Buttressing a Failing System

Director’s Comment: By decreeing the formation of a constellation of power-hungry and competing royal princes to determine who among them should rule after he and his designated replacement, Crown Prince Sultan either die or cannot govern, King Abdullah put an end to speculations and hopes for power sharing with his disenfranchised subjects. Instead of opening the political process and empowering the people to help determine their future and the fate of their important but unstable country, King Abdullah reinforced his family’s exclusionary and authoritarian political structure, his government’s contested interpretation of Islam and the use of religion to justify the royal family’s legitimacy. The Saudi people see Abdullah’s formation of the Allegiance Council and the staffing of it only by members of the royal family as an expansion of the royal family’s continuing control over Saudi Arabia, its wealth and Muslim holy shrines. While there are some, especially in the West, who see the selection of the king and the crown prince as a positive step toward reform, the Saudi people see it as a rejection of political participation by the people.

Having succeeded in the weakening of US influence (some argue defeat) in Arab and Muslim countries and in causing a split between the US and its traditional European allies, the Saudi royal family feels freer now to ignore or reject any US pressure to change its course of action in regard to political reforms in Saudi Arabia. This translates to the continuation of religious extremism and the exportation of Wahhabi deadly ideology. Not only will religious intolerance and extremism continue due to lack of progress in political reforms, but so will rampant corruption, lack of accountability and transparency, as well as strengthening of religious extremists. Read More

Tormenting the Victim

Director’s Comment: The vindictive punishment in the form of 200 lashes and six months imprisonment given to a 19-year-old Saudi rape victim, known as bint Al-Qatief (daughter of Qatief, a Shiite town in eastern Saudi Arabia), generated unprecedented international and domestic condemnation of the arbitrary Saudi judicial system in late November of 2007. A little over one year ago, the then 18-year-old rape victim was spotted with a man in a car parked next to a busy area. Two men approached them, snatched them out of the car, and took them to an empty structure nearby. Five other men were waiting, and raped them repeatedly. Each man raped the woman twice, leaving her gasping for air. This rape victim is not an exception in the Saudi government’s arbitrary judicial system. Saudi women have no rights under the present political structure and all of its institutions. They cannot do much of anything without the consent of their male guardians, most of whom see women as property. This reality is inst itutionalized and enforced by the Saudi government’s institutions, as exemplified by the cruel punishment of the rape victim in this enduring saga. In most cases, abused Saudi women and especially rape victims do not dare to protest. They are aware that they would be faulted by the Saudi religious court system for being raped, just as was bint Al-Qatief. In addition, they fear the idea of being slaughtered by their male relatives to protect artificial male “honor." Under the Saudi system, women are always accused of instigating male sexual aggression; therefore, if men rape them, they must have deserved it. This is the reason women are forced to clad themselves in the stifling and disfiguring black abaya.

Unlike judicial systems in democratic societies, the Saudi judicial system was designed to protect the Saudi royal family after whom the country is named. Staffed by religiously trained (in the austere Wahhabi brand of Sunni Islam) and royally appointed judges, the Saudi courts implement the Saudi government’s chauvinistic and discriminatory policies against women instead of examining facts and protecting people from criminals such as the rapists of bint Al-Qatief. This case is a glaring example of maltreatment and marginalization of Saudi women. Women, religious minorities, and non-Muslims have very little, if any rights at all in Saudi Arabia. These groups are long condemned before they face their staunch enemies, the religious judges. Bint Al-Qatief is additionally condemned as a Shiite, a sect of Islam considered to be blasphemous by the majority of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and in other Arab and Muslim countries. Because of their Islamic religious orientation, the Sh iite minorities are treated with disdain in Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst offenders because of its narrow interpretation of Islam and historical animosity toward Shiites. Even if the victim was having an affair, which is doubtful because it had not been mentioned before the global outrage against the barbaric verdict, this is still irrelevant. Saudi princes and princesses, as well as Saudi men in general, travel the globe to spend billions of dollars annually in pursuit of sexual indulgence, drugs, and alcohol. While many Saudi men indulge in sexual activities abroad, Saudi women are forced to stay behind high walls or to ask their expatriate male drivers to take them for rides around town, even for the simplest of tasks such as buying groceries. Read More

Misreading the Saudis – Annapolis

Director’s Comment: We, at the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, have received many inquiries asking for our opinion about the Saudi presence and participation at the November 27th Annapolis conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our answer is simple: the Saudi foreign minister was dispatched to make sure no deal could be accepted without the approval of Hamas.

Based on past history, the goal of the Saudis is to make sure that Palestinian extremist groups gain power and that Jerusalem remains a Muslim city under Muslim control, preferably the Sunni-Wahhabi brand of Islam. The Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, did not come to Annapolis to show support for the more secular Abbas Palestinian delegation as described by political pundits. He came to make sure that the Palestinians did not agree to anything that would exclude the Saudi-trusted ally, Hamas. The inclusion and full participation of Hamas would be in alignment with Saudi interests, as the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance would like to see Jerusalem remain under total Muslim control. This is a stated Saudi governmental policy. Those who described the Saudi presence at Annapolis as a positive sign are the very same people who called on the Saudi royal family to pressure Arafat to conduct free elections and fight corruption as Afrafat squandered the Palestinian people’s donat ed foreign aid. Read More

Is it Islam That Non-Muslims Resent?

Director’s Comment: Praising Queen Rania of Jordan’s noble stand on dispelling the myths about the Hijab, or women’s face covering, in an interview on Oprah, author Ezrinal Azis quoted her majesty the Queen of Jordan as having said, "The Hijab is a choice — a woman wears the Hijab because she believes in it and she has the right to wear it, not because she is forced to." This may be true in Jordan, but in Saudi Arabia it is far from the truth. If a woman does not wear the Hijab in Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Islam and the home to its two holiest shrines), she incurs humiliation, interrogation, stigmatization and sometimes even severe lashings and prison sentences.

In addition, Westerners and non-Muslims do not reject Islam simply because it is Islam. They resent the faith because of what is being done in its name and its Shariah laws, such as stonings, the oppression of women and religious minorities, incitement and fatwas against non-Muslims, the endless supply of suicide bombers, violent criminal punishments, and intolerance of non-Muslims.

In reality, Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, and non-Muslim shrines and statues are not allowed in many Muslim societies. If they do exist, they may be attacked and demolished. Instead of being defensive of what is obviously wrong, we Muslims must focus on revisiting the interpretation of the Qurán, the Shariah law and the Hadith. We must strive to find out whether Islam has been hijacked by extremists and dictators or if it is an inherently violent and intolerant faith, as many non-Muslims and even a small number of Muslims say and think. This is our challenge, and the sooner we can accomplish it, the better. Read More

How to achieve Rights for Muslim Women

Director’s Comment: The recently highlighted rape cases in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not exceptional. Unfortunately, these cases are representative of the plight of millions of Muslim women worldwide. The maltreatment and marginalization of Muslim women in the name of Islam calls for a new interpretation of the Quran and Shariah law under which, “There can be no full rights or protection for Muslim women as interpreted and implemented now.” Only under codified rule of civil law and democratically designed non-sectarian constitutions can all citizens (rulers and ruled) of Muslim societies be protected. As long as men continue to interpret and apply the Quran and Shariah laws as they see fit, people’s rights will always be subject to zealots and authoritarian regimes that have used religion to control, expropriate, punish, and terminate the lives of those who disagree with their gove rnance. Read More

Apartheid Bordering Modern Slavery

Director’s Comment: The recent Saudi royal religious court’s cruel ruling against a 19-year-old gang raped victim and the revoking of her courageous lawyer, Mr. Abdurrahman Al-Latham’s license, generated global condemnation. The blatant unjustness of this system should convince the West that the Saudi government (royal family) is operating an Apartheid system of the lowest order.

Segregating women and denying them legal protection against institutionalized rampant injustices, as well as the right to full employment and independence from their male relatives, who control their lives and movements, could be considered modern slavery. The Saudi government’s institutionalized discriminatory and segregationist policies against women are similar, if not identical, to those practiced under the former repulsive Apartheid system against black people in South Africa.

The steadfastness of Western democracies and human rights groups against the Apartheid system brought it down; the same actions should be employed to remind the Saudi royal family that ostracizing and denying Saudi women their full rights as human beings and as citizens is not only immoral and in stark disregard to basic respect for human rights, but a direct support for religious extremists that train and send young Saudi men to slaughter innocent people all over the world.

Acquiescing to the Saudi institutionalized offense against women is not only depraved, but indirectly supports the institutions that created and perpetuate an Apartheid system that should have been abolished long ago. The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, located in Washington D.C., calls upon the U.S. government, NGOs, and the international community to label the Saudi system for what it is: An Apartheid system of governance. The transformation of Saudi institutions by peaceful means is not only necessary, but long overdue. Read More

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL:

http://www.cdhr.info/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/u/[list]/

If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break this automatic unsubscribe mechanism.

If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at:

newsletter@PROTECTED

Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail