A Case of Suspicion


Rabea strikes again.

25 thoughts on “A Case of Suspicion

  1. I don’t agree with this picture .. there is mistakes in all over the word but even so, i do not think that we are in this low level at all !

    I like when someone tell about his point of view to be in the middle .. not from that side nor to that side .. the picture is really sad because it is not true !!

    I am Saudi and I do live here .. this is my point of view .. accept it or not !

    it is not true

  2. huda, /some/ people actually do that! just as you’re saying /some/ people make mistakes, don’t generalize this cartoon to everyone. in other words, don’t offend yourself.

  3. I second the request for a translation of the “writing in the sky” of the cartoon, so as to appreciate it more fully.

    Without that, it seems the point of view of the cartoonist is an observation that paunchy men envy a fellow paunchy man’s walking arm in arm with a young attractive wife. This is rather universal, and funny to watch the men watching! LOL

  4. Suspicion is unfortunately so often associated with relationships between men and women in our society.

    It also, in my experience, is also so often associated with gossip (at least among men).

  5. I agree with you Huda that generalization is always kind of biased. However, as you know there is always exception for any rule. I think Hay’a is one of the very few exceptions when it comes to the above generalization.

    It is an amazing cartoon.

  6. The two men need to chill, take their wives for a romantic evening out, do a bit of retail therapy just like the couple in the pciture and go to the cinema to watch a Saudi produced film. This is not just a case of suspicion, but of envy as well.

  7. Andrew–I would agree that in more closed societies suspicion is more frequent (eg. in Morocco more than in Canada); and men seem to be more competitive with each other (nature and nurture), and thus more likely to suspect the other in an effort to feel as competent or better (an outsider’s observation on the mail psyche! LOL).

    I understood the cartoon more in that light, since the 3 men are of similar appearance and dress, and as far as I know having a beard, even a scraggly one, and wearing sandals, aren’t unique to the Hay’a (correct me if I am wrong). Or are the thobe hemlines a dead giveaway? LOL

    Kalimaat–agreed, except that as above I think it is more a question of envy and as a result wondering how he got “the babe” and they didn’t: competition–>envy–>suspicion.

  8. For those not understanding: The two men are dressed as Muttawaa (literally – righteous thinkers or men) and they are not happy at the man and woman walking arm in arm. This mirrors the belief that such close contact in public is haram (forbidden by the Quran). I laughed when I saw the cartoon because it does mirror what we see out at the malls here in Riyadh (though maybe not what others see in Dammam or Jeddah).

    • Salam,

      i clearly understood the meaning & thanks!

      like i said “why can’t they just mind their own freakin business?!” please correct me if i’m wrong here…


      • Expat in Saudi–Thanks for your explanation, I for one was initially misled by the hemlines! but finally fully comprehended, the Muttawa reference. Funny either way, but more politically dangerous for the obvious to the Saudi-based Muttawa reference. The arm in arm in public I thought was acceptable for the legally married, hence the extra issues of suspicion and jealousy.

  9. You know, Mr. Al-Omran, I was wondering.. do you think such cartoon is appropriate, and the one you linked this post to as well?

    Do you think making fun of “religious” figures is right? Isn’t it another form of ridiculing religion?

    I am not Saudi, but I find it offensive that you approve such cartoons that are inappropriate by posting them on your blog as a means of publicizing them.

    I guess you should already know that such actions -that are depicted in the cartoon- are not a part of our religion. Such a cartoon generalizes a false claim which is not accepted in no means even if it was true for a few people, who are not in any supposed to be considered representatives of our religion.

    Thanks.. anyways!

  10. I think it is necessary to separate religion from those who act “in the name of religion”.

    I disagree that making fun of “religious” figures is the equivalent of making fun of religion. Such a strategy is about silencing dissent or discussion, by implying that anybody who questions others behaviour is morally (and in this case religiously) corrupt.

    Not everybody who acts in the name of a religion, or any other doctrine or philosophy has the best of intentions. There is also the significant matter of varying interpretation of “the rules” of religion. We witness this in other parts of the world currently.

    The ends do not justify the means, not ever.

    • It’s not about silencing anyone. Say whatever you feel like saying, and question whatever you feel like questioning, but don’t make fun of them.
      Making fun doesn’t equal discussion or posing questions. It only equals disrespect.

      In Islam, we are asked to respect those who spend their lives teaching us our religion. This does not mean to not disagree with them or argue, respectfully. The rule regarding this has no chance of offering “various interpretations.”

Comments are closed.