Sabria's Out of the Box

Gaddafi's Death May Bring Tribal Warfare Before Democracy

2011-10-27T13:20:00.000-07:00

The question of whether Moammar Gaddafi deserved to die following his Oct. 20 capture and the startling revelations that he may have been sodomized raises troubling issues for Muslims. Do we celebrate the death of a despot or should we set aside our joy to consider that Gaddafi's enemies violated the basic tenants of Islam to kill him?

By focusing on what kind of government Libyans will form ignores the big picture that the manner of Gaddafi's death will likely bring an intense period of tribal warfare.

There is no question that Gaddafi's end was inevitable. He wreaked terror on his people for 42 years. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, supported the Irish Republican Army and he engaged in assassination plots. Even Gaddafi's closest neighbors were not safe. He conspired in 2003 to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah while the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Gaddafi was responsible for killing thousands of Libyans. Vengeance, more than justice, was on the minds of most Libyans.

Yet his death could very well derail Libya's pursuit of a new government that embraces the democratic ideals the international community wants so badly. At the end of the day, tribal politics and vengeance for the flagrant disregard of Islamic principles may dictate the course Libyans take.

Gaddafi belonged to the small, but influential Gadhadhfa tribe. Gaddafi's minister of information, Moussa Ibrahim, who is believed to still be alive, also belongs to Gadhadhfa, which had dominated the Libya's security groups and militias.

Tribal law, more or less, ruled Libya. It matters little whether Gaddafi's tribe condoned or opposed the dictator's treatment of his people. Tribal leaders will use a mix of tribal law, pride and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as very potent reasons to avenge Gaddafi's death. The man responsible for killing Gaddafi was videotaped and his image played worldwide. It is beside the point whether the allegations are true that some individuals sodomized Gaddafi. The hint alone further humiliates a captive at the mercy of his enemies.

Under tribal law, Gadhadhfa leaders will target the people responsible for Gaddafi's rape and death as a matter of honor. Retaliation will follow from other tribes and Libya could fall into chaos.

From a religious standpoint, Islam is specific in its instructions that the elderly and children should not be killed in warfare. Gaddafi was 69 years old. The Holy Qur'an also stipulates:

• Wounded soldiers unfit to fight or not fighting should not be attacked.
• Prisoners of war should not be killed.
• Any person tied up or in captivity should not be killed.
• Corpses of the enemy must not be disgraced or mutilated.
• Corpses of the enemy must be returned.

These aspects in Islam are not lost on the Libyan population, which is 99 percent Muslim, and it furthers the justification in the minds of some Libyans to seek vengeance.

Gaddafi was cunning in his treatment of Libya's tribes. He played on intra-tribal rivalries and often bribed tribal leaders to secure their loyalty. Major tribes such as Zawiya, Zentan, Bani Walid and Obeidat backed the rebels. The Maqarha tribe, with its estimated 1 million members, was pro-Gaddafi. Libya's largest tribe, Warfalla, was a pillar in Gaddafi's regime, but in the waning months of the war waffled over its allegiances between the pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces.

The Gadhadhfa and Maqarha tribes are centered in Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, while Warfalla stretches from Bani Walid to Sirte and on to Tripoli and Benghazi. The three tribes are a powerful combination that before engaging in rebuilding Libya likely will seek out and punish individuals responsible for Gaddafi's humiliating end. Millions of Gaddafi sympathizers, or perhaps more accurately people once sympathetic to Gaddafi but consider themselves pious Muslims, will not sit idle until they deliver justice.

Tribal conflicts at the height of the civil war foreshadowed the climate in a post-Gaddafi Libya.
In Yafran, for example, Mashasshia tribe members who supported the Gaddafi government fled to the mountains after anti-Gaddafi forces burned their homes to the ground. The http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifAmazigh, the Berbers who long suffered under the Gaddafi regime, say they do not want the Mashaashia tribe back. And last month, rebels looted and the destroyed the homes of the pro-Gaddafi Hasoun tribe.

Given these early signs that the civil war threatens to fall into insurgency and tribal warfare, Gaddafi's death all but seals the bloody path these tribes are likely to take before Libya's Transitional National Council can form a lasting government. The transitional government's failure to protect Gaddafi from the very public tribal revenge does not bode well for the immediate future of Libya.

This post was originally published by The Huffington Post.

Saudi Women Demonstrate They are Capable of Making Change

2011-09-25T07:48:00.000-07:00

To say that Saudi King Abdullah’s decree to give women the right to vote and become Shoura Council members is a historic moment would be an understatement. The women’s suffrage movement is only part of the story.

To celebrate our victory to cast ballots in municipal elections and run for office, we must also acknowledge the Arab Spring and the spilled blood of our Middle East neighbors. Without them, we may still be begging for our rights.

When the King announced earlier this year funding for various projects, Western analysts dismissed his efforts as a cynical ploy to keep Saudi citizens quiet. This attitude ignored King Abdullah’s well-documented support for women’s rights since he assumed the monarchy in 2005. Above all, King Abdullah has remained consistent in his approach to reform, whether through the Ministry of Labor to relax gender segregation rules or to provide more funding for scholarships for women university students studying abroad.

Yet King Abdullah is not blind to the bloodshed in Libya, Syria and Yemen. The impact of the revolutions has been significant. I’m convinced the King likely would have given women the right to vote and Shoura Council membership with or without our neighbors taking to the streets. But certainly there was an urgency to grant these rights now rather than later.

I’m not suggesting the Saudi government feared the tide of revolution spreading to Saudi Arabia. Rather, the government responded to Saudis’ restlessness to pick up the pace of reform. Religious conservatives continue to emotionally blackmail Saudis by preying on their weaknesses to always be good Muslims. That means resist change. The Saudis I know possess intellectual honesty. In our hearts we acknowledge the need for accelerated reforms in a shrinking world where human rights violations can’t easily be swept under the rug. We recognize that moving toward women’s rights at a leisurely pace in the 20th century doesn’t work so well in the 21st century.

The women’s driving movement also brought about change. Although there was no mention of it in the King’s speech, it’s clear the June driving campaigns had a tremendous effect on our future. It’s only a matter of time that women will be behind the wheel. The driving issue isn’t really up to the Saudi government, but Saudi women and their families.

It’s a proud moment for Saudi women to win this victory. However, this isn’t the end. We must have municipal councils that are open to the public, encourage citizen participation, and be responsive to the public’s wants and needs. We are not anywhere near that since we have little transparency in local government. We must also tighten the rules in the electoral process to eliminate cross-district voting. We must also stop efforts to subvert elections with so-called “Golden Lists” that give the religious conservatives voter clout by again exploiting Saudis’ eagerness to elect “good” Muslims.

And while full membership in the Shoura Council exceeded our highest expectations, we must move towards having Shoura Council members elected by the people instead appointed by the government.

In his speech, King Abdullah, said, "Because we refuse to marginalize women in society in all roles that comply with Sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others... to involve women in the Shoura Council as members, starting from the next term."

Sharia is the key here. We have long recognized that Sharia provides rights to women within the context of Islam, but that it never has been implemented fairly and properly. By understanding our true rights under Sharia, women now should educate themselves in politics, the economy and become active in NGOs. This will help build a civil society and prevent religious conservatives from hijacking our happiness by dragging their feet to implement the King’s decrees.

The King took a giant leap forward, but it’s only the first of many steps we must take. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to hop into my car and drive up to Riyadh to apply for Shoura Council membership.

News Flash: American Muslims are Really American

2011-08-31T07:26:00.000-07:00

The Pew Research Center came out with a new poll that provides more evidence that American Muslims are, well, American.

While some American political leaders prefer good old-fashioned loyalty oaths and McCarthyesque congressional hearings to determine who is a real American, the Pew Research Center found that 82 percent of the American Muslims polled are “overwhelmingly satisfied” with their lives in the United States. Seventy-nine percent rated their communities as “excellent” or “good.” And to hammer home that idea of extra American goodness, 56 percent of the American Muslims surveyed said they like the “way things are going” in the United States while the only 23 percent of non-Muslims only think so.

Not surprisingly, 49 percent of the Muslims in the United States say they think of themselves as Muslims first. However, before the lunatic fringe blows a gasket, they should take note that Pew also found that 46 percent of American Christians consider themselves Christians first.

No U.S. poll is complete without asking Muslims about Al-Qaeda. Pew found that 81 percent of American Muslims believe suicide bombings and other violent acts against civilians “are never justified.”

The research center also found that nearly half of American Muslims believed that their religious leaders have not done enough to denounce Islamic extremists. Twenty-eight percent of Muslims complained they were “looked at with suspicion” and 22 percent said they were “called offensive names.”

The same day that Pew released the results of its poll, a kerfuffle occurred at a Playland amusement park in Rye, N.Y. when some hijabis belonging to the Muslim American Society of New York were denied access to rides because “headgear” was not permitted. An argument between Muslim women and park operators ensued, bad language was presumably used, and feelings were hurt.

Apparently, the Muslim American Society had 3,000 people at the park to celebrate Eid.

Park officials said headscarves were not allowed on some rides due to safety concerns. Park management provided group members with a list of rides that banned headgear. Park officials then offered banned riders a refund, but somewhere between the ride and the gate entrance a scuffle broke out within the group. Cops rolled in and arrested 15 men and women for making a nuisance of themselves.

I suppose the incident illustrates the sensitivity in the Muslim community about how the general public views American Muslims. As the Pew Research Center pointed out, 28 percent of American Muslims say they are viewed with suspicion. So being ultra-sensitive when denied an amusement park ride because one is wearing the hijab is understandable.

But, really, apparently the Muslim American Society had been at the park at last year’s Eid and had no problems with the park’s headgear policy. This year the group had been told on several occasions about the longstanding policy.

Based on the news reports I’ve read, the blame seems to go to the Muslim American Society for not informing group members of the rules. If the organization planned to bring 3,000 people to the park, perhaps it should have issued the park’s guidelines before boarding the bus to avoid people embarrassing themselves when it was time to get on a ride.

There is often no rhyme or reason for banning hijabis from participating in events or having access to venues. Certainly a continuing concern over discrimination against the hijab remains the inflexibility of sports organizations. And, according to Pew, an estimated 21 percent of American Muslims say they are singled out by airport security. So problems do exist. However, the amusement park incident doesn’t meet the discrimination test.

I have yet to see a statement from the Muslim American Society. But based on the facts at hand, I’d say some folks in the organization simply behaved badly.

The Hijab as a Feminist Statement

2011-08-27T05:17:00.000-07:00

The West's zeal to save “oppressed” Muslim women by urging them to discard the veil, whether it is the hijab or the niqab, demonstrates a profound ignorance of Islam and the rights of Muslim women.

We have seen a number of European nations and, to a lesser extent, Australia enact laws that purport to free women from their religion. While some Muslims may view these actions as good intentions gone awry, I see it as a systemic attempt to impose draconian laws that further oppression. As I have stated previously, democratic nations that impose laws restricting Muslim women from wearing the hijab, the burqa or the abaya share much in common with the Taliban by imposing their own interpretation of what is appropriate for Muslim women.

Academic Leila Ahmed goes so far as to call this a new colonialism, and there is much merit in her arguments. British occupiers, she points out, sought to free Egyptian women from the alleged tyranny of Islam at the beginning of the 20th century by encouraging them to unveil. Indeed, for more than 70 years Egyptian women rejected the hijab.

By the 1980s, the hijab emerged as a symbol of Islamic feminism. Specifically, women embraced the hijab as a means to minimize gender bias and force men to see them as equals in the workplace, and not view them as sex objects or simply for their beauty. Muslim women do not want their appearance to influence the conduct of the people around them.

Ahmed recognizes that the hijab is not a symbol of empowerment in some Muslim countries where women have no choices in whether they cover their hair. Yet Ahmed is spot on in stating what Muslim women have been telling the West for more than decades: the hijab is an Islamic feminist statement.

Ahmed has a new book out called A Quiet Revolution. I plan to pick up a copy and I suggest that those readers who prefer to discover an enlightened view of the hijab buy a copy as well.

Ramadan Kareem

2011-07-31T23:47:00.000-07:00

Ramadan Kareem! Ramadan Mubarak to all my family, friends, acquaintances and colleagues. Ramadan Mubarak to everyone beginning fast today. May Allah bless each and every one of you during this holy month.

Anti-Muslim Website Provides Aid and Comfort to Right-Wing Terrorists

2011-07-25T04:47:00.000-07:00

It should come as no surprise that anti-Muslim bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller helped shape the political ideology of right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, the confessed killer of at least 76 people in the bombing in Oslo and the shooting rampage at the nearby island youth retreat.

In his 1,500-page manifesto, Breivik quotes Spencer 64 times. Breivik also suggests that he was the anonymous Norwegian blogger who wrote anti-Muslim posts as Fjordman, who regularly contributed to Spencer's JihadWatch.org website.

Spencer and Geller have distanced themselves from Breivik. There has been increasing blog chatter about Spencer's right-wing extremist influences, but the notoriously thin-skinned Muslim hater is uncharacteristically restrained in his response. His only answer to the growing speculation about his links to Breivik was a July 23 post denouncing the Norwegian and reiterating "our dedication to the defense of free societies and opposition to all vigilantism and violence."

Spencer hides behind the argument that he doesn't advocate violence, but his mocking and abusive rhetoric against Muslims on Jihad Watch prompts hundreds of commenters to fill the gap that Spencer leaves open by suggesting or openly advocating the destruction of mosques, mass deportations of Muslims and wars against Islam. Here's one mild example from a regular Jihad Watch reader commenting on the pending trial of an alleged Muslim extremist: "Burn his ass at the stake. I'll bring the http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifmarshmellows (sic)."

Spencer claims that readers shouldn't construe any comments to his posts, or any of the dozens of his links to hate websites, as an endorsement by Jihad Watch, which has tax-exempt status as a religious education website. However, each link to websites like Geller's Atlas Shrugs or posting comments that suggest execution by immolation, rings of endorsement.

In the July 24 New York Times, former CIA officer Marc Sageman said anti-Muslim writers like Spencer argue "that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam 'is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged.' Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged."

Sageman said such "rhetoric is not cost-free."

This points to the culpability of Spencer and his fellow travelers concerning the Oslo terrorist attacks. Breivik, and only Breivik, is responsible for his actions. However, should be consequences for laying the foundation that helped Breivik reach the conclusion that the mass destruction of life and property was the only answer.

Osama bin Laden was not an active participant in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but he inspired 19 men to wage horrific attack son New York City and the Pentagon in the name of Islam. Jihadist websites worldwide inspire young men and women to wage war against the West. Some websites explicitly advocate violence, while others are more subtle in espousing an extreme ideology that prompts followers to commit violence. Law authorities shut down or block these websites, and may put the owners or website readers under investigation.

The irony is that Spencer's Jihad Watch is emerging as the mirror image of the jihadist websites. He doesn't advocate violence; he just inspires it in his readers. He plants the idea that Muslims deserve special retribution for the ills of society and demands that his readers be vigilant to prevent Muslims from imposing their will. He then stands back and watches someone else do the dirty work, whether its mounting a pig's head on a stick in front of mosque, or, I suppose, killing people with a machine pistol. I see little difference between Spencer and jihadists.

Yet Spencer, who a generation ago would be mimeographing his screeds in the basement of his parents' home, has gained respectability in the mainstream media. The BBC, for example, included his viewpoints in its "Life of Muhammad" (peace be upon him) special. He exercises restraint and minimizes his trademark mocking and smirking in front of the camera for audiences watching the BBC or ABC. He's a little more frothy as a guest on Fox News, but he generally keeps his hate on a leash.

The same can't be said for his website, which attracts a much broader audience with a much nastier tone. And like any true extremist, Spencer is unaffected by the Oslo horrors. He takes a moment to express outrage that the media linked him to Breivik, and then moves on to chronicle the perceived misdeeds of every Muslim that comes under his gaze.

As a journalist, it's repugnant to me to see anyone's right to free speech curbed. Still, I'm conflicted. I have to admit that after reading the noxious postings on Spencer's website I see merit in hate speech legislation. But rather than go to that extreme, I prefer to see Spencer come under the same scrutiny from federal authorities as any jihadist website. After all, they have common goals: Inspire the masses and then sit back and watch the mayhem.

UPDATE: Mr. Spencer responds to a query from a Norwegian journalist with this:

"I have never been in contact with Anders Behring Breivik.

If I was indeed an inspiration for his work, I feel the way the Beatles must have felt when they learned that Charles Manson had committed murder after being inspired by messages he thought he heard in their song lyrics. There were no such messages. Nor is there, for any sane person, any inspiration for harming anyone in my work, which has been consistently dedicated to defending human rights for all people."

Ah, yes. The Beatles, those hateful lads from Liverpool with a well documented history of writing hateful songs. Who would have thunk it?

Mandatory English Courses Come to Saudi Primary Schoolers

2011-07-08T00:06:00.000-07:00

For too long the Saudi Ministry of Education gave less than its full attention to requiring primary school students to learn English. When I was a kid the Saudi education system provided me with few tools to master English, so I learned the language mostly on my own.

Beginning with the 2011-2012 academic year, the Ministry of Education will require English-language instruction for Saudi students starting in Grade 4. Khalid Al-Seghayer argues in the Arab News that “there is evidence that students knowing English are more creative, they develop a deeper understanding of cultures, show stronger skills in their own native language, and generally do better in problem-solving and overall academic performance.”

I have a younger brother taking intense English-languages courses in the UK to prepare for undergraduate studies abroad. I have seen amazing results in his command of the language and improvement in his cognitive skills in just a few months. Imagine if he had started when he was 8 years old.

There are thousands of Saudis abroad studying at the best universities because they took the time to study English on their own or had had teachers who influenced them to study the language. These students are part of the fabric of the international community because of their ability to communicate with people of other cultures and nationalities.

The Ministry of Education recognizes the necessity of mastering English. It’s a vital step towards narrowing the differences between cultures and religions. I look forward to see what the next generation of Saudis will bring to world as they acquire these new skills.

A Sports Organization Gets it Right

2011-07-03T22:28:00.000-07:00

You may remember that Atlanta weightlifter and hijabi Kulsoom Abdullah sought a religious exemption to wear a modified uniform to compete in the USA Weightlifting organization's American Open Weightlifting Championship. USA Weightlifting operates under International Weightlifting Federation rules.

USA Weightlifting initially denied her request, but promised to discuss it with the IWF. A few days ago the IWF announced that its changing its rules to accommodate Abdullah.

IWF President Tamas Ajan said: "Weightlifting is an Olympic Sport open for all athletes to participate without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin in accordance with the principles of the Olympic Charter and values. This rule modification has been considered in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion."

Hmm, "in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion." What a novel thought.

FIFA? Care to address this issue?

The Real Conspiracy Against Saudi Women

2011-07-03T10:08:00.000-07:00

You may have read articles on some Arabic-language blogs identifying me as a member of CyberDissidents.org and Movement.org. The blogs allege CyberDissidents and Movement are Zionist-backed groups that use some Saudi women’s rights activists as the puppets of Zionists.

Although CyberDissidents.org lists my name, I am not identified as a member of anything. I am not a member of CyberDissidents, nor do I plan such a membership. My inclusion on the website’s list was done without my permission or consultation. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Internet is aware, we have no control over who publishes our names or what they say about us.

I have made it abundantly clear over the years that I am a patriotic Saudi. I do not seek wholesale changes in the Saudi government, and I certainly don’t want to see the Western concept of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I advocate for women’s rights, but within the context of Islam. That hardly makes me a dissident.

These blogs got their facts wrong, and not only have they put me in harm’s way but other Saudi women who have found themselves on CyberDissidents.org without their knowledge. Most of these Arab blogs hide behind the cloak of anonymity. If there is a conspiracy involving Saudi women with a voice, it starts with these Arabic-language blogs that want to silence women with intimidation.

UPDATE: CyberDissients.org removed my name from the list per my request. An Egyptian blogger who is responsible for the original phony story will not cooperate.

This Hijabi Has a Legitimate Complaint

2011-06-19T10:35:00.000-07:00

Unlike the Iran Football Federation's political shenanigans to create controversy over FIFA's hijab regulations, a 15-year-old Montreal hijabi has a legitimate complaint.

You'll remember FIFA disqualified Iranian footballers from a 2012 Olympic qualifying match for violating the hijab ban. Much shouting and hurt feelings ensued, although two years ago Iran signed an agreement to the ban and to wear specially designed caps.

But Sarah Benkiran's case is different. She has been a football referee for two years before someone noticed she was wearing a hijab and complained. Lac St. Louis league officials fired Benkiran. Again, we see FIFA rules conflicting with religious obligations. In Benkiran's case, her hijab never posed a problem until someone whined about it. There was no safety issue or specific incident in which the hijab posed a hazard. Above all, nobody thought it was worth rushing to the rule book to see whether she was violating the guidelines.

The problem here is the inconsistency in which leagues operating under FIFA regulations apply the rules. I don't necessarily agree with Benkiran that caps not covering the neck are inappropriate, but that's me. I can't judge how other Muslim women practice their religion.

Giving a waiver for a referee making calls for a teen league doesn't seem like such a huge violation of FIFA rules.

Clearly this issue is coming up regularly now. Perhaps FIFA should revisit Rule 4 to provide leagues with some leeway in handling the hijab issue to minimize tossing every Muslim woman off the playing field.

Saudi Women June 17 Driving Guidelines

2011-06-16T02:21:00.000-07:00

Saudi women planning to drive on June 17 should observe the following guidelines for their safety:

1) Islamic dress code

2) There won’t be any gatherings. Go out only to run important errands, visit the hospital, drop kids off at school, etc.

3) It is encouraged that you videotape the event and upload it on Youtube.

4) Drive within city limits only.

5) To reaffirm our patriotism, fly the Saudi flag and lift up a photo of Abu Mit’ib (the King).

6) No need to be scared. If the police arrest you, you’ll only be required to sign on a pledge.

7) It is preferred that whoever plans on driving to have an international driver’s license.

8) It is better if a male accompanies you to protect you and to guarantee your safety (since the ball would just be starting to roll).

9) Avoid driving into any empty plots or deserted or faraway areas because that might pose some danger to you.

10) Driving is not scheduled for one day only. Saudi women are starting Friday but will continue to take to their cars beyond that date until a royal decree is issued.

11) Any woman who fails to comply is responsible for any possible consequences.

12) Ensure notifying family and friends of your intentions to drive (in case you go missing they’ll have an idea how to act).

13) If you have a phone with internet connection, follow WOMEN2DRIVE on Facebook and Twitter.

Iran's Hissy Fit Over FIFA Hijab Ban Lacks Credibility

2011-06-12T01:23:00.000-07:00

FIFA’s ban on women athletes wearing the hijab and its recent clash with the Iran Football Federation renews the debate about cultural and religious sensitivity in amateur sports competition.

However, using FIFA’s latest run-in with Iran as an example of religious discrimination is dumb. Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ever the provocateur, called FIFA officials “dictators and colonialists” in a characteristically over-the-top news conference.

A FIFA official ruled that the Iranian women’s football team forfeited its match against Jordan for violating the ban on hijabs in competition. The rule has been in effect since 2007. The forfeit is a serious blow to the Iranian team’s chances to qualify for the London 2012 Olympics.

Iran’s Football Federation knew full well of FIFA’s hijab ban. Iran signed an agreement in 2010 accepting the ban and agreeing to wear caps to cover players’ hair. Iran broke its word with FIFA. It used the women’s football team as a pawn to gain political traction, hoping that Muslim countries will take the bait and raise a collective howl.

Make no mistake. FIFA’s hijab ban has little merit. There is no evidence the hijab poses safety hazard and the concern over religious symbolism is nonsense. The hijab is more of a modesty issue. Most Muslim women I know wear the hijab for both modesty and religious reasons, but not all of them. And by the end of the day, the hijab is worn to preserve modesty. To deny women this simple right is to exclude Muslim athletes from their rightful place in the sports world.

FIFA, however, found a solution by agreeing to permit Iranian female athletes to compete in the 2010 Youth Olympics if they wore the specially designed cap. The cap covers the head to the hairline, but not below the ears to cover the neck. I can live with this compromise if it means Muslim girls and women can compete without compromising their dignity.

In January, a 12-year-girl was prevented from playing in the first half of a Mid-Maryland Girls Basketball League game because she wore the hijab. At halftime, a league official gave her a religious exemption and she was allowed to play in the second half. Now the league requires an exception to the uniform rules by having parents give written permission.

The league quickly found a common sense solution to a thorny issue, but the same can’t be said for USA Weightlifting and the International Weightlifting Federation. The organizations said no to 35-year-old weightlifter Kulsoom Abdullah’s request for a religious exemption to wear a modified uniform that covered everything but her face, hands and feet. Abdullah had planned to compete in the American Open Weightlifting Championship.

IWF rules prohibit clothing from covering the elbows or knees because judges must see that the joints are locked to complete a lift. That makes sense, but there are clothing options that are tight enough to allow judges to determine whether the lift was successful without compromising the athlete’s modesty. USA Weightlifting, to its credit, said it would address the issue with the IWF later this month.

The IWF ban on modest clothing is not a case of simply failing to keep up with the increasing presence of Muslim women in sports. In the United States, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act prohibits sports organizations from discriminating against athletes based on “race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.” The act has been in effect since 1998, giving the IWF plenty of time to revise its bylaws.

Western and Muslim women’s right activists are focused today on Saudi Arabia’s ban on women driving. There’s been a great deal of international support for Saudi women who want the right to drive. By granting women the freedom to choose how to live their lives strengthens their relationship with the global community. Yet these same activists remain silent over the hurdles Muslim women athletes face to gain a foothold on the playing field or basketball court.

Few women in leadership roles appear willing to tackle the nuts and bolts of dismantling discriminatory bylaws of sports organizations. These women contribute to the marginalization of Muslims with their silence
.
There is a growing number of Muslim women that want to participate at the international level. Eighteen-year-old Saudi equestrian Dalma Malhas captured a bronze medal at the 2010 Youth Olympics. Saudi Lina Al-Maeena founded the Jeddah United women’s basketball team and she wants the team to play abroad. Yet full participation in sports for many Muslim women is beyond their reach because some organizations are unwilling to change the language in their bylaws to accommodate cultural and religious differences.

Another Pretty Arab Face Seduces the Media

2011-06-09T01:57:00.000-07:00

During the Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, massive demonstrations erupted in the streets of Beirut. As I read about these demonstrations in newspapers and watched events unfold on television, I was struck by the obsessive media coverage of what I now can only describe as the “hot girls of Lebanon.”

Without fail, television cameras turned their attention not so much to speakers and rally organizers, but beautiful women — their faces painted red, green and white — waving Lebanon’s flag. One respected American with an expertise in Middle East issues couldn’t help himself and posted a photo gallery on his blog of only female Lebanese protesters.

Now we have a new hot face for the uprisings in Syria: Amina Abdallah Arraf, also known as, “A Gay Girl in Damascus” As AnonymousSyria recently twittered to his or her 3,300 followers, “#Amina is beautiful, hot & brave.”

A group of men, presumably Syrian security forces, allegedly abducted Arraf and is detaining her somewhere. She had gained considerable attention for her blog entries challenging the Syrian government. She reported on the violent clashes with police and the military.

Arraf’s kidnapping quickly elevated her to celebrity status. Activists mounted the “Free Amina” movement, much like the “Free Manal” campaign for Manal Al-Sharif following her arrest in Saudi Arabia for driving a car.

Now there is speculation that Arraf doesn’t exist and her abduction was a hoax. Journalists once enamored with Arraf are now considering that she may be a fraud. Not a single person has come forward to claim a face-to-face relationship with Arraf. Her parents have made public no statements. And there appears to be no documentation to support Arraf's claims that she is a Syrian-American raised in Virginia.

Still, Arraf possesses the key elements that make her the perfect image of a revolution. Arraf is a young pretty, non-hijabi woman who writes provocative blog posts. She does not have that otherworldly Middle East appearance and does not wear Muslim garb. Throw in the fact that she’s gay and has dual citizenship, and you’ve got a sexy story that appeals to the Western media.

Manal Al-Sharif never represented herself other than a hard-working single mom making a statement about the Saudi driving ban. Her life and her brief campaign are well documented. Arraf, or the people behind her blog, can make no such claim. Enough time has passed that proof of her existence should have surfaced by now.

Yet these persistent questions apparently have not dissuaded many journalists and rights activists that Arraf deserves to be the poster girl for the Syrian uprisings. One women’s rights activist went so far to say that Arraf’s identity doesn’t matter because she represents all Syrians imprisoned by the government.

Really? Amnesty International reports that Syrian authorities have jailed 10,000 people and killed as many as 750 since the uprisings began. Among those detained are children, including 13-year-old Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb, who was tortured and murdered.

It’s offensive that a fictional character, if indeed the alleged hoax turns out to be true, becomes the face of the uprising. Meanwhile, Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb, who disappeared on April 29, fades from view as the media lose interest. Apparently, Hamza’s story pales in comparison to Arraf’s situation.

I hope that Arraf is an actual person and I pray for her safe return to her family. I want her to be real because if Arraf is a fake, then it’s simply cynical manipulation of the emotions of the Syrian people. It’s the last thing Syrians need. The media is responsible for perpetrating the fabrication through lazy reporting by not establishing her identity in the first place. Pro-democracy and women’s rights activists also share the blame for their eagerness to embrace a cause that was suspect. They, too, did not check their facts.

If indeed Arraf turns out not be real, then we all have been duped by a pretty face that managed to distract the world from the grievances of the Syrian people.

Lingerie Shop Jobs for Women a Hollow Victory

2011-06-06T03:00:00.000-07:00

The Gulf News reported today that King Abdullah issued a decree permitting Saudi women to work in lingerie shops. The language of the decree apparently stipulates that only Saudi women could sell lingerie.

The King also ruled that Saudi women could work at some industrial jobs.

Women working in lingerie shops became an issue in 2004 when female customers complained they felt uncomfortable talking to strange men about their underwear. The Ministry of Labor attempted to force lingerie shops to hire women, but it lost a battle of wills with passive-aggressive owners who ignored the edict. The Ministry reversed its position about three years ago, and some sheikhs joined in by issuing a fatwa banning women from obtaining such jobs.

It’s all well and good that the retail job market opened a tiny fraction for Saudi women. But lingerie sales work will only create about 6,000 low-wage jobs.

The nagging problem with this development is that it took seven years for the Saudi government to resolve this issue. And while I believe it’s a small victory for Saudi women, I can’t help but feel it’s some sort of consolation prize for being denied the right to drive a car. The Shoura Council has agreed to consider the driving ban if someone suggests it (as if Abdullah Al-Alami hasn’t been asking to be heard for I don’t know how long).

Saudi women have been thrown bone. Creating jobs for Saudi women in lingerie shops is only meaningful if women receive all their rights guaranteed in Islam. I give thanks that women have finally received the opportunity to seek employment in such shops, but I’m not going to delude myself into thinking we achieved some great victory.

However, there is a glimmer of hope. The King also issued a decree to create 39,000 jobs for women in the public education sector. The jobs for women are part of the King’s requirement to develop 66,000 new jobs for trained healthcare professionals and graduate teachers.

Public education jobs for women is indeed good news, but it also is a step towards creating a ghetto for women in the education and health sectors. Surely, not all female graduate and post-graduate degree holders are looking for jobs in the education and health fields.

Manal Al-Sharif's Statement to the Media

2011-05-31T00:01:00.000-07:00

I would first and foremost like to express my profound gratitude to our leaders, in particular the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, for ordering my release from detention, a gesture that does not come as a surprise knowing the King’s benevolence toward his sons and daughters of this honorable country.

Concerning the topic of women’s driving, I will leave it up to our Leader in whose discretion I entirely trust, to weigh the pros and cons and reach a decision that will take into consideration the best interests of the People, while also being pleasing to Allah, and in line with Divine Law.

On this happy occasion, I would also like to affirm that never in my life had I been anything beside a Muslim, Saudi woman who aspires to remain in God’s good graces and to safeguard the reputation of our beloved country. And I will continue to uphold these values and principles until the day I meet my Creator.

Thanks to Allah, His compassion, then King Abdullah’s big heart, has helped me to persevere through my short ordeal.

That said, I was stunned to learn of the accusations hurled at my religious and moral beliefs especially that they originated from people I least expected to go down that route. I held my breath for those speaking in the name of religion and others-May Allah guide them rightly-to do me some justice, and that if I had done wrong to blame me only accordingly and fairly, without defaming my faith, creed, and moral system. For at the end of the day I’m everyone’s sister and daughter. How could they wound their sister and daughter with such charges? From the bottom of my heart I beseech Allah to shower them with his forgiveness for the serious harm they’ve caused me.

Furthermore, I must point out I do not authorize any individual to speak on my behalf or put words in my mouth, whatever their personal agenda.

Finally, I pray for the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness. He is Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.

Translated by Zaki Safar via Archetype in Action

Some Saudis Promote Violence against Women over Driving Ban Debate

2011-05-29T03:28:00.000-07:00

Often when Saudi women speak of being denied their basic rights guaranteed in Islam or the freedom to choose whether to drive a car, the inevitable backlash occurs in the form of a smear campaign, or worse, threats of violence.

There are more Saudi men than people would expect that support the freedoms sought by women. There are also many men who feel threatened just by discussing these freedoms. They wage campaigns against outspoken Saudi women who apparently don’t know their place in society. The anonymity of the Internet has encouraged some pretty offensive behavior.

I can speak from personal experience, and I know of many Saudi women journalists who have had their morality called into question for speaking about what should be an intelligent discussion about the female driving ban. The comments sections on news website are rife with accusations of immoral behavior, lack of patriotism, lewd remarks on women’s physical characteristics, speculation about their sex lives and why the men in their families can’t “control” them.

There is something eerily consistent about the language and tone of comments, both in Arabic and English, that raises the question of whether such reactions are an organized effort to further marginalize Saudi women. I have noticed on different news websites obscene comments repeated word for word on articles written by Saudi women journalists reporting or offering an opinion on social issues.

Now a Facebook campaign has surfaced encouraging men to beat their wives and daughters with an iqal – the black wire rope that keeps the ghutra in place – if they presume to get behind the wheel and drive a car. It seems that the whisper campaign to demean Saudi women is failing, and this band of thugs has resorted to advocating violence.

These same gangsters feel emboldened by some sheikhs who not only advocate violence against disobedient women, but also want these women killed. This kind of violent language contradicts King Abdullah’s position that hate rhetoric has no place in Saudi society.

The controversy over the jailing of Manal Al-Sharif is such an insult to Saudi women that few will be cowed into submission. We have reached a point of no return. So, does this mean that violence is a likely result if we fail to submit to our male masters on the issue of women’s rights?

Saudi Women's Driving Ban Rises to Become a Major Issue

2011-05-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

A version of this post appeared in the Huffington Post.

There was a time when I firmly believed the endless debate about Saudi women banned from driving cars was trivial. It distracted Saudis from the real problems of the denial of women’s rights: employment, education, guardianship abuses, inheritance, and fair and equitable treatment in the Saudi judicial system.

The arrest and imprisonment of Manal Al-Sherif, 32, after driving a car in Khobar, has changed all that. The driving ban is no longer a distraction to Saudi women’s quest for their rights, but could very well be the centerpiece of our struggle to obtain rights long denied us.

My change of heart comes from the fact that it’s obvious that well into the 21st century, Saudis are unable and apparently unwilling to solve minor issues like a woman’s right to drive an automobile. So what makes me think that we can solve the weightier problems of guardianship and justice in the courts?

Well, we can’t. The path Saudi Arabia is taking towards judicial reform and granting women better employment opportunities is questionable. It’s a questionable because Manal broke no laws, yet she was arrested in the dead of night on a vague allegation of “violating the public order.” She is accused of “violating the rules and the system by driving her car, roaming the streets of the province" and "inciting public opinion" by posting a video of her driving on YouTube.

Clearly it’s the Khobar municipal police and the Commission for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue that have violated the public order. Manal was performing basic tasks as a woman in charge of her household. If that means driving a car to perform those tasks, so be it. By arresting Manal for exercising her rights to perform these chores, the police and commission violated the public order. The public order was further violated because the arrest caused anger among Saudi women who empathize with Manal’s attempts shed light on her plight to get around town to take care of her family.

The facts as we know them are that Manal, who possesses an international driver’s license as required by Saudi authorities, drove her car. She was wearing a seatbelt, obeyed all traffic laws, wore the hijab and had her brother in the car with her. There is nothing in the Saudi traffic codes about women not permitted to drive. There is nothing un-Islamic about her behavior. Sheikh Ahmed bin Baz, and long before him, Sheikh Al Al-Bani, said there is no Islamic reason to deny women the right to drive.

By arresting Manal Al-Sherif, Saudi authorities elevated the once trivial debate on women driving to a major issue. King Abdullah in an interview with Barbara Walters, and virtually every Saudi minister from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, unequivocally said that women driving is a societal issue. King Abdullah said that only Saudi society could determine the appropriate time when women can drive cars. He said he believed that time was soon.

I gather in this case Saudi society comprises of the religious conservatives who continue to object to this simple right, although there is no religious foundation to prevent women from driving. Manal’s brother, the woman who sat in the passenger seat of Manal’s car and Manal’s family apparently do not qualify as members of Saudi society. Nor does the woman arrested with her two female relatives the other day for driving in the rural province of Al-Ras. And perhaps the Al-Ras arrests are even more troubling than Manal’s detention.

For decades, Saudi women living in rural areas have driven cars and trucks to keep food on the table, take children to school and to make sure the family business runs smoothly. It strikes me as odd that the Saudi government gives rural women a free pass, but denies Manal a trip to a Khobar supermarket to put food on her table.

Saudis, however, have no one to blame but themselves. And I wonder whether they even understand the significance of Manal’s case. A Saudi male colleague wrote to me the other day that his father’s “neighbor refuses every single young man who comes asking for the hand of one of his three daughters in marriage … They should go to court and complain against him but they did not. Isn't (marriage) a more important issue than driving? Why do you, women, insist on driving and forget your other more basic rights?”

Clearly, the right to marry whom one pleases is more important than driving. Yet we have no hope of solving this more significant problem if we can’t even agree on the less important ones.

Frankly, I’m ashamed of what happened to Manal. Saudis hold themselves up to ridicule from the global community. Saudi Arabia singed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as long as it doesn’t conflict with Sharia. Women driving cars does not conflict with Sharia. In addition, Saudi Arabia has earned a seat on the United Nations’ new women’s rights agency, UN Women. It was my hope that the CEDAW ratification and the membership to UN Women would bring Saudi Arabia into the global community’s embrace of universal women’s rights.

It appears we are not even close to that goal.

Arabian Business thinks I'm cool

2011-03-16T10:42:00.000-07:00

No. 97 cool, that is!

Starting a Saudi Revolution without Revolutionaries

2011-03-02T10:33:00.000-08:00

NOTE: This article was originally published in the Huffington Post.

Sometimes people are so hopeful about the prospect of more bloodshed spilled in the Middle East that they resort to stretching the truth to further their agenda. There is the thinking along conventional lines that if Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fall, then so must Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The jury is out on Bahrain, although it does not look good for the Sunni monarchy. But Saudi Arabia? There is no question the Saudi government is a little more than nervous about the Shi'a-led protests in Bahrain. It is impossible to predict what the end result means to the Kingdom, but there is the odor of hope in the western media that Saudi Arabia will fall with the endless coverage of "Will Saudi Arabia Be Next?"

This leads me to wonder whether foreign policy analysts and so-called Middle East experts are being deliberately obtuse about Saudi Arabia's future. Since when do 465 people signing a Facebook Saudi "Day of Rage" page constitute a brewing revolution in a country of 16 million Saudis? It appears that most of the petitioners are non-Saudis with more than a few living outside the Kingdom. I am all for the democratic reforms they demand. However, will a thousand or even 465 people stage a demonstration in Riyadh on March 11 or March 20, or whatever day they decide, to vent their rage? Maybe, but the support from most Saudis is likely to be from the comfort of their homes while watching them on Al Jeezera.

Much is made of the couple dozen Saudi women staging a demonstration in Riyadh demanding the release of their men from custody because they have been charged with no crimes. Several dozen expatriate workers demonstrated in Makkah because they have not been paid. Legitimate grievances, sure. But are these public demonstrations out of the ordinary? No. Has anyone seen Saudi tribes gather in the desert for a meeting with an emir over water issues? I would not want to be on the receiving end of a finger wagging from a Bedouin tribal leader with an entire village standing behind him.

The west's argument that Saudi Arabia is poised to erupt in revolution is found in the reports about King Abdullah allocating an estimated $36 billion in social benefits to Saudis. The benefits will provide home loans, funding for NGOs, 15 percent fixed raises for government employees, scholarship money for Saudis studying abroad at their own expense and unemployment benefits.

News outlets ranging from Investment Watch to the Washington Post and the New York Times assert the money is simply to stave off protests with a Band-Aid. One BBC commentator likened the benefits to "bribery" to keep Saudis quiet.

One must wonder where these news organizations have been for the past five years. The Saudi government has been issuing these types of social welfare benefits annually since King Abdullah became the Kingdom's leader in 2005. Each year, usually in December, the Saudi government allocates massive funds to help Saudis keep pace with inflation, build more schools and universities, and send Saudis abroad for a western education. This year's announcement of providing unemployment benefits is not only new, but historic. Yet it is consistent with previous fund distribution schemes since 2005. This year's allocation occurred in February and not December because the King has been in Morocco for medical treatment.

It is convenient, if not lazy, to place the social benefits package in the context of the regional uprisings, but a look into the archives of any Saudi newspaper tells the story of consistent annual fund allocations for similar programs.

The Saudi government has been on a reform binge for five years, but its sometimes lethargic pace has little to do with the will of the government, but with some Saudis who have their own agenda. They have only their interests in mind, and government transparency and efforts to end corruption threaten those interests.

The true discontent among many Saudis is the lack of accountability for the rampant government corruption and the lack of transparency in how the government goes about its business. It botched the follow up to the 2005 municipal elections by not holding further voting, but I am not sure the average Saudi's interests truly lie in local elections.

There is no question now that Saudi Arabia needs to pick up the pace of reform. It cannot allow special interest groups in various government ministries to continue dragging their feet to implement programs ordered by the king. But the simplistic thinking that the Saudi government unleashed this huge sum of money to keep the Facebook revolutionaries at bay is laughable.

Religious conservatives fail Saudi filmmakers

2011-02-22T06:48:00.000-08:00

Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Mayor Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Ayyaf Al-Migrin told the Arabic-language Asharq Al-Awsat recently that he is considering opening cinemas in the city. This could be a major announcement since the Kingdom has no cinemas, but these kinds of pronouncements have come and gone with regularity since 2005 and nothing has come of it.

It’s apparent to Al-Migrin, though, that the time is right for cinemas to debut in Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom’s burgeoning film industry demands it. And last summer, an estimated 230,000 Saudis went to the United Arab Emirates to watch theatrical releases, according to the newspaper. That’s money in the pockets of western, not Saudi, filmmakers.

Contrary to myth, cinemas are not illegal nor are they banned in Saudi Arabia. But in the gray world that is Saudi society, people take their chances with religious conservatives. Municipalities and the Ministry of Commerce are generally willing to approve freestanding cinemas, or at least megamalls that include cinemas.

The catch is cinema owners are responsible for dealing with the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. The mutaween and has no legal authority to close businesses, but they display little subtlety in applying pressure to business owners they believe subvert Saudi morality. Just consider the occasional book fair or literary club discussion workshops where these guys toss around chairs, shout insults and generally intimidate people who want to talk about a good book. Given such boorish behavior, no potential cinema owner is willing to challenge the religious establishment.

That hasn’t stopped the construction of cinemas. Virtually every mall built in the Kingdom since 2005 features specific accommodations for a cinema. Mall owners are simply waiting for the day that a theater owner will take the plunge.

It’s a sad fact the religious establishment has no interest in helping Saudi youth make constructive use of their time. Saudi Arabia is experiencing at least 10 percent unemployment with many guys and girls under the age of 30 struggling to find work. It’s disgusting that they should be shut out of the opportunity to engage in a passion that could lead to a rewarding career. It’s this shortsightedness that drives Saudis to other countries to find their way in the world. When it comes to the arts, Saudi youth will get no help from the government or religious conservatives.

Saudi authorities acknowledge there is no religious reason to prevent theaters from opening. The issue of gender mixing is not a concern since it’s easy to segregate cinemas for families and single men. Religious authorities, however, claim that western films import moral values not compatible with Islam. Saudi filmmakers have undermined that argument by insisting on telling compelling Saudi stories.

Undeterred by the naysayers is the Talashi Films Group, a loose organization of young Saudi filmmakers who have taken their movies to a number of foreign film festivals. But I’m sure they prefer to practice their art in their own country.

According to their Facebook page, the group organized in 2008 to share “a passion for cinema and collaborating to contribute to the Saudi film scene by producing a number of quality films each year.” The group includes Fahad Alestaa, Mohammad Aldhahri, Abdulmohsen Al-Dabaan, Mohammed Al-Hamoud, Turki Al-Rwaita, Mohammed Al Khalif, Hussam Alhulwah, Abdulamusin Almutairi and Nawaf Al-Muhanna.

The group had five entries screened last fall at the Arab Film Festival in San Francisco. The Arab Film Festival has been screening Saudi films since 2007. Talashi members screened their work last year at the Abu Dhabi Film Festival and Dubai’s Gulf Film Festival. Last November two of their films were screened at the International Film Festival at Bratislava, Slovakia.

The theme here, of course, is their films get play anywhere except Saudi Arabia. For a country intent on weaning itself from oil revenue, there seems to be a poor grasp of what other industries have to offer.

The door is not completely closed to Saudi filmmakers. The Asian Consuls General Club is sponsoring its 4th annual Asian Film Festival in Jeddah through Feb. 28 with two Saudi films by Abdullah Al-Muhaisin and Abdullah Al-Eyaf. But the more prominent Jeddah Film Festival, which ran three consecutive years, was abruptly cancelled in 2009 without explanation. More than 70 films, with many showcasing Saudi Arabia’s best filmmakers, were never seen. There was no 2010 Jeddah Film Festival.

There are a handful of Saudis in positions of authority that recognize the necessity of establishing a filmmaking presence in the Kingdom. Prince Khalid Al-Faisal, the governor of the Makkah region, for example, has a long history of supporting film festivals. It takes only one Saudi with clout and one entrepreneur with a vision to build a cinema to move against the illogical argument of conservatives that there is no place in Saudi Arabia for movies.

Imagine the possibilities of Saudis watching Saudi-produced stories that accurately reflect their lives and not some foreigner’s idea of whom we are. You would think some people would recognize the benefits of this approach, but ignorance is blind.

Why Saudi Facebook support of Egyptian uprising disappeared

2011-01-30T05:24:00.000-08:00

Saudis during the early days of the anti-Hosni Mubarak demonstrations took to social media to overwhelmingly voice their support for the Egyptian people to end the president’s 30-year-old regime.

Although the demonstrators’ goals for a replacement government are unclear, it appeared in those first days of unrest that it mattered little to Saudi youths and intellectuals. Via Facebook and Twitter, Saudi men and women, including some university professors, were near unanimous in their support of efforts to depose the Egyptian president.

A young Saudi women employed by the United Nations posted on Facebook, “Thumbs up to Egypt and the girls of Egypt.” A Saudi man wrote, “Mubarak is against freedom of speech … and the proof is disconnecting the Internet, mobiles, SMSes and attacking media people. It was all an unsuccessful attempt … the message to all dictator governments is the world has become a small village and dictators can’t block the sun anymore.”

Popular Saudi blogger and activist Fouad Al-Farahan Twittered, “Democracy is the Solution!”

In one Facebook posting late Friday, a Saudi woman sought general observations about the Egyptian people’s bid for a regime change. Most of the nearly Saudi 200 responses fervently supported the demonstrators’ right to demand a new government. One Saudi wrote, “Doesn’t a politician feel ashamed when he lies in front of millions? Not only lying to your own people, but you are lying to the whole Arab world.”

That all changed on Saturday when Saudi Arabia released a statement condemning the street protesters. King Abdullah offered words of support from his government and the “Saudi people” to the threatened Egyptian president. King Abdullah reportedly blamed the unrest on “infiltrators.”

Saudi Facebook and Twitter postings fell dramatically almost immediately after King Abdullah's announcement was released. Now that the Saudi government has stated its disdain for the protesters, most pro-uprising statements disappeared. Many Saudis turned their attention away from Egypt and towards the tragedy of last week’s Jeddah floods that left more than 10 people dead.

Postings after Saturday were limited to links to Western news articles critical of President Obama’s tepid response to the demonstrations and his failure to demand that Mubarak resign from office.

Unlike most Arab countries, Saudis have a different view about expressing opinions once the King invokes the will of the Saudi public. Most Saudis are religious and Islam prohibits the uprising against a ruler who should be chosen based on wisdom, justice and fairness. The same goes for contradicting a ruler.

Moreover, there are hadiths that advise Muslims not to depose a ruler because it creates division in the Islamic community. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “It is obligatory upon a Muslim to listen (to the ruler) and obey whether he likes it or not, except when he is ordered to do a sinful thing; in such case, there is no obligation to listen or to obey.”

Yes, the Egyptians demonstrating in the streets clearly don’t believe their president possesses wisdom, justice and fairness. But one will be hard-pressed to find Saudis who feel that way about King Abdullah, who Saudis consider one best rulers in the Kingdom’s history. He is consistently named one of the top influential Muslims worldwide.

Saudis by nature put their trust in their ruler’s judgment, which is reflected in the decline of public statements. And for those Saudis who disagree with their government, there is immense pressure from Saudi society to conform to the government’s position as a religious duty.

King Abdullah’s speech, however, is not the only reason for the sudden silence in Saudi public opinion. Granted, few Saudis are willing to take on the role of contrarian once the King takes a stand on an issue. But Saudis were also disturbed by the violence and looting of Egypt’s oldest artifacts in public buildings and museums. The destruction of some of the country’s most treasured antiquities at Cairo’s Egyptian Museum during a wave of looting may have included items from the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Many Cairo and Alexandria neighborhoods have been seized by thieves who ransacked homes and supermarkets. A former student of mine living in Alexandra told me Saturday her neighborhood supermarket was stripped bare and looters roamed the streets. My father lives in central Cairo. He told me his neighborhood was spared from looting only because the young men living nearby blocked the streets and stood guard through the night.

While Saudis may support the democratic goals of their Egyptian brothers and sisters, they find violence and the wanton destruction of property an anathema. It’s simply uncivilized behavior. This kind of behavior doesn’t necessarily cool the passions of Saudis. But if Cairo and Alexandria slipped into chaos, Saudis don’t want to be thought of as endorsing such behavior.

Arab people now recognize that the United States is incapable of effecting real change in the Middle East. The American model of democracy has failed in the region. Changes must come from within. The Egyptian people are entitled to express their thoughts, fight for their freedom and seek a better standard of living. But revolutionaries defeat their cause by creating chaos and the wholesale destruction of property.

Dialing down the violent rhetoric from imams

2011-01-19T07:01:00.000-08:00

NOTE: Common Ground News Service ran a version of this article on Feb. 15 titled Does the Pulpit Speak for Saudi Arabia?.

As American politician debate whether violent rhetoric contributed to the attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the slayings of six people, a similar debate is underway in Saudi Arabia.

There is a rising chorus among religious scholars demanding that imams put an end to supplications against non-Muslims. Supplications are petitions offered by a religious leader seeking Allah’s aid in a time of need.

It used to be that supplications were offered as an invective against specific individuals or groups that had wronged Islam or were perceived as an enemy of Islam. Supplications against non-Muslim faiths were off-limits and contrary to Islam.

However, following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Saudi imams during Friday jumah increasingly directed their anger to non-Muslims and singled out Jews and Christians for destruction. It wasn’t a conscious effort to demonize other faiths, but like in the United States, passions run high when the Muslim community is in danger. Things have gotten out of hand.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Fouzan Al Fouzan is the latest religious scholar to add his voice by asking imams to take a time-out. “These supplications are an aggression against non-Muslims,” Al-Fouzan, recently told the Jeddah-based English language newspaper Arab News. “This is against the spirit of Islam. The imams should instead pray to Allah to guide them toward the path of righteousness.”

There should be little argument that supplications against non-Muslims is haram and that all people should be treated equitably and with charity. But Saudi Arabia’s leading scholars also recognize that violent rhetoric is no longer contained in the local mosque. The image of the Kingdom is tarnished when exhortations of violence against entire groups of people is broadcast worldwide with today’s instant access to information.

King Abdullah is sensitive to Saudi Arabia’s image, but instead of simply hushing imams for their intemperate sermons, he has taken steps to reach out to other faiths. He met with Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, and in 2008 held a conference in Makkah to urge Muslim leaders to join Jews and Christians to speak with one voice. Also in 2008, he held an interfaith conference in Madrid. In a groundbreaking move for Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah reached out to Hindus and Buddhists.

In the same spirit, King Abdullah spearheaded the creation of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) that permitted men and women to work together in the classroom. Although the source of much debate in Saudi Arabia, KAUST served as an experiment in tolerance that after more than a year has proved a success.

The king secured the support of most Saudi imams and those imams who resisted were marginalized. In fact, the supplications against non-Muslims by a small minority of Saudi imams do not track with the Saudi government’s policy, and the teachings of Islam, of religious and cultural tolerance.

The inconsistency between the rhetoric of some imams and King Abdullah’s goals is perhaps best exemplified by the large numbers of Saudi university students attending Catholic, Methodist and Baptist universities in the United States. Even secular British universities with Christian principles ingrained on campus attract thousands of Saudi students. Saudis are attracted to these universities because of their superior academic programs, of course, but also because of the universities’ religious values that are not that different from Islam. Saudis are attracted to institutions in which God is the priority.

So how do I, as a Saudi, reconcile the King’s vision of tolerance and the Ministry of High Education’s willingness to send students to non-Muslim, but religious-based universities and the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sermons in neighborhood mosques?

To my ear, there is little difference between the intolerant sermons of a conservative, if not ignorant Muslim imam, and that of a Christian preacher in rural America. What is said from the pulpit, whether in Saudi Arabia or the United States, bears little relation to the goals of governments and what is in the hearts of common people. I no more look at the United States government as anti-Muslim as I do Saudi Arabia as anti-Christian.

American Christian and Jewish leaders are protected by the First Amendment. Imams in Saudi Arabia have no such protections. Saudi society usually governs Saudi behavior. Imams who refuse to follow Islam’s path of tolerance and fairness are feeling the pressure from Saudis to quit the trash talk. Those imams who point to Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of Christian transgressions, and therefore are right to issue invectives against an entire faith, have lost their way. Muslims leaders who complain the entire Muslim community is being held responsible for the murderous actions of a minority of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists should look inward as to whether it’s appropriate to apply the same standard to other faiths.

Al-Fouzan perhaps put it best: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say he was not sent to people (with the message of Islam) as a preacher of curse but as a man of mercy.”

Hello everybody

2011-01-19T06:54:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that I’ve been gone a while. Well, the news is that I took a break from my studies in Newcastle to return to Saudi Arabia in November to get married. Much of November was taken up with last-minute wedding plans. Then the big day was Nov. 25 at the InterContinental Hotel in Jeddah.

We had big plans for a honeymoon after returning to the UK in early December, but both of us came down with flu bugs, which we have been battling off and on for about a month. It’s only now that I can return to writing and today’s column you see above.

Before we get into that I want to thank all those folks who made the big night possible: Walid Abou El Naser, the events coordinator at the InterContinental on the Corniche; Elvie and her team that ran the whole show in the ballroom and organizing the event; the Pance shop on Kasem Zaina Street in the Rawda District for the wonderful flowers and stage; Mr. Salama from Molaei for the pastries and chocolates; and Lialy Al Omar, the wedding photographer. Lialy and her crew took great photos of the groom and me, even though it was 5:30 in the morning before we could take the first pix!

So here are some pictures. For those who were expecting photos of the bride and groom, well, you know we Saudis are. All private and hush-hush. Use your imagination.

Oklahoma gets protection from sneaky Muslims

2010-11-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This post was originally published by BlogHer.

Oklahoma has a message for its Muslim population: We don’t want you here.

How else to explain Oklahoma Republican State Representative Rex Duncan’s “pre-emptive” anti-Sharia measure passed by the state’s voters on Tuesday? Duncan wants to target the Muslim community, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the state’s 3.15 million residents, because he suspects they might do something sneaky.

Duncan has acknowledged that there is no “creeping Sharia” in Oklahoma and it’s not used by the state’s courts, but he apparently sees it everywhere else and wants to protect Oklahomans.

The amendment to the state’s constitution, called State Question 755, should have no direct impact on Muslims. The amendment bans Oklahoma’s courts from using Sharia, but says nothing about using Sharia in private arbitration. I don’t even know if Oklahoma Muslims use Sharia to settle domestic and civil disputes. But if they do, the new law can’t touch them as long as Sharia rulings are not challenged in court.

I’m no legal expert, but it stands to reason State Question 755 is ripe for legal challenges on constitutional grounds. Indeed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) weighed in on Thursday by announcing it will file a lawsuit in Oklahoma challenging the law’s constitutionality. The law also is discriminatory. If a domestic or civil dispute arbitrated by a Sharia panel is challenged, an Oklahoma court can’t consider the Sharia ruling. However, the courts can still consider private administrative hearings and Beth Din, which follows similar guidelines as Sharia by the Jewish community. Using Sharia as private arbitration, like Beth Din, is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is accepted and encouraged by most state courts.

Although the anti-Sharia aspect of the amendment gets all the attention, what apparently flew under the voters’ radar is that Oklahoma’s courts also can’t use international law when deliberating cases. This has a more far-reaching impact on the state’s judicial system. For all of Duncan’s proclamations that America must keep its values and rely on the rule of law forged by the founding fathers, he seems to be unaware that U.S. courts have used international law in deciding cases for more than 200 years.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court can’t make up its mind whether considering international law is appropriate, all state courts rely on it from time to time. Not only are Oklahoma’s courts now hamstrung in applying international law, the courts may also find they can’t use the Alien Tort Statute. The statute gives U.S. courts jurisdiction in civil cases brought by non-U.S. citizens against individuals for violating international law or treaties with the United States. If individuals commit human rights violations, their victims can sue them in U.S. courts. Except perhaps in Oklahoma.

While CAIR and the state of Oklahoma prepare to wrestle with these issues, one must wonder how Oklahoma took this road.

Ducan’s “pre-emptive” argument doesn’t stand scrutiny. Just who is advocating that Sharia be implemented in the United States? Other than the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the occasional kooky European imam, there is not a single reputable Islamic scholar in the U.S. who has publicly advocated for Sharia to be the law of the land.

Duncan, however, has taken his lead from Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of ACT! for America, an anti-Muslim organization that spreads the word that Sharia is just around the corner. In an interview with the conservative Christian website OneNewsNow, Gabriel said, "There is actually a huge pocket of terrorist organizations operating out of Oklahoma. I know this because I work with members of the FBI who are in counter-terrorism and who are paying attention to what's happening in Oklahoma. What we are seeing right now, not only in Oklahoma, but nationwide where there is a large concentration of Muslim population, (there are) more demands and more push for Sharia law."

Gabriel doesn’t disclose where these terrorist organizations are operating, although I’m sure Oklahoma law authorities would like to know. She also doesn’t say which Muslims are demanding Sharia. I don’t know what the FBI is doing about terrorists in Oklahoma, but I can tell you what is not happening with Sharia. Women asking for private swimming times at a public pool are not pushing Sharia. They want privacy. Asking for a separate exercise schedule or private space at the local gym is not Sharia. It’s a question of modesty. Asking the local KFC for halal chicken is not Sharia. It’s a request for an alternative way to prepare food that does not impact other methods of food preparation. Asking for time to pray at work is not Sharia. It’s called religious accommodation, guaranteed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as long as it does not adversely affect the operation of the employer’s business.

Operators of public swimming pools, local gyms and restaurants have the right to say “no.” Employers have the right to say “no” if prayer affects the operation of their business. By the same token, American Muslims have the right to sue.

It’s the great American way.

The Idiocy of the Anti-Sharia Crowd

2010-10-18T03:33:00.000-07:00

For those following the idiotic allegations that Sharia is creeping into American society and wonder who speaks for Islam, I think the answer is obvious. Western extremists are now the new hijackers of Islam. They have adopted the language of Islamic terrorists, interpreted the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) into something unrecognizable to Muslims and cherry-pick aspects of Sharia to offer interpretations in a vacuum.

Muslims may think that Osama bin Laden perverted the true meaning of Islam, but Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and their slavish sycophants Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller make Al-Qaeda look like amateurs in the art of deception.

Recently, a peculiar document titled the "Shariah: The Threat to America" was published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. The Center for Security Policy purports to be a non-partisan group, but only ultra-conservatives authored the 352-page report. The report's objectives are to explain how Muslims are conspiring to supplant American jurisprudence and the U.S. Constitution with Sharia. Yet not a single Muslim or non-Muslim Islamic scholar was consulted. Only one of its 19 authors claims to have a degree in theology. His biography, though, makes no mention of what kind of degree. We are supposed to take their word that they are the experts.

These self-proclaimed experts ignore the principles of Sharia that make Islamic values compatible with democratic societies. Indeed, the principles of Sharia are also found in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and predate these documents by more than a millennia. These Sharia principles ensure the freedom of religion, the preservation of human life and family, the guarantee of an education and the pursuit of economic security and justice through commerce.

Rather than focus on what Sharia has in common with American values, the report gives considerable space to a 19-year-old Muslim Brotherhood document that reportedly seeks to implement Sharia in the United States. Although the authors give much credence to this document, most American Muslims view the Muslim Brotherhood in the abstract with little relevance in their lives. The report fails to address the question of how the Muslim Brotherhood, which struggles for credibility in Muslim countries, can have a foothold in Podunk, Idaho.

The report cleverly addresses the more sensational aspects of Sharia: stoning, amputations, lashings and taqiyya. Taqiyya, according to Western extremists, means that Muslims can lie with impunity to hide their true agenda of global domination. I must admit that this is a clever tactic because anyone believing in this nonsense can conveniently disregard as a lie any Muslim argument that is contrary the western extremist position. Interestingly, the Robert Spencers of the world insist we denounce terrorism and renounce Sharia. Yet their position is that all Muslims are liars, so what's the point of making these futile arguments?

Taqiyya refers to a single incident in the Qur'an in which a man concealed his religious faith when forced to renounce Islam while being tortured. If anything, recent history has taught us that anyone will lie under the threat of torture. But we are led to believe that this single incident in this context is the foundation of an Islamic strategy to impose Sharia.

The Center for Security Policy wants Americans to think that stoning and amputations are around the corner, but the report can't quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.

The Qur'an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet's involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her. What non-Muslim Sharia "experts" fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It's designed as prevention, not an actual punishment. Allegations of adultery are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove. Sharia makes stoning extremely unlikely to carry out.

The threat by the Iranian government to stone to death Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani on a conviction of adultery is not based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses, but on a judicial authority determined to inflict fear and intimidation on the Iranian population. It's not Sharia.

The anti-Muslim contingent points to wobbly examples that Sharia has infiltrated western judicial system. In 2009, a New Jersey judge denied a Muslim woman's request for a restraining order against her estranged husband because the abusive husband was following his Muslim beliefs. A similar case occurred in Germany in which a judge cited Qur'anic Verse 4:34 that permits husbands to strike their wives. The higher courts overturned the rulings in a clear message that the rule of law supersedes religious principles.

Another example of creeping Sharia, according to the anti-Muslim crowd, is the use of Sharia as private arbitration in domestic and civil cases. In these cases, Muslims agree in advance to the decision made by a panel of community leaders. This method of justice, almost identical to Beth Din employed in Jewish communities for more than a century, is permitted in England under the Arbitration Act of 1996. Outlawing Sharia as private arbitration would also require governments to ban Beth Din and administrative arbitration hearings enjoyed by private businesses and public agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom. The judicial system will collapse under the tens of thousands of additional domestic and civil cases added to the calendar and deprive individuals of their day in court.

What's more disturbing than judges making erroneous rulings is westerners lacking confidence in their own laws and constitutions. Implementing Sharia is impossible yet somehow is a hairsbreadth away from becoming a new constitutional amendment.

As a Muslim, I adhere to Sharia in my personal life. However, I see no need to impose it on anybody else, especially if they live in a non-Muslim country. As an individual, I don't dedicate my life to the advancement of Sharia while living or traveling in the west. But I also do not represent Muslims in the west. I do, however, live my life according to its principles to practice my religion freely, revere human life, pursue an education, remain loyal to my family and work hard to earn a decent living. When I hear people say that Muslims don't share American and British values, I have a feeling they would be embarrassed to recognize they are rejecting basic human rights that Sharia shares with democratic countries.

Of course, non-Muslims may have reason not to believe a word I write. This may be my idea of taqiyya

Only a woman minister for proposed Ministry of Women's Affairs will work

2010-10-05T01:39:00.000-07:00

The talk of establishing a Ministry of Women’s Affairs in Saudi Arabia raises exciting possibilities for Saudi women, particularly businesswomen who need unfettered access to the international business community. Yet the proposal could lead to further marginalization of Saudi women.

The idea of a governmental women’s department may sound quaint in the 21st century, but in Saudi Arabia where every progressive step comes in the smallest increments, it makes sense.

Dr. Basmah Umayr, the executive director of Al-Sayyidah Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid Center at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce, told Asharq Al-Awsat that a Ministry of Women’s Affairs would contribute to "the transportation of women to (the level) of decision-making.”

She added that, "Globally, we found upon studying the situation that many developed countries still reserve a ministry for women. Women's affairs are limitless, and there are many issues related to them." Turkey, Italy and France have similar ministries dedicated to women and family issues.

Perhaps the most important aspect of forming a women’s ministry is to help Saudi businesswomen remove obstacles to conducting business within and outside the Kingdom. A ministry will also implement programs to aid unemployed women. Although Saudi women comprise of 45 percent of Saudi Arabia’s population, more than 28 percent are unemployed. Yet we should consider that Saudi women also control an estimated $11.9 billion (SR 44.6 billion) in funds.

The female business community has grown so large in the past decade that the current set of rules no longer effectively regulates commercial interests operated by women. For example, Asharq Al-Awsat reports that 72.6 percent of the Saudi female-registered businesses are conducted outside the home and 92 percent have employees on the payroll. However, conducting business outside Saudi Arabia is virtually impossible given guardianship issues, travel restrictions and the archaic requirement that a business must be registered in a man’s name.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here. We can’t assume that a Saudi Ministry of Women’s Affairs will solve any of these issues. Like so many novel proposals in Saudi Arabia, there is usually a high degree of window-dressing. A women’s ministry will not only fail miserably, but it will be an embarrassment to the Saudi government if doesn’t appoint a woman to run it. Not only must she possess the decision-making privileges enjoyed by all ministers, but also have full Shoura member status and all the authority that goes with it.

Similarly, men must also be part of the minister’s team to ease the path of communication between other ministries. From a practical standpoint, it’s important to have men support, encourage and help integrate women into the highest levels of Saudi government. If inexperienced Saudi women think they can run a ministry on their own, expect to be taken seriously and have productive relationships with other ministers without a male team in place, then they are kidding themselves that they will accomplish anything.

Parity in the workplace is a vital issue for women, but it shouldn’t be the primary goal for a women’s ministry. Without question the sticky issue of male guardianship needs attention. Thought must be given whether to abolish the existing patently unfair system or overhaul it to reflect our true Islamic values. While the Saudi judicial system has made some strides in recent years to address the minimum marriage age for women, this is a job for a women’s ministry. In addition, the ministry must have the authority to deal with individuals who abuse their guardianship responsibilities by refusing their daughters and sisters their religious right to marry who they please or by forcing them to work and taking their salaries.

Curbing domestic abuse, establishing women’s shelters and providing medical outreach programs to low-income families without males in the household are necessities that come under the purview of a women’s ministry.

The idea of a Ministry of Women’s Affairs comes at the right time. We’ve seen the Saudi government appear serious in giving women a greater voice. The appointment of Nora Bint Abdullah Al-Fayez as deputy education minister in 2009 was a great step in the right direction. It’s too early to tell whether Al-Fayez is effective in her job, but indications after nearly two years on the job point to her positive influence.

If a women’s ministry is in Saudi Arabia’s future, let us hope it’s given a mandate to make a positive change in the role of Saudi woman and not an effort to satisfy Saudi Arabia’s critics.

Back in the UK

2010-10-05T01:36:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone,

As you may have noticed, I've been out of action this past month. I've been busy spending Ramadan with my family in Madinah and Jeddah and just returned to the UK to continue with my studies and set up my new apartment. But now it's back to business!

A nutty cponsiracy theory

2010-09-02T02:19:00.000-07:00

Many Americans are wondering these days just when the Ummah will impose Shariah at their local courts and make Ramadan a national holiday. I will send out a press release once I get a break from working on our diabolical plans to make sure Michigan is ready to become the first western Caliphate.

At present, though, I want to take time out to tell you a story that tops those nutty American conspiracy theorists with a Saudi one. For those who take it for granted that Saudis are more rational than Americans, let me burst your bubble.

It seems that my niqabi sisters working as cashiers at the Panda Hypermarket in Jeddah are the victims of a western conspiracy. Just when I thought the lobbyists for Islamify America Today could push through Congress that modesty bill to criminalize the bikini, the U.S. government one-ups Saudi Arabia by persuading Panda management to hire women.

Panda since May has employed female cashiers at its supermarkets around the city. This not a particularly groundbreaking event. Saudi women have been working as clerks at retail stores for some time with minimal fuss and bother, although we are still not entitled to sell underwear to each other. But that’s a story for another day.

Yet it’s significant that Saudi women are making incremental progress in gaining a foothold in the workplace. Mohamed Amin Qashqari, assistant managing director of retail for Savola Group, which owns Panda, said 16 women cashiers were been hired for just one supermarket.

"More than 2,500 other girls will be hired shortly in branches all over the Kingdom," Qashqari recently told Okaz. "Their salaries will reach 3,000 riyals per month."

Saudi Sheikh Yusuf Al-Ahmed, however, thinks the west is getting its hooks deeper in Saudi society. He has demanded that Panda fire the women.

“This is prohibited because it is part of the western project that is imposing itself upon our society " Ahmed said on a television show. "This is a project of hypocrites and has to be stopped."

Panda apparently doesn’t see their in-house hiring practices as a western conspiracy. According to Ahmed, Panda management gave him an “inappropriate” response when he requested changes in their hiring procedures.

"I am surprised at (the) support the administration of this place is getting,” he complained to the Saudi media while urging a boycott of Panda stores. “Is this project directly backed by the United States?"

He further described Panda’s practice of hiring women cashiers as “novelties imported from the west.”

Whenever a Saudi woman finds a job that requires her to engage in a conversation with a member of the public, we get these Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling proclamations from conservatives who seem to think that diaper changing and mall shopping are the only jobs a woman needs. Saudi society is not going to shrivel up and die because a male customer received change from a woman cashier after paying for his groceries.

It’s not that I don’t respect Ahmed’s sense of propriety, but is employing women in jobs that have contact with the public really a western invention? Has he seen the women tucked in the corner shops at the Red Sea Mall selling jewelry and clothing to men and women alike? Or the girls at the high-end department stores on Tahlia? To Ahmed’s way of thinking, shadowy puppet masters manipulate them.

Perhaps critics of fair and equitable employment for women haven’t noticed Jeddah’s changing employment picture. A couple of years ago, I bet there wasn’t a single Saudi man under the age of 30 driving a taxi. Now, they are all over the place competing for fares alongside the expatriates.

The Saudi inflation rate was 5.51 percent in June and steadily rising since January. The inflation rate could very well return to the peak 2008 levels of more than 10 percent. People need jobs to stay afloat. And some Saudi families have determined that their wives, daughters and sisters must work as well.

It’s insulting to Saudi families to have a man in a position of authority claim that western agents of change are duping them. It’s as if we can’t think for ourselves. He obviously does not have the grasp of challenges Saudi families face today.

Now excuse me while I have my secret meeting with President Obama to impose gender segregation rules at the Senate and House chambers at the U.S. Capitol.

Why I hate the burqa

2010-08-04T01:52:00.000-07:00

Revisiting issues that I previously have written about is not something I do often, but I'm making an exception to return to the West's most beloved human rights cause: Banning the burqa.

I last wrote about pending legislation to ban burqas in Europe more than a year ago when France first proposed laws to make it illegal to wear the burqa in public. Proposed legislation is pending with a final vote set in September.

There is no argument that can persuade me that laws designed to bully women into abandoning their cultural traditions because it makes people uncomfortable are essential in a free society. If a woman chooses to wear the niqab who are we to pass judgment? Lawmakers who argue that banning the burqa is a blow against extremism are naïve and lazy. Band-Aid approaches to fighting extremism are rarely successful. It only serves to pander to the ignorance and unfounded fears of politicians' constituents.

Yet I have grown to hate the burqa. I hate the burqa because it serves no logical purpose in Western society. The intent of the clothing is to draw attention away from the woman, but in the West it only attracts unwanted attention. Recently a Glasgow man was sentenced to prison for attacking a burqa-clad Saudi woman on the street. He ripped away her niqab. The woman was a graduate student. She has since quit her studies and refuses to leave her apartment. To her the attack was an act of rape.

I was reminded of this attack the other day as I was sitting on a bench in Newcastle's Eldon Square. I noticed a Saudi family leaving a rented apartment to walk through the square to a nearby restaurant. It was evening and the pub crowd was out and about. The mother was dressed in a burqa with niqab and she was wearing sunglasses. I watched her skirt along the edge of the square to avoid some loud young men who obviously had plenty to drink. The boys mocked her a bit but left the family alone.

I followed the woman into the restaurant. I tried not to be a scold, but told her that wearing the niqab in public on a late Friday night invited unwanted attention and could be dangerous. I suggested that under some circumstances she should consider leaving the niqab at home. A colleague told me he saw the same woman the next day wearing her burqa. Apparently she is willing to risk her safety to maintain her cultural identity.

The climate for Muslims living in the West could not be worse. The Guardian reported recently that three-quarters of the United Kingdom's non-Muslims have a negative view of Islam. About 63 percent agree with the statement that "Muslims are terrorists." And 94 percent believe that Islam oppresses women, according to the Guardian.

The image of Islam in the West is so badly damaged that Saudi Sheikh Aedh Al-Garni issued a fatwa that Muslim women may show their faces in countries where the niqab is banned or when wearing the niqab may pose a danger to the woman.

There are only a handful of niqabis in Newcastle, but each time I see one I want to grab her by the shoulders and shake some sense into her. Protecting her image is not worth the trauma their Muslim sister is experiencing in Glasgow.

This is particularly true for niqabis who wear the burqa for the most ludicrous reasons. Most Saudi women, like me, leave the burqa (abaya) and niqab in Saudi Arabia. But I'm guessing that more than a few Saudi girls wear the niqab because their husbands insist on it. The husband doesn't care whether strangers see his wife's uncovered face, but he cares a great deal that his Saudi male friends do. His selfishness and warped view of manhood are more important that his wife's safety is inexcusable. Thankfully, most Saudi women ignore this kind of male behavior, but others don't.

For a long time I strongly objected on principle alone to ban the burqa. A burqa ban is equally offensive as the Taliban's mandate for women to wear one. I see no difference. But Muslims no longer have the luxury of choosing whether to wear the burqa in the West. The French government has led the campaign to steal that choice from us. We now must think in practical terms. Co-existing with non-Muslims in the West means what we must reconsider our cultural and religious values or we go home. By the same token Muslims rigidly adhering to wearing cultural dress unnecessarily invites trouble. It doesn't take much to compromise and adapt at some level to a new environment.

There is no reason to pass laws to ban the burqa. The climate of fear is so prevalent today that wearing the burqa will slowly disappear out of necessity of survival. There will be a price, though. Some Muslim women will return home without a Western education and that will make bridging the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult. This fear also forces Muslims who want to live in the West to conform to Western appearances. It will also cause resentment and make the fight against religious extremism more difficult. People are not inclined to help governments that pass abusive laws. Muslim women will continue to fear harassment from non-Muslim. And non-Muslims will continue to fear Muslims wearing traditional clothing and hijabs because it represents beliefs alien to them.

Outlawing the burqa will create a tremendous divide between non-Muslims and Muslims. But wearing the burqa in the West is also just plain stupid.

The only running Saudi women do is at malls and airports

2010-07-10T01:45:00.000-07:00

Here’s another message from our guardians in the West for the “We Know What’s Best For Saudi Arabia Although We’ve Never Been There” file: Ban Saudi Arabia from the 2012 Olympics unless women are permitted to compete.

It seems that Anita DeFrantz, a former US Olympic rowing bronze medalist and chairwoman of the International Olympic Committee’s Women and Sports Commission, is getting impatient because Saudi Arabia fails to send women to the Olympics. She’s singled out Saudi Arabia as a country that should be banned from the 2012 Olympics in London if the Kingdom doesn’t comply with her demands.

Already the IOC has browbeaten Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and the tiny, helpless Brunei into sending women to the Olympics. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, ladies participated and nobody paid any attention to them. The 78th-ranked Waseelah Saad of Yemen failed to advance. The UAE’s Maitha Al-Maktou made it to the quarter-finals in Taekwondo, but she failed to advance further. I suspect that these young women trained night and day to qualify to compete and I commend their tenacity.

But Saudi women? The pampered princesses of the Arabian Gulf? My idea of physical exertion is trying shoes on all day and then waiting impatiently inside the air-conditioned mall for my driver to take me home.

Let’s consider the events available to Saudi women. There’s track and field, but our only training is running between airport terminals at Charles de Gaulle. Not to mention we have about as much grace as a galloping camel. Has anyone ever seen a Saudi woman swim? Me neither. Besides, burqinis and floaties will only slow us down. And Saudi conservatives would never allow us to compete in the breaststroke for obvious reasons.

We might have a chance in Taekwondo. With a little training, the lady who beat up the member of the Commission for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue some weeks ago might earn a medal.

Saudi women will be a serious threat in shooting competition. The ladies from Buraidah in Qassim and the villages along the Saudi Arabia-Yemen are handy with guns. They’re gold medalists in the making. The only problem is that any Olympics shooting training facility will be mistaken for an Al-Qaeda training camp and a likely target for a NATO drone attack.

Equestrian riding is our best bet, and it’s here that I agree with Anita DeFrantz, the Saudi woman’s BFF. Nobody is more talented in handling an Arabian horse than a Saudi woman.

Certainly Saudi women should be permitted to participate in the Olympic Games to face humiliation like anyone else or revel in the glory of triumph. There is no good reason why Saudi woman should not participate. The people who deny them this right should be publicly shamed. There are plenty of events available to Saudi women that even the most conservative Saudi would deem inoffensive to our moral and religious values. I'm pretty sure, though, the day will come when Saudi women participate in the Olympics. It will happen when Saudis are ready to have it happen. Not according to DeFrantz's timetable.

But I’m not sure who appointed DeFrantz the Saudi woman’s advocate. We have plenty of Saudi and non-Saudi women claiming that title and few Saudi women have paid attention to them. What makes DeFrantz so different? Well, for one she wields influence in the IOC. She has the power to punish Saudi male athletes who have nothing to do with government policy. I wonder why people in positions of power are so desperate to marginalize a group or country that refuses to conform to their definition of equal rights. Saudi women are indeed denied the rights given to them in Islam, but who appointed DeFrantz to stand up for them? Threatening to derail the sports careers of Saudi male athletes will do nothing but enrage Saudi women.

At a recent news conference, DeFrantz said of Saudi Arabia’s refusal to send women to the Olympics: "We keep asking them why not, why not. We've been very specific about the importance of having women take part in the Olympic movement in all the national Olympic committees of the world."

So who is this important to? Saudi Arabia? Obviously not. Saudi women? Perhaps, but nobody has bothered to ask them. It’s important to DeFrantz and the IOC. It’s a noble thing that part of the IOC’s mission statement is to work against discrimination affecting the Olympics. But while the IOC does its best to eliminate discrimination, it may be violating its other commitment to oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes. Denying Saudi male athletes the right to participate in the Olympics is political abuse as far as I’m concerned. And perhaps DeFrantz should allow Saudi women to define what discrimination is.

The real abuse of Saudi women

2010-07-02T22:52:00.000-07:00

I have a friend who lives under the constant pressure of her brothers conspiring to cheat her out of her rightful inheritance after her father died. I have another friend who has accumulated some wealth only to give in to pressure from her husband to finance her mother-in-law’s comfortable lifestyle. I have another who can’t study abroad because her mother emotionally blackmails her into believing the mother can’t survive without her adult daughter next to her every day.

These women are Saudis and all suffer from the same affliction: They are weak in the matters of family.

Many Saudi women from birth are trained to put their personal aspirations aside to serve their families. Their opinions, wants and needs are often ignored for the greater good of the family. There’s an aspect of servitude, but to be more accurate many Saudi girls I know are placed in a lifetime role of caregiver. They provide the emotional support for their sisters, brothers and parents. The men of the family readily acknowledge that the women are the glue that keeps the familial bond strong.

The warmth of the family’s embrace is strongly desired by all Saudi women, but in all too many cases that embrace never loosens. Rather, it becomes restrictive and suffocating to the point that unmarried Saudi women are still living at home well into their 30s. Perhaps worse, they have traded one gilded cage for another by marrying men who see her as a source of income and their concubine. The reality is that the caregiving role that Saudi women play is entrenched in Saudi families so deeply that it’s difficult for parents and brothers to willingly let go of their daughters and sisters.

And if these girls are permitted to live independent lives it’s often an illusion. There are brothers who insist their sisters pay their unpaid bills and act as arbitrator in family disputes. There are fathers who demand half the income a daughter earns in the workplace.

Like an emotionally abused child, the Saudi woman fails to thrive. Many Saudi women will not assert their independence. They will not say “no.” They live in a constant state of anxiety because they must protect their property and income from the very people that profess love for her.

There are also a large number of Saudi women who never experience these issues. Their families encourage their daughters to seek independence, a university education and employment. Such families establish the emotional foundation in their daughters at an early age. When the girls reach adulthood they have clear vision of what they want for a future.

This doesn’t mean that Saudi families less enlightened are intentionally cruel. It’s simply a dependency that has grown to unhealthy proportions and exacerbated by an adult daughter who lacks the emotional strength to seek independence.

I don’t deny there’s a level of cruelty among some Saudi men who think nothing of enjoying women like he’s eating at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

One of my friends has a brother who demanded that his family find him a wife. His requirements for a Saudi wife were simple: She must be beautiful and dumb.

The brother wanted beauty but the brains had to be left behind because she would pose too much of a challenge for him. The family obliged the brother and found him a wife with fair skin and hair that would make Rapunzel envious. A couple of years and kids later, the brother had enough. Like a 12-year-old who discovers that the graphics on his X-Box are not as cool as the Playstation model, he was ready for a trade-in. “I can’t carry on a conversation with her, she has no idea what I’m talking about!”

These scenarios are all too familiar to Saudi women. Self-expression is stifled not only by insecure male family members who haven’t quite outgrown adolescence but by Saudi women who have yet to discover their voice to express their emotions.

There has been a ripple of change in which Saudi women are claiming ownership to a field that has been largely ignored by Saudi men. More and more women are turning to the arts and literature. Usually scorned by Saudi conservatives as having little or no value to society, literature in particular has attracted Saudi women in large numbers.

Among some agents of change are Saudi writers Badriya Al Bishr, author of “Hind and the Soldiers” and “The Swing”, and Laila Al Gohani, who wrote “The Waste Paradise.”

The Saudi female literature movement is in its infancy. But it also will have more influence on future generations of Saudi women than human rights watchdog reports and scoldings from the West.

But as with anything that involves Saudi women, their writing will be relegated to the margins of Arab literature. Female Arab writers are perceived as pursuing a hobby instead of a profession. And when they are taken seriously as writers, it will only be within the confines of being a female author and not part of the larger world of literature.

Sherren Abou El Naga of Cairo University noted at a 2007 “Women of the Arab World” conference at Oxford that Western and Arab societies have set a double standard for female writers. She said, “A woman shouldn’t write, and in the worst cases, the writings of women could be taken as autobiographical. Whatever the woman writes is part of her life, which really restricts the freedom of the writer, whereas, this does not apply to the men in profession.”

From Mary Shelley and the Brontë sisters to Virginia Woolf women writers have been pushed to the margins of world literature.

But as Badriya Al Bishr told Agence France-Presse earlier this month: "There is a new generation of novelists that uses a new language, simple and direct, in dealing with subjects that were not evoked in the past, like the right of a woman to be in love or to work."

Female authors like Al Bishr and Al Gohani may never cross gender lines and be embraced for their work as writers and not just women. But that matters less than the fact they are reaching a female Saudi audience who may be inspired to reach beyond domestic life for a larger piece of the pie.

Saudi rehab program for terrorists proves skeptics wrong

2010-06-24T04:45:00.000-07:00

The other day it was announced by the Ministry of Interior that a little more than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees who returned to Saudi Arabia and underwent the government’s rehabilitation program have returned to extremism.

Twenty-five of the 120 Guantanamo detainees that graduated from the program resumed militant activities, with up to 11 joining Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Othman Ahmed Al-Ghamdi, 31, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo for four years and released in 2006, has been named the leader in Al-Qaeda.

The Ministry also reported that overall about 9.5 percent of the 300 people who passed through the program have rejoined the militant ranks or have failed to adhere to the terms of their release.

The Western media has been relatively restrained in reporting these numbers, but present the recidivism rate as a failure. Reuters describes the Guantanamo detainees’ return to extremism as a “setback” for the “world’s top oil exporter”. So by implication not only is the program failing but the failure is in a country that produces fuel for the cars we drive. Agence France-Presse bluntly announces the “20 Percent Failure Rate in Saudi Gitmo Rehab Programme”.

Is the Saudi government’s rehabilitation program failing? The obvious answer is no. Not by a long shot. Rather, the numbers are encouraging. And instead of engaging in torture and isolating individuals in jail cells without trial, perhaps the U.S. can learn a few lessons why Saudi Arabia is succeeding in its own efforts to combat extremism.

Ask any criminologist, police officer, prosecutor or judge about the Saudi rehabilitation program’s recidivism rate and they will express envy. Few Western countries can lay claim to a 9.5 percent recidivism rate among criminals.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 1.18 million American men and women on parole in 2007 were at risk of returning to prison. About 16 percent actually were reincarcerated in 2007. The average recidivism rate in the United States is 67.5 percent, according to a 1994 Department of Justice report.

An estimated 70 percent of convicted robbers are returned to prison. About 74 percent of convicted burglars are re-offenders. These people pose more of a risk to the average American than a terrorist. In 2005, the BBC reported that the recidivism rate in the U.S. was closer to 60 percent and about 50 percent in the United Kingdom.

By the Department of Justice’s own measuring stick, the Saudi rehabilitation program is a smashing success. In fact, the success rate has been remarkably consistent since the inception of the program. About 90 percent of the militants who pass through the program have not returned to extremism.

The program uses a mix of correct religious teachings and financial incentives to keep participants on tract. Much of the program focuses on the participation of religious scholars who freely engage with participants in debates over the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an by counseling them on the correct doctrine and ferreting out corrupt interpretations. Psychological counseling, the use of halfway houses to re-integrate former militants into Saudi society, jobs, and financial aid to get them back on their feet are also employed.

Western nations are used to the hard-line approach of harsh prison sentences imposed on people who commit crimes. Some U.S. and British legal experts have expressed skepticism whether a religious-based “soft” program can be effective over a long period of time. The consensus among Westerners is to assume a wait-and-see attitude. But now that Al-Qaeda in Yemen is composed of several rehab graduates, the program has been deemed a failure.

Critics have a tendency to believe that the Saudi program is some kind of Islamic version of an American weekend bible camp. Verses are memorized and recited, bonds are made between participates, songs are sung, and then everybody goes back to their secular world on Monday.

These notions can’t be applied to Saudis, who measure their very existence on how they live their lives as Muslims. Islam is a road map to pious living. It’s not a Friday-only thing or the occasional trip to Holy Qur’an camp. It’s an every minute thing.

Saudi extremists stepped off the correct path and only Islam can bring them back. It’s unlikely that hardcore extremists will ever change, and certainly life prison sentences or the death penalty will keep them off the streets. Those people will never personally harm another human being again. But it won’t stop them from spreading their ideology whenever possible, even behind prison walls. It will not stop their families from assuming the same ideology. It will not stop misguided Muslims from seeking revenge because their loved ones were tortured or held in prison without trial.

The Saudi rehabilitation program is successful because the government respects the people it’s trying to rehabilitate. It’s far easier to lock them away forever or execute them, but it does nothing to reduce the threat of extremist ideology.

Saudi tourism projects show improvements

2010-06-24T04:43:00.000-07:00

There’s more good news from the Saudi Arabian tourism industry. Revenue was expected this year to jump 4.76 percent over 2009 for a total of SR 66 billion.

Salah Al-Bakhit, the deputy chairman of Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA), told the Saudi Press Agency earlier this week that “by the year 2015 (tourism) revenue would reach SR118 billion and by 2020 it would jump further to SR232 billion.”

Also consider the SCTA’s announcement that jobs created by investments in tourism has increased 7.4 percent, or from 333,125 jobs in 2000 to 457,658 in 2009. I suspect that much of this growth, which is not terribly large over nearly a decade, occurred in the last couple of years as the SCTA increased its efforts to promote Saudi Arabia as a tourist destination and improved access to various sites.

Support services, such as restaurants, at tourist destinations also saw a significant rise in revenue with a 9 percent uptick, or a total of SR 36 billion expected this year.

So what are Saudi Arabia’s hot spots? Madain Saleh is popular with non-Muslims. Madain Saleh was named in 2008 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and continues to undergo excavation in a cooperative effort between the SCTA and the National French Research Center. The Grand Mosque in Makkah and Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah for pilgrims remains Saudi Arabia’s centerpieces of tourism. Asir, Najran and Jizan are beginning to attract new visitors. At least SR 150 billion has been earmarked for the construction of resorts along the Red Sea coast. Ras Muhaisen in the Makkah province, Dhaffat Al-Wajh, Ras Humaid Sharma and Qayyal in Tabuk, Arrayes in Yanbu and Haridha in Asir all have resorts under construction or have projects planned.

A project to develop the old Okaz Souq in Taif also is on the horizon.

It seems that the SCTA has proven the skeptics wrong and has exceeded their own expectations in tourism growth. With an unprecedented number of tourism projects underway, SCTA chief Prince Sultan Bin Salman is turning his attention to domestic travel issues. Citing that 80 percent of the Saudis use domestic highways to reach their destinations, a Saudi Automotive Services Company (SASCO) service station project has been launched.

“To promote domestic tourism we have to provide the best services to the local citizens, residents and tourists who make use of our trunk roads,” Prince Sultan told Saudi reporters at a press conference recently. He said the project is aimed to allow service stations to be more attractive for travelers.

The SCTA plans to add 20 SASCO service stations by next year for a total of 83 facilities. These services stations will include shopping centers, food courts and lodging. But it will take more than additional service stations to increase domestic travel on Saudi Arabia’s highways. What the SCTA hasn’t mentioned about their project is the fact that current highway service stations are notorious for their filthy conditions in restrooms and wash areas and less than adequate service at sales counters. I think that a filthy petrol station restroom and rude service staff will make more of an impression on a foreign visitor than any tourist site. If the Ministry of Transport can get on board with the SCTA and refurbish rest areas and service stations and train staff, then domestic travel will further increase

Also not addressed by the SCTA are the chronic problems of lack of public transportation in urban areas. While railways are planned for inter-city travel, public bus transportation remains substandard in general and non-existent for women in particular. Once tourists arrive at a destination, rental cars and taxis should not be the only transportation option for families.

Ultimately, the transportation problems will be solved given the giant strides the SCTA has made in the past two years. That’s promising for domestic tourism. Now if the SCTA can begin focusing on bringing more foreign tourists to Saudi Arabia, then we can see some further revenue increases.

Having an opinion can land Saudis in jail

2010-06-09T06:45:00.000-07:00

Young Saudis are in deep trouble yet again for speaking their minds. Three young Saudis, two men and a woman, face lawsuits for “opening declaring sin” in a MTV “True Life” episode titled “Resist the Power, Saudi Arabia.”

A portion of the episode was videotaped at a Jeddah Municipal Council meeting. Now the council claims that broadcasting images of its members is “an aggression against the rights of others” because one of the youths profiled in the show complained of lack of female council members.

The show profiled a young man breaking up with his unseen girlfriend and his attempts at dating. Another subject was a 20-year-old Effat College student starting her own abaya business in which her abayas are in every color except black. Another is a 22-year-old university political science major who regularly attends the municipal council meetings and worked four months to have women allowed to voice their community concerns. A fourth profile focused on a Saudi heavy metal rock band that is unable to stage a concert in Saudi Arabia.

Unlike the young Saudi who bragged of his female conquests on LBC several months ago, at least two of the young people interviewed by MTV in the hour-long episode did no wrong and committed no sin. The rock band is harmless.

It’s not for me to judge any of these individuals. That’s for Allah. I wish the lovelorn Saudi kept his mouth shut because, frankly, he openly defied Islam. But the abaya entrepreneur and budding Saudi politician have nothing to apologize for. This doesn’t absolve MTV from its responsibilities to their interview subjects. Like LBC, the music television company abandoned the people it profiled once the cameras stopped rolling. MTV also failed to balance its show by interviewing their subjects to elicit the positive aspects of Saudi culture.

Still, Saudi authorities – in this case the municipal council and apparently the Commission to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue, which had sought the lawsuits (Jeddah court officials said this week that no complaints have actually been filed) – have failed to take the documentary in perspective.

It’s telling that in each of the interviews, these young people freely expressed their opinions about the society they live in, yet behaved in every way like good Muslims and had sought the approval of their parents. During practice sessions, the heavy metal band immediately stopped playing their music, performed wudu and went to prayer. The mothers of the Effat College girl and the lead singer in the rock band gave their complete permission and encouragement of their children’s activities. The mothers willingly appeared on camera for interviews. Throughout the entire episode the musicians repeatedly said that heavy metal is a performance driven act that is not “Satanic” that is implied in that genre of music. Rather, their lyrics focus on their lives as Saudis. It was only the style of music they were emulating.
“There is no conflict between heavy metal music and being a Muslim,” one young man said.

Although the young man desperate for a date annoyed me, he made a statement that some young Saudis might agree: “Saudi society encourages Saudi youths to do wrong things.”

This statement is the crux of the MTV episode. Three individuals and a group of musicians swimming against the tide of Saudi society to pursue their dreams. The young abaya maker was lectured by a shop clerk that black represented modesty and was the only suitable color for an abaya.That’s not his place. It took the girl a while to find another shop owner, although he was quite reluctant, to make the colorful abayas she had designed.

There is no sin there.

The political science major’s legal issues are even more ludicrous. He is openly videotaped debating Jeddah Council members on the issue of allowing women to attend meetings. Most council members are photographed and engaging in the debate. Following a four-month negotiation, the Council agreed to allow women into the meeting. A few dozen women attended and are given an opportunity to voice their concerns about their needs in the community. A primary complaint is the lack of affordable transportation in the city.

Not until the MTV episode aired on May 24 did the Council discover that they were wronged by the young man for allowing the meeting to be recorded. Apparently no council member believes he should be held accountable for allowing the videotaping in the first place or giving the young man permission to bring women to the meeting.

Nearly 60 percent of the population of Saudi Arabia is under the age of 24. As one of the rock musicians stated in an interview, there are few ways for self-expression. He noted he could play his music or he could take drugs and drive his car aimlessly around Jeddah. His decision, he said, is to find a creative outlet to express himself.

Saudi authorities showed the wherewithal to allow MTV into the country to allow young Saudis to freely express themselves. Yet when the opinions expressed don’t match the opinions of the collective, then punishment is pending. It’s a wonder that any young Saudi would ever grant an interview to the media. The consequences of having opinions are too severe.

As for MTV, the opening narration provided a laundry list of Saudi generalizations and stereotypes, but to its credit virtually the entire documentary was in the words of the interview subjects. Leaving the young people behind to fend for themselves is unforgivable, but I’m not sure what is worse: MTV packing their bags and leaving without so much as a thank-you, or the Saudi authorities who endorsed the documentary by allowing MTV into the country, and then pulling the rug out from under these young people for speaking their minds.

Media give Western extremism a free pass

2010-06-02T06:27:00.000-07:00

The other night I was sitting at home minding my own business when I came across Al Jazeera English’s “Inside Iraq” program online. There for the world to see was an American describing Arabs as “barbarians” and Islam a “crazy ideology”. President Bush, he said, courageously “planted some flowers” of democracy in the Middle East when U.S. troops invaded Iraq.

I quickly looked at the time stamp on the program thinking I found something from the 2004 archives of Al Jazeera. No. Jack Burkman, a Republican strategist who does spin control for disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and toes the Republican Party line on foreign policy, was speaking in the here and now. Burkman told his disbelieving host and fellow guests -- British journalist Robert Fisk and Iraqi analyst Anas Altikriti -- that the Middle East needs to be cleaned up of dictators. He also said that oil, not weapons of mass destruction, was the true motive behind the invasion. Nobody in the U.S. government, he said, cares about Egypt or Syria because those countries have nothing to offer.

Okay, so Burkman articulates what Arabs have known all along. But the curious thing about this second-string Beltway insider is that Al Jazeera would put this guy on the air in the first place. Al Jazeera has fallen into the same trap as the American media by booking individuals with extreme viewpoints, taking off the gloves and allowing the blood to spill.

The unintended consequence of booking people with questionable credentials and outrageous opinions to draw viewers is that Western extremism is legitimized. If on American television we took the polar opposite of a Muslim extremist's point of view, say, that car bombings are a legitimate form of warfare to repel foreign invaders from Muslim lands, a media firestorm would ensue and the hapless Islamic extremist would disappear into a black hole.

Mainstream book publishers with a long record of publishing thought-provoking analysis on world events in general and American foreign policy in particular now recognize that Western extremism can be profitable.

Simon & Schuster has published commendable biographies and autobiographies of Barack and Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Afgan women’s activist Malalai Joya and Clara Rojas, who was held captive for more than 2,000 days by Colombian terrorists. But the publisher now includes Muslim haters Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, American advocates of the extinction of Islam, in their roster of authors. Simon & Schuster apparently believes Geller and Spencer’s argument that Obama is waging war on his own country.

Spencer, in fact, purports to be an Islamic scholar although he has no formal education in the field. He enjoys U.S. government tax breaks as a non-profit organization dedicated to Islamic scholarship. Yet his website and public speeches are screeds against Islam much in the same vein as Burkman’s view that Islam is a “crazy ideology” anchored hopelessly anchored in the 6th century.

Spencer’s promotion of “Draw Muhammad (peace be upon him) Day” further solidifies Western extremism directed toward Muslims. “Draw Muhammad Day” was promoted on Facebook last month in reaction to Comedy Central deciding not to air a “South Park” cartoon parody of the prophet following a threat from a fringe Islamic website. Billed as championing free speech and standing up to the excesses of Islamic extremists, artists were invited to submit artwork of the prophet to Facebook.

Scores of entries were submitted with every single one depicting hateful images. Freedom of speech to the organizers and artists was simply an excuse to vent anti-Muslim sentiments. Not one image portrayed the prophet in a positive or neutral light, or even attempted to emulate the well-known 16th century Turkish Islamic artwork.

Muslim extremists and their unhinged followers should assume some responsibility for fostering the rise of Western extremism (although Muslim extremists don’t enjoy the same benefits of being published by Simon & Schuster et al). Westerners have learned a few lessons from Al Qaeda, which virtually pioneered the use of the Internet to further their cause through terrorism Spencer, for example, often adopts the language of Al Qaeda when advocating the elmination of Islam. Yet long before Al Qaeda came about, extremism was alive and well in the U.S. It’s woven into the fabric of American history.

The Ku Klux Klan, the original American terrorist organization, virtually legalized murder, kept racial segregation alive for decades and spawned neo-Nazism. Anti-Semite Charles Coughlin, a Roman Catholic priest, had his radio show in the 1930s. Sen. Joe McCarthy ruined lives simply by hinting that individuals may be communists. Today, the Internet has created thousands of new Klansmen, Father Coughlins and Joe McCarthys. The difference, however, is they get book deals and are interviewed by Wolf Blitzer to spread their hate.

All of these folks have a voice and all have been legitimized by mainstream television news. And yes, that includes Al Jazeera.

New medical program could reduce organ trafficking

2010-06-01T08:19:00.000-07:00

Saudi Arabia took a big step forward in seriously treating renal disease patient with an announcement earlier this week that a campaign has been launched that among other things publicizes a program that allows renal patients to be treated in villages instead of traveling to urban areas.

Prince Salman also announced that the program will include fund-raising efforts to help the Prince Fahad Bin Salman Charitable Society for the Care of Kidney Patients. Perhaps the most important aspect of the program is that the charitable society has developed a plan to make it easier for renal patients to obtain treatment.

Consider that two years ago the number of kidney patients, a great many suffering from diabetes, was pegged at about 8,500 in Saudi Arabia. That number has increased to 11,000 this year and is expected to jump to 15,000 by 2015. Diabetes accounts for as much as one-third of the country’s renal failure cases. Liver disease stemming from hepatitis also is expected to increase by as much as 10 percent
annually.

When I last wrote about treatment for renal failure in March, the Kingdom was facing a crisis with only a fraction of kidney transplants taking place. The King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, for example, performed 152 kidney transplants in 2008 with 96 kidneys taken from living relatives and 56 from deceased donors. An estimated 2,900 kidney patients were waiting for transplants.

The crisis is actually two-fold: Obtaining kidney donors for a transplant, especially from a deceased donor, is difficult in Saudi Arabia due to cultural issues. And if a transplant is not a priority, simply getting patients with few financial means from poor, rural areas to Jeddah, Riyadh, Madinah and Dammam is almost impossible.

My family is lucky. My mother, who must undergo dialysis several times a week, is treated in her hometown of Madinah or when she visits my brothers in Jeddah. Other families, however, must travel sometimes hundreds of miles for treatment. At one point, however, there was a discussion in my family whether a transplant was needed and whether that transplant should be performed abroad. But it’s a risky venture.
According to the India News, about 500 patients, mostly from the United States, had kidney transplants in India. We decided against the transplant, but other Saudi families don’t have the option or are desperate enough to seek illegal surgery outside Saudi Arabia.

Prince Salman’s fund-raising efforts for the charitable society is expected to aid patients at the end stage of renal disease to access treatment not usually available to them outside of urban areas. What I’m hoping for is that the program will minimize transplant tourism among Saudis who believe there are not enough options available in Saudi Arabia to save the life of a loved one. The society’s program
also could help minimize the conflicts Saudi Arabia is experiencing within the international medical community.

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea in 2004 for countries to “to take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from transplant tourism and the sale of tissues and organs, including attention to the wider problem of international trafficking in human tissues and organs."

In 2008, “The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism” was established. The declaration defined organ trafficking as the “ recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring or receipt of living or deceased persons or their organs by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving to, or the receiving by, a third party of payments or benefits to achieve the transfer of control over the potential donor, for the purpose of exploitation by the removal of organs for transplantation.”

Many Saudis are reluctant to participate in transplant programs involving deceased donors. In addition, many Western medical experts are uncomfortable with Saudi Arabia’s policy of compensating families of deceased donors because it could lead to exploitation of poor expatriates and also encourage the commercialization of organ
donations.

Saudi Arabia’s medical community has addressed these concerns by arguing that the selection process of using an organ from a deceased donor and the resulting compensation to the family requires a thorough vetting process and is in compliance with our cultural and religious obligations. Prince Salman’s awareness program will educate Saudis about the options available to them and help reduce transplant
tourism. The program should also help bring acceptance that organ donations, whether from a living or deceased donor, is a viable option and acceptable in Islam.

As reported recently in the Saudi press, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh described the donation of cash for the awareness program and the donation of organs as not only acceptable but noble gestures.

The death of a Saudi woman

2010-05-12T00:13:00.000-07:00

In Saudi Arabia common sense often takes a holiday.

Last month an incident occurred at the Teachers’ Education College in Qassim. As usual, press reports are sketchy, but the facts as we know them are all too familiar.
It seems a young female student reportedly fell ill at the college and faculty staff made the appropriate response by calling the Red Crescent Society emergency medical technicians. So far, so good. That is except when the EMTs arrived at the front gate they were allegedly refused entry because they were men.

An argument ensued between the college security team and the EMTs. During all the shouting and finger-pointing the young woman died.

This kind of thing happens often enough. Since a vast majority of medical emergencies involve families and more than half involve women, we have seen urgent medical services fall the wayside because we believe that men attending to a woman is inappropriate.

In effect, we are all too happy to sacrifice a woman’s health, even her life, to protect the reputation of our loved ones. My impatience, however, is the entirely inappropriate reaction to such incidents that make me wonder if we have taken leave of our senses.

The fallout from the death of this young college student did not focus on the reason why she died. Instead, the reaction was that if the EMTs were women none of this would have happened. The answer, therefore, is that Saudi Arabia must recruit female emergency responders to provide adequate care for patients.

I’m all for women working as EMTs. Except for one thing: Saudi society frowns on women taking such jobs. It’s not honorable, remember? Even Saudi men don’t want the icky job of dressing injures, carrying people to the ambulance or seeing people in undignified circumstances. The Red Crescent Society in Qassim reported that only 100 men applied for 1,000 available jobs. One-thousand vacancies!

But that’s not my main concern. College staff had the presence of mind to call emergency responders when the woman became ill. But they lost their cool, and their courage, when the EMTs showed up. Two things happened as far as can be determined. The college staff allegedly refused the EMTs entry because they would be touching the woman. If it turns out the woman was not seriously ill or had recovered, college
officials may be exposing themselves to questions from authorities as to why they allowed strange men to touch one of their female students.

Self-preservation overrode common sense. Staff members wanted to protect the girl’s reputation and their own by refusing treatment.

The other reason is the creeping erosion of the true meaning of guardianship. In Saudi Arabia every single male, from the taxi driver I flag down on the street corner for a ride to the security guard at the airport who reads my father’s written permission allowing me to travel is my mahram. I have millions of mahrams who have an opinion about the way I conduct my life and think they know better than my father and brothers.

I can imagine the conversation between the male security guards and EMTs at the college entrance: “There’s a reputation at stake here and we can’t allow you in.” The victim died knowing her reputation remained intact because of a decision made by non-family members who have their own ideas about guardianship.

Recruiting female EMTs, and of course we are talking about hiring them from foreign countries, is not the answer. It will just bring up more questions. Will female EMTs be able to drive ambulances? Well, no. Will a female EMT be permitted to work with male colleagues and be alone with them in an ambulance? Probably not. Will a female EMT be permitted to treat a male patient alone in the rear of the ambulance while her male colleague drives the ambulance to the hospital? Not likely.

Saudi female emergency responders should be hired to possess the full authority to do whatever it takes to save lives and get the job done. But it doesn’t’ solve our fears of having to answer to law authorities about our decision to allow a man to treat a woman. It’s not khalwa, but in today’s society just about anything passes for khalwa. Our inability to define what is true khalwa has affected our rational thinking. In this case our inability to allow a life to be saved.

My driver's tears

2010-05-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

Most expatriate workers come to Saudi Arabia for the good salaries. University educated Westerners work for some of the largest Saudi employers in technology, education and medicine. Not only are their salaries far better in the Kingdom than in their native countries, they are allowed to bring their families and live residential compounds that provide most of the comforts at home.

The same can’t be said for non-university educated South Asians, Africans and other workers from developing countries. These expats earn a wage that is far better than home, but they are not permitted to bring their families to Saudi Arabia and they live in dormitories or cheap housing, often with a group of other workers.

The policies of the Saudi government in which unskilled workers are not permitted to bring their families to the Kingdom make sense for the most part. If a worker is earning less than SR 1,500 per month – which is still a better wage than at home – the Saudi government isconcerned that the worker’s family will dependent on free government services. As it is, the Ministries of Social Affairs and Interior are
burdened with dealing with illegal immigrants who often come to Saudi Arabia on an Umrah visa and then stay.

To think for a moment, though, that these unskilled workers are content with their jobs, pleased with their earnings and happy living thousands of miles away from their families is naïve. These workers – the taxi driver or the housemaid – live away from their families for years, sometimes decades. Depending on the employer, the unskilled worker gets a plane ticket home once every other year for a 30-day visit with the families. I know of Bangladeshi tea boys who earn so little that collections by the better paid employees are taken at the end of each month to supplement the tea boys’ income. An extra collection is taken to finance their annual trip home. That is if the employer permitted the trip in the first place.

An estimated 51 percent of the workers in Saudi Arabia are foreign. This is not unusual in Gulf countries where the number of foreign workers in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and other countries far exceed the native workers.

While there are many benefits for the unskilled laborer to work in Saudi Arabia, there is an inherent unfairness of how some workers are treated. A worker’s salary usually determine whether family dependents are permitted to live in Saudi Arabia with the worker. This is a non-issue with skilled professionals, such as physicians, teachers, technicians, journalists and others. These people are paid high salaries and there is no threat of their families becoming dependent on Saudi Arabia for financial aid.

The inequity occurs when an unskilled worker also earns a high salary but is not permitted to bring his family to Saudi Arabia. My driver is an honorable man working in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi sponsorship.

His primary employer is a company and his days are filled driving the company’s employees to and from work and to run errands. His sponsor permits him to take on extra clients. One of these extra clients is me.

My driver, a Pakistani with a wife and two young sons at home in Pakistan, earns an excellent wage between SR 4,000 and SR 10,000 a month. That’s a wage more than many Saudis earn. In a good month, he earns about $3,500 in U.S. dollars. That’s better than what many Americans earn in their own country. Yet my driver is not allowed to
have his family in Saudi Arabia. I couldn’t tell you the exact reasons for this, but at the end of the day to the Saudi government he is simply an unskilled Pakistani worker.

What is troubling to me, however, is that there are simple solutions to his plight. He can afford to place funds in government-approved account that guarantees his family has return airline tickets for home. A specific amount can be added as a bond to guarantee that his family does not become a burden to the Saudi government. Most
unskilled workers can’t afford to have a bond or provide guarantees for a return airline ticket. But if they earn their money legally, as my driver does, why shouldn’t they be permitted to have their families live with them?

Recently my driver brought his wife and two boys to Saudi Arabia on an Umrah visa. He found living quarters for them and I could see that these were the two happiest little boys in the world. My driver often works seven days a week, but with his family in town, he worked only six. Thursdays was family day. The boys knew that their dad reserved that day for them. Each Thursday morning, they were dressed and ready for the big day long before their dad arrived to pick them up for a trip to the Corniche, an amusement park, the mall or a fine family restaurant.

From a practical standpoint this visit is good for Saudi Arabia. The money that my driver earns is being spent in Jeddah. It’s not being sent to Pakistan. He is contributing to Saudi Arabia’s economy.

At the end of the holiday, the family returned to Pakistan and my driver will probably not see them for another year. It’s not often that I see a grown man cry, but I can’t fault his tears for the unfairness of being forced to find work in a foreign country to provide for his family. And even when that wage is exceptional, the labor laws in Saudi Arabia keep that family separated. Further, millions of Saudi Riyals leave the Kingdom each day. Saudi banks and Western Union offices are jammed each day with expatriates sending money home with little being spent in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia would benefit better if it changes its policies to allow unskilled expatriates earning a good income to have their families live with them.

Reporting without context

2010-04-28T07:29:00.000-07:00

Navi Pillay, the human rights chief for the United Nations, recently completed a tour of the six Gulf countries and discovered that women’s rights in those nations have improved. She had some sharp words for some countries, including Saudi Arabia, for the lack of employment opportunities but progress, she said, is evident.

Pillay is the right woman for the job. She’s no-nonsense and tough, but she recognizes that hammering away at Muslim countries for their deficiencies in dealing with their women and expatriate workers gets the UN nowhere pretty fast.

Here’s the assessment Pillay gave at a press conference the other day in Abu Dhabi: "Clearly the winds of change are blowing strongly throughout the region on a number of fronts — perhaps more strongly than we had anticipated when preparing this mission, and more strongly than many people in the outside world realize."

Still, she expressed concern that more attention be given to women’s rights, freedom of expression and migration. Treatment of expatriate workers, in particular, troubled her.

Pillay visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman. She wasn’t specific in what progress she had witnessed but she was clearly impressed. But she seemed less impressed with the external perceptions of the Gulf countries.

She acknowledged "how the region is portrayed in the international media, particularly on issues related to women's rights and migrant labor."

"What I find admirable is that the issues are being addressed and advances are being made and this is the aspect that is unknown to the international community," Pillay said in a separate interview with the Gulf News.

No truer words could be spoken.

As if the international media couldn’t take the hint, Agence France Presse led its news story about Pillay under the headline “UN rights chief chides Gulf states over women's employment” with this: “UN human rights chief Navi Pillay on Saturday criticized restrictions on women's employment in some Gulf countries and called for those barriers to be lifted.”

Not until the seventh paragraph did AFP acknowledge Pillay’s comments about progress in women’s rights before abruptly turning to allegations by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of torture in some Gulf countries.

The Voice of America’s website was more balanced, leading with: “The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights says more basic freedoms are being seen in Gulf Arab countries, but further progress must be made.”

Naturally, the Gulf News and the Khaleej Times touted the progress and downplayed the setbacks since the story was in their own back yard. The Khaleej Times couldn’t bring itself to write about any improvements needed in the Gulf.

Only the independent-minded Abu Dhabi-based The National played it tough among the Gulf newspapers: “The UN’s top human rights monitor called yesterday for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to give migrant workers more dignity and rights, and to eliminate the male guardianship system that gives men almost total control over spouses and female relatives,” wrote reporter Caryle Murphy.

To The National’s credit, Pillay’s praise in improved human rights followed in the second paragraph.

Pillay met King Abdullah, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Ministry of Justice Minister Mohammed Al-Issa and some Shoura Council members. She also spoke to a handful of students at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in an unpublicized visit. She met with no NGO groups.

Although Pillay indirectly criticized the international media for contributing to the misperceptions of the Gulf countries, none of the journalists attending the Abu Dhabi news conference could manage to put Pillay’s comments in proper context. I can’t speak for Saudi Arabia’s neighbors, but Saudi women account for nearly 60 percent of all university students. And the last I heard, Saudi female employment was up to 14 percent from a dismal 5 percent a decade ago. Yes, not particularly impressive numbers compared to 59 percent of the Emirati women employed in the UAE and 42 percent in Kuwait, but progress nonetheless. We know that a university education for a Saudi woman doesn’t guarantee employment, but clearly Saudi Arabia is on the path towards closing in on that goal.

Without this kind of context from the local press, Pillay’s comments, both the positive and the negative, are empty of meaning.

Find someone else to rescue

2010-04-24T23:05:00.000-07:00

Like all Saudi women I appreciate the efforts by American and European human rights organizations to protect us from bad Saudi men and to help grant us the freedom we deserve. Without the help of Americans and Europeans my life would have no future.

Okay, I’m lying.

If Western do-gooders minded their own business I’d be a pretty happy girl.

The same goes for the Kuwaiti media. Kuwaiti journalists apparently have ripped a page from the Western “Save the Oppressed Saudi Woman” handbook and now want to rescue us poor little lambs from the wolves. In this case, Kuwaiti newspapers and websites are criticizing the male organizers of the Janadriya Festival for “exploiting” Saudi women and engaging in “unethical behavior.”

Ouf! According to the Kuwaitis, women Janadriya Festival workers just fell off the camel in Riyadh following a long journey from Sakakah. The only women who are exploited are women who want to be exploited. And I’m pretty darn sure that the Riyadh ladies and desert village girls can take care of themselves. They probably have a few suggestions for journalists offering to save them.

According to festival organizers, three women committees were involved in helping stage the event: a media and protocol committee chaired by Lubna Al-Ajami, a cultural committed headed by Jawahir Al-Abdul Aal, and the education and upbringing committee supervised by Iqbal Al-Arfaj. Not for a second would these committee chairwomen stand for any hanky-panky when working with their male counterparts.

Typically, the Arab media are not specific in their allegations, providing only hints and vague allegations, which cast a dark cloud over the event and leaves the meaning of these charges to the imagination of the reader.

The festival is not just any festival, but Saudi Arabia’s cultural and heritage festival with craft and culinary exhibitions, camel races, national folklore dances, poetry readings, art and theater. If I was asked to participate and I was available, I would be proud to serve in the festival and proud to serve my country. Most women I know would jump at the chance to be part of it. In recent years, stronger family
participation has become more common as segregation rules have been eased a bit.

This unnecessary scrutiny based on unfounded allegations hurts more than helps Saudi women and the family-oriented atmosphere. The last thing festival organizers need is to second guess themselves at next year’s festival planning meetings and scale back female participation for fear of external criticism.

I resent the fact that outsiders, whether they are our Gulf neighbors, or some well-meaning but ignorant Westerner, telling us what is best for Saudi women. Criticism of this sort doesn’t bring Saudi women closer to gender equity but endangers what we have already accomplished.

The other night I visited the Red Sea Mall in Jeddah. On the first floor was an exhibit on Islam that appeared to be organized and run by Saudi girls no more than 18 years old. The exhibition was designed to attract the young Saudi generation by offering a view in a modern context of science combined with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an. Young men and women viewed the exhibits and discussed Islam in a respectful way. On the second floor was a small exhibit offering sales literature on a personal hygiene product. A number of young women, wearing uniforms instead of abayas, were working alongside young men giving sales pitches to passersby. On the top floor young women were running their own clothing and accessories shops.

It’s refreshing to see these young girls take charge of their future and get out and meet the public. I was particularly impressed with the mobile Dawa center where these young ladies, speaking almost perfect accentless English, handed out reading materials to men and women and answered questions about Islam.

Are these young women being exploited? Is there even the danger of exploitation? Of course not. We as a society offer tremendous education opportunities to Saudi women, although we are not quite committed to giving them jobs. After all, only 14 percent of the Saudi workforce consists of Saudi women.

Yet when we make the effort to allow these women greater opportunities, whether its selling deodorant or clothing, we not only get a little nervous, we have malgoofs (nosy people) who complain that these girls are being exposed to blackmail and exploitation. If it’s not our Gulf neighbors worrying about the safety of Saudi women, it’s the West saying selling deodorant is not good enough and they should be selling cars, or whatever big ticket item, instead.

Here’s a tip for the complainers: Saudi women are doing just fine and making progress on their own. Find someone else to rescue.

Muslim leaders must reach out to common Christians, Jews to make interfaith dialogue effective

2010-04-14T01:45:00.000-07:00

A funny thing happened after the Saudi Arabia-sponsored 2008 World Conference on Dialogue in Spain: People began paying attention.

For those readers who may have forgotten, King Abdullah initiated the interfaith dialogue conference with the hope of bridging the gap that exists primarily among Muslims, Christians and Jews. Not unexpectedly, the conference was greeted with a lukewarm response, if not more than a little hostility by the Western media. Saudi Arabia, according to the argument at the time, was presumptuous to sponsor a conference on religious harmony since no churches are permitted in the Kingdom.

Media coverage was casual and the event was soon forgotten. Or maybe not. According to the Washington Times, an arch-conservative newspaper and ordinarily a harsh critic of Saudi Arabia, some Jewish leaders have recognized that such conferences can narrow the gap that separate Jews and Muslims.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, who heads the Foundation For Ethnic Understanding in the United States, attended the conference in Spain and a similar one later in Vienna.

“The challenge of the 21st century is to narrow the chasm between Judaism and Islam,” Schneier told The Washington Times. He added that, “the King has realized how much damage has been done by religious fundamentalists and extremists, particularly in Islam.”

Well, okay, that’s true as far as it goes, but what Schneier doesn’t mention is the utter failure of the media, both Western and Arab, to convey what Islam means to Muslims on a personal, not political, level, and just how removed the vast majority of Muslims are from extremist ideology.

Although speaking from a Western viewpoint, Blake Michael, chairman Ohio Wesleyan University’s religion department, puts the Muslim position in better context than Schneier: “A lot of Muslims around the world are utterly bewildered by terrorist and jihadist efforts. They want to get the truth about the complexity of Islam out there. They feel the Western media cover a narrow strand of what Islam is about.”

The number of interfaith dialogue conferences has increased tremendously over the past five years or so, but even more so since King Abdullah’s 2008 conference. The inclusion of Muslim imams who were previously absent at interfaith conferences has added another layer of dialogue.

Unlike Christian, Jewish and other religious leaders, Muslim leaders have two strikes against them when participating in religious conferences. They must answer questions about extremist ideology found on dozens of websites that is perceived as speaking for the Muslim community. They also must find a solution to the manufactured threat of Wahhabism, which is considered by Western conservatives as a conspiracy to create a caliph.

Most non-Muslim religious leaders recognize these two issues are not reflective of the Muslim community, but whether they convey that message to the members of their church or synagogue is another issue. I think not. It’s one thing to participate in large scale conferences like the ones held in Spain and Austria and the ones that followed, but the greater challenge is to bypass the Christian and Jewish hierarchy and speak to the people themselves.

Saudi imams and sheikhs might consider educating non-Muslims on the true voice of Islam by participating in events at smaller venues outside major metropolitan centers. Many non-Muslim centers, for example, have guest clergy from other faiths give lectures and presentations.

Discussions between imams, priests and rabbis will help break down significant barriers.

King Abdullah got the ball rolling two years ago and Muslims are quietly being heard by non-Muslim leaders, but the next step is to make sure that message is delivered unfiltered to the rest of the non-Muslim community.

Rogue agency fails to protect Saudi women

2010-04-14T01:39:00.000-07:00

In February I wrote about the “heroic” role the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice can play in Saudi society, noting that the commission can earn the confidence of the people it serves by protecting women from predators. When some Hai’a members become the predator, however, then they betray all Saudis.

Recently a girl, who was reported to be a runaway, was arrested in Tabuk after she asked a man for a ride to the bus station so she could return to her family in Jeddah. The Hai’a says the girl asked the man to smuggle her to Jeddah in his car.

Recently it’s been reported that the young woman is not a runaway but a divorced mother who was visiting her child in Tabuk and was returning to Jeddah.

The young woman was detained and taken to the commission’s Tabuk headquarters. During Maghreb, several people at a nearby mosque reportedly heard a woman’s screams from the headquarters and called police. The girl allegedly had been severely beaten and taken to the hospital for treatment. Bruises were said to have been found on her body. It was also alleged that she had been choked.

The Hai’a members denied they beat the girl and imply the injuries were self-inflicted. The Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution is investigating.
The Hai’a’s version of events doesn’t ring true. They should leave the stories of prisoners abusing themselves to the experts, like the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Saudis are not so gullible.

If indeed those members beat this young woman, then it’s a betrayal of Saudi society in the worst sense. It’s further evidence that Hai’a’s rogue members are accountable to no authority and they wage terror in the name of instilling virtue. These Hai’a members, if the investigation reveals wrongdoing, used their mandate to prevent vice and promote virtue as a shield to inflict pain with impunity on the people they were supposed to protect.

There have been many attempts to rein in commission members. There was the laughable campaign five years ago to develop a “kinder and gentler” commission. There was this year’s effort to spell out in writing the duties of commission members, much like a job description. But as I mentioned in February, these measures mean nothing without enforcement to govern behavior and accountability for those who abuse their authority.

The incident in Tabuk so thoroughly damages the Hai’a’s credibility that no woman may feel confident to seek sanctuary at their headquarters or flag down a commission member on the street if she is harassed.

The rule of thumb in Saudi Arabia is that change comes when Saudi society permits it. That’s how we skirt around the issues of women driving, child marriages and allowing women equal access to jobs and to the judicial system. If no one asserts their daughter or wife’s right to drive a car or to practice criminal law in a courtroom, then the status quo remains and our society becomes stagnant.

The problem with the Hai’a is more immediate and more critical. It involves the safety of women who, according to the commission itself, need protection. Yet some members of the Hai’a repeatedly demonstrate that women apparently need protection from them. From the ugly 2002 Makkah fire tragedy to car chases that leave people dead in the streets, the commission appears to operate without fear of annoying law enforcement intervention.

Let’s assume for a moment that commission members did not beat the girl and all those people who heard the screams were mistaken or misinterpreted the cries for that of a budding Saudi actress. The Hai’a, according to reports, did not allow the girl medical attention until police intervened and they did not take the man who purportedly gave the girl a ride into custody or question him. Commission members’ reported behavior before police intervention is suspect even without the allegations of abuse.

If Saudis are comfortable with such conduct and prefer to wait for the next big fire or to expose their daughter or wife to the abuse of strangers, then so be it. But as for me, I see no reason to subject myself to questioning by a commission member or agree to visit their offices. I want to believe in their goals, but I don’t have the confidence that my safety is their concern. In the meantime I will wait for the government to impose codified checks and balances to govern the Hai’a.

I believe the Hai’a can be heroic, but that time has yet to come.

What's so offensive about the Saudi 'reform offensive'?

2010-03-30T22:04:00.000-07:00

The Jerusalem Post, in its infinite wisdom, published the other day an opinion column by Seth Frantzman who complained that reform in Saudi Arabia was “offensive.” Yes, reform is offensive to all good people.

No, wait. I got it wrong. Frantzman actually was whining about Saudi Arabia’s “reform offensive.” In other words, he says the Kingdom is waging a public relations battle in the West to demonstrate the advances Saudis have made in cultural and women’s rights reform.

Frantzman’s laments that dumb Westerners have jumped on the Saudi bandwagon to shout from the rooftops that the Kingdom is on its way reinventing itself. He pays particular attention to a Westerner he likely considers to be the dumbest of all, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. She wrote recently about some progressive steps taken by Saudi Arabia. Frantzman also singles out American bloggers living in Saudi Arabia like Tara Umm Omar and American Bedu for joining the diabolical Saudi conspiracy of disseminating good news.

Frantzman and I share something in common. He identifies himself as a Ph.d researcher at Hebrew University and I am a Ph.d researcher in the United Kingdom. Well, I’m embarrassed for my Ph.d brothers and sisters worldwide. He gives us a bad name. Apparently this researcher lives in a bubble and hasn’t noticed the Western press is convinced the all the evil in the world is sourced from Saudi Arabia.

Okay. I’m exaggerating, but for every one Western journalist who refuses to engage in Saudi stereotyping there are 10 others who think that stereotyping is the “truth.” As a Ph.d researcher I’d expect some evidence that these Americans bloggers are dupes. The evidence I see is that Tara Umm Omar and American Bedu have intimate knowledge of Saudi Arabia that most American journalists could never begin to understand. These bloggers possess Western values by virtue of their upbringing but live a Saudi life. Their life experiences give their written observations credibility that Frantzman lacks.

The reality is that Frantzman may write about the Saudi reform offensive, but his real message is that Saudi reform is offensive. Saudi reform is offensive to him because it’s a stark contrast to Israel’s relentless desire to keep the status quo and to deflect criticism of its actions.

Frantzman and the Jerusalem Post attack changes in Saudi society, particularly when embraced by Western journalists and bloggers, because Israel is rapidly losing the good will of the international community by failing to help find a solution to its conflict with Palestinians. Rather, Israel seems to delight in stoking the fires of rage among Palestinians and now the Obama administration by building housing settlements in East Jerusalem and sending hit squads around the globe to assassinate people the Israeli government deems annoying.

Frantzman is so offended by Saudi reform he cites dialogue in an American movie. In the film a police officer in the early 1960s American South says it’s “progress” that a black man is only whipped instead of hanged for stealing. I suppose he is talking about the snail’s pace of Saudi reform, but without considering for a moment that reform is indeed taking place. So when Maureen Dowd says some nice things about Saudi Arabia after spending a few days as a guest, people like Frantzman behave like an insecure younger sister living in the shadow of her prettier and brighter sibling. The insults fly.

Although the movie analogy is an example of lazy thinking, I must admit I am impatient with the pace of change in our society.

The Saudi judicial system’s recent decision to allow women lawyers to represent women clients in domestic and civil matters is a case in point. Severe restrictions will remain in place limiting a female lawyer’s access to judges and the right to practice criminal law. It’s almost as if the new rules were established to set up women lawyers for failure. Yet the Saudi government’s policy has always been to make incremental changes to reflect the sensibilities of Saudi society. These are the nuances that some Westerners get.

It’s also what the Jerusalem Post finds so offensive. It’s not that reform is slow, but that Saudi Arabia is willing to embark on the difficult, if not painful, path to reform while Israel isn’t.

U.S. conservatives guilty of denying their neighbors 'freedom from want'

2010-03-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

The landmark healthcare reform legislation passed by the U.S. Congress on Sunday promises to be the beginning of further reforms in the healthcare industry that guarantees that an additional 32 million Americans will receive affordable medical care by 2019 regardless of their income.

The Democrats, however, continue to be hammered for this “un-American” and "socialist” approach to healthcare. It’s ludicrous to suggest for even a moment that legislation designed to guarantee all Americans health coverage under government supervision is the road to socialism.

Clearly the existing free-enterprise system in which health insurance companies have complete control is not working. Yet many Americans rather see their neighbors suffer than have the government put in place a sensible and equitable program.

Most Europeans, who enjoy the benefits of nationalized healthcare and view it as their right, look at these overwrought, emotional arguments against government-supervised healthcare with disbelief.

Although criticism of Saudi Arabia’s “backwardness” from certain quarters is loud and persistent, the Kingdom has a distinct edge over the United States: Mandated healthcare for all residents.

And by residents, I just don’t mean Saudis, but expatriate workers that number at least 6 million.

Although we don’t call it nationalized or socialized healthcare, the Saudi Ministry of Health, and to a lesser extent the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, the Ministry of Interior and the National Guard provide primary healthcare at about 2,000 medical facilities throughout the country. In addition, preventive care and rehabilitation also is provided.

Consider this: A Saudi living below the poverty level and suffering from terminal cancer will receive around the clock care no matter what stage of the illness. If the patient lives in Jeddah but needs treatment in Riyadh, not only is there a bed available to him, but he is entitled free transportation via aircraft to Riyadh and is permitted to have a relative accompany him. Lodging for the relative will be provided as part of the coverage. Further, there are no cost-sharing requirements for the patient or his family.

What Western insurance company provides such benefits?

As a Saudi citizen and an international university student I enjoy an embarrassment of riches in healthcare coverage that no American can possibly dream. I have full coverage, like any Saudi, under the Ministry of Health. While studying abroad I have full medical coverage under the Ministry of Higher Education. As an international student and legal resident of the United Kingdom I am covered by Britain’s National Health Service. International university students employed by the National Guard have additional coverage.

Expatriate workers are protected as well. All Saudi employers are mandated by the government to provide medical insurance to its foreign employees and their ependents.

The Saudi government sets aside 11 percent of its total budget for healthcare. The healthcare budget is obviously funded from government revenue but not by taxing its citizens. Naturally, U.S. taxpayer costs to fund President Obama’s healthcare reform package remains a major theme among Republicans. Granted, I don’t pay a single Saudi Riyal for my health coverage, but the U.S. government’s own Congressional Budget Office estimates that when the key aspects of the law take full effect in 2019, the overall cost to the U.S. taxpayer for healthcare will be only about $25 billion more than if no healthcare reform was enacted. Further, healthcare costs to individual families could fall as much as 30 percent, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office.

For all the shouting, handwringing and boorish behavior from American conservatives who complain that the new healthcare law curbs Americans’ freedoms, they’ve seem to have forgotten the Four Freedoms championed by their own president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 69 years ago: In addition to the U.S. Constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion, there is the fundamental right of freedom from want and freedom from fear.

American conservatives have already stripped much of the West of freedom from fear by whipping up hysteria over imagine threats of communism, socialism and fascism creeping in democratic societies. And now they are ignoring the fundamental right that any person regardless of their station in life is entitled to healthcare.

Roosevelt may have had poverty on his mind when he articulated America’s right to freedom from want in his 1941 State of the Union address, but in the 21st century affordable healthcare deserves the same consideration as freedom from hunger.

As a Saudi woman, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to deny that Americans enjoy almost limitless freedoms while I still can’t drive a car or get an education or job without my guardian’s permission. Even the British, who complain often about their Big Brother government, marvel at the purity of freedom that Americans enjoy.

Yet the temper tantrums displayed by the mob at the U.S. Capitol last weekend as the healthcare reform bill was debated and ultimately passed, illustrates a breathtaking example of selfishness and lack of understanding of just how the rest of the world admires the U.S. government for its willingness to reform itself.

Next week I will walk into a Saudi government hospital without an appointment, consult with my doctor after only a few minutes’ wait, and receive treatment without ever opening my wallet. I have it pretty good. Can the millions of employed Americans who have no health insurance say the same?

If being a maid is an 'honorable' profession, why do men get so upset if Saudi women work as one?

2010-03-17T02:14:00.000-07:00

There was plenty outrage going around these past few weeks among Saudis over news reports that Saudi women were working as housemaids in Qatar.

The gist of this outrage goes something like this: Being a maid is an “honorable” profession, but it’s a “great shame” for Saudi women to work at this honorable profession. Sometimes I wonder whether we as a nation will ever get over ourselves.

The outrage followed a report by a Saudi Arabic-language newspaper in January that 30 Saudi women were employed as housemaids in Qatar. Over a six-week period news reached scandalous proportions where any Saudi with access to a computer registered alarm and disgust that Saudi housemaids were earning $400 a month, just slightly above the prevailing wage of Indonesian housemaids.

A great many Saudis employ housemaids, so they went to great lengths to point out that maid work is honorable. There’s no reason to go out of our way to insult the people we employ. But apparently what is honorable for an Indonesian or Filipina is not honorable for a Saudi.

By voicing outrage and complaining of the great shame of Saudi women working as maids, Saudis undercut their own argument that maid work is honorable. In fact, the last thing these hypocrites are thinking is that maid work is honorable. If cleaning houses was a good profession, then it should be suitable for Saudi daughters and wives.

Much to the relief of the Saudi press, the news report was apparently inaccurate. Qatar does not permit Gulf women to be employed as housemaids and all maids must have a sponsor. Of course, this doesn’t eliminate the possibility that Saudi women are working illegally as maids in Qatar.

Unfortunately, after the story broke a good many Saudis displayed their true colors about how they view some professions and about the people they employ. I’ll be the first to admit that my family would be horrified if a female family member took a job as a housemaid. There would be plenty of shouting, shared misery and recriminations about how a poor girl was led down this wanton path.

Oh, but how soon we forget our past. It wasn’t uncommon in my mother’s generation to have Saudi housemaids. As a girl, I recall an aunt who managed a busy household, the farmland surrounding her home, and had employed Saudi housemaids. That all seems pretty honorable to me.

Saudis were a practical lot a generation ago. Work had to be done to support the family. The honor was in the labor and the food that was put on the table was a result of that labor. Your neighbors judged you, sure, but they judged you as a provider not whether you swept floors and did laundry.

Somehow the practicalities of daily living of my generation have been replaced by an exaggerated sense pride. It’s no longer enough that you put in a day’s hard work to provide for your family, but what kind of work you are doing.

Today’s reality is that Saudi Arabia is churning out a record number of female university graduates. More than half of all university graduates are women, yet less than 12 percent of Saudi jobs go to women. More and more Saudi women are looking for jobs abroad. While the Ministry of Labor has made efforts to expand the job market for women, employers continue to resist change. As a society we continue to limit job opportunities for women, yet we express outrage when a woman seeks work we consider taboo.

We also are forgetting that not all Saudi women are university or even high school graduates. There is a significant class of Saudis working near or at the poverty level who need their daughters and wives to work to feed their families. To deny these women the opportunity work aboard as housemaids is cruel.

If a poll was taken of Saudi families of what kind of employees that would want in their homes, the universal answer would be Muslim employees. Most Saudis respect their non-Muslim workers’ right to practice their religion. But Saudis also want an employee who understands their religion, customs and traditions. And whether it’s
rational or not, they want to be relieved of their underlying fears that that their employees are teaching their children religious values not consistent with Islam. Once Saudis got over their initial prejudices, the idea of a Saudi housemaid could be appealing.

I sense a shift in the attitudes of young Saudis today. The definition of what is acceptable and what is not is changing, especially among young women. If it doesn’t bother a young Saudi woman to do laundry for a family in Qatar, or for that matter in Saudi Arabia, why should it bother anybody else?

A creative way to keep Saudi women from driving

2010-03-10T09:34:00.000-08:00

It never ceases to amaze me the goofiness of some people who feel they must find a creative way to deal with the "Saudi women's driving problem."

Instead of a coherent approach to the issue of Saudi women driving, like, say, give them a driver's license and set them loose on the roads (they can't drive any worse than men), do-gooders like the Dubai-based Saudi Center for Studies and Media have come up with an alternative to establish women-only buses. The center, you see, has made the shocking discovery that 35 percent of a Saudi woman's income goes to pay for taxis or private drivers.

Really, now? It's taken an organization 30-odd years to realize that Saudi women fritter away a third of their annual income on strangers to drive them around Saudi Arabia.

The center's proposal, which apparently is now before Saudi Arabia's Shoura Council for consideration, seeks to develop a 600-bus system within five years that is capable of carrying about 2.5 million women. It also will create jobs for 3,000 male drivers. It's a proposal that is likely attractive to conservatives who will do anything to prevent Saudi women from driving a car. The bus system will be called "Hafilati" or "My Bus."

I call it "Idhlali" or "My Humiliation." Here's why:

— Hafilati, or Idhlali, will delay for years the hopes of Saudi women to drive their own cars. There will be no incentive for Saudi society to permit women to drive if a women-only bus system is in place.

— Men will still be driving around women. Jamal Banoun, director of the center, states the obvious: "The primary aim of this is to provide protection for women against moral problems and sexual harassment that they sometimes face from taxi drivers." Does Mr. Banoun honestly think sexual harassment by drivers will end because women are going to switch from a taxi to a bus?

— What woman in her right mind is going to stand at a bus stop in 45-centigrade heat with her kids and wait for a bus that may or may not show up on time?

— Idhlali further encourages the employment of expatriates when the focus should be placed on employing Saudi men and women.

As much as I love Jeddah and the place of my birth, Madinah, neither city is the model of public transportation infrastructure. And this is the reason why a public transit system for women will fail. If Idhlali is to be based on the current public transit model, then Saudi families should prepare to lose a female family member or two to death or serious injury.

We are, frankly, a nation of unenforceable traffic laws. At least by driving a car, a woman can employ defensive driving skills and assume some responsibility for her own safety.

Today's bus drivers operate their buses like kids driving bumper cars at an amusement park. Like every other driver on the road, they don't bother themselves with posted speed limits or lane-changing etiquette. Posted bus stops are inconsistent from neighborhood to neighborhood. The buses are death traps. They are poorly maintained and I imagine that the records on tire and brake safety are not accurate. The current buses are filthy and rattle so much the fillings in your teeth will fall out. If there is rhyme or reason to our current public transit system, I have not seen it.

Yet we are to expect that Idhlali, which presumably will be based on our current bus system, will not have these problems. I don't think Saudi women are going to have to bother with these troublesome questions. I suspect this recommendation will go nowhere like so many other wonderful proposals to better integrate Saudi Arabia's National Treasures into society. Anybody want to revisit the proposal to employ women in lingerie shops? And even if Idhlali manages to get implemented I wonder just how many Saudi women are going to subject themselves to the inconvenience of bus travel after years of being chauffeured in a car.

The real issue of this half-baked plan, though, is that it diverts our attention away from the core question of just when will women be permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia.

Some female professionals have endorsed Idhlali as a step forward. It's not a step forward. It's a diversion designed to reduce the pressure on Saudi society to permit women to drive. I'm all for public transit. I'm all for women-only buses. But give women the right to drive first, and then implement a women-only bus system. Saudis can demonstrate real sincerity by granting women the basic, fundamental right to choose her own mode of transportation.

This Band-Aid approach to solving the expense issue of transportation and sexual harassment by male drivers weakens the voice of Saudi women advocating for their right to drive. If Saudi women settle for a seat on the bus they will never get behind the wheel of a car.

Terrorist puppetmasters play on Western fears

2010-03-07T08:33:00.000-08:00

Gone largely unnoticed a couple of weeks ago was a statement issued by Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al-Asheikh, chairman of the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars, who condemned terrorism in all forms and the bloodshed of innocent people.

Al-Asheikh’s statements were released just as a workshop was getting underway in Riyadh. The workshop was sponsored the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the Middle East and North Africa and Saudi Arabia’s Commission for Investigation and Public Prosecution. A number of terrorism experts participated.

“Terrorism is criminal and spills the blood of innocents. It attacks security, spreads terror among people and creates problems for society,” Al-Asheikh said in a statement to the Saudi Press Agency. “Such acts are forbidden by Islamic law. It is necessary to fight the attempts of some to attach terrorism to Islam and Muslims with the goal of distorting the religion and assailing its leadership role in
the world.”

Al-Asheikh’s comments come at a time when Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is beginning to stir again, this time in Yemen, after it got a thrashing from Saudi security forces in 2004 and Al-Shabaab seems to have a stranglehold on Somalia.

So there is no better time for the antiterrorism to focus on developing international cooperation and a better equipped judicial system to deal with this lethal breed of criminal.

It’s curious, though, just how little attention Al-Asheikh’s remarks received outside Saudi Arabia, and for that matter the minimal publicity the workshop generated. The Saudi government deserves some blame for its need for secrecy and refusal to open the sessions to more Western media scrutiny. That said, however, I think that Al-Asheikh’s opinions on terrorism and his citations from the Qur’an
to emphasize the non-Islamic behavior of murderers hiding behind Islam have been ignored by Western observers. Al-Asheikh’s comments just don’t fit into the Western perception of what is important in the fight against terrorism.

From what I gather that important fight appears to be waged against the image of Islam. You know, the hijab because it oppresses women and is a symbol of an out-of-control patriarchal society; creeping Sharia because nobody understands it or takes the time to learn; and minarets because they are the symbol of the Islamification of Europe rather than simply some nice examples of architecture that look strikingly
similar to Renaissance Russian architecture.

The images of Islam are far easier to deal with than those nagging questions of why terrorism is waged in the first place. No one wants to understand the making of a terrorist and how to intervene, they just want him dead. If a Labour or Conservative MP in the UK seeks to pass legislation banning school teachers from wearing the hijab, they think they have struck a blow against the ideology of a terrorist. But
not the guy wearing the bomb belt.

Frankly, terrorists have done a magnificent job of manipulating Western politicians into doing what terrorists do best: Driving a wedge between the West and Islam. Western leaders are more than happy to play the game. Every time some ninny tries to set off a bomb, news reports trace the perpetrator’s radicalism to his student days in the United Kingdom, but not how and why he was radicalized. The pattern seems to be that once the brouhaha over a failed bombing subsides, Westerners turn their rage to some American Muslim congressman and ask the poor guy whether he’s a fifth columnist for Al-Qaeda. Or maybe some bank manager in Smallville will decide it’s too dangerous to allow a hijabi to cash her McDonald’s paycheck at the teller’s window.

Somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan, laughter is echoing through the passes.

No one should minimize the threat of terrorism. The massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, is a sober reminder of the true dangers Muslims and non-Muslims face. Yet American and European lawmakers appear to have little inclination to see beyond their own noses. They haven’t kept their eye on the ball and fall prey to Al-Qaeda’s shell game.

Terrorists want the West preoccupied with the superficial issues of the hijab and Islamic architecture. But instead of rising to the bait of terrorists, perhaps U.S. state and federal lawmakers should leave their hermetically sealed districts and participate in antiterrorism workshops in the Middle East and meet people like Al- Asheikh who speak for Muslims worldwide.

Perhaps then the nonsense of minarets and hijabs can be put to rest.

Saudi Cultural Attaché appears to be turning over a new leaf

2010-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:00

Any young Saudi studying abroad for the first time will tell you about the stress they are under to adjust to a new country, finding a place to live, and to navigate the confusing world of a new university.

Acclimating to a university in the United States or the United Kingdom is even more difficult. It’s an alien culture for most of us and we confront this world with trepidation.

That’s why when I arrived in Newcastle, United Kingdom, in 2007 to begin my postgraduate studies I was not looking forward to working with the Saudi office of the Cultural Attaché. The reputation of the Cultural Attaché in England was legendary among Saudi students for its complete lack of empathy for our struggles and the seeming inability to conduct any business that didn’t require undignified begging, pleading and racking sobs to get someone to return a phone call.

Towards the end of my first year at the university, I took a deep breath, picked up the phone and called the Cultural Attaché office to make arrangements to get a plane ticket to visit my sick mother in Madinah and to get details about the Saudi Excellency Performance Awards. Walahee! My 1-year-old niece, Alia, is more responsive and willing to answer my questions. She’s even more articulate over the
phone.

My supervisor, a Saudi woman, didn’t even feign interest in my questions. She told me she couldn’t help with the airline ticket and told me to call the ticketing department. She didn’t know a thing about the Excellency Awards and told me to check the website. She didn’t even bother giving me the website address. I was a nuisance to her. She confirmed the office’s reputation in a phone call that took less than three minutes.

I sent faxes to the Cultural Attaché office make arrangements for my flight to Madinah. No response. I called on the telephone. No answer. I paid for the tickets out of my own pocket for my brother and myself.

But what a difference a semester makes. The following semester I got an unexpected call from my new supervisor, Hany Ahmed, who introduced himself. He was friendly and polite but professional. He asked for my student details because he had none. He gave me his contact telephone number and e-mail address that I thought was only given by his office to the Saudi secret forces and to selected leaders of foreign
countries. I felt so special I thought it might be a prank call.

The next time I asked for plane ticket, I got one in less than two days. I then got an unsolicited phone call from Mr. Ahmed congratulating me on my performance review from my academic supervisor. He was encouraging and told me I was entitled to a
one-month allowance award for my performance.

At a workshop and conference in Surrey last year I finally met and the Saudi Cultural Attaché Dr. Ghazi Al-Makki and Saudi Ambassador Prince Mohammed Bin Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz. These men continually expressed their commitment to Saudi students studying in the UK.

I can’t speak for other Saudi students in the United Kingdom, but in less than a year the Cultural Attaché office transformed itself from a secret American-style black operations site to an agency designed for the purpose of student support.

My new supervisor is obviously dedicated to the job, but the Ministry of Higher Education’s new system also fits perfectly with dealing with students’ needs. What is even more surprising is that as a student I am permitted to evaluate my supervisor’s work representing the Cultural Attaché. This is an unprecedented experience for me with the Saudi government. The new system and the performance evaluation policy demands accountability. If this system is applied throughout the Saudi government, performance will improve.

We’ve already seen signs of a new order in Saudi government following the Jeddah floods. Those responsible for the city’s failed infrastructure that led to so many deaths are now being held accountable. While some people may see the connection between the improved performance of the office of the Cultural Attaché and the
demands for accountability in Jeddah’s government, the reality is that it appears the Saudi government is recognizing that deadwood in its ranks do nothing but obstruct the people it’s supposed to serve.

There's a need for the Hai'a as long as its role is defined

2010-02-10T01:47:00.000-08:00

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is going through another transformation. This time the duties of members of the Hai’a are more defined and detainees and members of the public who have contact with them are to be told whether a commission staffer is acting in his official capacity or exercising personal judgment.

This is a good step forward, but let’s not forget that the commission has been down similar roads before with not much to show for it. Just a few years ago there was an announcement that the Hai’a would take a more measured and gentle tone with the public that emphasized instruction and less on force. The results have been limited.

A more vocal public and perhaps impatience over continuing mistakes have prompted the Shoura Council this week to define the commissions’ duties in a written document. In essence, a Hai’a staff member now has a written job description. People who have contact with a commission member now will have a clearer picture of how and why the staffer is conducting commission business. In the past few years, there have been increasing reports of Hai’a members pursuing their own agenda. Now, that will be a thing of the past.

The Hai’a is needed in Saudi society. As Muslims we should welcome and give our thanks for their aid, sacrifices in performing an unenviable job, and for their instructions in matters of behavior and our religious obligations. To strip the commission of its duties, and render them nothing more than an agency in name only is
counterproductive.

The Hai’a, however, has a serious image problem. Saudis and expatriates loathe having contact with them. Saudi women, in particular, fear them. Somewhere in the past decade or so the commission has lost its way, and few people were willing to help them find the right path until there was a series of deaths that were all
too preventable.

Commission members in my view can be heroic. I recall an acquaintance that was having her hair done at a beauty parlor when she got into a conversation with an employee who asked whether she was married. The woman replied no, and the employee said she knew of a man looking for a wife. The employee asked if she could give the woman’s telephone number to the man. My acquaintance consented. Not much later the man called and they had several enjoyable conversations.

Later, the beauty parlor employee contacted the woman and asked whether the man called her. When woman said yes, the employee identified herself as a marriage broker and demanded a SR 3,000 fee.

My acquaintance refused since the employee never identified herself as a marriage broker. The employee began a campaign of harassment. And to add insult, several men began calling her. These men said the so-called marriage broker gave them her telephone number.

Frightened and feeling cornered by being harassed by the beauty parlor employee and strange men calling at all times during the day and night, my acquaintance had the broker paid off. The harassment, however, continued and finally the woman went to the Hai’a for help.

Within a day the phone calls stopped and the phony marriage broker was never heard from again. Nobody could have resolved this problem better than the Hai’a. As far as I am concerned this is the true role of the commission: to protect young woman from predators.

With modern technology at our disposal, it’s truer than ever before that the Hai’a has a vital role to play in Saudi society. Saudi and expat women are often duped into supplying their photographs to men who appear to be honest but are anything but honorable. These women are often the victims of blackmail. E-mail and Facebook accounts are hacked. Women’s reputations and the reputations of their families are
tarnished. I have heard many stories of the Hai’a stepping in to quickly and quietly solve such problems. These pious men excel in this sort thing.

Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI) Chairman Saleh Kamil probably said it best when he complained that too much emphasis is placed on the mingling of men and women, which is not haram. Only a man and woman alone together in a secluded place is haram. Rather, Kamil said that bribery, which is rarely mentioned in Saudi society, is far more harmful mingling. The same goes for protecting women.

A shift in priorities by the Hai’a will reestablish trust and confidence in the agency.

Specific job descriptions for commission members are a good start. The right of a detainee to understand the distinction between a commission member’s official duties and when he is exercising his own personal judgment is a good start. The recent announcement that a human rights unit will be established in the commission is a good start. But these new policies are only as good as the people who enforce them.

Without accountability and the proper checks and balances to ensure consistent enforcement of our religious duties, there is little hope that Saudi and expatriate women will ever feel comfortable going to the Hai’a for help when they need it most. The Hai’a is indeed here to help, but trust must be established first.

A Saudi media zone will only work if restrictions are loosened

2010-02-02T23:40:00.000-08:00

For all of the talk about Saudi Arabia’s strong desire to play a larger international role and to bring in foreign investment, our country seriously lags behind our Gulf neighbors in developing a sophisticated advertising and news media industry.

That’s why recent talk of establishing a media zone in the King Abdullah Economic City and perhaps elsewhere in the Kingdom sounds so promising. Media zones, or Media cities, are something intrinsic in the Middle East, although London has its Fleet Street, and New York once had Park Row and more or less Madison Avenue where all the news and advertising giants were clustered.

Dubai’s media zone is probably the best example of news, public relations and advertising companies assembled in a single cluster in the Middle East. There, daily newspapers, business and trade magazine, and fledgling public relations companies rub shoulders with news bureaus for CNN, Fox, the Associated Press, Agence France Presse and Reuters among others to deliver Middle East news. It’s also the primary news venue for foreign journalists to report on domestic issues in Iran and other regions where access is difficult.

While the idea of a media zone in Saudi Arabia sounds promising and is a logical step in the country’s campaign to become more progressive, the question must be asked whether Saudi Arabia is ready to take this big step. If this is an effort to put lipstick on a donkey and call it a thing of beauty, then maybe we should wait for the media industry to mature some more.

And that is perhaps the key issue here. The Saudi media are incredibly immature. Public relations, for example, is a foreign concept. I’ve run into many Arab and Western businessmen and women who refuse to do business with Saudi public relations companies due to unprofessional behavior. Often the simple task of showing up for a meeting sees to be too much for some Saudi PR people. And I have yet to find a single government news source that hasn’t complained about the lack of professionalism among Saudi journalists. Providing office space in a state-of-the-art commercial building in a tree-lined neighborhood isn’t going to make the local media any more professional.

Yet the advertising industry outside Saudi Arabia has gained considerable ground over the past decade to capture the Saudi consumer market. Saudis are the most powerful consumer in the region and broadcasters like Rotana and MBC target the Saudi consumer with an extensive advertising campaign. The problem is that most of the content for commercials and print advertising are produced in Dubai, Cairo and Amman, Jordan. There are no Saudi actors or models used. Filming, editing and packaging content are performed outside the Kingdom.

To make a media zone work, government restrictions on filming outdoors and in studio production facilities must be loosened. Tolerance needs to be practiced in allowing Saudi actors and models to work in their own country. I find it irksome that I must watch Egyptian actors pretend to be Saudi and try to sell me dish soap for my Saudi household.

It boils down to economic growth. A fully functional media zone with production facilities provides jobs for technicians, editors and production supervisors. It will jump start Saudi’s stagnant and neglected artist community. It will create jobs for Saudis in support services. It’s all good that Saudis are pushing for more students to pursue professions in science and technology, but it’s equally important for Saudis to find media jobs not limited to newspapers.

If Saudi Arabia wants to project an image of a leader in business investment and science then it must invest in a broadcast media within its own borders that conforms to our religious and cultural obligations but remain relatively free. We must deliver that message ourselves. We are not fooling anybody by mostly using non-Saudis in front and behind the camera to sell Saudi Arabia as an business opportunity, whether it’s dish soap or a construction project.

When we talk about pan-Arab satellite broadcast television stations, we should not be thinking of a Cairo-based operation but Jeddah- or Riyadh-based facilities. We have a young educated population that wants to work. Commercial broadcasting, film production, advertising, public relations and broadcast journalism are fields ripe for the picking.

The Abu Dhabi Media Company, which owns the leading United Arab Emirates daily newspaper The National, is planning to be on the ground floor of the proposed media zone. The company announced plans to open offices in Saudi Arabia in 2011.

The Abu Dhabi Media Company’s sole reason for its presence in Saudi Arabia is to target the Saudi consumer with heavy advertising. That’s good for the Abu Dhabi Media Company. The UAE company will make loads of money and create more jobs presumably for Emiratis and expatriates. But it begs the question whether any of The National’s counterparts in Saudi Arabia media, aside from Rotana, have similar plans to cash in and to create jobs for Saudis.

Lashing of Saudi student only part of the problem

2010-01-28T00:38:00.000-08:00

Things are getting a little out of hand in Jubail. Apparently a public girls school is at the center of an international uproar over the lashing and prison sentence of a young woman found guilty of assaulting the school's headmistress.

Originally it was reported in the media that the young woman was a 13-year-old girl sentenced to 90 lashes for bringing a mobile phone to school. But, no, that wasn't true. Then it was reported the girl assaulted the headmistress for taking away the phone. Well, that's only part of the story. Now it turns out the girl is not a girl, but 20 years old and she cracked a drinking glass over the headmistress' head while the woman's mother stood by and watched.

Frankly, I'd like to turn this adult student over my knee and give her a good spanking for acting like the misbehaving toddler she is. But lashings in this case are counterproductive, unnecessarily humiliating and have no place in modern society. This student understood the rules of her school, knew the consequences, and decided to ignore them anyway. She deserves to be punished, but lashings are way over the top.

Yet the young woman's temper tantrum and the authorities' overreaction point to larger issues: Saudi society's treatment of adult women, Saudi media's haphazard and lazy reporting, the lack of institutional transparency, the sense of entitlement among some Saudi families and lack of parental control.

We can't point to the 20-year-old student as the epitome of model behavior, but it's ridiculous that Saudi women are treated like little children. All women, including parents and guests, are not permitted to have mobile phones on school grounds. It's fine to ban mobile phones use by students, but it's simply an abuse of power when applied to anyone else. If my mother came to my high school campus with a mobile in her purse, it's nobody's business but her own. And if she sat in the administration building's lobby and chatted on the phone with my sister, then it's her business. Just who has the right to stop her? It's not the Ministry of Interior, but a school for girls.

Saudi girls' schools can be unreasonably strict in some regions. Most schools have strict dress codes that require heavy dark colored clothing without adornment that is impractical for hot weather. I remember that girls at my school were required to wear black shoes and white socks. Makeup and perfumes were banned. There were no mirrors in the restrooms and compacts from girls purses were often seized by school authorities. While proper decorum in an academic environment is conducive to good leaning, there's a fine line between oppression and discipline. Perhaps if Saudi institutions like this school in Jubail stopped treating women as kids they will stop acting like kids.

The Saudi media and authorities, in their own inept way, helped bring international condemnation from human rights groups on Saudi Arabia. The Arabic-language press not only got the woman's age wrong but also muddled the facts over whether the flogging sentence was for having a mobile phone on campus or for assaulting the headmistress. Amnesty International made matters worse by announcing the girl was 13 years old.

Inevitably, Saudis start complaining about sloppy reporting by the Arabic-language press. The complaints are justified, but a lion's share of the blame also goes to the school and the judicial system for not providing the necessary information to paint a complete picture.

Lack of transparency usually leads to erroneous reporting. The international community will only remember that a young girl was flogged for bringing a mobile phone to school. Nobody cares that it was an adult who attacked another woman with a deadly weapon.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this incident is that the attack appears not to have occurred in the heat of the moment, but rather after some time had passed and cooler heads should have prevailed. After the headmistress confiscated the phone, the student went home and returned to school with her mother. It was during the meeting between the three women that young woman picked up a drinking glass and struck the headmistress with it.

No doubt the mother was shocked at her daughter's behavior, but one has to wonder where the daughter learned that violence solves such small problems as the confiscation of a mobile phone. It's a dangerous thing to break a glass over someone's head. This student possesses an undeserved sense of entitlement that the rules don't apply to her and she is not subject to the same consequences as her colleagues if she breaks those rules.

The headmistress, though, could have stopped this runaway locomotive of a public relations disaster. She could have nipped the controversy in the bud by taking the high road and forgiving the student, which is a Saudi custom that would have spared the woman a lashing. But the headmistress had her own temper tantrum by refusing to take the high road only exacerbates the controversy.

There's plenty of blame to go around here. It certainly doesn't end with a spoiled brat's confrontation with school authority.

Saudi Arabia takes step backward in treating AIDS patients

2010-01-21T03:39:00.000-08:00

Saudis always have struggled with the issue of AIDS with debates over treatment and our penchant to treat victims like criminals. The first Saudi AIDS case appeared in 1984 and for many years we simply locked up people in prison hospital wards.

Times have changed and we have become more humane, although belatedly compared to the rest of the world. Yet the stigma of AIDS remains in our society and the most important rule that victims follow is to keep the disease a secret from friends, acquaintances and even family.

Jeddah’s King Saud Hospital and its little-known volunteer clinic perhaps have done more than any other Saudi medical facility to provide medical services, counseling and privacy to AIDS sufferers.

Now, it’s scheduled to be shut down and its AIDS patients distributed all over the Kingdom for treatment. It appears that just when Saudi Arabia achieves parity in treating AIDS sufferers with the rest of the world, as it has with its organ transplant policies and with its specialization in separating conjoined twins, it takes a step backward.

The closure of AIDS services at King Saud threatens the privacy and consistent treatment of patients. It also increases the likelihood of spreading the disease because the trust built by King Saud doctors, nurses and support staff must be rebuilt with strangers at another medical facility. This is not an easy task.

According to Saudi media reports, the Health Affairs Administration, which is
affiliated with the Ministry of Health, announced earlier this month that King Saud employees and patients will be “distributed” to other hospitals to prepare for the closure of the AIDS clinic.

The clinic will be transferred to another location and change its focus as a center for medical checkups for non-Saudis with the financial means to pay for services.
Earning revenue from paying customers, I mean patients, comes at the expense of patients with AIDS, Hepatitis C, pneumonia and other infectious diseases.

Saudi health officials say that 51 percent of all AIDS patients in the Kingdom live in Jeddah and are treated at King Saud. Now these patients must go to other hospitals, if not other regions, no doubt a great hardship, to be treated by medical personnel that are likely not AIDS specialists.

The transfer of patients also begs the question of what will other medical centers do with them. Will these patients be grouped with non-AIDS patients or be treated in a specialty ward? Will their privacy be protected?

The beauty of the clinic at King Saud Hospital and what made it a success was that its chief concern second to treatment was privacy protection. Patients who believed they may have AIDS were questioned by clinic personnel, assigned a number (no names are involved in the process), tested and given the test results two days later.

The hospital also provided financial aid referrals and connected patients with charity organizations. They counseled patients on the religious implications of the illness to ease their fears. They helped patients solve tricky employment and family problems associated with finances and the virus itself. If a patient with no financial means asked a hospital employee for taxi fare, it was given without strings attached.

The emotional bond among hospital employees was strong. A trust existed between the patient and employee. Unlike many Western AIDS patients who don’t hide their illness, Saudis insist on it because it means being judged by one’s family and friends. The trust between patient and hospital employee meant their secret was safe.

One AIDS patient said recently of King Saud Hospital: “When we go there we feel like we are treated like human beings. I know people will listen to me. But I don’t tell anyone else.”

That secret is now at risk as these patients are shuttled to different facilities. Ensuring proper treatment and taking precautions to prevent AIDS from spreading is now at risk.

The Saudi government reported that in 2008 the number of AIDS patients in Saudi Arabia was 13,926 with 3,538 Saudis. An estimated 505 were Saudi females and 769 non-Saudi women. About 80 percent got the virus through sexual activity, 15 percent through blood transfusions and 5 percent unknown. Most AIDS victims are between the ages of 15 and 49, which is a disaster in a young country like ours.

These numbers are conservative at best. It’s likely the number of AIDS cases in Saudi Arabia is far higher than the official figure.

We can’t afford to be casual about what we do with these patients.

Saudi women damaged hopes for a voice in the business community

2010-01-13T04:26:00.000-08:00

Saudi businesswomen in the Eastern Province this week won a hollow victory when two women, Hana Al-Zuhair and Samira Al-Suwaigh, were appointed by Commerce Minister Abdullah Zainal Alireza to the Asharqia Chamber board.

The appointments are lauded as an historic victory and a step forward for Saudi women trying to gain a foothold as players in the Saudi business community. Alireza is to be commended for making two of his eight appointments women. Yet the appointments ring false. Neither Al-Zuhair nor Al-Suwaigh had run for election. The three women who did run – Suad Al-Zaydi, Fawzia Al-Karri and Dina Al-Fari – captured less than 100 votes between them.

Al-Zuhair and Al-Suwaigh have excellent business credentials to qualify for the chamber. It seems odd, though, that the three female contestants, who lost but did garner at least some backing from the business community, couldn’t muster the support of Alireza for an appointment.

Eastern Province businessmen and women share the blame for this failure to allow females a voice. The women candidates were tainted from the beginning when three Eastern Province men lodged a complaint with the Asharqia Chamber that the women should not run for election. The men claimed it was against Shariah. Although their complaint was denied, it served to validate the beliefs among many male voters that women did not belong on the chamber board.

A greater travesty, however, is the behavior of eligible female voters. One comes to expect male chamber members to vote for their male colleagues and business acquaintances. Social networking, word-of-mouth and telephone campaigning by businessmen bring votes to male candidates and freezes women out of the process. But only 60 of the nearly 900 eligible women voted in the election. The remaining 800-plus women were either too lazy or lacked the interest to bother going to the polls.

Certainly there is a percentage of businesswomen who took their voting cues from their husbands and fathers, but I suspect the majority of female non-voters simply did not care enough to see their sisters elected.

This means an uphill battle for the female appointees. Al-Zuhair and Al-Suwaigh are only two of an 18-member board. And they are two board members without a mandate from the business community. They are in a position where nobody has to listen to them.

The Eastern Province election follows a more dismal showing in the October board elections for the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI). Lama Suleiman was the only woman to win a seat on the board with 557 votes. Ousted by voters was Nashwa Taher, who made history a few years ago when she won a chamber board seat along with Suleiman.

This year’s Jeddah chamber contest had seven women candidates. No men voted for them and the entire lot received no more than a handful of votes among the more than 6,400 cast. An estimated 160 women voted in the Jeddah election.

As Saudi women continue to pursue greater education opportunities and insist that Saudi society find a place for them in the workplace, their voice should become greater and their contributions should become more significant.

Yet sometimes their all-consuming desire for that great job with those wonderful financial rewards, which obviously means independence for many, is undermined by the complete lack of perspective.

The women who have already achieved that financial independence by owning their own businesses are – whether they like it or not – role models for these young girls fresh out of college and looking for career.

These role models failed them when they decided to ignore the Asharqia election and failed to return Nashwa Taher to the Jeddah chamber board. By not waging a battle to bring more women to the chamber boards, they failed the girls who are following in their footsteps.

It’s great to have a postgraduate degree and a well-paying job, but young Saudi women will always be on the outside looking in when it comes to expanding their businesses and seeking domestic and foreign investors. Male business owners have a monopoly on that kind of networking. Their businesses will grow as Saudi Arabia becomes more of an international player in the global economy.

Eligible female voters in the chamber elections let slip through their fingers an important opportunity to slightly tip the scales of power. From the business deals conducted in the Jeddah Hilton lobby to the chamber board meetings, there will only be one voice making policy for the business community. And it won’t be a woman’s voice.

Thanks, Al-Qaeda, for the full-body scan

2010-01-06T00:55:00.000-08:00

It doesn’t surprise me that the United States has put Saudi Arabia on the “countries of interest” list for passengers flying out of the Kingdom.

In the wake of the failed terrorist attack at the Detroit Metro Airport on Dec. 25, the US placed Saudi Arabia and 13 other countries on a list that requires intensified scrutiny of passengers originating from those countries, and apparently people passing through or visiting.

Occupying the top four spots on the list are what the US considers state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Syria and Sudan.

In addition to Saudi Arabia of so-called “countries of interest” are Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen.

What that means in the coming months or years is anybody’s guess. Yet I know it means that I will be treated differently from other passengers. It means my carry-ons and checked baggage get a double inspection. It means that as a Muslim woman I am now required to undergo a full-body pat down. It means that I will be required to go through the whole-body scanner that checks for hidden bombs or makeshift weapons at airports in the United Kingdom and in Amsterdam.

I see the potential for public humiliation for Arabs passing through airports. All eyes will be on us as we are pulled aside and given a good once-over. Those passengers will remember us on the plane. So all in all, the plainclothes air marshals traveling with us will have an easier job since there will a couple hundred extra pairs of eyes watching our every step to the restroom and as we reach for our carry-ons in the overhead bin.

I don’t mind, though. I fly a lot between Saudi Arabia and Europe and I expect full protection from the airlines, airport security and the countries I fly to and from like any other passenger. I want to be safe, even if it means having a stranger put her hands on me. It’s the world terrorists have created for us.

The optimist in me has a tendency to believe the US is overreacting a bit. Previous security measures in place have been remarkably effective since 9/11, and airline passengers have been in safe hands.

Governments must sort through the never-ending messy business of moving millions of fliers annually through airports. To believe that any security system is full-proof is naïve. It’s the law of averages: the longer the US stays in Afghanistan and Iraq the more likely the new attacks will be attempted. It’s not an excuse for the failed attempt in Detroit, it’s just an evolution of the war.

I have Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula to thank for these new security measures and how people will view me. These are the idiots who wreaked so much havoc in Saudi Arabia between 2003 and 2006 that left a lot of innocent people dead in Yanbu, Riyadh, Al-Khobar and Al-Ras. Al-Qaeda then reconstituted itself after the Ministry of Interior’s security forces beat the stuffing out of them and set them on the run.

Al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for me and my fellow Saudi students to stay at home. But I won’t allow Al-Qaeda to make me a victim in my own country and the country where I am pursuing my studies. I won’t allow Al-Qaeda to put an end to my plans for future tourist visits to the US or the annual academic workshops that I attend in Sweden and Germany.

Al-Qaeda may hope that Saudi students think twice about being subjected to profiling at airports and stay at home like “good Muslims,” in their view.

Good Muslims, however, get an education and bring that knowledge home to help Saudi Arabia become a better country. Good Muslims don’t hide out in Yemen planning attacks on planes with children aboard.

Why let principles get in the way of a good business deal?

2009-12-17T00:40:00.000-08:00

There’s nothing like a little money to help put aside those nagging issues of principles, honor and just doing the right thing.

No, I’m sorry, it’s not a little money, but $26.7 million (SAR100 million) that eases one’s conscience. I’m referring to the Rotana Media Group that just inked a deal that gives News Corp., which owns the Muslim-hating, Saudi-bashing Fox News, a 10 percent stake in the Saudi company. The deal apparently leaves the door open for News Corp. to purchase another 10 percent of Rotana.

The agreement looks to give Rotana, a part of the conglomerate Kingdom Holding Company, a 30 percent market share in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Rotana’s regional reach will exceed the Dubai-based and Saudi-owned MBC.

News Corp. is run by Australian Rupert Murdoch, who has allowed his Fox News to run amok on cable TV with the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, a pair of conservatives who use the word “Muslim” as an epithet.

Saudi Arabia has spent considerable energy since 9/11 attempting to correct the stereotypes and outright lies about Islam, but whatever campaigns Saudis lead takes a backseat to the Fox propaganda machine.

Shortly after the Ft. Hood attacks that left 12 US soldiers and one civilian dead at the hands of a Muslim, Fox trotted out Michelle Malkin to give her two cents about the motives behind Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Malkin, who wrote a book arguing that interning Japanese-Americans during World War II was just fine and mass internments should be brought back today, railed against “Muslim soldiers with an attitude” who are able to “infiltrate” the US military with “jihadi intentions.”

Another Fox News host suggested that all Muslim military personnel be treated as “potential threats.”

In 2006, Glenn Back demanded the US Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”

For every interfaith dialogue conference sponsored by Saudi Arabia to promote tolerance, Fox is there with a sledgehammer to knock it down.

Yet, according to Rotana, Islamophobia should never get in the way of the good business deal. Rotana’s partnership with News Corp., and by extension Fox, tacitly endorses the American media’s perpetuation of Islamophobia. The Kingdom Holding Company has owned 5.7 percent of the voting shares in News Corp. since 2005.

The Saudi media giant’s relationship with News Corp. has never been a secret. After all, Rotana carries Fox in Saudi Arabia. This deal, however, gives News Corp. access to more than 2,000 Arabic movies, the largest Arabic language music library in the world, and even to Lebanese pop stars Haifa Wehbe and Elissa and Egyptian Amr Diab.

Saudis can be their own worst enemies. They have no problem boycotting Danish goods over offensive cartoons. They may stop vacationing in Switzerland because its voters want a nationwide ban on minarets on mosques. And for goodness sake let’s make sure that not only do we boycott Israeli goods, but the countries that do business with Israel.

Our true colors, however, show when the stakes are much higher the values we cherish take a back seat.

It’s a good thing that Rotana wants to strengthen its position in the Arab media market. But its influence stops there. It’s evident that the Kingdom Holding Company’s influence in News Corp. and Fox doesn’t amount to much.

The same can’t be said for News Corp., which has the true global reach. The company continues to spew its anti-Muslim rhetoric almost daily. It’s only a matter of time before their garbage is routinely aired in Arab markets.

Often it’s impossible to gauge the true motives and the politics of the people. Certainly we often are required to put aside politics to ensure that our businesses remain healthy and profitable. The politics of News Corp., however, is obvious and detrimental to Saudi interests. Rotana may profit from its relationship with Muslim haters, but I’m not sure a pact with the devil will help the country in the long run.

The OIC Secretary General is disappointed, and OIC Group in Geneva strongly condemns decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland

2009-12-12T06:44:00.000-08:00

The Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, voiced his disappointment and concern with the result of the public referendum that took place in Switzerland on November 29, 2009 on the initiative to ban building of minarets in the mosques in Switzerland.

The Secretary General qualified the ban as an unfortunate development that would tarnish the image of Switzerland as a country upholding respect for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights and also as a recent example of growing anti-Islamic incitements in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values.

He recalled that the UN Committee on Human Rights had clearly pronounced its concern on the ban as a discriminatory practice that violated fundamental human rights including the freedom of religion.

Secretary General Ihsanoglu expressed his deep regret that at a time when the Muslim world and Muslim societies around the world have been engaged in a struggle to fight extremism, the western societies are being hostage to extremists who exploit Islam as a scapegoat and a springboard to develop their own political agenda which in turn contributes to polarization and fragmentation in the societies.

He stated that the development also highlighted the need for promoting genuine dialogue at the grass-roots level to alleviate all misunderstandings and misinformation that lead to intolerance and misconceptions.

In this regard, he appreciated the position of many Swiss political and religious leaders from all sides who expressed unequivocally their rejection for any attempt to undermine the rights of Muslims in Switzerland.

The issue was taken up between the OIC Secretary General and Foreign Minister of Swiss Confederation Mrs. Micheline Calmy-Rey who called the OIC Secretary General by phone following the official announcement regarding the results of the voting. The Secretary General conveyed to the Swiss Foreign Minister that with due respect to the sovereign and legitimate right of the Swiss people and democratic principles governing the Swiss Confederation in adopting any legislative measure, the decision of the Swiss people stood to be interpreted as xenophobic, prejudiced, discriminative and against the universal human rights values and it would tarnish the reputation of the Swiss people as a tolerant and progressive society. The Secretary General urged the Swiss authorities to remain vigilant in addressing any move, which may fuel extremism, misunderstanding, misperception and intolerance among communities and that he remained confident that Swiss political leaders would not spare any effort to preserve the image of their country as guardian of the international human rights instruments.

As the Muslim public opinion is following the issue with concern, the Secretary General appealed to the Muslim societies to abide by peaceful and democratic means in expressing their views on the issue. He stated that the OIC General Secretariat will continue to follow the developments very closely.

Meanwhile, the OIC Ambassadorial Group in Geneva communicated to the Swiss Government a letter in which the discriminatory decision to ban constructing minarets was strongly condemned. The letter, which was forwarded to the Swiss Government on December 3, stated, “the decision was a manifest attack on an Islamic symbol which could only serve to spread hatred and intolerance towards Muslims in general and those living in Switzerland in particular.”

The OIC Ambassadorial Group in Geneva drew the attention of Swiss Government to the fact that “Muslims in Switzerland were peaceful and law abiding citizens. The ban was, therefore, a discriminatory measure that would lead to intolerance towards this community”.

The OIC Group in Geneva welcomed the balanced and constructive statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on December 1 in which she described the vote as “a discriminatory, deeply divisive and thoroughly unfortunate step” that risked putting Switzerland “on a collision course with its international human rights obligations”. She also stated that “politics based on xenophobia or intolerance was extremely disquieting, wherever they occurred” and that “they were corrosive, and – beyond a certain point – could become highly disruptive and even dangerous”. The OIC Ambassadorial Group believed that the High Commissioner was correct to point out that “if allowed to gather momentum, discrimination and intolerance not only do considerable harm to individual members of the targeted group, but they also divide and harm society in general”.

This ban also stands in sharp contradiction to Switzerland’s international human rights obligations concerning freedom of expression, conscience and religion. It adds to the danger that this trend could spread to encompass other areas and activities related to the Muslims in Switzerland. There are reports that the Swiss Peoples Party is now planning further referenda to ban the headscarf among other measures.

The OIC Group has consistently pointed towards the xenophobic and Islamophobic trends in Western societies. The Swiss ban should serve as a warning sign and a wake-up call for all Western countries where calls are being made for similar policies, as it would lead to divisive and discriminatory practices against their Muslim populations.

The OIC Group has taken note of the opposition by the Government of Switzerland to this ban but regrets that “the absence of a more pronounced and concerted campaign against the ban gave its proponents a heavy margin in the referendum. It is hoped that the Swiss Government would do all in its powers to rescind this decision through appropriate parliamentary and judicial measures.

The OIC Ambassadors further hope that sustained efforts would be made by the Swiss authorities in particular and western authorities in general including the civil society, to fight the scourge of discrimination and xenophobia.

Expat medical student calls Saudi Arabia her home but she's left abandoned in the cold

2009-12-09T11:47:00.000-08:00

While I was in Jeddah last month I received a telephone call from a young woman. She was timid, nervous, upset and desperate. She was a stranger, but her story touched me as it should touch all women.

This young woman had been attending medical school in Saudi Arabia and was in her fourth year when her father died. As her sole benefactor her father had gone to great lengths to ensure that her tuition was paid. He saved his money from the income of his job and apparently had several other sources of income from business acquaintances that helped fund his daughter’s education. As customary, he spared her the details of the source of her tuition so she could maintain her dignity
and focus on her studies.

When the father died, the daughter was left without parents or any male family members. She no longer had the money to continue her education and the medical school suspended her studies and asked to leave campus. The Ministry of Higher Education turned down her requests for a scholarship.

My initial reaction was that this was impossible. How could an intelligent, well-spoken and committed Saudi woman be denied a medical degree in a country where there are so few Saudi physicians, let alone female doctors? The Saudi medical community recruits hundreds of foreign doctors to fill its ranks, but snubs a medical student in its own backyard. Surely, a private scholarship would be available to her.

But the crux of her problem soon revealed itself. After further questioning, I discovered this desperate woman was not a Saudi citizen. Her mother was Egyptian and her father originated from a small African country. Yet everything about her -- from her demeanor, language, tone and even manners -- shouted that she was Saudi. She was born in Saudi Arabia, and knows no other country and speaks no other language other than Saudi. She is Saudi down to the bone. But she is not afforded any of the privileges of being Saudi because her parents were born elsewhere.

It’s highly unlikely that she will succeed in obtaining financial assistance in the form of charity from an emir or sheikh. She certainly doesn’t have the support system that Saudis receive when their parents have died and they need financial help.

This young woman’s plight illustrates a growing problem in Saudi society about where these children -- born in Saudi Arabia to legal or illegal resident parents -- belong in society.

We have quickly become a country of parallel societies: Saudis and the invisible class of a new generation of young people denied an education and meaningful employment.

Let’s not talk of deportation. It’s impractical, costly and inhuman. Exactly how will the Saudi government deport children to a country they do not know or ever stepped foot on? And let’s remember that many parents of these children entered the country legally on Umrah and Haj visas and simply overstayed those visas. We can’t punish the children of overstayers by denying them the basics of an education and jobs. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia will be burdened with caring for this invisible class of people.

I think it would be a fine gesture of the Saudi government to extend citizenship to children born in the country to legal or illegal parents, but that’s rather naïve. Just looking at the citizenship requirements document issued by the government a few years ago reads like a recipe for failure for every expatriate who has the audacity to apply.

The difference the government can make is to extend all educational benefits to children born in Saudi Arabia to foreign parents. Give them scholarship pportunities for higher education and even send them abroad on the promise they will return and practice their profession in the Kingdom.

I dread the moment when I must contact this young medical student and tell her there is not much hope of continuing her studies. Saudi Arabia will lose a female physician at time when even losing one potential doctor should not be acceptable. We can take the easy route and continue to recruit foreign doctors. Some will stay a lifetime. Others will leave after a few years. The cycle of recruitment will continue and we will be no closer to filling the ranks of the Saudi medical community with Saudis. And yes, that includes the Egyptian medical student who calls Saudi Arabia her home, her country and now her mother and father.

Passive Muslims should take some blame for Swiss minaret ban

2009-12-02T00:19:00.000-08:00

What does Europe want from the Muslim community?

Well, you got me.

Like a party host who complains that her country cousins aren't mingling with the guests, and then seats them at the children's table at dinnertime, Switzerland, Denmark and France can't make up their mind about the so-called "Muslim problem."

The French want to ban the burka. Danish newspapers like to poke sticks at Muslims by publishing offensive cartoons. Now, 57 percent of Switzerland's voters have passed a referendum to ban the construction of minarets on mosques. Yet some European government officials complain, "Why don't Muslims assimilate into our society?"

And I ask: "Why would I want to?"

For all the phony talk about Muslim assimilation into white European Christian society, some EU countries do their best to marginalize us. In Switzerland, about 6 percent of the population is Muslim, a great many who are war refugees from Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I agree that it's likely that these first-generation Muslims have difficulty assimilating into European society, but that's true of first-generation immigrants in any country throughout history. Their offspring, however, are a different story. In 20 years time we'll see many second-generation Eastern European Muslims fit right into Swiss society. That is as long as the government resists the temptation to pass discriminatory laws against their right to worship and practice their cultural customs and traditions like everyone else.

There are two troubling aspects of the minaret ban. There is little of the Islamic extremist ideology found in Switzerland that would prompt such discrimination. And the country's constitution essentially prohibits anti-religious laws.

Unlike France and Denmark, there has been little talk of the "Islamification" of Switzerland. There are few burka-clad, dark-skinned Asian Muslim women walking the streets of Geneva and Zurich. Aside from the occasional web rants of extremists, there are no calls for Shariah to replace Swiss laws. There are about 150 mosques in Switzerland, most of which are no more than large prayer rooms. There are no calls for prayer over loudspeakers. Only four mosques have minarets.

So where do these anti-Muslim sentiments come from? I blame the ultra-right wing Swiss People's Party, the junior version of the British National Party and the Dutch Party for Freedom. The Swiss People's Party's clever ad campaign for the referendum featured an advertisement of a scowling burka-clad woman next to sprouting black minarets atop the Swiss flag. It's a compelling image that plays on the fears of the Swiss.

But I also blame European Muslims who allow extremist websites to present a skewed image of Islam. Imams, Islamic scholars, Muslim journalists and social workers do so little to stem the tide of public opinion. European Muslims need to shed their reticence to defend themselves by countering claims of the Islamification of Europe.

A case in point is the October appearance of BNP's Nick Griffin on the BBC's Question Time. Griffin's odious anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim positions were exposed by Muslim and Christian participants on the television show. The exposure demonstrated that BNP's policies were not based on facts and logic, but on hate.

Switzerland's Muslims can remain silent and continue to be marginalized or they can involve themselves in government policy and through the media to shape their future. Frankly, I'm a little weary of the namby-pamby "let's not rock the boat" attitude of Muslims. It didn't work for Jews in the 1930s and I don't think it's going to work for Muslims today.

The other uncomfortable aspect of the referendum is that it flies in the face of Switzerland's constitution. The constitution bans discrimination against persons on the "grounds of origin, race, gender, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, ideological, or political convictions, or because of a physical, mental or psychological disability."

Swizz government leaders have indicated they have no choice but to pass the referendum into law. But I sense that the referendum can be challenged on constitutional grounds. It also should be noted that although a clear majority of Swiss voters want the referendum to be the law of the land, it doesn't mean it's a good law. There's no question that a massive mosque with minarets will look out of place in a neighborhood surrounded by 17th century architecture. But that's a zoning issue decided at the local level.

And that's precisely the reason why this is a referendum that discriminates against one specific religion. The design and construction of a mosque or any building is a decision best left to local districts. By taking the decision out of the hands of local officials and declaring that minarets - not cathedrals or synagogues - should be banned throughout the country changes the issue from one simply of architecture to one of religion.

Switzerland has enjoyed a global reputation as a nation of tolerance and a safe haven for the oppressed. That reputation was rocked in the mid-1990s when it was revealed that Switzerland's banking industry colluded with Nazi Germany to plunder accounts of depositors in occupied countries during World War II. Swiss banks also refused to release the account funds of Holocaust survivors after the war. The controversy greatly upset the Swiss who saw their reputation as a tolerant country impugned.

The Swiss are now facing a new but similar test. Do they join the ranks of Denmark and France in allowing right-wing political groups manipulate its citizens' emotions with unsubstantiated rhetoric? Or do they take the right path by embracing all religions and cultures of people who seek a fair shake when they cross into their borders?

Proposed court reform puts Saudi women lawyers in the closet

2009-11-17T23:54:00.000-08:00

About 10 years ago Saudi women started returning home from abroad with fresh law degrees and were ready to take on the world. And they are still waiting. Last week, the Minister of Justice, Muhammad Al Eisa, announced that Saudi judicial system will “eventually” make way for female lawyers to represent women in the court.

Given the timeline on Saudi judicial reform, I peg the year that Saudi women will be practicing courtroom litigation to be around 2019. Don’t misunderstand me. I applaud the Ministry of Justice’s attempts to revamp the judicial system. But let’s not fool ourselves that we are seeing great advances in Saudi women’s rights.

If I sound skeptical, it’s because even if Saudi women do find themselves practicing law in a courtroom before a judge it’s no more than window-dressing. Sheikh Abdullah Al Guwair, director of the Department of Lawyers at the Saudi Ministry of Justice, said women will be issued a “restrictive form of license” that gives them access
to some areas of the court.

Al Guwair said the move towards allowing female lawyers in the courtroom is due to the fact that many women give up their rights because they were too shy to divulge details of their case to a man. Further, Al Guwair said that women lawyers will not be working with men and be confined to different courtrooms.

I can get onboard with the “separate but equal” concept in Saudi society. That is, I accept it as long as it’s really equal. But there is nothing remotely equal in dispensing justice under this proposed system. Male lawyers are given the advantage of having full access to the court and to the judge. Omitted from the Ministry’s announcement is whether female lawyers will even appear before a judge. Essentially, the Saudi judicial system is planning to ghettoize women lawyers by sticking them in a room where they can be occasionally heard but never seen.

The plan allows the judicial system to proclaim it opened doors to female lawyers, but the end result will be that a woman’s rights will continue to be subordinate to men.

A woman’s role in the Saudi judiciary also will be diluted by Saudi Arabia’s efforts to attract foreign lawyers. The Ministry of Justice is seeking to license more foreigners to practice law in Saudi Arabia as long as they have a degree from a Sharia university, three years experience in law and a valid visa. Seeking to beef up the available lawyers to the courts by recruiting from foreign countries only
further marginalizes Saudi female lawyers.

Putting aside the discrimination against Saudi women, the larger issue is the judicial system continuing to dispense justice without codified laws, with judges making rulings applied directly from Sharia. The basics of criminal and civil law, such as the right to legal representation, established legal precedent, the basic notion of a common law system and impartial decisions, are thrown out the window.

This is a special problem for foreigners doing business in Saudi Arabia. It’s significant that the World Bank ranks Saudi Arabia among the top 20 countries for being business-friendly, but it’s also noteworthy that the Kingdom ranks 140th out of 181 countries in enforcing commercial contracts. The World Bank reported that it takes two years for business disputes to be solved in Saudi courts.

The problem should be laid at the feet of Saudi judges who are trained in Sharia, but have absolutely no clue in business law.

Yet civil court reform appears to be moving faster than criminal. The Saudi government spent SR 8.2 billion ($2.2 billion) to establish 13 additional commercial courts and the Ministry also plans to announce verdicts on its website. This is a far cry from the full transparency needed to instill confidence in a fair and impartial court, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Saudi judges are also being sent to Western countries for civil law training. Another good step, but it doesn’t solve the problem that there are only 1,200 judges serving the entire country.

Saudi lawyers and judges are kicking and screaming all the way into the 21st century. But overhauling the Saudi judicial system through piecemeal efforts dooms the promise of equitable justice for all Saudi and expats. The half-hearted attempt to bring female lawyers into the judicial fold will have little impact on women having their voice heard in the courtroom. The basic premise that a fair decision can be reached without established codified laws is flawed. It only brings
uncertainty, insecurity and skepticism among Saudis who are forced to
turn to the judicial system for help.

Saudis try to find a way to curb inappropriate fatwas

2009-11-11T09:20:00.000-08:00

Nearly a year after Saudi King Abdullah warned religious scholars that issuing careless fatwas gives extremists credibility as religious experts, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Call, Guidance and Endowment has finally said enough is enough.

Recently the Ministry issued a memo that fatwas were not to be issued to just anybody asking for one. The Ministry has ordered that Saudi imams refer people seeking fatwas to the Senior Board of Ulema.

Apparently the Ulema got tired of having their own fatwas contradicted by some obscure rural cleric who thinks of himself as a religious scholar. This new rule, although long overdue, thrills me to no end. If ever there was an aspect of Islam that has been so thoroughly abused by people who have no idea what they’re doing it’s the fatwa.

Fatwas, which are basically opinions or edicts, are supposed to be issued by Islamic scholars after careful and lengthy deliberation. The fatwa’s source comes from the Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Once upon a time each and every word of a fatwa was agonized over and issued only when necessary.

Somewhere down the line more than a few imams from Seattle to Somalia fancied themselves fatwa experts and abused the privilege. As a result, trousers have been deemed sinful, Mickey Mouse was discovered to be Satan’s foot soldier, and Saudi guys were given permission to take non-Muslim Western girls as wives for a couple of months to, well – just take a guess.

Although I am not one to concern myself with the internal politics of Saudi clerics, it’s long troubled me that there often seems to be no rhyme nor reason as to what qualifies as a fatwa and who should be responsible for issuing one. At the very least it presents am image of disorganization among the Islamic religious community. At worst, it presents a picture of ignorance that leads to mockery of Islam.

At last January’s International Conference on Fatwa and its Regulations, the King stated in a speech that, “Issuing ill-considered fatwas without following any criterion offers biased, ignorant, extremist or careless individuals the opportunity to pose as religious experts qualified to issue fatwas. On the other hand, they have been abusing Islam and distorting its noble values besides offering its enemies the justification for attacking the Holy Qur’an and spreading lies about the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).”

The Senior Board of Ulema’s recent decision brings back order and the original intent of the fatwa. Now, a panel of scholars will carefully deliberate the issue before them, determine whether it deserves consideration, and if so, correctly interpret the source of the decision before a fatwa is issued.

We’ve seen in the last decade or so, wildly different interpretations of the Qur’an and the words of the Prophet. Some non-Muslims, either through an anti-Muslim agenda or just plain ignorance, mangle the verses without proper scholarly research. Worse are the extremists, who interpret the Qur’an to suit their own agenda of murder and
terror. Lost in these political sideshows -- and believe me it’s political, not religious – is that even the most learned Muslim scholar still struggles to correctly interpret the Qur’an. Scholars who spend a lifetime of study still engage in debates over the interpretation of even a single word.

Issuing half-baked fatwas trivializes the true meaning its intent and renders it a joke. And the sheer number of fatwas issued over the past year reduces the ignificance of important ones, those that are really helpful guides to making us more pious and better Muslims.

It’s ridiculous, I know, but for the sake of argument let’s consider that Mickey Mouse is indeed the devil’s toady and Minnie Mouse his handmaiden. Just how does this information help me live my life? Instead, it’s a distraction, a bit of nonsense that would not have survived scrutiny of serious religious scholars. It’s about time the real experts handled these things.

Saudi female journalist becomes LBC's scapegoat

2009-10-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

Something got lost in all the outrage last week over the conviction and lashing sentence of the 22-year-old Saudi woman journalist who worked for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp (LBC). What exactly is the LBC doing to support their journalist?

The answer is absolutely nothing.

According to a Reuters report this week, the young woman had nothing to do with the Bold Red Line broadcast segment in which a Saudi man bragged about his sexual conquests. The man was sentenced to five years in jail and lashings, but the woman journalist only worked as a "fixer," someone who arranges interviews for foreign media. She apparently had nothing to do with the segment involving the braggart. Her crime apparently is that she worked for the LBC, which was not licensed to operate in Saudi Arabia.

Let's set aside the idiocy that the Saudi government did not know that the LBC was not licensed. Let's focus on the conduct of the LBC. The Lebanese were kicked out of the country, so they suffered a bit for their actions. But they also couldn't get out of Saudi Arabia fast enough, leaving behind a vulnerable employee who proved to be the LBC's scapegoat for their poor behavior. King Abdullah this week pardoned the woman, but she still must face a tribunal before the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.

A year ago the LBC approached me and offered a job that eventually went to this young Saudi journalist. I spoke over the phone with their producers and a presenter. It quickly became clear that the LBC was not interested in Saudi news, but creating tabloid headlines.

Among the topics the LBC was eager to cover were strange sexual practices, voodoo and black magic, especially black magic practiced on wayward husbands. Runaway girls, marriages of convenience and spinsterhood were other topics the LBC wanted to present. The LBC was clearly interested in the sensational aspects of Saudi culture, taboo subjects that are not topics of conversation. Yet the LBC seemed unmoved that these stories would perpetuate Saudi stereotypes in a period in which Saudis are under attack for their cultural and religious differences.

Part of my responsibility as a Saudi journalist is that if wrongdoing is exposed or taboo subjects are addressed, solutions must be provided in these stories. Perhaps more important is the safety and well-being of the people we interview. It's likely that Saudis who participate in media interviews on sensitive subjects will face consequences for their actions.

It's one thing to interview a Saudi woman who chooses to remain unmarried to pursue a career. It's another for a young woman forced into spinsterhood by her father who wants her income. If such a woman gave an interview, she would have to answer to her family. What kind of support would the LBC provide for the girl if she was thrown out of the house? I think none. No two better examples of abandonment can be found than the sex braggart and the Saudi journalist.

During our discussion about my role in their Bold Red Line series, the LBC producers were cavalier, if not dismissive, about my concerns over the consequences of these kinds of interviews. When the discussion turned to me being hired as a producer, I thought that I could control editorial content. But the answer was no. Editorial control came from Beirut.

It became apparent that if I were to arrange the interviews, it would become my responsibility to see that the interviewees did not suffer any consequences for their frank talk. But that is an extremely risky task without the support of the employer.

I recognized the LBC was not prepared to offer any support after a broadcast to its Saudi employees or the interview subjects. Their desire to present sensitive Saudi issues as tabloid fodder was not much different than Western media parachuting into Riyadh for two days to do a story on how the abaya and niqab are oppressive to women. It makes for interesting television and boosts ratings, but it leaves a lot of pain and humiliation in its wake.

I rejected the LBC's offer. Their attitude toward Saudi Arabia was insincere and cynical. I could not see how the Bold Red Line series would benefit or shed any light on Saudi culture other than presenting Saudis as parodies of themselves.

It didn't occur to me until this young Saudi female journalist stood trial for the LBC's negligence that the LBC's producers would prey on someone who is young, perhaps naïve, and eager to advance her journalism career.

Now this young woman is suffering for the sins of the LBC, which has stood by mute. They offered no lawyer and no statement of condemnation for her treatment by the Saudi courts. LBC should be an embarrassment to Middle East journalists. At a time when Arab journalists are seeking to be taken seriously as professionals and attempt to adhere to an ethical standard, the LBC's cowardice illustrates just how little progress we have made.

Opening gunshops in Saudi Arabia is not the answer to curbing illegal weapons

2009-10-24T06:29:00.000-07:00

The Saudi Ministry of Interior’s decision to issue licenses to entrepreneurs to open private gun shops is full of good intentions, but until more information is disclosed I must wonder: Do we really need easy access to guns?

The ministry announced recently that any person 25 years or older with no criminal record and a bank guarantee of SR500,000 can open a gun shop. The best part of these requirements is the bank guarantee, which pares down the pool of potential applications to open businesses.

The idea behind this is to curb illegal ownership of firearms and have a better tracking system of where guns originate. About five years ago, the Saudi government asked gun owners to register their weapons at the regional Emir office's security department. The response from Saudi citizens was overwhelmingly positive. Many -- if not the majority -- Saudis participated in the registration drive.

Gun ownership is long ingrained in Saudi society. Boys are taught to hunt and as men usually keep firearms in the house. Truck drivers, and even some women drivers in rural areas, as I mentioned last week, carry handguns for protection.

As a society we have demonstrated responsible gun ownership. Our crime rate is extremely low. About half of the crimes committed in Saudi Arabia are non-violent thefts, and the murder rate is barely 1 person per 100,000 population. The U.S. State Department, however, has issued a warning to its citizens that the instances of carjackings in Riyadh have risen. Yet violence involving firearms is low.

Although I have no doubt that illegal gun ownership remains a problem in Saudi Arabia, the logic of opening gun shops eludes me. This move by the Ministry of Interior reminds me of the occasional news article I read from the United States in which a municipal police chief decides to issue concealed weapons permits to all gun owners who ask for one to ensure they can legally carry a weapon. The thinking is that the permit will reduce the number of people walking around with illegal
guns in their pockets or purses. But all it does is simply put more weapons on the street and increase the chances that someone will get hurt.

The ministry’s logic is similar to the U.S. police chief. The ministry’s ruling will put more legal guns on the street, but it’s still more guns.

It’s likely that the ministry has thought of such things, but has not released the requirements that will be imposed to buy and sell guns. Issues to be addressed are whether a waiting period between purchase and actually receiving the weapon will be imposed and if criminal background checks will be conducted. Presumably the ministry will establish checks and balances to maximize the safety of people.

We only have to look at the U.S. as an object lesson. According to a 2009 Centers for Disease Control report, 30,896 U.S. gun deaths were reported in 2006. Forty-one percent were the result of homicides and 55 percent were suicides. The remaining fatalities were unintentional or undetermined intent deaths.

In addition, a gun in the house increases the risk of a homicide by three times and the risk of suicide five times compared to no gun present. People are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shooting a robber or attacker.

We shouldn’t believe for a second that more legal guns in Saudi Arabia are going to protect us from criminals. Rather, think about the next Saudi National Day. We already have a problem with people who don’t understand that shooting a gun into the air means a bullet must come down somewhere. If more guns are available the odds of more bullets falling on someone’s head on National Day increases. The same goes for
tribal weddings and celebrations in which guns are shot in the air.

Perhaps the most obvious argument is that we still have extremists operating in Saudi Arabia, as was the case with the recent attack on security officers near the Yemen border. Although the Ministry of Interior has done an incredible job of curbing attacks and our country is stabilized, the threat remains. During the height of the 2003-2006 militant attacks in Saudi Arabia there were Al Qaeda supporters,
perhaps better described as wannabes, trolling Riyadh and Jeddah streets using handguns to shoot Westerners.

Presumably Saudis with no criminal record can walk into a gun shop and purchase any weapon he desires. Militants with a phony identity or a well concealed background should have no problem purchasing over-the-counter weapons. Do we really need to make it easier for them?

Saudi rural women's freedom to drive cars and trucks under renewed threat

2009-10-13T23:04:00.000-07:00

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of Saudi society in the non-Arab world is the myth that all Saudi women are banned from driving cars. Read any English-language news periodical and the message is absolute: It’s illegal for Saudi women to drive.

Well, that’s kinda-sorta-usually-but-not-always true.

For decades, Saudi women have been driving on highways and streets outside of urban areas. They must drive because their families’ survival depends on it. While men are working, wives are tasked with taking the kids to school, transporting livestock to market, and managing the house. They also drive big tankers to bring drinking water to their villages. Many of these women are also Bedouins who travel from village to village earning a living by transporting goods.

This is not a case of heading down to the local Danube supermarket for a box of corn flakes. This is a long drive, sometimes hundreds of miles, over a harsh desert environment usually in a 2-ton Mercedes truck or a Hilux pickup. These moms, some who arm themselves with a handgun for protection while driving alone, are a hardworking, tough lot that can handle a truck better than most men.

I remember as a child my uncle in one of the Yanbu villages going to work at 4 each morning, leaving the management of the house, the family and the harvesting of their crops to my aunt. She drove all over the region to make sure not only her kids but the extended family were cared for.

As a practical issue, the police and Hiy’a (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, commonly referred to as the religious police) can’t effectively patrol these remote areas. For the most part, women have had free reign in driving vehicles where they please.

Common sense, which is not always a prime ingredient when journalists address perceived wrongs with Saudi Arabia, tells us that it’s impractical and dangerous to ban all Saudi women from driving. Of course, Saudi conservatives, and that includes some members of the Commission, share the same problem.

Although rural women have had it pretty easy on the roads, apparently there can be too much of a good thing. Last week, the Hiy’a filed a complaint with the administrative ruler of the Hail region in which they asked him to ban 15 village women from driving their cars and trucks. Now, women who make sure the family’s chickens and goats get to market and keep the village supplied with water, are without transportation.

These women can’t hire a driver because their primary means of transportation is a pickup truck, which forces them into a state of khalwa -- or seclusion with a non-relative male -- as they sit beside the driver.

Consider what is more dangerous: a woman driving a truck or a woman alone with a male stranger in the middle of nowhere. The female breadwinner is faced with the double whammy of being denied the right to use a vehicle to contribute to the household income and the
right to hire a driver as a solution to her economic problem.

Many Saudis support the idea of enforcement of our moral and religious obligations. Indeed, it’s addressed in the Qur’an. But it’s quite another thing to mess with hardworking families who depend on the motor vehicle to make ends meet. For decades Saudi law authorities recognized that ranch and farm families were an exception to the driving ban edict because a family’s livelihood depended on a vehicle. They understandably turned a blind eye. That right apparently has been taken from them for no reason other than the conservatives feel threatened by it.

Saudi Arabia is in a period of great transition, and there is an expectation of movement forward, not backward. Naturally there are many people who prefer the comfort of the past. Perhaps forcing working rural women to return to camels and donkeys as transportation makes some people feel more comfortable. But their comfort comes at the expense of the working family.

Saudis in denial over violence against women and children

2009-10-06T23:19:00.000-07:00

It came as something of a shock when I learned the other day that the number of domestic violence cases in Saudi Arabia does not exceed 650.

What a relief to live in a country where violence against women and children is virtually non-existent. This good news comes from none other than the man who should know: Ali Al-Hinaki, the general manager of Social Affairs Department in the Makkah province.

Al-Hinaki told a Jeddah reporter that there are no statistics on the number of abuse cases, but he estimated that there were no more than 650. Yet the Social Affairs Department does not explain that if there are so few domestic violence cases in Saudi Arabia, why is there the need to sponsor this week a three-day awareness forum in Jeddah? Or why establish 17 committees to deal with family protection? By Social Affairs Department’s logic that amounts to 38 abuse victims per committee. Now that is what I call great response to such a minor issue.

But all kidding aside, this ridiculously low statistic is an insult to every Saudi woman and child whether or not they have been the victim of abuse. There are more than 27 million people – 22 million of which are Saudis – living in Saudi Arabia. Just how did the law of averages
elude the Social Affairs Department?

Earlier this year Abdul Aziz Al-Dakhil, an attorney and a leading expert on domestic violence, said, “If we are informed that there are 10 cases of abuse, there are for sure 1,000 more suffering in silence and not spoken about.” Al-Dakhil has a better grasp of reality, but the numbers don’t adequately convey the urgency of establishing codified laws protecting abuse victims.

Al-Dakhil points out that there is no established definition in Saudi Arabia of what constitutes domestic violence. Family members who perpetrate violence against their victims confuse guardianship and Islam with discipline. Even victims are often confused about whether
their misery is a product of abuse or a form of discipline under Islam.

There are grassroots efforts to provide services to prevent domestic abuse. Saudi writer Rima Ibrahim is campaigning to establish a facility that can provide care and protection for women abused or abandoned by their husbands. We’ve also seen the growth of women’s shelters throughout the Kingdom.

Saudis, however, have a tendency to minimize their faults. We claim the moral high ground by asserting we are good Muslims not capable of committing unspeakable violence towards our loved ones.

Government officials undermine their own awareness projects by dismissing the seriousness of domestic violence with unsubstantiated low statistics. People in a position of authority charged with making life-altering decisions affecting a girl’s future have no business holding the job. I recall visiting a shelter a couple years ago in which the director told me that many runaway girls seeking protection from abuse were simply disobedient brats who should mind their parents.

It’s incredulous that Saudis still dance around the issue of domestic abuse. It’s not a question of whether Saudi Arabia has a domestic violence problem, but how do we as a nation solve it. Our failing is that we think our moral authority makes us separate, if not above, the rest of the world in terms of crimes against our own family members. We are no different than the rest of the international community. I imagine that the number of abuse cases in Saudi Arabia is proportionate to the rest of the world.

It’s fine that judicial reform is underway to codify laws. It’s good that Saudi authorities are moving towards legal transparency. And it’s satisfying to see progress made – although at a snail’s pace – in the establishment of shelters and women’s rights services.

But none of it means much if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and claim the violence in the home is limited to just a few hundred cases. These kinds of pronouncements instill little confidence that we will ever effectively combat domestic abuse.

KAUST may test Saudi higher education system

2009-09-24T15:03:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I was taken to task by a reader who complained about my enthusiasm for the academic potential of the King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST), which had its inauguration this week.

The reader implied that I was naïve to believe that KAUST will benefit any Saudis, noting that KAUST is nothing more than a “$10 billion write-off.”

The reader writes: “KAUST barely brings any benefit to the local population. It has been created as a gated microcosm whereby foreign intellectuals and scholars from around the world come, live in their own little worlds whereby they need not have any interaction with the local population, and enlighten each other at the expense of King Abdullah's $10 billion endowment … and will then conveniently leave after benefiting from years of tax-free income.”

I think the observer fails to grasp simple economics. But I will get to that in a moment.

The reader continues with a more valid point: “What … actually (will) be a landmark project would be a complete overhaul of the education system, which is failing spectacularly at nurturing homegrown Saudi talent.”

The fact is that KAUST is likely to be a boon for local job market if the global economy recovers from the disasters of 2008. As for the quality of the Saudi lower educational system, I couldn’t agree more.

But KAUST is the test case as to whether its successes can be applied to entire the Saudi education system in the future. But let’s address the economic impact first.

KAUST is situated on a 24-acre campus in Thuwal, about 50 miles north of Jeddah. Three residential districts for men and women include more than 3,000 housing units for faculty, students and their families numbering upwards of 5,000 and more. Yes, the campus will be self-contained with markets, theater, a bowling alley, bank and other support services.

There is a danger that KAUST faculty and students will live in their own little bubble. There are plenty of examples in Saudi Arabia with self-contained residential compounds where many Westerners remain behind compound walls. But I think it’s unlikely since Jeddah is only a short distance away from the campus.

But more importantly is that that the campus’ residential and commercial project is expected to create 500,000 jobs by the time it’s completed in 2016, according to KAUST officials. The nearby Knowledge Economic City is expected to create 20,000 jobs in the Madinah providence by 2014. And this does not include the benefits the region will reap with the completion of the proposed railway that will link the Red Seat with the Arabian Gulf.

It’s a mistake to believe that KAUST’s success or failure is not linked to the current Saudi education system. Certainly on an international level, Saudi Arabia’s lower education system has failed its students with too much emphasis placed on non-academic curriculum.
The standards of higher Saudi education are less of an issue, although. Western universities continue to accept Saudi university degree holders in great numbers for postgraduate work, so we can’t call the system a failure.

The role I hope KAUST will play in developing better higher academic standards is the international makeup of its faculty and students. According to KAUST, the current faculty of 71 professors is 14 percent American, 7 percent German, 6 percent Canadian and 6 percent Chinese.

The university provost is Dr. Brian Moran, an American who served as chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Northwestern University. KAUST’s president is Choon Fong Shih, who was president and vice-chancellor of National University of Singapore.

The student population, which numbers only about 400 now, is 15 percent Saudi, 14 percent Chinese, 11 percent Mexican and 8 percent American. The rest of the students come form nearly 60 other countries. Students, particularly Saudis, thrive in an international environment and their exposure to non-Saudi students will go a long
way to breaking down barriers between the Arab world, the West and developing countries.

While I sound like an optimist I am not kidding myself of the obstacles ahead. A mixed-gender student population is going to be difficult for many Saudis to accept. I suspect the university will be under tremendous pressure from law authorities because the campus is not accessible to routine inspection like other Saudi universities. Further, Western academics teaching Saudis opens the university to
criticism from conservatives that the West is corrupting Saudi youth.

I suppose we can sit back and hope that KAUST fails; that its impact on Saudis will be minimal and the grand experiment will be an object lesson that Saudis have no need for foreign meddlers in our education system. But if my critic is correct that the Saudi education system is a failure, then KAUST is indeed a bold experiment that deserves our support to ensure that it succeeds, and the lessons we learn there
will be passed on to the rest of the Kingdom.

It’s easy to dismiss KAUST as a $10 billion debacle that further lines the pockets of expatriate academics. It’s more courageous to take $10 billion risks to ensure Saudi Arabia future in the international

Muslim day of prayer may bring unwanted attention

2009-09-22T09:53:00.001-07:00

A New Jersey mosque is planning a national day of prayer on Sept. 25 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that expects to draw as many as 50,000 Muslims from across the United States.

This appears to be the first such event held by Muslims on such a large scale in the U.S. It represents a huge step forward for Muslims who for the most part prefer to stay out of the spotlight following 9/11.

Hassen Abdellah, president of Dar-ul-Islam in Elizabeth, N.J., told the Star-Ledger newspaper that, "Most of the time, when Muslims go to Washington, D.C., they go there to protest some type of event ... This is not a protest. Never has the Islamic community prayed on Capitol Hill for the soul of America. We're Americans. We need to change the face of Islam so people don't feel every Muslim believes America is
'the great Satan,' because we love America."

The event will be held from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m., but the main prayer will occur at 1 p.m.

It’s a wonderful thing to see Muslims wear their patriotism on their sleeve and demonstrate the deep love for their country. Abdellah hopes that people of other faiths will join Muslims as well.

But, alas, the event also is turning into a religious war spurred by fringe groups who see an opportunity to stage confrontational anti-Islamic protests. One pastor is urging his congregation to fast from midnight on Sept. 25 to 7 p.m., not for spiritual meditation or to bring his people closer to God but to wrestle the “soul of the nation” away from Muslims. He’s mistaken. Muslims don’t claim ownership of America’s soul and he shouldn’t either.

The argument that has originated on anti-Muslim websites and appears to be spreading among conservative religious groups is that some sort of cultural or stealth jihad is being played out in the West while non-Muslims go about their business blissfully ignorant of the dangers. Meanwhile, mainstream media conspires to keep it all
hush-hush.

For those who may not care to read the blathering of such websites, stealth jihad supposedly when Muslims seek prayer breaks at work or Muslim women request private time to swim at public pools. Even wearing in public the so-called burqini, modest swimwear for women, is somehow Islamifying the local community. Who would have thought that a loose-fitting single-piece swimsuit would become a political hot potato that required government intervention, as we have discovered to be the case in France and Italy?

Now, the image of 50,000 Muslims -- most of who are American citizens – praying in public has raised the hackles of some people who see prayer as not worshipping God but as a threat to the soul of America. The whole thought seems, well, so un-Christian and un-democratic.

This past year or so a disturbing trend has emerged as small groups of people have staged anti-Muslim protests. On the eighth anniversary of 9/11 a small church group held an anti-Islamic demonstration at a Gainesville, Fla., mall to memorialize those who lost their lives on that day and those serving in the U.S. military.

About 30 protesters waved confrontational signs and shouted anti-Muslim rants. In London a nastier and more violent confrontation occurred between the English Defence League and Muslim youths at a Harrow mosque under construction.

If taken as isolated events, the rallies don’t amount to much. But it’s curious that for the first time we are seeing organized anti-Islam protests. I can’t help but think we are witnessing early signs of future, better organized rallies targeting the Muslim community.

Certainly Muslims have staged anti-Western rallies and often these demonstrations are violent. But these protests are not so much as anti-Christian but sparked by specific events, such as the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The incidents at Harrow and Gainesville are a different animal all together. The protesters’ target is faith, as in my faith threatens your faith.

The implication is that we pray to a different God because we call Him Allah. And that’s the irony. We all share the same God. By denying, interfering or ridiculing anyone’s right to worship demonstrates a complete lack of respect to the deity we all pray to.

Political hooliganism is now part of the democractic process

2009-09-10T07:37:00.000-07:00

In case anybody hasn't noticed, hooliganism is now part of the fabric of democracy.

An incident occurred last week in Birmingham, England, that gained little notice outside the UK but sent shockwaves through some British communities. Dozens of people were arrested last weekend following a protest by followers of the English Defence League against the implementation against Sharia in the United Kingdom.

The reality is the protest against Sharia was nothing more than an anti-Islamic grievance beer party that started at a neighborhood pub and ended violently when a group of Muslims confronted the protesters. Rocks, sticks and punches were thrown with the police blaming both the EDL and Muslims youths for the ruckus.

Lost in all the haze is the fact that most Muslims, British-born or not, have given little thought about whether Sharia belongs in the UK. The tiff in Birmingham was a result of the young Muslims recognizing the protest for what it was: a movement against the Muslim community, and not because Sharia was supplanting British law.

How is this political hooliganism?

While British MPs are dithering over expense accounts, the fringe elements outside the political process have become mainstream. Last June, the British National Party garnered more than 6 percent of the vote in European elections, including two seats in the Brussels parliament. Not only does the BNP have a voice in government, but it has its militia in the streets.

While the Liberal Democrats and Tories think it's fine to engage the BNP in debate, they are making the mistake in believing that logic and common sense will prevail in the political arena. They are faced with such organizations as the Stop Islamification of Europe (SIOE) that argues that "Islamophobia is the height of common sense." Just how do the Liberal Democrats and Tories think they are going to win the war of words with that kind of rationale?

I must admit, though, the Labour Party's policy of ignoring the BNP is probably more ridiculous. Doing nothing in the face of seething unrest among some British citizens who see merit in the BNP and EDL is a recipe for disaster.

The problem lies in the unchecked behavior of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and their followers. Political debate legitimizes fringe groups. It allows these groups to obscure racism and xenophobia with phony arguments of UK border security while the real work is performed in the street. Few people are going to pay attention to Liberal Democrats arguing border security with the BNP when hooligans know the best arguments are made with BBC footage of Britons "defending" the streets of Birmingham with their fists.

This Friday, the anniversary of 9/11, anti-Islamic protests are scheduled to be held by the SIOE at the new Harrow central mosque in London. Muslim supporters, calling themselves Unite Against Fascism, also plan to be there. The mosque is not finished, but Friday prayers will be conducted next door in the middle of Ramadan, Islam's holiest month. Imagine, if you will, the specter of a massive demonstration with the threat of violence outside a London church during Christmas Day services. Same thing. In this case, Muslims are faced with the threat of violence during a period of fasting and prayer.

Ghulam Rabbani, the general secretary of the Harrow mosque, told The Times of London last week that he doesn't know why protesters picked his mosque.

"We don't know why they are singling us out. They say we are planning a Sharia court but we have never had such a plan. This community is mixed with Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. We have had very good relations for 25 years."

Members of the BNP, SIOE and EDL have the right to freely express their views in a peaceful manner. But let's not forget that by embracing their legitimacy in the political process, we are also legitimizing their followers in the street. It's not about Sharia because its implementation in the UK doesn't exist. The Sharia argument is a smokescreen for the true anti-immigrant agenda.

The irony is that this Friday's scheduled protest is planned by extremists: SIOE and the Unite Against Fascism group. In the middle are the Harrow Muslims who just want everybody to go away.

Saudis struggle with whether to display pre-Islamic artifacts

2009-09-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

Last year a Saudi/French archeological team made a major discovery at Madain Saleh. Pottery and metal and wooden tools were unearthed at Al Diwan and at Ethlib mountain.

The discoveries at Madain Saleh pose something of a dilemma for Saudis. We Saudis are not particularly eager to look for pre-Islamic artifacts. There’s a prevailing opinion among the conservatives that items not Islamic belong in the ground because displaying them risks a tacit endorsement of the culture or religion the artifacts represent.

We have a habit sealing off ancient sites from public view whether they are Islamic or non-Islamic. We have been known to neglect or destroy them. Saudis don’t want to run the risk of turning a site into a place of idolatry. As a rule we minimize the publicity of such discoveries.

But as with most things, Saudis can’t stop progress. And today there is a significant and successful campaign to develop an economically viable tourism industry that will create jobs and stimulate the economy, particularly in rural areas.

Add to that is the fact that Madain Saleh was named in 2008 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Madain Saleh is now open to visitors. The Saudi Commission on Tourism and Antiquities, under Secretary General Sultan Bin Salman, and the National French Research Center are continuing excavation efforts. An American team also is participating.

The teams are restoring what has been found and electronic software is being used to record the excavation and restoration efforts. The work is continuing and it’s certain that more items will be unearthed.

Once the Saudi government finds its footing in establishing a consistent tourism program and becomes more flexible in granting visas to Muslims and non-Muslims to visit the Kingdom, Madain Saleh should become a key component in developing a thriving tourism sector.

But offering Madain Saleh as a tourism stop is not a problem. It was first inhabited by the people of Thamud who are mentioned prominently in the Qur’an. But what of the non-Muslim sites? Like most Saudis, I know little of pre-Islamic sites, although occasionally amateur archeologists come across such places. Frankly, it’s gross negligence to destroy or hide these discoveries. The government in recent years has taken positive steps to recover and catalog artifacts, but there’s a disagreement with what to do with them once they are found.

It’s right that churches are not permitted in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques. But what’s less certain is whether crucifixes, if found, should be destroyed or hidden. More precisely is the issue of whether Christian or Jewish artifacts can be displayed in the proper context in a Saudi museum as an acknowledgment of a people who called pre-Islamic Arabia their home.

My guess is that most Saudis will say no. Many Saudis believe there is no place in the Kingdom for such relics.

The Associated Press the other day reported that Sheikh Mohammed Al Nujaimi said non-Muslim artifacts “should be left in the ground.” He said that Muslims would not tolerate the display of non-Muslim religious symbols. "How can crosses be displayed when Islam doesn't recognize that Christ was crucified?" he said. "If we display them, it's as if we recognize the crucifixion."

Most Saudis probably agree, although the argument can be made that displaying an ancient cross doesn’t necessarily recognize that Christ was crucified but only acknowledges a previous non-Muslim civilization.

Religious symbols aside, there is a precedent in showcasing pre-Islamic items. The museum in Riyadh has a number of pre-Islamic statues. And Riyadh’s King Saudi University has similar items.

This is a sensitive time for Saudi Arabia. We have made tentative steps with the international community by promoting inter-faith dialogue. We have been diligent in sending young university students to other countries where they learn of other cultures. We are throwing open the doors of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology to the world’s best researchers and scientists. Developing a policy to deal with non-Muslim antiquities is a logical step towards continuing to bridge cultural gaps.

Perhaps displays of such artifacts are not the solution, but it’s not unthinkable.

Tribal customs, not Islam, is responsible for male guardianship abuses

2009-08-26T14:08:00.000-07:00

A battle is brewing among Saudi women over the touchy issue of male guardianship. Pressure from outside Saudi Arabia has been building to abolish guardianship laws, and a number of women who fashion themselves as activists have led the charge.

Perhaps the most visible is Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a Saudi who does a little showboating by being driven in a taxi to the border checkpoint to enter Bahrain without permission from a male guardian. She's always turned away by Saudi authorities and told to go home. She is the darling of Western conservatives who think this public demonstration will further the cause of Saudi women.

It's silly. Public acts of defiance are unseemly in Saudi society and few women want to give up their dignity when letter-writing and petition campaigns are more effective.

Additionally, advocating to completely abolish guardianship rules is not a productive means to deal with abuses in the system. The problem with some Saudi activists is that they want to make wholesale changes that are contrary to Islam, which requires a mahram for traveling women. If one wonders why great numbers of Saudi women don't join Al-Huwaider it's because they are asked to defy Islam. Al-Huwaider's all or nothing position undercuts her credibility.

Of course, there are a great many women who are abused and they are seeking to change the guardianship system. And these efforts have sparked a counter-campaign by women who want the system to remain the same.

Recently a campaign called "My Guardian Knows the Best for Me" was initiated in direct response to the anti-guardianship movement. I have mixed feelings about both movements, but I must say the guardianship supporters have me more worried.

The system currently in place is seriously flawed. Saudi authorities have abdicated their responsibility to see that laws are enforced in a fair and equitable manner. It has ceased being a religious issue and is more about patriarchal control.

Many families treat their wives, daughters and sisters with great respect and don't follow their every move. Permission to travel or to conduct business abroad is often granted carte blanche with a signed piece of paper from a mahram. Many women travel freely with this document and consult little with the men in their families about their movements.

But since there are no codified laws, most Saudi women traveling alone don't know from one day to the next whether their documents will pass scrutiny at the airport. And for every family that follows guardianship rules, there is another family that wields the law like a club. It's not a system ripe for abuse. It's already a system abused with regularity.

Guardianship opponents are waging a losing battle if they believe that Saudi authorities will abolish the law. The reality is that there is little incentive for the government to consider anything but maintaining the status quo.

More worrisome is the women's pro-guardianship camp that is perfectly happy for men to control their lives. That's fine for them. They undoubtedly live in households of unquestioned male authority and are pleased with the arrangement. But what about the women abused by the guardian system?

It was reported recently that a Saudi woman protested that her father rejected several potential husbands because they did not belong to the family's tribe. The father confined her to the house as punishment and denied her outside employment. He even sent her to a mental institution when she continued her protests. She sued her father in court, but found herself at the wrong end of a tongue-lashing from the judge who said she did not respect her father. She now lives in a women's shelter.

Here is a clear instance of the Saudi judicial system failing to protect the woman and tacitly endorsing abuse of the guardianship system.

If men follow the spirit of guardianship as outlined in the Qur'an and recognize at the same time there is no place for tribal customs within the system, then a happy medium can be found. But if the Saudi courts fail to implement checks and balances to punish guardianship abusers and to protect the victims, then the laws are pointless.

Tribal customs should not usurp Sharia. Yet, to listen to the pro-guardianship camp, Saudi customs and traditions should indeed be a central part of the system. In effect, they are placing customs and traditions above Islam.

By waging a campaign fully supporting existing guardianship rules dooms thousands of Saudi women to being housebound servants to male family members.

A campaign to encourage guardianship, but also to demand that codified laws protect the abused, makes more sense. Such a system respects an independent woman's right to move about, attend university and marry whomever she pleases. It allows the family to determine a comfort level, but also imposes consequences on guardians who manipulate the laws to their own advantage.

The argument that women are not competent to handle their own affairs is not valid and never has been. More Saudi women than men attend universities in Saudi Arabia and abroad. Most of the money held in banks belongs to women.

How guardianship laws are followed must be a joint decision involving the family. But Saudi judges also need to summon the courage to cast aside customs and traditions when faced with abuse cases and make the right call to protect victims.

Rising crime against Arab tourists could dampen Europe's tourism industry

2009-08-18T20:55:00.000-07:00

This is the high season for Saudi Arabia and airlines are booked solid as Saudis prepare to either spend Ramadan at home or abroad.

GCC tourists have been flocking to favorite spots like Geneva and London, but some European tourism experts are beginning to worry that Gulf tourists may take their spending cash elsewhere.

An incident occurred last month in Geneva that has Swiss tourism officials concerned over the country’s image among Gulf tourists.
A 48-year-old Saudi man was severely beaten outside a Geneva nightclub that left him in a coma for 10 days. Apparently local police did not take the incident seriously until the Saudi Consulate and the victim’s family provided evidence that the victim’s credit card was used by his attackers.

The story got plenty of air time on Al Arabiya. Now Swiss authorities are wondering whether the lax response from police and subsequent media coverage have harmed their image.

“This incident could have a very negative impact on Geneva’s image in the Gulf States,” François Bryand, director of Geneva Tourism, told swissinfo.ch. “It’s clear that it’s one attack on one tourist, but it’s one too many.”

According to Swiss media reports, the Saudi consulate expressed concern that Swiss authorities are failing to deal with the rising number of attacks and harassment of Saudi tourists. There have been numerous incidents of petty thieves preying on tourists in the Lake Geneva area, according to swissinfo.ch.

The Swiss newspaper Tribune de Genève, Moutinot, had sought to arrange a meeting with the Saudi Consulate to discuss how to increase security for tourists.

I don’t see Saudis abandoning Geneva, Paris or London anytime soon because of these reports. These European cities have been favorite tourist spots for Saudis for decades.

In fact, Switzerland’s tourism officials recently reported that the Arab tourists in their country rose by 62 percent between 2003 and 2008. But the first half of 2008 only saw a 0.2 percent rise.

Gulf tourists spend an estimated 164 million euros, or $233 million, annually in Geneva. That accounts for about 10 percent of all tourism euros spent in the city.

Certainly the global economy, rising prices in Saudi Arabia and fears of swine flu factor in the number of Arab tourists leveling off. But there also is an undercurrent of hostility in some Europeans cities. Arabs are sensitive to this and not inclined to spend their money where they are not wanted.

Geneva’s police, according to some media reports, seem to be at a loss on how to detail with the increased crime. But in London the attitude is a bit different. The city has a sizable Arab population and its own restaurants and Arab centric shops in Edgewater.

London’s hotels in particular make it their business to attract and keep Arab tourists in the city. Through November, The New West End Company, which represents 600 London hotels and retailers, expect about 140,000 Arab visitors. And estimated $410 million is expected to be spent by Arabs in London over the summer.

Restaurant open times have been extended. More Arabic speakers have been hired and more Arab chefs have been hired to service food that reminds Gulf tourists of home.

“The Middle East represents the third most important market to us and still the largest percentage of this business comes during the summer months,” one tourism official told the Arabian Business magazine recently.

Perhaps more important, Paula McColgan, director of sales and marketing at The Lanesborough in Hyde Park, told the magazine that, “(We also) have a very advanced security system, which is greatly valued by high profile guests from the Middle East.”

Swiss tourism officials have a long history of catering to Arab clientele, but the country’s law enforcement officials have less experience in dealing with increasing safety concerns for Gulf tourists. They never had to worry about it. Now they do.

London tourism officials don’t have all the answers, but they appear to recognize that in order to keep tourist spending money in their city they first must ensure their safety. Perhaps some lessons can be learned.

Good-minded people are being cowed into submission by shouting race-baiting hooligans

2009-08-12T06:08:00.000-07:00

Last week I had the only nasty encounter with British teenagers in the
two years I have been living in Newcastle.

My sister-in-law and I were standing on a train platform to catch a train to city center when some loud teens walked up and called us “little rats” and asked if we were carrying “bombs” under our clothes.

These boys were boisterous and having fun at our expense. My sister-in-law, who doesn’t speak English and is in Newcastle on a brief visit, was terrified. I pretended not to speak English, hoping they would go away. When they became louder and bolder I asked a woman nearby to call the police.

The boys immediately stopped and attempted to explain they were simply joking. I found nothing to laugh about. I recognize that wearing the hijab draws unwanted attention. But I wonder why I should feel threatened wearing one in a country that prides itself on tolerance
and democracy.

The unprovoked verbal attack has marred an otherwise wonderful stay in the United Kingdom. I enjoy a productive and rewarding collaboration with my teachers and fellow students whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. I have been shown nothing but courtesy and respect.

Perhaps the incident on the train platform was an aberration. It’s hard to say. But it gives me pause to consider where British teens learn that intolerance is acceptable on any level.

The media, of course, fuel much of the attitudes young people have today toward minorities. To read the UK tabloids and billboards paid for by the British National Party, UK citizens must come to the conclusion they are under siege from the unwashed masses of Eastern Europe and Asia.

There is immense pressure today on mosques to teach tolerance in school curriculum, as there should be. Many Islamic faith-based schools are under scrutiny to eliminate discussion of jihad and other references to Christianity and Judaism in the name of tolerance. This is all well and good, but British public schools must be a part of the solution as well.

Certainly the boys so interested in what was under my hijab got their ideas from home. Ignorance breeds ignorance. Yet teaching tolerance appears to be an elective in the British school system. Many school districts refuse to teach cultural studies on the grounds that it’s religious instruction. Parents and teachers have difficulty distinguishing the two.

The British Council reported last year reported that 3 percent of the British population is Muslim. That’s about 1.5 million Muslims in the United Kingdom. Further, 23 percent of the UK’s population declared no religious affiliation in 2001. And an estimated 75 percent of the UK’s
youths between the ages of 18 and 24 have no religious affiliation.

The British Council and a number of privately-funded UK organizations have teaching assistance material and curriculum for local schools on various cultures and religions, but it’s unclear how many educators take advantage of providing classroom instruction. If indeed three-quarters of the country’s youth have no religious affiliation, how are they educated about other religions if not in school?

Bradford, England, has a significant Muslim population and the nearby Rhodesway School has gone to great lengths to provide multicultural programs. School administrators have discussed how to better celebrate religious holidays of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus.

Unfortunately this is an initiative taken by Rhodesway and doesn’t necessarily reflect the rest of the UK’s school systems.

Part of the problem lies in fear. School administrators who see a need to develop multicultural programs and provide classroom lessons in tolerance are often the target of fringe groups and the tabloids. They face accusations of pandering to Islam or indoctrinating UK youths in the teachings of the Holy Qur’an.

By refusing to recognize some of the UK’s young people are blithely spouting racist, Islamophobic and truly hateful comments to strangers is no better than an imam encouraging jihad without proper context.

Ignoring the growing pervasiveness of public condemnation of religious minorities is in many ways another version of the “bystander effect.” The more people witnessing an emergency the less likely they are to help. There’s been a trend in the UK and the United States where people have become paralyzed or unwilling to stand up to abusive race-baiters and anti-reformers.

Here’s an example: In Saudi Arabia there is an element of society that doesn’t want reform and sees literature and the arts as a threat. Standard operating procedure of these groups is to lay siege to a book fair or stage play. They shout verbal abuse, toss chairs around and
intimidate attendees and organizers into submission.

Americans have witnessed this in recent weeks at their own community town hall meetings held by Congressional representatives. The men and women elected to represent their community are verbally abused and shouted down. In some cases the abusers incite violence because they
oppose their representative’s position on issues. Legitimate attendees are denied their right to speak.

The breakdown of public discourse on sensitive issues is redefining the bystander effect. Good-minded people who see a need to teach tolerance and engage in civil discussion are cowed into submission by the shouters. It’s easier to stand by and witness the public demonization of minorities rather than confront and condemn people who use intimidation as a weapon in debate.

The hooligans on the train platform last week are another version of today’s shouters and chair-throwers. Their behavior is endorsed by fringe media pundits passing themselves off as immigration experts.

They are validated by the BNP, which disguises their members’ racism in the cloak of immigration reform. These boys have been denied an education in the classroom on tolerance. Eventually the bystander effect will reach a level that will be difficult to turn back.

New Saudi health minister takes aggressive approach to reform

2009-08-06T05:56:00.000-07:00

It’s a rare thing these days to see a change in leadership in a Saudi ministry, and then for Saudis to witness a sea of reforms occur within a short period of time.

That’s what’s happening at the Ministry of Health following the February appointment of Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabeeah by King Abdullah.

Al-Rabeeah is faced this year with the monumental task of ensuring that Haj is held while minimizing the spread of the swine flu. But if his performance over the past seven month is any indication, he is the right man for the job.

It’s unusual that a cabinet minister takes the time to meet with average Saudis, but Al-Rabeeah, a medical doctor, has made it a point to be accessible to rank-and-file medical staff personnel and even patients.

Just a few months into the new job, Al-Rabeeah announced a series of health reforms to provide better care to patients. The reforms include a new salary schedule for Saudi physicians and pharmacists, who are notoriously underpaid. The new scale will boost salaries by 41 percent and standardize government medical personnel salaries. He also plans a pay structure based on categorizing pharmacists’ positions as pharmacist, senior pharmacist and consultant pharmacist.

Al-Rabeeah also wants to bridge the gap between patient and doctor by developing awareness programs.

But more importantly is the lack of physicians available to treat patients. By late 2008, there were 4,000 patients for every one doctor. Al-Rabeeah hopes to bring that ratio down to 400 patients per doctor. I’m also hopeful that the Health Ministry will complement the Kingdom’s 50,000 doctors by retaining and adding as many Saudi physicians as possible to that number and train more female Saudi nurses.

Al-Rabeeah’s medical training makes him a rare breed among top echelon Saudi government officials. He knows what he is talking about. He is largely responsible for Saudi Arabia’s global reputation in separating conjoined twins. The last successful effort by his own multidisciplinary team occurred recently with the separation of Moroccan twins at King Fahad Medical City. It was the one of nearly two dozen such successful procedures performed in Saudi Arabia.

All of this brings me back to the swine flu epidemic and its potential impact on this year’s Haj.

In June, Saudi health officials recommended that the elderly and very young not join Haj this year. The World Health Organization and the Egyptian government also excluded pilgrims over the age of 65 and younger than 12 from attending. While this will help reduce the number, the fact remains that last year 2.5 million pilgrims performed Hajj. While a reduction in numbers is expected this year, the number still is expected to be extremely large.

The challenges are almost too difficult to comprehend. Worldwide the number of swine flu cases is approaching 150,000. More than 700 people have died, including four Saudis. Those deaths occurred in Al-Ras, Abha, and two in Dammam.

Although not directly related to Haj, the Health Ministry announced recently that it plans to establish an electronic network to improve communications between the Kingdom’s 20 health districts to monitor swine flu incidents. The project includes 500 mobile surveillance machines distributed to physicians, medical support personnel and community leaders.

It remains to be seen whether the project will make a difference in identifying swine flu cases in a timely manner as Haj approaches. But what is encouraging, though, is the Health Ministry’s aggressive proactive approach to stemming the tide of the swine.

Saudi Arabia has experience in dealing with epidemics during Haj seasons. Southwest Saudi Arabia was hit with the Rift Valley fever epidemic in 2000-2001 and there have been similar dengue fever outbreaks. These outbreaks pale in comparison to the deadly swine flu, but Saudis and visiting pilgrims can perform Haj this year with a high level of confidence that Saudi Arabia is prepared.

Saudi women's empowerment can be found at the bank

2009-07-29T06:20:00.000-07:00

Saudi businesswomen have found themselves in a position that may make a lot of people uncomfortable.

What’s hardly news to Saudi women but may come as a surprise to the West is that Saudi businesswomen carry tremendous influence in the Kingdom despite the disadvantages they face. Equally important is that this influence allows women to work around the obstacles that have
become symbols of our so-called oppression.

Indeed, Saudi women must navigate the slippery slope of Saudi society. The obvious issues of driving, male guardianship and the challenges of running our own businesses remain, but it’s by no means a cultural prison.

The reason is simple: Money talks.

John Esposito, who wrote last year “Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think,” has come up with some useful information that busts the stereotypes that are stated so often that many people now take as the truth.

Esposito, an Islamic affairs professor at Georgetown University and a rare Western scholar who can write about Islam with a clear head, estimates that 70 percent of the savings in Saudi banks are owned by women. Time magazine last year pegged the value to be at about $11 billion. That ought to wake up those who feel Saudi women are under men’s thumb. In addition, a great deal of the real estate in Jeddah and Riyadh are owned by women, while 61 percent of Kingdom’s private businesses are owned by females.

Give or take the 5 percent or so for margin of error in Esposito’s study, his findings nevertheless place women in a position of calling the shots both at home and in the workplace. This doesn’t open the floodgates for women to do as they please and reward or punish their husbands by withholding the pocketbook when he wants that new Ferrari.

It’s true that many businesswomen have given up operating business because the climate is often unfriendly. Part of the problem is finding a trustful male agent to represent a female-owned business while dealing with various Saudi agencies.

And two years ago more than 200 Saudi businesswomen complained that the Ministry of Labor continued to place obstacles in their path that hinders progress. They urged an overhaul of the system to ease those hurdles.

Many Saudi businesswomen find a way around these obstacles. And one way is to take their business elsewhere, such as another Gulf country that appreciates the impact Saudi-owned businesses can have on their own economy.

It’s perhaps that Saudi women have managed to work the system so well that the interest in women’s equal rights doesn’t rise to the level that activist organizations so desperately hope for. This is not to say that Saudi women do not want equal rights. To the contrary, but when women have worked so long and have become so adept to manipulating the Saudi system, the response often is, “Well, yes, but I have work to do …”

But consider Esposito’s other findings: Sixty-one percent of Saudi women want the same legal rights men. A majority opinion that was unheard of 10 years ago. Not surprisingly, 69 percent of the Saudi women want the right to work outside the home.

Money has empowered the Saudi female to a degree that had not been considered until recently. The difference today is that Saudi businesswomen have the tools necessary to grow their businesses and hire more women to help run them. The fact that nearly three-quarters
of the female population want the opportunity to work outside the home is not only indicative of their desire, but also the potential to accomplish their goals in the business community.

If the growing numbers of Saudi women who want to work outside the home join business female owners willing to give them jobs, then there is no limit to the kind of influence Saudi women can wield. But then again maybe that’s why the Ministry of Labor can’t find its way to easing the regulations regarding male agents. Too much influence makes the establishment nervous. But Saudi businesswomen still have the upper hand. They can take their money out of the bank and invest it elsewhere.

Okay! Don't let me go to cinemas, but how about the gym?

2009-07-22T07:38:00.001-07:00

One of the puzzling aspects about being a Saudi woman is the pressure from family, peers and even society to be a good Muslim woman. Be modest in public. Show your charms to your husband at home. We have an obligation to look our best.

Equally puzzling are the obstacles thrown in our way at every turn to be that good Muslim woman, not to mention the hypocrisy. For generations the Saudi female has been denied the right to physical exercise, this mundane yet vitally healthy aspect of living an active and happy life that benefits not only the woman but her entire family.

The absence of female physical education in Saudi schools has been for so long that few of us even consider the impact it has had on our society. I never participated in physical education as a child and it was only five years ago that I gave exercise any serious thought when I bought my first pair of walking shoes. For many young women outside of Saudi Arabia, jogging or walking is a part of their lifestyle and the day’s routine. For us in Saudi Arabia, the mere thought of venturing outside for a jog or walk is laughable because it’s considered eccentric. It has nothing to do with the heat.

Just a few months ago, Saudi women discovered that unlicensed women’s gyms were to be shut down. The irony is that the gyms are unlicensed because there is no government authority willing to assume the responsibility of issuing them.

Now comes Dr. Ali Abbas Al-Hakami, who belongs to the Board of Senior Ulema. Dr. Hakami offers women a glimmer of hope that may turn the tide of how Saudi society views the concept of female exercise. Dr. Hakami asserts that not only is exercise for women permitted under Sharia, but is a necessity.

“There is nothing stopping setting up women’s sports clubs provided nothing forbidden by Sharia occurs, such as mixing with men, exposing what should not be exposed, and other issues forbidden by Sharia,” Hakami told a Gulf reporter.

Makes sense. Of course, we have heard that before about women driving. But I still haven’t received my Saudi driver’s license in the mail.

The difference here is that Saudi Arabia is faced with some real urgent health issues. Thirty-five percent of the adult Saudi population is obese. One in four Saudi children has diabetes. Satellite television has brought pressure to Saudi women to look like models. This has led to Lina Almaeena, the founder of the Kingdom’s Jaguars, a women’s Jeddah United Sports basketball team, to point out that many Saudi women suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, or BDD, in which women have a skewed idea of what their bodies should look like.

This is the first I have heard such a thing, but it makes sense. The global community has gotten considerably smaller in the past decade thanks to television and the Internet and the image we have of ourselves has changed dramatically. How can a Saudi woman not compare herself to Tyra Banks or empathize with Oprah Winfrey’s fluctuating weight?

Almaeena, in an interview with a Gulf newspaper, argued that women’s sports are a necessity and no longer an option.

The benefits of physical exercise aside – really, that’s a given – it’s a matter of self-esteem. For all the times Saudi women are told that they are respected and must show respect in return, the Saudi woman must respect herself first. And that is severely lacking, which leads to depression. Consider the fact that Saudi women in general can’t drive, can’t travel alone and must answer to just about everybody in the household before blowing their noses. Then mix in all those helpful critiques from mom, dad, sisters and brothers about your less than perfect body. Suddenly, mental health becomes a real problem.

If our society decides that cinemas are not in the best interest of Saudis and that it’s better to have unannounced inspections of resorts to ensure we are living moral lives, then perhaps we should consider other activities that allow women an outlet other than going to Chili’s on Thursday night.

Licensing women’s sports clubs seems to be a reasonable, although partial, answer to this issues. Saudi women’s options are few these days. If it doesn’t conflict with Sharia, what are we waiting for?

Demonizing hijab-wearing Muslim women for politics

2009-07-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

The battle against religious extremism is getting stranger by the day.Seemingly running out of ideas, new catchphrases and the energy it takes to root out terrorists cells, Western governments have discovered a novel way to attack the apparent root of all evil: the hijab.

I can’t think of a single item of clothing that has gotten government leaders so up in arms that they feel the urge to pass laws banning it from being worn in public places. Religious conservatives and Western lawmakers alike are responsible for turning the hijab into a potent political weapon.

The conservatives are calling Marwa Al-Sherbini, the Egyptian pharmacist murdered in a German courtroom, as the “headscarf martyr” because she died wearing the hijab. She had sued and won a judgment against a man who was convicted of attempting to remove Sherbini’s hijab and calling her a terrorist.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is now leading the charge to ban the burqa in France, equating it as a symbol of oppression against women. France already banned the hijab in public institutions in 2004. Even Sarkozy’s urban policies secretary, Fadela Amara, a Muslim who should know better, is on board to ban the burqa! “I am for the banning of this coffin which kills basic freedoms,” she said.

The hijab, the burqa, or the niqab that a Muslim woman wears, is not a political weapon to be used by governments to wage their battles of ideology. And I, for one, want my hijab back. Wearing it is my choice and nobody’s business but my own. As a Muslim woman I wonder why I must listen to a stranger, a man who probably never had a conversation with a hijabi, tell me what I should and should not wear.

There is a real, although not completely rational, fear among European conservatives of the so-called creeping Islamification. British tabloids raised a stink a few weeks ago that “85 Shariah courts” were operating in the United Kingdom, apparently forgetting that about 80 were simply arbitration panels to settle business and domestic disputes. But the message was clear that Islam was slowly taking over government.

To counter these fears, government leaders are targeting the hijab and burqa as the most obvious symbols of Islam. If law enforcement is seen as incapable of finding basement terrorists or existing laws can’t prevent the migration of Muslims to urban centers because it conflicts with democratic ideals, then banning the burqa and further suppression of the hijab will help placate a jittery public. I suppose the logic here is that if one can’t see symbols of Islam then the threat of violence by Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist.

This Band-Aid approach to a complex issue is kind of like the US government’s habit of passing stiff drug sentencing laws without addressing the root causes of drug abuse. It gives the appearance of action by putting people away for decades without solving a single thing.Worse, Sarkozy’s misguided attempts to “free” Muslim women from “oppression” by making wearing the burqa illegal shines an unnecessary spotlight on these women.

The burqa ban, if indeed passed by French lawmakers, will further victimize Muslim women. Sarkozy’s supporters seem to say that they apparently know better than Muslim women what they should wear or not wear.These proposed laws generate negative attitudes towards the burqa and hijab. Women today already struggle for equity in society, whether it’s in the East or West, but now they will be subjected to further scrutiny for what they wear. I don’t envy the hijab-wearing black woman who inevitably will have three strikes against her while she attends a parent-teacher conference at her child’s school in a predominately white neighborhood.

For all of the West’s insistence that Muslims assimilate into their society, governments have a tendency to set minorities up for failure by throwing enough obstacles in their path that makes integration almost impossible.

I was in California this month and visited a Catholic Church in Los Angeles while wearing my hijab. The earth didn’t shake and the sky didn’t fall. I was treated warmly by the parishioners. During my visit throughout the state I attracted the usual stares from non-Muslims, but I also received a compliment or two. Not once did I feel threatened or treated in a hostile manner.

Yet I wonder whether that friendly climate will change if the US or another Western nation restricted my choice to wear the hijab or banned my sisters from wearing the burqa. Regulating clothing suggests that there is something wrong with it and instantly places the wearer on the wrong side of society’s rules.The rules change depending on the whims of lawmakers who feel the urge to demonize a segment of society.

The West has a long history of demonizing minorities. The Jews, Poles, Irish, Italians and Mexicans can attest to that. Even today there is a movement in the US to deny US citizenship to US-born children of Mexican nationals despite a Constitutional amendment protecting them. Yet California streets and cities bear Spanish names, supermarket shelves are stocked with Mexican foods and virtually every restaurant serves Mexican food. Clearly assimilation has taken place.

But for now demonization seems to be necessary to fight ideological battles. That demon today appears to be the Muslim woman.

Neda's martyrdom is fueled by Western media for all the wrong reasons

2009-06-25T06:45:00.000-07:00

Neda Agha-Soltani deserves to be a martyr.

She was fatally shot on June 20 during the Tehran street demonstrations protesting the outcome of the presidential election. Her death could galvanize reformists who at the moment are quickly losing steam in their bid to have the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thrown out.

But the Western media’s fascination with her death is troubling on several different levels. The American media has no problem replaying the brief YouTube clip of Ned’s horrific death on television or providing a link to it. Yet they would never think of airing similar graphic images of an American woman. American newspapers publish no photos and the networks air no footage of dead or dying U.S. soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet Neda is fair game.

For the complete article, please click on this link to Arabisto.com.

U.S. needs to keep distance from Iran's election mess

2009-06-15T05:06:00.000-07:00

With the Iranian election fiasco that saw President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win by an unlikely 63 percent, the U.S. government would do well to take a page from its own recent presidential election history.

Allegations still reverberate today that George Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore. And no matter how distasteful was that victory, given the events over the last eight years; it was the U.S. Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency.

The U.S. dealt with that election through rule of law, although how that law was applied remains subject to great debate. It was an internal matter solved for better or for worse by the democratic system. Likewise, the Iranian election of Ahmadinejad, whatever its flaws, is an internal issue that should not be the object of meddling by Western governments.

For the complete article please click on this Arabisto.com link.

One of Islam's greatest threats is Dick Cheney and those who bow to him

2009-06-12T05:52:00.000-07:00

I finally discovered the threat to my well-being as a Muslim living in the West. His name is Dick Cheney.

At first I thought the threat was the anti-hijabers who want to pass laws banning head scarves in public buildings because they wanted to liberate the Muslimah from an oppressive patriarchal society. Or maybe it’s because modest women make men nervous. I dunno.

Then I was sure it was Fox News. They did their best to ridicule and then dissect President Obama’s speech to the Ummah. They were certain there were hidden messages to terrorists in his quotes of the Qur’an, and then wondered why he threw Israel and all Muslim women “under the bus” for reasons only they know. But then Fox newsman Shepard Smith expressed alarm over the crazies “way out there on a limb” over Obama. Suddenly, I have warm fuzzy feelings for Fox.

But, no. It’s Cheney.

For the complete article click on this Arabisto.com link.

Saudi academic environment curbs students' growth

2009-06-09T22:43:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege last week to be a delegate at the Saudi International Conference at the University of Surrey in Guildford, which is just south of London. The conference reinforced what I already knew: Young Saudi minds are poised to make great contributions to their country.

The conference was supervised by the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in London. It’s a multidisciplinary scientific conference that focuses on disciplines in the humanities, engineering, health and biomedical sciences, natural sciences and information and communication technologies.

More than 200 papers were presented from graduate students and professors from universities in Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France, Malaysia, Australia and the United States. My humanities paper focused on the role of teachers’ language in promoting classroom interaction. But papers presented in the health and biomedical services and engineering were breathtaking in their complexity and thorough examination of those fields.

What makes this conference stand out from the run-of-the-mill white paper exchanges is to the degree that Saudi graduate students can flourish in an academic environment that promotes – no, a better term is “insist on” – the free exchange of ideas and the emphasis on growth of young people.

It also demonstrates the commitment Saudi Arabia has towards its students to obtain the necessary skills abroad and then return home and implement those skills. The Saudi government accentuated this support by having Saudi Arabian Cultural Attaché Fawzi Bokair and Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom and Ireland, attend the conference.

Prince Nawaf noted in his address to students that the pursuit of knowledge is a challenge that can’t be met successfully without a distinctive set of values. The students are part of King Abdullah’s vision of Saudi Arabia’s future, he said.

By endorsing these kinds of conferences, the government’s long-term goals will be accomplished. That goal is to reduce Saudi Arabia’s role as a consumer society in which most of our goods are imported and our only valued export is oil. If the six economic cities currently under construction are to succeed on a level in which it offers the international community valued expertise in the field of health sciences, engineering and bio-medicine, then it starts with its
graduate students abroad. Western academics and scientists will be imported to the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology to help implement programs and technologies that will lead Saudi Arabia to an economy independent of oil revenue. But Saudi Arabia can’t hope to achieve long-term independent economic prosperity without its sons and daughters taking over and ultimately leading the way.

Yet little of this can be accomplished unless students are given the necessary tools to flourish. The conference at the University of Surrey is dramatically different than any conference held in Riyadh or Jeddah. First, the participants were treated as adults. There was absolutely zero time spent on supervision or ensuring that social etiquette was enforced simply because there was no need.

Saudi men and women worked together, attended sessions together and socialized. There were no partitions in conference rooms, but both men and women kept a respectful distance while in the audience to hear speakers or while working or taking a break. This is taken for granted by Westerners. And those Westerners attending the conference more than likely never thought for a second what a novel environment it is for Saudis not to be distracted by arbitrary rules of personal conduct.

The issue is not whether a single man and single woman can have lunch at the same table or stand side by side in the university courtyard to watch Saudi dancers and singers perform. The issue is that the conference, and by extension the university campus in the United Kingdom and other European countries, is conducive to a learning environment. Just the idea of getting through a two-day conference without interruptions, threats and admonishments from moral authorities can be exhilarating without one even thinking about it. In other words, a lot of work is accomplished. And it was only after it was all said and done that Saudi participants probably realized just how the conference was a unique and productive experience.

I certainly have a bias when it comes to teaching. The top-down authority of the teacher/student relationship doesn’t work as a teaching method. That’s part of my studies at the University of Newcastle. Collaboration between mentor and protégé develops skills not seen in Saudi Arabia. Couple the lack of collaboration with a strict social environment, which could result in severe consequences if the rules are broken, only suppresses the young Saudi mind.

The Saudi International Conference illustrates the need to rethink the restrictions Saudi education officials place on our academic environment in Saudi Arabia.

Obama uses the language of Arabs

2009-06-04T09:17:00.000-07:00

If there ever was a speech by an American president that detailed the complexities of the Middle East with simple common sense it was President Obama’s historic foreign policy address Thursday in Cairo to the Muslim world.

Although the tangibles I had hoped for were missing, Obama’s speech offered something not witnessed in American foreign policy for more than a decade: balance.

There has been considerable discussion in recent days about Obama’s “tough love” attitude towards Israel regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He delivered that message to Israel today but he also gave equal measure to the Arab nations.

For the complete article, please click here.

Gulf online journalism workshop shows divide between bloggers, mainstream media

2009-06-02T05:41:00.000-07:00

Yours truly, center, with Katharine Zaleski, senior
news editor at the Huffington Post, standing,
at the IREX workshop in Dubai.

Last week I was a panelist at a Gulf online writers and journalism workshop in Dubai that brought together the leading GCC online journalists to discuss whether bloggers and mainstream media can co-exist. In other words, can we all just get along.

The two-day workshop was sponsored by IREX-MENA and the United Arab Emirates Journalists’ Association. IREX is a non-profit journalism research and development organization committed to strengthening independent media. Attending were online journalists from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE and Qatar. Jordan, Belarus, Malaysia and the United States also were represented.

The workshop was surprise because I had failed to appreciate just how hard these guys work at a craft that pays nothing, yet they feel such passion for.

And by passion, I also mean courage. Ali Abdulemam, editor at BahrainOnline, was arrested and jailed on charges of defamation for his blogging. Charges are still pending against him.

For the complete article please click here.

Muslims seek substance from Obama, not rhetoric

2009-06-01T01:55:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s trip to Saudi Arabia this week to meet with King Abdullah has raised the expectations of Arabs so high that Obama might set himself up for failure.

Obama’s five-day swing through Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Germany and France promises to engage the worldwide Muslim community “based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.” The White House says he wants to share common goals to fight Islamic extremism and develop a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Already Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to assure Muslims that the United States is not its enemy. He has put his Muslim credentials on the table, noting his background and the fact his father was a Muslim. He has opened the door to Iran for meaningful dialogue. He wants to celebrate our commonality, not our differences

It’s not as if I haven’t heard these promises before. President Bush certainly considered himself a friend of Muslims when he wasn’t railing against Islamofascism. And his “road map” for peace looked pretty good on paper. I must admit, though, that expectations among Arabs and Muslims were not particularly high with Bush.

Obama, however, is going to have a tough act ahead of him. While his Cairo speech is highly anticipated in the Middle East, there is a whiff ceremonial grandstanding on his itinerary. He will visit Buchenwald to remember Holocaust victims and then on to Normandy to commemorate the 65^th anniversary of D-Day. I’m sure that some Saudi ministers will persuade him to join in the traditional Saudi sword dance in Riyadh. It didn’t do much for Bush’s image, so let’s hope Obama pulls it off.

This potential glad-handing makes Arabs nervous and annoyed. It’s fine to engage in this protocol and unite the Ummah with an emotional speech. Saudis also appreciate that Obama has chosen Saudi Arabia, the land of the two holy mosques and the heart of Islam, to discuss the Arab agenda before speaking in Cairo. It’s a positive step towards reconciling with Muslims.

But Arabs expect substance right out of the gate. The primary issues of Middle East peace, as far as the U.S. is concerned, seem to be shifting away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and moving towards dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, routing the Taliban and stabilizing Iraq.

Yet these three issues simply treat the symptoms of the chaos in the Middle East and not the disease itself. For the Muslim on the street, everything starts with Israel. The saber-rattling we see between Israel and Iran is based on each country’s perception of security. Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its behavior in Gaza strike genuine fear in the region. If Obama wants to make an impression, he must focus on the core issue of Israel and Palestine. The ripple effect of Palestinian statehood and the right of return will help the U.S. deal with Iran, Iraq and the Taliban.

But now there is talk among Western diplomats that modifications might be sought in the 2002 Arab Peace Plan, which guarantees Arab recognition of Israel if it returns to its 1967 borders and gives Palestinians the right of return. The right of return seems to bother a lot of Westerners and Israel due to internal security concerns. But Arab leaders are not willing to negotiate this aspect of the plan.

Arab leaders rather see pressure applied to Israel to curb its destructive behavior. The habit has been to pressure Arab leaders to behave because the U.S. views the conflict through the lens of Hamas and Hezbollah’s conduct. To the West, Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel is not conducive to peace. No, it’s not. But neither is the Israel Defense Forces latest incursion into Gaza that left more than 1,000 civilians dead and many more homeless. If Arab leaders are to be held accountable for the actions of Hamas, then the same must be done with Israel. Arabs have given a lot of ground in the past two decades, primarily in watching Israel face international condemnation for its actions, but not held accountable in any meaningful way.

Israeli lobbyists have worked long and hard to protect Israel’s interests, as they should. But it doesn’t mean that Americans must capitulate to Israel under the threat of anti-Semitism.

If Obama is to reach Muslims, then he must risk this threat, knowing the American public will recognize that such charges are specious, and solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He should worry less about negotiating modifications in the Arab Peace Plan and more about how to get a recalcitrant Israel to move towards peace without it alleging anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat.

What Arabs are looking for in the Cairo speech and the visit to Riyadh are tangible statements from Obama that he understands the Arab point of view, willing to convey that message to Israel, and demand that Israel step up to the plate and show some movement to get the plan approved. A timeline that is enforced and doesn’t collapse after the first hiccup from Hamas or the next outrageous statement from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a vital component to Obama's road to peace.

This article was originally published on Huffington Post.

Sabria on Huffington Post

2009-05-31T22:00:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone,

My take on Arab expectations of President Obama's visit to Cairo and Riyadh is posted today on the Huffington Post. Take a look. I will post the column here a bit later.

Cheers!

Isolating Israeli Arabs not the answer to Israel's security concerns

2009-05-27T00:08:00.000-07:00

Israel, in its infinite wisdom, decided that bullying Arabs in Gaza is not enough and has now turned its sights on one-fifth of its population: the Israeli Arab.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel’s ultranationalist party, wants to ban the Nakba, the annual day of mourning held each May 15 to mark the day Israel was established in 1948 and forcing Palestinians into exile. He also wants all applicants for the country’s national identification card to sign a loyalty oath.

To be fair Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the proposals and the bills face a tough road in the Israeli parliament. Loyalty oaths have been bandied about in the parliament before and haven’t gained much traction. But Lieberman seems to think that Arabs, who are citizens of Israel and have all the rights that go with citizenship, are a dangerous lot that threaten Israel’s internal security. Never mind there is little evidence Israeli Arabs pose any great danger.

Naturally, a day of mourning for Israel’s founding more than likely annoys most Israeli Jews. I’d even think it pretty much makes them angry and resentful. But the fact is Israelis – Arabs and Jews -- are protected by the country’s free speech laws. The right to free speech has taken a beating in the post 9/11 years. It used to be that exercising one’s right free speech may mean losing friends and on the rare occasion influencing enemies.

Today unpopular opinion means public condemnation and loss of one’s job. It may also mean a thorough government investigation that usually doesn’t lead to anything other than disrupting one’s life or perhaps a temporary jailing.

The troubling aspect now is that governments like Israel want to dilute that right by passing laws that curb free expression. In the case of the Palestinians’ day of mourning it means three years in prison if convicted. There is immense pressure for society to conform to stated ideals and principles whether one agrees with them or not. Unpopular expression is not tolerated.

Muslim organizations want stricter enforcement of libel and defamation laws. Western ultra-conservatives want anti-war protesters, foreign policy critics and leakers of confidential torture memos charged with treason. Israel is falling in line by attempting to curtail its existing free speech laws.

An ultranationalist party member told the Los Angeles Times recently that it’s inconceivable for Americans to hold protests against their country's independence. Unlikely perhaps, but not inconceivable. This is a country where some Christian religious conservatives staged demonstration at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq, arguing they deserved to die because they and their government supported gay rights. Anything is conceivable.

Westerners will say that Palestinians need to get over 61-year-old grief and move on. The irony, though, is that Israel was founded by people who were driven from their European homelands and lost families to the Holocaust. Today, they feel the need to express their grief in the form of many ceremonies and remembrances. I don’t blame them. But why can’t the Israeli Arab be afforded the same comfort?

Equally troublesome is the empty requirement for a loyalty oath, a relic of oppressive Eastern European regimes, not the least of which was Nazi Germany, and the United States in the Cold War era.

The oath requires that citizens sign an oath expressing loyalty to Israel as "a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state." It’s essentially asking Arabs to renounce their culture and religion so Israelis can feel safer. In the grand scheme of things loyalty doesn’t come with a signed piece of paper. It comes from within the heart. Israeli Arabs haven’t staged any revolutions and it’s unlikely they will. They’ve already expressed in their heart of their feelings about Israel by remaining in the country.

These two issues have sparked great debate among Israelis, indicating great differences of opinion. Rather than creating further divisions with Arabs, perhaps the country’s citizens will find ways to soften those divisions and encourage Israeli Arabs to be part of the community rather than continue to isolate them.

Originally published in the Saudi Gazette.

Saudi elections delay may solve women's vote, transparency issues

2009-05-24T01:09:00.000-07:00

The announcement the other day that municipal elections scheduled this year in Saudi Arabia have been pushed back two years has got me thinking about the long road we have ahead of us for good citizen representation.

The elections were held to great acclaim as the new age in Saudi Arabia when ballots were cast in 2005 and municipal councils were elected. There was the democratic-style campaigning among Saudi liberals, conservatives and businessmen.

The Saudi government quashed protests from Saudi women to be allowed to run for office or at least vote.

We were told our moment hasn’t come. Apparently the country needed time to put infrastructure in place to ensure Saudi society could handle the cataclysmic earthquakes and 100-year floods that would ensue when the first woman stepped into the voting booth.

But here we are four years later and Saudi Arabia has little to show for those elections. And what exactly will 2011 bring? A voice for Saudi citizens in their government? While it is all well and good to elect a municipal council, it would help if we knew what the municipal council did for us. If men were elected to public office, wouldn’t it make sense that the official would be held accountable to the voters who elected him?

For the complete article, please click here.

NOTE: Just a reminder to my readers that my articles originally published at Arabisto.com can be read in full by accessing the link above. My columns originally published in the Saudi Gazette can be read in full on this site each week.

Saudi women must redefine what is 'Saudi society'

2009-05-20T03:50:00.000-07:00

The election of four women to the Kuwait parliament should be an object lesson for Saudi females who wish for the same thing in Saudi Arabia but find the obstacles too daunting.

The four newly elected women last week were among 16 women in a field of 210 candidates running for election. The 16 for years have fought a battle to win a seat in parliament with dismal results. They were attacked by conservatives as unworthy of a parliamentary position. But they returned every election year until they finally persevered. And guess what? The ultra-conservative candidates didn’t win a single seat.

The Kuwait parliament holds considerable power, although the royal family still maintains absolute authority. Yet Kuwait is the most democratic GCC country with a particularly friendly relationship with the United States and other Western countries.

What does this mean for Saudi women?

For the rest of the article please click here.