The choice is yours

By Sabria S. Jawhar
Saudi Gazette

THE other day I received an e-mail from a Saudi brother who told me that Netto market, which is less than a block from where I live, is owned by a company in Denmark. He didn’t have to tell me to boycott Netto. I already made that decision once I looked up the market’s ownership and found it to be true.

You won’t find me in the streets protesting the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or demanding the heads of the Danish cartoonists. No, I’d rather use my pocketbook. Boycotting goods and services of a business in a country that seems to think it’s okay to hurt and humiliate one-fifth of the world’s population, and then hide behind the right to freedom of speech, is the right way to protest. Nothing hurts more than depriving people of money.

In fact, I’m not very happy with those noisy demonstrators who seem to think that violence is the solution to stop the publication of the cartoons. It makes us look rather foolish. But a well thought out campaign to stage boycotts, write letters and use good old-fashioned diplomacy is a more mature, intelligent and effective device for demonstrating my anger.

Now I must take the train to Tesco, buy my stuff there, and haul it back in plastic bags like a beggar. All my fellow train passengers will know that I have a weakness for Kit-Kat bars and frozen cheese cake. I just hope the Danes don’t buy a majority interest in Tesco anytime soon.

But I must confess that I am more than a little curious about the boycott and the protests occurring around the world over the cartoon issue. I admire my brothers and sisters who have taken up this burden to spend considerable time attempting to educate the world about what it means to be Muslim and why publishing these cartoons is so wrong.

What I don’t understand is why similar efforts are not made to boycott products and countries that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Muslims worldwide. If a cartoon is so offensive to us, isn’t murder of a Muslim in an illegal war or occupation equally or more offensive.

I’m referring, of course, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing Israeli assaults on Gaza. We have been boycotting Israeli products for decades now, as we should. But when scores of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, the vast majority Muslims, are killed daily, we do little to rise up and demand action against those responsible.

We have discovered that boycotts are effective. We’ve learned that Danish businesses have lost millions of euros due to the Muslim boycott. The Swiss-Danish company Arla Foods reportedly lost 1.3 million euros a day in 2006 due to the boycott. Danish business leaders estimate losses between February 2006 through this summer will reach as much as 36 billion euros. In other words, it’s working.

So perhaps it’s time that we expand the boycott to include businesses that aid and abet the slaughter of Muslims.

For example, although British troops evacuated from Basra late last year, did you know that more than 125 Muslim women doctors, lawyers, activists and just plain housewives were tortured and murdered on the streets of that city? Most of these murders occurred under the coalition’s and the local government’s watch.

American soldiers each day kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians and attribute it to unfortunate collateral damage in the pursuit of insurgents. Private American companies charged with providing security for American businesses have killed innocent women and children. The most famous abuses have been perpetrated by the firm Blackwater.

Why is it that we do not boycott businesses in these countries? Should we boycott General Motors and Ford for building vehicles that transport troops to small villages where Muslims will certainly die? When Muslims purchase a Hummer, or Humvee (and you know who you are), they are buying the most recognizable symbol of the US military in Iraq. The Hummer is built and sold by the same people who send vehicles to Iraq to aid the war effort. Shouldn’t Muslims consider a boycott of General Motors products?

Are we boycotting Sara Lee and Tyson Foods for feeding the men that kill Muslims? Next time you buy a frozen pie look at the manufacturer’s label. Is this company feeding the man who killed your Muslim brother or sister. Rolls Royce, owned by the German automaker BMW, manufactures engines for military aircraft, including helicopter gunships, to send troops to kill. Why do rich Muslims continue to purchase Rolls Royce cars?

Boycotting products is a personal choice and we do it for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding the original intent of the protest. We either engage in a boycott or not depending on convenience and whether it’s practical.

Maybe it’s not practical to boycott General Motors if the only affordable car you can buy at the time is a Chevrolet. But it’s easier to boycott Sara Lee. Just move to the next freezer and get another frozen pie from another maker.

The choice is yours.

Boycotting products that hurt Muslims - The choice is yours

By Sabria S. Jawhar
Saudi Gazette

THE other day I received an e-mail from a Saudi brother who told me that Netto market, which is less than a block from where I live, is owned by a company in Denmark. He didn’t have to tell me to boycott Netto. I already made that decision once I looked up the market’s ownership and found it to be true.
You won’t find me in the streets protesting the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or demanding the heads of the Danish cartoonists. No, I’d rather use my pocketbook. Boycotting goods and services of a business in a country that seems to think it’s okay to hurt and humiliate one-fifth of the world’s population, and then hide behind the right to freedom of speech, is the right way to protest. Nothing hurts more than depriving people of money.
In fact, I’m not very happy with those noisy demonstrators who seem to think that violence is the solution to stop the publication of the cartoons. It makes us look rather foolish. But a well thought out campaign to stage boycotts, write letters and use good old-fashioned diplomacy is a more mature, intelligent and effective device for demonstrating my anger.
Now I must take the train to Tesco, buy my stuff there, and haul it back in plastic bags like a beggar. All my fellow train passengers will know that I have a weakness for Kit-Kat bars and frozen cheese cake. I just hope the Danes don’t buy a majority interest in Tesco anytime soon.
But I must confess that I am more than a little curious about the boycott and the protests occurring around the world over the cartoon issue. I admire my brothers and sisters who have taken up this burden to spend considerable time attempting to educate the world about what it means to be Muslim and why publishing these cartoons is so wrong.
What I don’t understand is why similar efforts are not made to boycott products and countries that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Muslims worldwide. If a cartoon is so offensive to us, isn’t murder of a Muslim in an illegal war or occupation equally or more offensive.
I’m referring, of course, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing Israeli assaults on Gaza. We have been boycotting Israeli products for decades now, as we should. But when scores of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, the vast majority Muslims, are killed daily, we do little to rise up and demand action against those responsible.
We have discovered that boycotts are effective. We’ve learned that Danish businesses have lost millions of euros due to the Muslim boycott. The Swiss-Danish company Arla Foods reportedly lost 1.3 million euros a day in 2006 due to the boycott. Danish business leaders estimate losses between February 2006 through this summer will reach as much as 36 billion euros. In other words, it’s working.
So perhaps it’s time that we expand the boycott to include businesses that aid and abet the slaughter of Muslims.
For example, although British troops evacuated from Basra late last year, did you know that more than 125 Muslim women doctors, lawyers, activists and just plain housewives were tortured and murdered on the streets of that city? Most of these murders occurred under the coalition’s and the local government’s watch.
American soldiers each day kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians and attribute it to unfortunate collateral damage in the pursuit of insurgents. Private American companies charged with providing security for American businesses have killed innocent women and children. The most famous abuses have been perpetrated by the firm Blackwater.
Why is it that we do not boycott businesses in these countries? Should we boycott General Motors and Ford for building vehicles that transport troops to small villages where Muslims will certainly die? When Muslims purchase a Hummer, or Humvee (and you know who you are), they are buying the most recognizable symbol of the US military in Iraq. The Hummer is built and sold by the same people who send vehicles to Iraq to aid the war effort. Shouldn’t Muslims consider a boycott of General Motors products?
Are we boycotting Sara Lee and Tyson Foods for feeding the men that kill Muslims? Next time you buy a frozen pie look at the manufacturer’s label. Is this company feeding the man who killed your Muslim brother or sister. Rolls Royce, owned by the German automaker BMW, manufactures engines for military aircraft, including helicopter gunships, to send troops to kill. Why do rich Muslims continue to purchase Rolls Royce cars?
Boycotting products is a personal choice and we do it for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding the original intent of the protest. We either engage in a boycott or not depending on convenience and whether it’s practical.
Maybe it’s not practical to boycott General Motors if the only affordable car you can buy at the time is a Chevrolet. But it’s easier to boycott Sara Lee. Just move to the next freezer and get another frozen pie from another maker.
The choice is yours.– The writer can be reach at: Sabria_j@hotmail.com
Her blog is: www.saudiwriter.blogspot.com

The High Road to Syria

Monday, 17 March 2008

Saudi Gazette
By Sabria S Jawhar

THE Arab summit is just around the corner for March 29, but things already look very rocky. When Crown Prince Sultan announced that Saudi Arabia will attend the summit in Damascus, but with no mention of who will be the Kingdom’s representative, you just know that very little – if anything – will be accomplished.
The Crown Prince’s announcement brings up several questions, such as why the heads of some Arab states, such as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz wouldn’t attend Syria’s summit.

For starters, Damascus neighbors are miffed that Damascus has failed to heed repeated requests to convince its “allies” in Lebanon to give up their opposition to electing a president (for the country) and demand they get the job done. Arab leaders are fearful that if an election continues to be delayed, the Lebanese government, already in a precarious situations, will collapse.

But the Arab Summit, as a concept, is not a laughing matter. Arab countries should give weight to the summit by taking it seriously, no matter how poorly the host country behaves and, this is what Crown Prince Sultan clearly stated when he put an end to the rumors that Saudi Arabia may boycott the event. He told Al-Jazerah newspaper that “it’s an Arab summit that we can’t give up.” However he was very honest and realistic when he added that “the goals of the summit would depend on who will participate in it.”

To tell you the truth, I don’t detect a lot of enthusiasm there. Even Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not coming. And the Egyptian government indicated that it won’t send its prime minister to head the Egyptian delegation. Like the Saudis, the Egyptians want a new Lebanese president before March 29. That apparently isn’t happening, so Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit will go instead.

Iran is also sending its foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, who has taken the stand that Iran wants a Lebanese president that is acceptable to all religious and ethnic groups. To me, that sounds like a policy that is doomed to failure. Government leaders can lead by consensus, but leadership can’t be all things to all people.

Adding insult to injury, Syria has not formally invited Lebanon to attend. But Egypt and Saudi Arabia seem to believe that boycotting the summit will only lead Syria to play a more dangerous game in Lebanon.

Though not officially announced yet, the Arab grapevine tells us that perhaps Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will attend the summit, which is, to me, the highest appropriate level of representation under these circumstances. Yet this might be a sort of disappointment to the Syrians, who are hoping King Abdullah would make the trip and add some urgency to the deliberations of the gathereing.

Prince Saud is a very intelligent diplomat and a good choice to represent Saudi Arabia, but Syrian officials should have known by now that he does not tolerate fools. He was a reluctant participant at the Annapolis conference last year because he was afraid it would be another dog-and-pony show in which Israel gets to talk about peace.

Look how true that turned out. The only positive thing that came out of Annapolis was that Israel and Syria indicated a willingness to settle the Golan Heights issue. But it turns out that the Bush administration has shown little interest in that deal, so the Israelis have conveniently forgotten about it.

Yes, it sounds like rehashing old news here, but Saudis are well within their rights to view the Syrian event with skepticism. What exactly is going to be accomplished at the summit if Syria can’t even heed, or at least discuss, the wishes of its Arab neighbors?

Arab leaders have demonstrated a commitment to keep the unity and credibility of the summit, and will send their foreign ministers despite Syria’s poor manners. Syria doesn’t deserve the number of high-level ministers who will attend, but the summit itself certainly does.

King Abdullah took the high road by agreeing to participate. If anything, the summit will serve the purpose to allow Arab nations to voice in unison their displeasure over Syria’s behavior.

Syria will have Iran on its side, but the collective condemnation of Syria’s meddling in Lebanese affairs could very well make attending the summit worth it.Despite the circumstances and lack of enthusiasm for the summit, I have high hopes that Syria can get on track and act like a responsible country.

Anger and an agenda: an explosive mix

By Sabria S. Jawhar
The Saudi Gazette

Al-Jazeera was forced to apologize last week when guest Wafa Sultan on the segment "The Opposite Direction" defended the publication of the Danish cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), then spent most of her airtime insulting Muslims by saying the cartoons were reflecting the truth of Islam.

The Syrian-born Sultan has been on Al-Jazeera before so the station knew what to expect from her. The news channel was right to apologize.The Danish cartoons have caused an uproar among Muslims worldwide. To have her on the program and spew insults only added insult to injury.Sultan has made a name for herself since 9/11 giving speeches and writing articles that condemns Islam as barbaric.

She is a darling of Western media. She satisfies their concept of what a good Muslim should be. So whenever a Western news outlet wants a Muslim to attack his or her own religion with extremist views, she tops their list.

I never paid much attention to people like Sultan, but her comments have drawn so much attention I decided to watch the interview. I saw an angry woman who only used the Danish cartoon issue to further her own agenda, and she often referred to Muslims as "you" as if she is distancing herself from her own culture and "religion",if she has any. Her single-mindedness in attacking Islam often led her off the topic of the segment.

Sultan claims to be a Muslim but doesn't believe in Islam. I've heard she sometimes says she is an ex-Muslim. Well, what is she or what does she want to be? What is the motive for having her on the program? To give her fame? It's the only motive I can think of since she isn't clear on her political and religious stand. She is a contradiction in the most starkest terms. From what I can glean from her rantings is that if we want the West to perceive us in a better light, then we should conform to their concept of what is Islam. Is that our ultimate goal? To be perceived better in the West by changing our religious values? What kind of a mentality is that?

My impression of the news segment was that Sultan did not speak as a scholar or expert on Islam, but as a hurt and angry woman. From what I understand of her background, she was reportedly traumatized when she was a 21-year-old student in Damascus when she witnessed one of her professors murdered by terrorists. This led to her crisis of faith.This might explain her hatred for her own culture and religion. This explains why she is a single-note critic of Islam. This is why she parrots non-Muslims who use fear and hate to attack Islam. But it doesn't justify having her on the program.It's also interesting that Southern California InFocus, a Muslim newspaper in the United States, conducted an investigation of Sultan that casts doubt on her story about the assassinated professor. The investigation also revealed that she lived in poverty and had little interest in politics until her instant fame once she appeared on Al-Jazeera.

What makes Sultan a fraud and an opportunist is that she has virtually no credentials to speak on Islam. She is an American citizen and a psychiatrist. She is not a theologian, a scholar or even an expert in political affairs. She's an angry, hurt woman with an agenda.But Western media find her entirely credible. After all, she is a Muslim and that gives her a pass in the West as an expert. This is why I am surprised Al-Jazeera would give her airtime in the first place.

Egyptian Tal'at Rmeih, the guest appearing opposite Sultan, expressed opinions that Muslims should exercise the rights of boycotting Danish products and staging demonstrations outside Danish embassies.Sultan's extremist remarks neither fit Rmeih's sensible, moderate comments or the opening tone of the show. She came out swinging at all things Islamic and did not even directly respond to Rmeih's views. Al-Jazeera would have served its viewers better if it found a moderate Muslim, and not necessarily one well known. If the news channel wanted an opposing view to Rmeih, then it could have found a Muslim or even non-Muslim with a Western viewpoint who would defend the publication of the cartoons without resorting to anti-Muslim rhetoric.

What I found traumatic with this highly inflammatory interview is that I hear this kind of hatred in English from Westerners. While I don't hear it often to my face, it doesn't surprise me when I do. But to hear it these hurtful things in Arabic, it makes me sick to my stomach.

The Greatest Kind of Diplomacy

By Sabria S. Jawhar

Two California universities have signed partnership agreements with Saudi Arabia to bring faculty members to the Kingdom to develop research programs and help hire and train professors. A third university is finalizing its agreement.

The University of Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley plan to be part of the $10-billion King Abdullah University of Science & Technology in Jeddah. California Polytechnic State University, a nationally ranked, four-year comprehensive public university in San Luis Obispo, and more commonly known as Cal Poly, will help design engineering programs for the University College of Jubail.

This is an extraordinary opportunity for both American and Saudi educators to benefit from the partnership. The universities will profit handsomely from the deal. Cal Poly will receive $5.9 million over five years to develop engineering studies at Jubail. Cal Poly faculties will also build laboratories and train professors, although only men will be able to participate as either students or teachers.

Berkeley stands to earn $28 million in a five-year agreement to create a mechanical engineering department, while Stanford will receive $25 million to design the math and computer science departments at KAUST.

KAUST, in fact, will be an island unto itself with a co-ed system, complete with American and European professors and academic freedom.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, all three US universities received harsh criticism from students, advocacy groups and even fellow faculty members for the deals. Critics cite Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, the seemingly never-ending argument of women’s rights and allegations of restrictions of academic freedom.

I will be the first to admit that what Saudi Arabia needs probably more than anything is to improve its human rights track record. I have complained enough about women’s rights in the past, so I certainly understand the concerns of the Americans.

Cal Poly in particular has been hit hard by critics, who claim that partnering with Saudi Arabia means an endorsement of discrimination against women. These critics proudly proclaim themselves to be liberal thinkers who must take a stand to side with Saudi women in what they claim is their fight for equality.

But these so-called academic liberals entirely miss the point of what the three universities are attempting to do.

First, let’s consider the argument that American universities should not participate in academic programs in a country that allegedly denies women their rights. The question is whether students and university professors think that isolating that country will actually work. I would think that the US has realized by now that isolation and sanctions almost never work. They’ve been isolating and placing sanctions on Cuba for more than half century now, and yet Fidel Castro stepped down – voluntarily, I might add – only this year, outlasting no less than nine US administrations, and handed the island over to his brother, of all people. So there you go.

Then there’s Iran. No matter how the US keeps tightening the screws, now, almost three decades later, there is still no sign of the Revolution coming undone.

Look at the Palestinian-Israeli struggle for a more glaring example. For the Israelis, who seem to have an inbuilt incapability to learn from the long history of their mistakes, the attempted isolation of the Gaza Strip has resulted in absolutely nothing but endless violence.

For Saudi Arabia, though, it will all simply be business as usual, since the country was founded without any help from the United States.

The lesson learned from all the boycotts installed and partnerships rejected on the basis of an affected country’s conduct is that spreading knowledge, exchanging ideas and having mentors teach the willing is perhaps an exercise in the greatest kind of diplomacy.

King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, has made it perfectly clear that Saudi Arabia needs to improve its academic curricula. The fact that Saudi Arabia’s universities are so far down the global list of educational quality is embarrassing. And we can’t send enough students abroad to earn their post-graduate degrees to quell the shortage of quality professors. We should feel fortunate enough that these universities want to help us achieve our goal of providing a quality education.

Allowing Stanford, Berkeley and Cal Poly the opportunity to provide us with quality curricula means invaluable help to bridge some of our shortfalls. By educating our professors and students, the US will achieve what isolation has failed to do: Demonstrate the value of equal rights among men and women and the importance of diversity among different cultures and religions. If these three universities are denied that opportunity, Saudi Arabia will not be the only loser. And the so-called liberal academics who are so determined to demonstrate their solidarity for Saudi women will actually hurt their cause by denying Saudis – both men and women – the opportunity to make use of what the West has to offer. And as always, Saudis will base their acceptances or rejections on their own beliefs, whatever values the West has to offer.
I must admit I am troubled that the engineering program in Jubail is only available to men. However, I can’t help but think that Cal Poly’s high professional presence will eventually loosen some of these restrictions and perhaps open some doors for women.

Those who protest that a university should not enter into partnerships in a country that is still struggling with the issue of equal rights among men and women, as well as cultural and religious issues, are perfectly within their rights. But it’s a question of whether it is better to just sit there and do nothing or seize the opportunity to make a difference. The answer is obvious. Yes, the difference may not be felt in the immediate future, but wait and see. The dividends from becoming partners with Saudi Arabia will be of benefit to everyone involved.

Meet Me Halfway

Monday, 03 March 2008
By Sabria S Jawhar


A Saudi man complained to me last week that some Saudis are becoming too Westernized. He went on to say that they should have preserved their own culture.
Maybe, I thought to myself, the guy should look out the window - he just might remember that he himself is studying in the United Kingdom on a scholarship paid by the Saudi government. If he's not comfortable with that, then he might as well pack up and go home. I remembered this conversation the other day while I was reading a news article saying that Saudi students in Australia are seeking changes in class schedule to accommodate prayer times. They also sought to have men and women segregated in food and recreational areas on Australian campuses.
Officials at La Trobe University said they wanted to "meet the needs" of Muslim by doubling the size of the campus prayer room, but there were no plans to change any timetables. They said that La Trobe is a secular university, and all international students are made aware of that even before admission.
Predictably, any time Muslims ask for special considerations to accommodate dietary, prayer or clothing requirements, the sky drops. Crackpots come out of the woodwork on internet blogs, writing that they are ready to set-up a caliphate and bring Shariah to the West.
We keep telling expatriates in Saudi Arabia that they are guests who should respect our customs and laws, and yet, we tend to forget that the same should apply when we are visiting other countries. We should be especially mindful given the political climates in Australia, the US and UK, where immigration and religious divides are touch-and-go topics.
That said, I do agree that Saudi students have legitimate concerns that should be resolved. However, I am only willing to meet them half way. Those who asked for segregated seating areas for men and women have clearly gone overboard. No Western university will agree to such a bizarre request, since virtually every single one is coed. Besides, common sense stipulates that they should expect to experience a different environment. Therefore, if mixing is too much for them, they are more than welcome to study in Saudi Arabia, their home country.
And yes, they must have known when they applied that they will be attending secular universities, so let's get over this gender segregation issue.
Aziza Abdel-Halim, a former senior member of the Australian government's Muslim Reference Board, said not all Muslims agree that segregation is appropriate in an educational environment.
"There's nothing in Islam that says there should be complete segregation, especially in educational institutions," The Australian newspaper quoted her as saying on February 25. But asking universities to consider prayer times in their schedules is far less trouble some than one might be led to believe. And from what I understand of the media reports, Muslim students made no unreasonable demands. They simply exercised their right to sign and present a petition to university officials in which they asked for the changes.
It is foolish to see attempts to meet the special needs of students, be they Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist, as appeasement or caving in to the demands of a few. Most top-level universities will try to strike some kind of balance between the needs of a few and the wants of the many. And if managed well, it usually works. Newcastle University, for example, is very flexible in dealing with its international students. Newcastle recognizes the assets that international students represent, and thus realize the opportunity to give them a quality education and send them home with a better understanding of Western values. As for Muslim students, they embrace many of those values as long as they are not in conflict with Islam.
At Newcastle, students perform Dhuhr as late as 10 minutes before Asr, and then perform the latter within the first 10 minutes of its due time. As such, they are able to attend classes without sacrificing the most important religious duty. The university's flexible policy does not disrupt classes or cause inconvenience to non-Muslims.
While Australian universities have already indicated that there will be no class changes to accommodate prayer - much, I'm sure, to the relief of Western conservatives - I think the issue will be resolved behind the scenes and off the pages of the tabloids. Top universities, especially those that offer competitive post-graduate studies, want to keep their students by providing a learning environment that allows comfort.
Without making drastic policy changes that will alienate non-Muslims, most university departments and professors permit flexible scheduling on religious or cultural grounds at an informal level.
It's not impossible to accomplish. It's not a case where one group of people gives up its rights to accommodate those of another group. It's about compromise, the spirit of cooperation and ensuring that every student is comfortable and secure on campus.