PDA

View Full Version : Is Mecca, Saudi Arabia anti-ukulele???



Luke El U
10-07-2014, 02:38 AM
So it is rumored (usually claimed as a fact) throughout the internet that a law exists in Mecca, Saudi Arabia which 'prohibits carrying of an unwrapped ukulele on the street' -- some sources further specify that this law only applies on Friday.

I took a quickie search through the city's website, and even found a search tool for their city codes/ordinances, but was unable to locate this 'law'. What laws are available online, however, appear to brief and/or incomplete.

I'm curious if any of our members are in a position to attempt to verify this in person -- any volunteers???

BillM
10-07-2014, 04:30 AM
Interesting question. Is there some thread circulating on the web about anti-ukulele ordinances on the books in cities that, coincidentally, are considered centers for some religions? So far we've seen Salt Lake City and now, Mecca. Will Vatican City or Jerusalem be next?

Perhaps I am missing the point of these threads. That's certainly possible. :confused:

Ukejenny
10-07-2014, 04:37 AM
Just want to interject that, down here in the Bible Belt, ukuleles are welcomed and becoming more and more of a common occurrence.

PereBourik
10-07-2014, 06:20 AM
Interesting question. Is there some thread circulating on the web about anti-ukulele ordinances on the books in cities that, coincidentally, are considered centers for some religions? So far we've seen Salt Lake City and now, Mecca. Will Vatican City or Jerusalem be next?

Perhaps I am missing the point of these threads. That's certainly possible. :confused:

My guess? Somebody thinks it's funny. I don't.

Rick Turner
10-07-2014, 08:02 AM
I would hope that the moderators will shut this down before things get ugly around here.
I'd like to see no veiled or open references to religions here at all.

river_driver
10-07-2014, 08:07 AM
I would hope that the moderators will shut this down before things get ugly around here.
I'd like to see no veiled or open references to religions here at all.

Yes. This. Please mods, lock this one up.

river_driver
10-07-2014, 08:22 AM
This is what I learned from 3 minutes on Google.

The Salt Lake City ban, reported in the related thread, most recently showed up in a Washington Post article on dumb laws published last July:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/02/a-is-for-artichokes-an-alphabetical-guide-to-things-cities-and-towns-ban-for-no-clear-reason/
(Note that it says the law was in effect "as of 1976" but gave no indication it had ever been enforced.)

The question raised by the OP in this thread is clearly derivative, as the phrasing is absolutely identical. Probably generated by some anonymous lout trying to get people worked up for no good reason.

There. Mystery solved. Mods, please shut this one down.

BillM
10-07-2014, 08:29 AM
Yes. This. Please mods, lock this one up.

Agreed. :agree:

sukie
10-07-2014, 08:35 AM
Agreed. :agree:

Yep. ...

itsme
10-07-2014, 08:50 AM
Copycat threads are lame.

wickedwahine11
10-07-2014, 08:56 AM
Enough already guys.