing tricks on me. I mean I have been seeing leprechauns lately, and I do try to ignore them, but what can I say, the little green men want what the want (mostly for me to burn things). Although since others have noticed it too, I guess I’m not going crazy (yet).

It’s not only interesting, but kind of ironic, how things in this fast-paced digital age still take a while to spread and get to the right sources. The Danish cartoons literally took several months before getting picked up by the press in the Muslim world, which explains why riots took place long after their publication (the first time around). The second reprinting may just be a demonstration of the mechanics of all this are simply getting a bit better and a bit faster (which in this case, is not always a great thing).

Secondly, I don’t what’s the deal with judging everything as the reincarnation of the devil. Technology, particularly the Internet, is undeniably a Pandora’s box, but so is every thing else, including books. Should we ban the Quran simply because we don’t like “The Satanic Verses” or “The Da Vinci Code” for that matter? Okay, that may not be the best example I can think of right now, but you see my point.

Why is the first reaction to these reactionary systems of government and religion, always involve banning things, censoring them, cutting them up, setting fire to them, or even worse, declaring them Islamically, haram; a sin?

Are they under the impression that we are the only conservative culture in the world that is left to deal with the woes of technology? America deals with it on a daily basis. We see it all the time on shows like 20/20 or 60 Minutes or Dateline: someone has a problem with MySpace or Facebook or blogging. Technology, especially the Internet, evolves. It’s meant to evolve to solve these problems. There are ways to control what our kids do on the Internet by using utilities such as CyberNanny; ISPs abroad will even offer blocking services for parents who ask for them.

The idea is to find a compromise; an evolving status quo where we can use certain technologies for good, and weed out their negative aspects.

Not make them haram, and certainly not kill people over them.


  • Why are you going too far ,you have Al -Arabia which is the mouth piece of the Saudi Royal family did not even utter a word on this incidence..

  • Alurduni: I don’t have it on me, because i frankly haven’t looked that hard. but do some digging at their site. nearly every article i read in the international media mentioned that it was first carried by alarabia

  • the problem is bad use “chatting is not a bad use though”. conservatives are facing many earthquakes in their controlled space and are often loosing steer.. so goes with television, cell phones, magazines, and almost every other thing.

    they blame the mediums of change, not understanding change itself.

    on the other hand, I am shocked of how everything new gets to be used for a bad purpose, or a silly one in fact.

  • Ahmad: it is surprising but i think even if it is used for “bad” purposes by the overwhelming majority of people, it’s still not a reason for such a reaction

  • the video of the infamous Obama pastor was released after 4 months of the original speech … its called strategy …

    should i say goodbye to facebook ?

    and did u note that the word strife “used in international media to translate Fitna” was used in quoting the sheick ?

  • naseem, definitely not!

    abo daoud, for the great shiekhs its both or either.. for islam, its none.

  • this is messed up i can understand chopping her hands off than killing. the poor girl i mean steeling is a bigger crime than being on facebook seriously if it was a boy he would of gat away with it

  • muslim is good but saudi isnot i want to tel alqaida don not become anemy of shiekh sharif somali prisiden become ateror of saudi kingand kindom they erenot laeds qadafi is bether than them deport somali muslims faithing to ugadisho america doesnot do it
    he baned somali livestock he import ustrelian sheeps and kamels
    tomoro he wil ban the haj becouse of swine flue allah bless muslims suni and shiates butnot saudi rules

Your Two Piasters: