Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Saudi prince guilty of murdering servant

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sincere sympathy to Bandar Abdulaziz’s family, loved ones and friends.

  2. So let me get this straight. You can drink alcohol and have gay affairs if you’re a muslim prince but not if you’re a commoner. Presumably he will be stoned to death when he’s deported back.

  3. He sounds like an arrogant, evil piece of work. Whilst I’m not in favour of stoning (rumoured should there be a guilty verdict), he should be sent down for a very long time.

  4. IQ al Rassooli 19 Oct 2010, 6:48pm

    This fascinating (and devastatingly sad) case highlights so many issues and ironies with Islam;

    (1) There may well be “moderate Muslims” (i.e. Muslims who are selective in their approach to Islam and do not observe or follow the whole thing in all its absurd hypocrisy and barbarism). However there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” (a basic rule of Islam is that it can never be “improved upon” or modified in any way, and every follower of Muhammad must submit to, and in effect become a slave of, the entire edifice). Islam and Shariah are inseparable and between them comprise one of the most primitive, intolerant, bigoted, violent and predatory ideological system that is still tolerated in our otherwise relatively “modern” western world. Indeed Islam is often even encouraged, or at least protected, by people who in reality generally know next to nothing about what it really or what it does or is intended to do (the same well meaning people from “groups” such as gays, blacks, liberals etc. are often amongst its first victims once it gains a sufficient position of strength in any geographical location).

    (2) “Shariah Law” is an unyielding and entirely inappropriate set of repressive rules (that impose a strict totalitarian system in which creativity and individuality is highly discouraged) that was largely codified as the population of Muslims steadily grew in the unremitting Arabian desert around the 9th to 11th centuries. However it is actually based on extremely harsh rules first imposed on these desperately poor (and completely uneducated) peoples at least 2 hundred years earlier that were themselves based, rather surprisingly, on a highly distorted reinterpretation of social rules originally applied to late stone age and early bronze age communities (as document for example in “Deuteronomy” – that came from the time of Moses) the more extreme of which had already been obsolete for over a thousand years when Muhammad (in the 7th century) decided it would suit his purpose to resurrect and re-impose them. Amongst other things, of course, Shariah specified that any form of homosexuality is a “crime” that must be punishable by death. At the same time, with great irony, however homosexuality is also to an extent allowed by these rules and in some ways glorified provided practised in complete secret and only amongst ruling classes. Even more ironic is the fact that homosexuality is covertly offered (though only in the afterlife – a mythical “garden in the sky” complete with running water and dark eyed boys as well as girls!) as one of the bribes for fulfilling Muhammad’s evil deeds, since his followers were (and are) trained to expect nothing tangible in “this life” for doing so.

    (3) The Saudi “royal” family are behind the “wahhabism sect” of Islam which is a mind-numbingly ruthless and intolerant interpretation of all that Islam and Shariah contains; in particular the violent repression of human beings (it is believed, though largely unconfirmed, that the Saudi royal family still own and violently abuse domestic slaves – what we have seen in London in bin Nasser al Saud’s case is but a glimpse into this). It is Saudi oil-money that is believed to fund around 75% – 80% of high profile terrorism around the world, as well as “stealth jihad” (the stealthy imposition of Islam and Shariah through a war of propaganda and intimidation in universities, schools, hospitals, the food industry, media and publishing, the UN and more or less anywhere else in the world they can get away with it), the building of mosques everywhere (as a “mission”), purchasing vast tracts of farmland in the 3rd world then preventing anyone from working there who does not agree to convert to Islam etc.

    (4) One of the saddest ironies of all (after considering all of the deceit, suppression and hypocrisy that Islam imposes on an ever growing number of human beings around the world, as well as the instability and cost it imposes on all of us lucky enough to be living in the West) is that Muslims themselves are in fact amongst its first and greatest victims of their own cult-system; not only does it utterly blight their lives (look at the effects of Islam on any country that it controls anywhere in the world) but of course the most ferocious violence (perhaps on a par with that reserved by Muslims for Jews) are other Muslims of “the wrong” sect (for example Sunni rather than Shia or vice versa). Though clearly a thoroughly deceitful, violent and untrustworthy man, Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud, he is also extremely confused, repressed, spoiled and suffering from a sort of childhood abuse in which he was taught to view other people and the world around him in a highly distorted and dysfunctional way [Muslims are taught to feel intrinsically “superior” to non-Muslims, and members of the Saudi “royal” family are taught to feel superior to all other Muslims. They are all also taught to feel above any “man made” laws or morality anywhere in the world and believe that by fully subscribing to Islam they can ignore and disregard any division of the world into individual countries, with individual laws, as an artificial irrelevance that in their opinion “Allah’s higher laws of sharia” override).

    I am an Iraqi exile who for over three decades has been studying and reporting on the core texts of Islam (in their original Arabic, which is my mother tongue). If you would like to know more, or are interested in any of my sources, please either listen (for free) to any of the many talks I have posted online about this subject (you can find an index to those talks on http://www.al-Rassooli.org/blog ) or read about it via another website of mine on www. In The Name Of Allah .org You can also talk to me and ask me questions (live on air!) during one of my various internet talk shows or broadcasts, for example on BlogTalkRadio _ The Gathering Storm

    I wish you well!
    Kind Regards,
    IQ al Rassooli

  5. iq – just a suggestion – loose the rainbow font colouring and add a margin to the text blocks on your sight – i could not read what you had to say.

  6. That is a brilliant comment, IQ — one of the very best I have ever read on here. Thank you

  7. Blimey. A gay Arab. What will they think of next?
    Well he was drunk and violent, so he might as well get stoned as well.

  8. 21stCenturySpirituality 20 Oct 2010, 3:26am

    Re comment 4 > Beliefs create behaviours. Case in point. Now do you understand why we need to focus on changing peoples beliefs in order to make any in roads in changing their behaviours?

  9. (any) religion is poison and one of the greatest threats to society! god does not exist and I quote Saramago: man created god and then enslaved himselft to it. this guy should stay behind bars for life for committing this horrendous crime!

  10. IQ, thanks for comment and link. Amazing research.

  11. GayDar Radio made an interesting point this morning: He may be executed if he returns to Saudi, but not for the murder, but for being gay. IQ, you seem to have done some very excellent research, is this because the murder took place in another country which has meted out the correct punshment they saw fit, so his has served his time; and yet being ‘not-straight’ is ongoing, so he would commit that crime as soon as he stepped off the plane? Or could it be that it is just more socially acceptable to them to have a murderer for a royal, but homosexuality is one bridge too far…

  12. Comment no’4 thank you – very eloquent and informative. Comment no’ 9, I like the Saramago quote.

    Personally I think if people want to believe in something that gives them comfort/assurance then its fine BUT not when it starts imposing on my life/space. That’s the problem with most religions, they want to convert everyone and worse, eliminate the heretics (non-believers).
    I was on the London anti-pope demo which was so charged and fantastic to be part of.
    I feel sorry for the victim of the Prince, poor guy, such a painful life which was cut short by his boss who was out of touch and deluded. I’m so glad they caught him and he’s got justice. I hope some secret deal isn’t done to let him out early cause of his family/wealth/position – I hope this case gets worldwide publicity to show the world that anyone can be gay, regardless of their background. Chris (London) PS: I like Hilary Clinton’s youtube message to/about gays. Gawd bless her (even tho I don’t really believe in a god per-sey).

  13. An Cat Dubh 20 Oct 2010, 2:23pm

    Very nicely put, Al-Rasooli! But I do want to point out three things:
    1. I’m not sure all Muslims are necessarily that anti-Jews. I think Jews fair rather well in north Africa. Even in Yemen, while their life is indeed a living Hel, it’s mostly the result of the fact that there are very, very few of them left there, and they’re mostly ex-communicated, not murdered and tortured.
    2. Deutronomy was, at least according to what I’ve read in school (and I went to school in Israel), written only during the First Temple era, in the first millenium B.C.
    3. Surprisingly enough, Sharí‘a is separable from Islám, as is the Hadíth: http://www.QuranicPath.com
    Ma‘a ‘s-salámati!

  14. john sharp 20 Oct 2010, 2:53pm

    monarchy+religion =Abuse

  15. Mihangel apYrs 21 Oct 2010, 7:26am

    Dionysian (11)
    I think murder is a crime for which “blood money” can be paid, i.e. a bribe to the family to forego revenge.

    Being gay is a crime against god, and thus unforgivable.

    Just shows how twisted some societies can be.

  16. IQ al Rassooli 21 Oct 2010, 11:49am

    Dionysian; you asked a key question in your post (#11). You wanted to know why, if he returned to Saudi and was executed, it would be for homosexuality and not for the murder. You wondered perhaps if this would be because the murder occurred in another country (presumably outside the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia)….

    You may be shocked by the answers, and if you are not shocked you ought to be!

    Firstly, as far as “true” followers of Islam are concerned there really are NO countries anywhere on earth! That includes Saudi Arabia itself, and therefore the technicality of jurisdiction is totally irrelevant. As far as they are concerned every part of the world belongs to only one of two “territories”, the territory of Islam (or Muhammad) known as either “Dar Islam” or “Dar Muhammad” and everywhere else that they rather revealingly call the “territory of war” (“Dar Harb”). You see they really do mean, one way or another (openly or by stealth), to fight for and conquer the entire world! Therefore you can be certain that the Saudi “roayal” family would not care a dime about such “man made trivialities” as individual countries or their “man made” laws. Followers of Islam really do delude themselves into believing that their mythical Allah actually did dictate every word of their Sharia Laws and this is the reason why none of this nonsense can ever be questioned, let alone improved upon. Furthermore they believe, as a result of this more basic belief, that Sharia Laws (with all their absurdity and barbarism) already apply everywhere anyway, and overrule all “man made laws” (that we, in our “ignorance” think actually do apply in various “man made” countries around the world).

    These same sadly deluded people really do believe Sharia (devised in the ancient desert based, as I previously explained, on various misunderstandings of even more ancient and barbaric social rules) are somehow more “advanced” than anything the west has to offer!

    Secondly, the Saudi “royal” family will (as all “true followers” of Islam) no doubt believe that Arabs are the “highest” race and that Black people are amongst the “lowest”. Even if a black man is a Muslim he will still be a slave (in Arabic the word for black man and slave is exactly the same; Abd, and it is not even possible in Arabic to separate the two ideas). They will therefore not consider Bandar’s live to have had any value whatsoever and so as far as they would be concerned killing him was a personal matter for bin Nasser al Saud (who as far as they were concerned “owned” him in any case). They ONLY two things they would be concerned about are (a) that bin Nasser’s homosexuality had become public knowledge (they would have known all along and probably been using that knowledge to control him – as I’ve explained in my previous long post) and (b) that bin Nasser had brought “shame” on his (already deeply shameful) family (although few people in the world know – or if they do are brave enough to say – quite how sordid and unpleasant these people actually are by Western standards).

    I hope I’ve helped shed some light on this for you, and thank you again for your kind words to me earlier.

    IQ

  17. IQ al Rassooli 21 Oct 2010, 12:39pm

    PS. for An Cat Dubh…. I’ve just been looking with interest at your website (http://israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=573275) and am not now sure whether or not you ARE a follower of Muhammad. Maybe you are just a kind person trying to make excuses for them (which they really don’t need) and give them some support (which they also really don’t need!)?

    Anyhow, apologies if I’ve made any wrong assumptions but I still believe all of my comments, as posted, stand.

    Kind Regards IQ

  18. IQ al Rassooli 21 Oct 2010, 11:08pm

    On revisiting this page to see if there had been any further response I was absolutely delighted to see so many kind and positive words from a number of you (particularly Drew, Leo and Chris; thank you for your support and I’m very glad you find my earlier notes and comments of interest.

    I’ve been meaning for some time now to add a “chapter” on Islam and its relationship with, and reaction to homosexuality. When I do get around to this I’ll of course as usual quote widely from a number of well referenced traditional Islam sources (mainly the Qur’an and Hadith). What I’m posting here is just a summarised and quite “chatty” extract from my general thoughts.

    I should emphasise that whilst Islamic studies form the core of my specialist interests and expertise I am not especially knowledgeable about sexual psychology or related subjects (all well covered by far better qualified people than me, and please therefore forgive any simplifications or errors on my part). I’m therefore mainly talking about homosexuality in the context of Islam, though it’s important to first set the scene, if you’ll excuse the intentional pun :)

    Quite clearly homosexuality is part of what is now often called “the sexual spectrum” and is a very natural, and indeed necessary, part of human psychology that is somehow even encoded within our genetic material (we all therefore probably have some sort of disposition towards it to a lesser or greater extent). Interestingly it probably has some sort (probably quite a lot) of survival or evolutionary value; it seems that homosexuality is closely linked to creativity, intelligence (especially the sort that requires more flexibility, and less conventionality, of thought) and a number of other generally positive characteristics. (There are so many examples it’s very hard to choose but a couple of my favourites are the composer Tchaikovsky, whose music I love, and the British mathematical genius Alan Turing). None of these appear to necessarily connected, in that it’s perfectly possible (for example) to be creative and “straight” or gay without being creative at all, however statistically there is demonstrably more of a likelihood than merely random coincidence.

    It must always be borne in mind that Islam is fundamentally an aggressive ideology; ultimately military on a large (state) scale whilst of a “lynching mentality” locally or within smaller communities. It is also a ruthless totalitarian system that depends for its survival on fear, ignorance and a complete suppression of any expression of individuality – far better for everyone (at least the males) to “religiously” try to pretend they actually are (or at least do their best to think and behave just like) a single particularly vile historical character; Muhammad.

    In such an environment (a community dominated by Islam, an ideology that for literally centuries has stubbornly refused even the most minute degree of reform, adjustment or improvement) it would clearly be very risky indeed for the followers (clones) of Muhammad to allow homosexuality any “official” existence (even though it is perfectly obvious – given that it’s a biological fact of humanity – that its there in roughly the same “naturally occurring” percentages as for any other population). Obviously, on average, homosexuals are likely to want to express their individuality; think differently, dress differently, question rules, challenge norms and so forth. Absolutely none of this can possibly be “officially” allowed in a community that depends on everyone “submitting” to a regime of crushing anonymity and effective slavery.

    Naturally, as with any evil and tyrannical system, those in power look to find “weaknesses” within their ranks in order to exploit (through the blackmail of threatened exposure), as well as bribe (with secretly made available “pleasures”). To maintain the necessary atmosphere of terror it is of course necessary for them to constantly “out” and publically murder homosexuals (though being careful to chose those of no particular value, through blackmail abuse and exploitation, by the “authorities”).

    I think you get the picture?

    In summary

    (1) Islam is well aware of the naturally occurring existence of homosexuality but officially denies it and encourages extreme homophobia and routine public spectacles of lynching and murdering homosexuals. One of the main reasons it does so is because it recognises that homosexuals are likely, on average, to think and behave in more creative and flexible ways than can possibly be openly accepted within a totalitarian system utterly committed to the suppression of individuality and that depends on mass stereotyping and effective slavery (with many layers of built-in hierarchy of slaves “owning” their own slaves) throughout the whole population.

    (2) Islam thrives on fear and ignorance and delights in terrifying, and so controlling and being able to exploit, any potentially weak or “vulnerable” category or group, be it Women, Jews, Blacks, children or in this case homosexuals.

    I’m sorry the world has to live with the curse of Islam but at least as more and more people have an opportunity to learn the truth then we can more confidently look forward to a time when, like head-hunting or cannibalism, it’s reality has become a dim memory and of only academic interest (confined to museums and books) at least in the vast majority of places on earth.

    Kind Regards,
    IQ

    PS. I mentioned in this rambling post that followers of Muhammad studiously re-model their personalities on his. To find out more about this please do listen (of course for free) to a few of my talks on the subject, e.g…
    Male Muhammadan Characteristics (i.e. what his followers become),
    Muhammad’s Characteristics (the “great” man himself),
    Muhammad & Projective Identification part A and part B (they accuse their victims of the crimes they themselves commit)
    … and so on (please see the Chapter Index for a full list with links).

    PPS. Edward; in your comment #5 you mentioned some cosmetic problems with one (or more?) pages on one of my various websites. I always welcome feedback and do of course care very much so try to get things updated and fixed as soon as I can. I’m not a “technical” person however so depend (with much gratitude!) on the help of a few of my most trusted supporters to actually make these changes. Perhaps you could email me via the contact box on www. In The Name Of Allah .org with links and full details so I can arrange to get it fixed. Thanks again.

  19. IQ al Rassooli:
    I think you have some valid points, but that said, it seems nobody in the media seems to want to mention the fact that the majority of Muslims causing all the problems are of the Shia sect, as opposed to the mainstream Sunni’s.

    This is profligates and financed by the Saudi Arabians, who are bent on world domination. The sooner the government realise this, the better. The sooner Regent’s Park Mosque, a Saudi run establishment, is kicked out as the unofficial voice of Islam in the UK, and a true officially represented British body of Muslims elected, the sooner we might something done.

  20. IQ al Rassooli 22 Oct 2010, 8:46pm

    @ Spanner – thank you for your feedback, post #19.

    I partially agree with your suggestion that Shia Muslims (especially from Saudi Arabia) currently cause even more trouble globally than Sunni Muslims (whom they so hate and despise, and seem to so thoroughly enjoy murdering when they have nothing better to do). In fact did emphasis in point (3) of my original post (#4) that I estimated currently some 75%-80% of high profile international terrorism and “stealth jihad” everywhere is probably funded by Saudi oil-money. Furthermore Iran (also mainly Shia) probably comes joint 2nd as a source for funding or soliciting terrorism and murder internationally (“in the name of Allah”) together with certain Shia minorities within the otherwise predominantly Sunni nation of Pakistan and elsewhere.

    Having said this I could equally list numerous purely Sunni organisations and regimes (for example based in what many people foolishly believe to be “moderate” countries such as Turkey, as well as more or less any other member state of the OIC) that heavily sponsor terrorism and violence against both their own and other (unrelated) peoples around the world, however they’re currently doing so on a somewhat lower key basis for now.

    I’m not by any means the only person who’s identified the lack of division or distinction within Islam (other than sectarian and political distinctions between different groups – most notably Shia and Sunni – who violently and murderously fight each other while trying to gain overall control). Take for example Robert Spencer (hypocritically dismissed by many Muslims simply because of his Christian upbringing even though they can’t find real or valid fault with his profound academic and scholarly rigour, or indeed anything much that he says or has published). In ’ Krauthammer on Wilders’ (on http://www.jihadwatch.org) Spencer recently said
    (while showing that Krauthammer was ’ignorant, naive, and plain wrong’) that “…the fact that all the mainstream sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach as a matter of faith that Islam is intrinsically political and that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law.”

    If you’d prefer to hear it from a fellow Muslim (I’m making the assumption that you are a Muslim – sincere apologies if I am mistaken) then how about Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, no less) who made it abundantly clear that it was the sacred duty of all Muslims everywhere, irrespective of any differences amongst themselves, to “work” (i.e. fight) tirelessly to impose Islam through Sharia on an ever increasing number of Infidels until one day the whole world is conquered.
    Everyone, even Tayyip Erdogan (the “moderate” prime minister of “moderate” Turkey) says exactly the same; several times over many years he has been outraged by the term “moderate Islam” which he calls a “very ugly description” and he has gone on to explain (as we already in any case know) that “It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it” and he is right; Islam is jihad (killing and being killed in the name of Allah in order to spread and further enforce and impose Islam). I could quite pages of quote from Yasser Arafat and many others all saying the same thing; essentially there is no difference in “core beliefs” (i.e. jihad) between any “recognised” form of Islam. Anyone not holding these violent and supremacist views is considered to be kuffar (an infidel) by all other Muslims.

    I hope that clarifies this point?

    Kind Regards,
    IQ al Rassooli

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all