The ban has sparked mixed reactions throughout the Arab and Muslim blogospheres: While some bloggers are outraged, others make the point that banning minarets does not hinder practicing the faith.

Lebanese-American Pierre Tristram, who blogs for About.com, opens a post with this paragraph, condemning the Swiss decision:

How can 59 million people be so dumb, Britain's Daily Mail famously asked in a day-after headline of the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. The Daily Mail can notch a new one for its shame gallery: How can 3 million Swiss be so bigoted?

Tristram closes with this scathing comment:  “The difference between your average Swiss and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the poster child of racist rants, has just gotten much narrower.”

Egyptian blogger Hicham Maged searches for an answer in his post, and concludes:

In a nutshell, I am looking forward for Swiss people to re-evaluate what happened; it is not only whether law protect citizen's rights or not, which is something important to debate and go for in the Swiss courts to correct for sure, but what is more important for me is that this fatal mistake should set up an alarm for not falling into the swamp of ignorance where nothing fill it but fear, anger and stupidity ~ Everywhere!

Another Egyptian blogger, whose blog is entitled Not Green Data, recognizes the credo that “a mosque is a mosque,” but laments the loss of the mosque's beauty in the Swiss ban:

Can you imagine a cube of Swiss Cheese, without its eyes - the holes in it? Or a Swiss Knife without the compass or the screwdriver? This is exactly what the Swiss people want to do with mosques. A mosque will remain a mosques without its Minarets, and it will still function the way it is supposed to function without them. But it will then loose its architectural identity and beauty.

British blogger Matthew Teller, a Middle East travel writer, focuses on the propaganda posters of various Swiss

A poster by the Swiss SVP calling for a ban of minarets

campaigners, picking apart both sides of the battle in this post, describing the poster to the left:

The repulsive SVP, who’ve used what the Financial Times called “strident populism” to target ‘foreigners’ of all kinds in Switzerland as criminals, benefit cheats or worse, kicked off the campaign with the poster opposite: “Stop! Yes to the minaret ban”. Look at the imagery: minarets as missiles, women as menacing, the burqa as concealment, black as a threat, the Swiss flag cast into shadow from the east, the cross obliterated.

Algerian-American The Moor Next Door, seeing the ban as a power struggle, remarks:

The minaret, for its opponents, symbolizes Islam’s “arrival” in the Alps. It stands to proclaim the Muslim presence above other faiths and peoples. Banning it, then, is to ban a symbol of Muslim power and existence

…

The aesthetics of identity, and therefore power, are what the drive is really about. It is a way for a people in doubt to affirm and define their confused identity by rejecting that of the newcomer’s.

Syrian blogger Maysaloon has a unique perspective on what the most important narrative of this story is.  Setting aside the issues of bigotry, fear, and architectural integrity, the blogger makes the following point:

Neither Swiss bigotry, nor the religious or architectural significance of minarets are what is important about this story. What is important is that for the first time in 400 years, at least since the Ottomans besieged Vienna, Muslims are having a real impact on what is happening in Europe.

The blogger goes on to highlight the ways in which Islam has influenced the “west” and vice versa, concluding:

To sum it up, I am not worried about the bigots. Minarets and sharia can be banned, headscarves can be torn off, and all the cartoons in the world will not stop the fact that Islam is now in Europe, and it is in America, and it is spreading throughout the world.

To conclude, Mauritanian Twitter user weddady's comment on the end result of the referendum sums up well the sentiment of many.  He says, ” Now no one can pretend that Europe doesn't have a problem with Muslims, nor can anyone deny the extensive Islamist presence there.”

On YouTube albaraa1994 posted this video showing the flooding:

Saad Al Dosari says:

If anybody wishes to write a management book about project management failures, he will find plenty of examples in this aged bride of the red sea; Jeddah. Project management failures, this is my only explanation to what happened in Jeddah this past week. Millions and millions of riyals have been spent on projects that promised state of the art infrastructure to the long time forgotten city and guess what; those projects could not stand four hours of rain!

Ahmed Al Omran says:

This would not have happened if the people of Jeddah had a say in how their city is run. This would not have happened if there was transparency and accountability in how our country is governed. I’m beyond angry and disgusted.

According to MuSe:

Ironically most of the dead were non-Saudis and the poor, even death know how to discriminate. lots of head should be rolling the following days , lots of unfaithful and corrupted officials, but i am not optimistic about that, they keep gambling on our forgetting nature.

Najla is outraged:

Zuhair Alghamdi has an idea:

Eman Al Nafjan makes a suggestion:

Heavy rains led to flooding because of how the city is managed. Millions go into its infrastructure for digging sewers and putting in pipelines and paving roads but by the time the money finally trickles down to the purchase of material and hiring contractors, it doesn’t cover the costs anymore. For the past few years the people of Jeddah have been complaining and grumbling about it. […] I propose that the king hand over the Jeddah municipality to ARAMCO as he did with KAUST (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) when it became apparent that officials were skimming the budget.

KAUST is near Jeddah, and some students have written about how the rain affected the KAUST campus. Eric says:

This morning, after a rather romantic thunderstorm, all hell broke loose; along with a handful of houses. […] After blocking out the sirens and the impressive filing of emergency crew workers lining the streets I was able to soak in the damage of this otherwise harmless rain storm. The roads were flooded two feet deep in water, the entire female population had been evacuated from their housing (sent to Jeddah for at least the next week), and ten male students were relocated because the conditions in their homes were “uninhabitable” (in other words, they didn’t just have leaks, they had entire ceilings collapse in the middle of the night as a result of water build up). In short, KAUST had become a refugee camp in a matter of hours.

Another KAUST student, Nathan, writes:

Heavy rain is something like a natural disaster because the infrastructure here is not designed to handle water. Homes flooded, streets flooded, and the mobile phone network was knocked out for a while. The rain was pretty incredible, we must have got three inches in just under an hour (about 7.5 cm). The weather network says that Jeddah only gets 54 mm of Rain every year - we've exceeded our limit for the next 1.5 years in one night!

Ibrahim Hudaif asks:

Do they have at least a disaster recovery plan for the Shaheen the supercomputer center at KAUST?

Finally, Ahmad Qushmaq points out what makes these floods a little different:

In his lecture during a meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section, Shanmugam observed that many people are criticizing the dominance of a single party in Singapore politics because they are comparing Singapore with other countries. He insisted that Singapore should be judged as a city.

“…nobody questions whether there is a democracy in New York…. This is where most people make a mistake. I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country.”

Cavalierio accused the Law Minister of “twisting logic” to justify authoritarian rule in Singapore:

And now, for all our efforts and sacrifices put into creating a precious piece of country, we are told that we are not a country after all. It sounded vulgar; sounded like a shirking of responsibility, like a dereliction of duty.

Singapore, if you are not my country, who is?

Shanmugam’s motive was less lofty: he was arguing that Singapore’s political system shouldn’t be measured against the yardsticks of ‘a normal country’, where Singapore would invariably appear undemocratic. Instead, he argued, Singapore should be compared to ‘cities’ like Chicago, San Fransisco, and New York City – cities that have enduring one-party rule. Cities that are democratic.

Sometimes when we reach into the crux of the matter, we find that it is the old chestnut again. The old self-serving chestnut of authoritarian rulers pretending to be a democracy, twisting logic to suit one’s power.

So in the end, the answers that Shanmugam provided to his American guests last week, about our press, our judiciary, our political system, were non-answers really. Pertinent questions explained away in a camouflage of rational non-responses.

Rachel Zeng wants Shanmugam to elaborate his point since she couldn’t understand that line of thinking

Personally, I find that a little difficult to swallow. If Singapore is not a country but a city, then which country is our city part of….

Well, I don’t get it. I will really appreciate it if our dear K Shanmugam will kindly enlighten us here since he has been paid so much to play a part in the governing of Singapore city.

Commenting on this blogpost, Anon clarified that critics should first read the full transcript of Shanmugam’s lecture to appreciate the context of his assertion that Singapore is a city, not a country

Read the transcript. When he spoke about Singapore being a ‘city’ rather than ‘country’ he was explaining why elections in Singapore were so lopsided despite us holding free and fair elections. He compared Singapore to cities in the USA, and how many cities in the US had a single party dominating elections for decades.

While he did say that Singapore “isn’t a country”, he certainly didn’t mean it that way!

Clement Tan is disappointed that Shanmugam, a leader from the new generation, would deliver a controversial argument like this:

I am very disturbed by what the Singapore Law Minister said… At least with Lee Kuan Yew and members of the older guard, I knew what I could expect from them- whether or not I actually agree with them, is another issue. But with K. Shanmugan, part of the newer generation of Singaporean political leaders, I'm not even sure if he actually believes, connects and knows what he's arguing for.

The Temasek Review dissects the loopholes of Shanmugam’s arguments

Did Mr Shanmugam make a “honest mistake” or a freudian slip? If Singapore is NOT a country, then are we still considered a sovereign and independent state? So which country owns the sovereign rights of the city of Singapore?

Singapore is unique in the sense that it is both a country and a city at the same time.

As an important minister in the Singapore cabinet, Mr Shanmugam’s words carry a lot of weight.

Why are Singapore males serving National Service when they are only defending a city and not their country? Who does our Prime Minister report to? What value does our pink IC have? Are we citizens of a country or residents of a city?

The Journey of a Decade believes that yes, Singapore is and has always been a city:

Not say I say what.. This sentence seems to have angered quite abit of Singaporeans…. Lets get this straight… no one said anything about Singapore being a country. We have always been a city.

We have always been an island city state. I can understand how we often we hear things like defending the country among others….it is not exactly correct. It should be defending the city.

In January this year, at the time of a debate on introducing a new law against domestic violence, the Hungarian Spectrum blogged:

President Sólyom doesn't seem to be too concerned, although according to Hungarian sociologists every week at least one woman dies as a result of domestic violence. And that statistic doesn't include old people and children who are abused or even killed. There was something on the books allegedly dealing with the issue, but it was totally ineffectual. Police couldn't act on the spot and weeks might go by before the case ended up in court. By that time, the plaintiff could be dead. Moreover, the police rarely acted. They simply didn't want to get involved in “family squabbles.” It was, for example, totally useless to call the police and report threats. The answer was: as long as there is no blood no action can be taken. I remember one specific case when such threats were uttered by a young boy against a young girl. The girl's family reported the situation. The police did nothing. A few days later the girl was dead. […]

Because of the refusal of the law in January by László Sólyom, the Hungarian president, the law was changed and the Hungarian Parliament voted on it in June again, and it came into force in October. The law, which has changed the regulation of limiting the freedom of movement to the person accused of committing violent acts, is still criticized (HUN) as not being effective enough.

This month, Hungarian NGOs joined (HUN) the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign. Amnesty International Hungary started a Facebook event where they published their two campaign videos from 2005.

Giving the title of a Hungarian singer Zséda's new song dealing with domestic violence (”Behind Doors”) to his post, tegla07 wrote this (HUN) on his blog:

[…] You're walking on the street and you have no other possibility: you are either one of them, or not. You can't do anything else. You can't be independent - you are among them, or next to them. But a lot of people, and among the lot there are more and more, who try to live as if all this didn't exist. Until it turns out that their best friend, a friend of a friend, a colleague, a cleaning lady or a secretary, a female director, teacher, CEO, is beaten at home…

And why? Every situation is different, every fate is unique, but. But there are rules, there are limits which are impossible to step across. There are situations when the “why” fades, and you can't ponder over it - and mostly, you can't judge.

You can't judge somebody because of her “weakness” (weakness? she stands up to something that you, probably, would never be able to), because of her “powerlessness” (powerlessness? she re-builds herself every morning from nothing)… If somebody's hurt, there's no question there. You must get there, from anywhere you are. You must hug her, to let her know that she's valuable. To let her know that she deserves something different. […]

Nobody, nobody deserves those slaps. Nobody, nobody can think that he has club-law in his family. Nobody, nobody can just pass by a humiliated woman. Nobody, never has the right to speak in another person's ear about a woman hurt… When will we understand this?

From the President's son to renowned actors and actresses, media figures, writers, and Facebook users, fury has blinded common sense; Dr. Mostafa Al Naggar was there the night of the demonstrations in Zamalek and he hated what he saw:

Wael Nawara knows that a hairline separates patriotism from chauvinism:

Ahmed Naje is disgusted with the Egyptian cultural scene

Naje goes on to denounce the shameful statements of those who should carry the torch of enlightenment. He actually believes that they have tricked us into looking up to them for decades and tricked those in charge of film festivals into believing that they were worthy of honors and awards:

Naje continues the saga of prejudice saying:

When asked to choose sides, Egyptian-Algerian actor Ahmed Mekky chose Egypt. Zeinobia cheered for his new song “I am Egyptian“:

Ahmed Mekky has released a new Rap song but this time he is singing for Egypt. Egyptian-Algerian Mekky demands an official apology from Algeria for what happened. It is the best among all these songs released lately may be because it is more honest and it is not about the crisis rather about Egypt itself.

Instead of separate Egyptian and Algerian statements, Wael Nawara published a joint Egyptian-Algerian statement signed by 140 people from all over the Arab world:

Karim El Beheiry of Egyworkers posted ” A common Decision … We Won't Separate” in English, Arabic, and French:

Ahmed Al Sabbagh posted an initiative to reconcile the two countries on Facebook and on his blog:

The success of the campaign has won tremendous popularity for Chongqing’s leadership, especially for the party secretary Bo Xilai, also a member of the powerful Politburo. However, many people expressed doubts as to whether the procedural justice was respected, whether Bo launched this campaign solely out of his own ambitious agenda, and also whether such a Mao-style campaign would be effective in solving long-term problems. In September, John Kennedy of GV reported on this debate by asking whether Bo Xilai’s corruption crackdown was good for China.

The debate reached another dimension when the State-run newspapers started to report on the sensational drama that was involved in Wen Qiang’s interrogation. The following quote comes from a tabloid-style ‘news story‘ reported by Yangtse Evening News, a widely distributed regional affiliate of Xinhua News Agency, based on the information provided by an ‘anonymous insider':

被“双规”后，文强知道自己不招供一些违法事实难以过关，最初装出很坦白的样子，在审讯时天天讲自己喜欢女人和玩女人的大量故事，他还主动讲述一些强奸少女、玩女明星的过程，“他说但凡有女明星、女歌星到重庆走穴演出，只要能想到办法搞定她们，包括用钱买、利用女星的隐私恐吓她们等，他都要和这些明星睡一觉。”但文强聪明反被聪明误，他老婆得知文强交代的这些情况后，“大哭不止，一直骂文强是个畜生，”消息人士说，“然后她交代了文强的一些问题，还带着我们去挖鱼塘取出了赃款。”

This story raised the eyebrows of many, notably those of columnist Chang Ping, who wrote an article on the matter in  The Financial Times’ Chinese website. In the article, Chang Ping suggested that the so-called ‘anonymous insider' could only be one of the investigators of Wen Qiang’s case. He went on to question whether the investigators had followed the proper procedures by making this criminal case into a tabloid sensation. He speculated that the police most likely had not even verified the information with any of the so-called ‘actresses', neither did them follow the principle that no matter how bad a suspect seemed to be, they should not be treated and vilified as a real criminal before the formal indictment took place.

在中国，几乎所有的腐败官员都有八卦消息，但是这些消息的源头并非八卦人士，而是非常严肃的机构，不是警方就是宣传部门。与媒体略有不同的是，他们释放消息时有着非常严肃的目的，那就是证明此人道德堕落，生活腐化。而且，在他们看来，在这个阶段，从道德上打垮他，比从法律上认定他的犯罪事实更重要。

那么专案小组为什么认为文强“强奸少女、玩女明星”是最重要的消息呢？这跟中共的历史传统有关。在这个传统中，当权者并不满足于从法律上指控落败者或犯罪嫌疑人，而是要将他全面“搞倒”、“搞臭”。生活作风问题，是一场永远不会终结的连续剧，这个国家的人民也越看越上瘾了。

However, Chang Ping’s essay has sparked a heated discussion in the following comment section which seems to suggest that many people believe sometimes to attack the evil, political tactics may take precedence over the due process of law. In this sense, the very mindset Chang Ping is attacking still possesses a great deal of currency. Following is a sample of such comments.

打黑是一种正义的行为，你们还说成官场斗争；我看你就有黑社会的细胞。说是官场斗争也好，是一批好官要斗倒一批黑官，对于人民来说，就是好事！当年共产党斗倒国民党，你也可以说是一场官场斗争，但是，广大的穷苦人—中华民族的根基所在，确是翻身了。这是天意！！！！黑社会是社会的毒瘤，哪个官养他，就是与人民为敌，这样的官一定要斗下去。

看到你写这样的文章，真是感到悲哀。我一贯对中国知识分子抱有好感，对于政客和普通老百姓对他们的奚落和嘲笑感到不平，但是，看到你这篇文章，只有一个感觉——迂腐，可恨！

你在纠缠于一些细枝末节的时候，知不知道自己已经偏离了大道？在中国当前的情况下，不采取特别手段能将这帮恶人制服吗？人家在那里冒着危险举起大刀劈向豺狼，你这里却批评人家违反了动物保护法，你这不是助纣为虐么？

这个作者显然对中国的政治还不了解，就来这里试图忽悠别人。记住了，一件事，不看动机，而是看结果。如果这件事情最终的结果是让坏人死掉，好人受益，那就是好事。这件事情，文强是个坏人，付出代价，那是正常的。现在作者在这里矫情西方的所谓‘无恶意假定’，想要说明什么？难道想说 审问农夫和蛇中的蛇，也要给他仁义道德？作者明显是为了稿费炮制这么一出添西方媒体屁股的文章～

长平，总觉的自己都是对的，嘴里叫着法制，就站在道德制高点，他的评论无论对还是错，都是特别的专业，总能从一些事情中抓住事物的本质，比如就这件事，贪官有几个不乱淫，在中国都报道很多，可是法制联系在一起，人权就出来了，就把人带到另外一个境界，忽悠的好像就是那么一回事，特别有逻辑

To be fair, many people also show support for the ideals that Chang Ping stands for.

如果没有证据，那这些消息不是炮制出来的是什么？司法机关又不是娱乐媒体，说话不应该负有严肃的责任么？

我认为长平的想法是值得重视的。事实上媒体对性的过度关注，从某种程度上转移了对更严肃主题——政治腐败的注意力；同时，我们重视严肃的法律审判，保护犯罪嫌疑人的基本权益，就是为了从制度上进行更深刻的反思，避免“胜者为王、败者为寇”的循环。

长平是中国为数不多的谨守职业操守的媒体人之一，可惜的是，大多数国人不在乎这些。

为什么没有人关注程序的合法性了？难道将一个堕落分子从灵魂到肉体都批烂、批臭就是我们追寻的目标？我们如何保证不会在消除罪恶的同时，产生更多的罪恶？

缺乏现代公民意识的中国人民,只能继续在这种清官的盼望中轮回.

曲高和寡, 这是痛苦.

A third, more cynical sentiment can also be found occasionally in the comments. For these people, not only this story on Wen Qiang’s sexual affairs but the whole crackdown is merely a part of a power struggle. Therefore, in their opinion, there is simply no point in arguing whether it follows procedural justice or not.

法只不过是打倒异已的手段,

政治斗争自古以来尔虞我诈。什么打黑，什么严打之类其实就是对本来就不健全的法律的践踏。没有什么合理合法的事。

政治斗争, 谈不上什么正不正义, 手段而已, 多点娱乐资料, 没什么不好.

现代人都活的太压抑，在这个全民娱乐八卦时代，把注意力放在花边上也可以理解。

如果愚蠢到认为在中国还可以按法律程序来处理社会问题，尤其是黑社会问题，那对中国的国情实在太不了解了。如果说世界上还有什么非法治国家，中国自然不会不出现在名单上。历来的运动或事件是从来不会考虑社会进步和百姓需要的，而总是政治工具而已。等什么时候中国各级当权者真正为老百姓的利益考虑事情，中国也就真正开始强大了。只是，这种愿望可能永远都不会实现。

On Aug. 13, 2007, the same Neva Express train was derailed due to an explosion; some 60 people were injured then. Coincidentally, in the past few days, there has been an increase in the Russian media coverage (RUS) of the trial of Maksharip Khidriev, one of the suspects charged in connection with the 2007 attack; an Ingushetia native, he is alleged to have links to Chechen rebels. (GV posts on the 2007 Neva Express train derailment are here and here.)

No witness reports of the tragedy seem to have appeared in the Russian blogosphere yet, but there are plenty of reactions still, and below is a small selection.

LJ user peresedov recalls the 2007 accident and the ongoing trial of one of the suspects, and posts this comment (RUS):

[…] Whether you want it or not, these two events [appear related].

I'd like to ask the experts: to which extent could these two events be interconnected, and is it really possible for Khidriev's associates (he has been proclaimed [Doku Umarov]'s person) to have prepared an attack like this in two days, and what the hell is going on here in general?

UPD. [LJ user] beri_llii links to a report claiming that the train explosion was carried out by yet another obscure nationalist group: [http://headshotboy.livejournal.com/137255.html]

(The post linked to in LJ user peresedov's update has since been deleted, replaced by another one (RUS) with an explanatory note, which says, among other things, that “the nationalists' statement” turned out to contain false claims of their involvement in the train blast.)

Some bloggers chose to draw parallels between Friday's train accident, the trial of Maksharip Khidriev, and Kurban Bayram (Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice), a three-day Muslim holiday, whose celebration began on Friday. LJ user warsh wrote this (RUS):

[…] I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a Kurban Bayram “gift” from the North Caucasus rebels (as it was with the attack on the Neva Express in 2007). I'm wishing them to join [the Chechen guerrilla leader Shamil Basayev, killed in 2006] as soon as possible.

And LJ user uliana wrote this (RUS):

All things considered, the newest Neva Express blast is someone's kurban. A consequence of the fact that those guilty of the first blast have been “appointed”…

LJ user aneta_spb mentions the 2007 attack and the trial, too, but points out (RUS) to other factors that might have caused the crash:

[…] The suspect in the previous catastrophe [case] has just admitted [his involvement] (and how many more they kept trying to implicate in this case!)

I can imagine what this night is going to be like for Novgorod's doctors… With roads like these… […]

***

murys:

We were just driving from the countryside, gave a ride to a man who, as far as I understood, worked for the Ministry of Emergency Situations or a similar kind of place. He said that this segment of the railway near Bologoye is so rotten in general that they don't have to explode anything there, and this could've been a secondary explosion, too. […]

aneta_spb:

Exactly - you don't even have to make an explosion. A couple weeks after [the 2007 Neva Express accident], we were on a train and spent some six hours waiting [not far from the site of Friday's crash], because there had been some accident in front of us. And prior to the rushed launch of the [Sapsan high speed train route], they were doing some urgent repairs, and it's likely that they haven't finished something or done something wrong. […]

And here's a comment (RUS) on the rescue effort, posted anonymously in the ru_railway LJ community:

In this situation, I'm most upset about the fact that they've spent so much time bragging about the Emergency Situations Ministry's cool new rescue center in Moscow, about all the info that they've got showing on the little screens, and the fact that they are now capable of taking urgent decisions, but what's the use of all these decisions if the local rescue equipment is not in the working condition, and that's why they had to send some [all the way] from Novgorod. The accident took place at 9:34 PM, and the rescuers from Novgorod set out [to the site of the accident] only at 10:40 PM, and it takes two and half hours to ride along those roads, if you can call them roads at all, and that's the best case scenario. They've sent the planes out - but why don't they have anything locally?!