Posts
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.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Idiocy of the Anti-Sharia Crowd
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
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
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Only a woman minister for proposed Ministry of Women's Affairs will work
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.
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
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!
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!
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A nutty cponsiracy theory
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Why I hate the burqa
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.
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.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The only running Saudi women do is at malls and airports
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.
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.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The real abuse of Saudi women
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.
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.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Saudi rehab program for terrorists proves skeptics wrong
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)