veiled4allah

young people and the future of Saudi Arabia

The Smithsonian Magazine has a good look at the effect that Saudi Arabia's young population is having on the country:

Saudi Arabia is one of the youngest countries in the world, with some 75 percent of the population under 30 and 60 percent under 21; more than one in three Saudis is under 14. Saudi Arabia's changes are coming not only from the authorities above, but also from below, driven by this young and increasingly urban generation. Even as some of them jealously guard parts of the status quo and display a zeal for their Islamic faith unseen in their parents' generation, others are recalibrating the balance between modernity and tradition, directing bursts of new energy at civil society and demanding new political and social rights. "We must face the facts," said al-Maeena, who is 54. "This huge youth population will determine our future. That's why we need to watch them carefully and train them well. They hold the keys to the kingdom."... ...In dozens of conversations with young Saudis in five cities and a village, it became obvious that there is no monolithic Saudi youth worldview. Opinions vary widely on everything from internal reform to foreign policy to the kingdom's relations with the United States and the rest of the West. Regional, ethnic and religious differences also remain. Young Saudi Shiites often feel alienated in a country whose religious establishment often refers to them as "unbelievers." Residents of Hijaz, a cosmopolitan region that encompasses Mecca, Jeddah and Medina, regularly complain about the religious conservatism and political domination of the Najd, the province from which most religious and political elites hail. Some Najdis scorn Hijazis as "impure Arabs," children fertilized over the centuries by the dozens of nationalities who overstayed a pilgrimage to Mecca. And loyalty to tribe or region may still trump loyalty to the state. But despite these differences, the kingdom's baby boomers seem to agree that change is necessary. And collectively they are shaping a new national identity and a common Saudi narrative.

I recommend reading the whole thing if you want to get past stereotypical ideas about Saudi Arabia.

first women to win in Saudi elections

Asharq al-Awsat reports that two women won in the first election in Saudi Arabia in which women were allowed to run as candidates:

Two Saudi businesswomen swept to an unprecedented victory in elections to the board of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the first polls in which women stood as candidates in the conservative Muslim kingdom. "I'm happy, but I'm still under shock," Lama al-Suleiman, one of the two winners, told AFP, summing up the feelings of many election activists and watchers who had expected one woman at best to be voted into office. "It's a big leap for Saudi women, an answer to what people want," said Suleiman, a 39-year-old mother of four. Suleiman and fellow female winner Nashwa Taher ran on a list of heavyweight business people and industrialists which clinched the 12 board seats up for grabs, according to results released early Wednesday. With only 100 women among the some 3,880 chamber members who cast ballots, the pair's victory was effectively handed by men. "We should give them (women) a chance because they have little representation in society," one male voter said Tuesday, adding he had voted for four women.

May this be a good trend for the future, inshallah.

another step forward for Saudi women

Asharq al-Awsat reports on the first woman to head a university department in Saudi Arabia:

The Head of King Saud University announced the appointment of Professor Nadia Mohammad Saleh al Ghoraimel as the new Chair of the Information Technology department for women at the Faculty of Computer Science and Information, the first time a woman is selected for this post. According to the Dean, Dr. Sami bin Saleh al Wakil, Professor al Ghoraimel is the first Saudi woman to head a specialized department at the university. Traditionally, a member of the teaching staff were chosen to work closely with the male department at the main campus in Dariya. The recent creation of a separate department for women with a number of distinguished professors and lecturers who hold postgraduate degree from world-renowned universities in the field of computer science and information meant a female chairperson became a possibility. Recognizing the important and effective role women play in the development f Saudi society, the selection committee put forward the name of Professor Ghoraimel for the vacant head of department position. Dr. al Ghoraimel has a B.A degree in Computer applications from the King Saudi University with distinction, an M.A in Computer Science in Program Engineering and a PhD in Computer Science from the George Washington University in the U.S. She specialized in graphics and databases with a minor in multimedia and education. The winner of the Prince Bandar bin Sultan award for scientific distinction, she has worked at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center as an analyst and designed computer software. She was also a member of various professional committees as lecturer and then assistant professor at the IT department at the King Saud University.

Congratulations to Professor Ghoraimel!

straight talk on Saudi Arabia

Juan Cole (who is a professor of Middle Eastern Studies) tries to set the record straight on Saudi Arabia:

That Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, with a poor human rights record and an inexplicable determination to stop women from driving or voting, is indisputable -- and a fair basis for criticism. But many myths persist about the kingdom. Often Saudis are hated for being rich (ironically suffering this fate with Americans). While the top tier of princes is made up of billionaires, few of them can compete with the leading American CEOs. As for the Saudis in general, the kingdom's estimated per capita income in 2004 was only $12,000 a year. That of Spain is about $23,000. Moreover, such a figure is artificial in an oil economy, since the petroleum income fluctuates a good deal (in 2000 the per person income was $8,000 a year). And, of course, it is not divided up equally, as the figure implies. In fact, if the government attempted simply to distribute so much money to individuals, it would cause enormous inflation and eat up the value of the money. There is plenty of poverty in Saudi Arabia. With regard to foreign policy, though, you might think that an Arab leader who courageously sought a comprehensive peace in the Middle East for both Israelis and Palestinians, who opposed the disastrous Iraq war, and who helps keep the U.S. economy afloat by recycling vast petrodollars into investments in this country would inspire at least mixed feelings among the American left. Instead, Saudi Arabia has been pilloried by figures such as Michael Moore, whose film "Fahrenheit 9/11" crudely demonizes the kingdom as part of its simple-minded effort to paint George W. Bush as a pawn of Big Oil. In the film, Moore ominously points out that dozens of Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, departed the United States on Sept. 13 and 14, 2001, after the terror attacks. But there was nothing shady about the Saudis leaving when they did. Plane flights were allowed again on Sept. 13, and many people flew then. The Saudis certainly had reason to be afraid. Some 30 Saudis were interviewed by the FBI before they left, and all the flights were approved by the bureau, according to the 9/11 Commission report. The idea that members of the Saudi elite knew about 9/11 beforehand, which the film at least hints at, is ridiculous. They would not have been in America if they had had any inkling of the plot, since anyone could foresee that they would be in danger from an enraged U.S. public. Moore admits that the Saudi government is heavily invested in the United States and, in fact, criticizes the extent of the investments, which most sources vastly overestimate. (No one who knows anything serious about economics would, in any case, consider it a bad thing that the Saudis put money into the U.S. economy.) So why, even if one discounted the genuine liking for America and Americans among educated Saudis, would they want to destroy the value of their own portfolios? Bin Laden announced his goal of overthrowing the Saudi royal family and had his Saudi citizenship revoked in the early 1990s. The Saudi establishment plays hardball with such challengers. Although one often hears that 13 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis, the statistic is meaningless. Nineteen persons is not a big enough number on which to base any generalization. The brains of the operation were an Egyptian, a Lebanese and a Baluchi from Pakistan brought up in Kuwait. Bin Laden clearly chose the Saudis he sent on the mission, for the most part just muscle to control the passengers, precisely in the hope of disrupting American-Saudi friendship. The al-Qaida members chosen, in exile in Qandahar, would have been shot on sight if they had shown up in Riyadh. Moore and others also charge that the Saudi royal family has a special relationship with the Bush family. As Max Rodenbeck argued in the New York Review of Books, this charge is mainly based on circumstantial evidence that does not hold up well to scrutiny. Most of the Saudi investments or contracts cited have to do with defense corporations, one of which has been training royal bodyguards for decades. Some of these firms were owned for a time by the Carlyle Group, on the board of which George H.W. Bush served. But the Saudi relationship with the firms preexisted the Carlyle purchase of them and survived its sale of them. It is certainly true that the Saudis cultivate American leaders, but like all good lobbyists, they do so on a bipartisan basis.

It bothers me to see the unrestrained Saudi-bashing in some quarters of the liberal blogosphere, which sometimes seem to mirror the views of some neoconservatives that Saudi Arabia is the "kernel of evil" and everything about it or from it is bad. A lot of times, this seems to be motivated at least in part by wanting to take shots at Bush. Yes, Saudi Arabia is a very oppressive country. Anybody who isn't a Saudi male, including not only women, but also immigrants including other Muslims and even other Arabs, are often treated legally as second-class citizens and inferior. But Saudi Arabia is also a very divided country. Or to put it another way, they are not all alike. There are different movements among Wahhabis, and also a group called the Qutubis, who are the actual jihadists. One of the best overviews is Saudi Arabia Backgrounder: Who are the Islamists? (PDF, free registration may be required) from the International Crisis Group. See also my blog entries on Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Don't forget to check out: * Wahhabis condemning terrorism * Top Saudi cleric condemns terrorism * Saudi scholars condemn violence * Saudi clerics condemn terrorism in front of 2 million Muslim pilgrims I hope that we can move past stereotypes and simplistic black-and-white views and understand that Saudi Arabia is a country of good, bad, and in between, just like every other country.

the Saudi civil war

One of the topics I occasionally post on here is that the interests of the Saudi regime and of Bin Laden are not the same; in fact, one of Bin Laden's main goals is to bring down the Saudi regime. I first introduced this topic in Wahhabis condemning terrorism. That post looks at the background of the two ideologies (Wahhabism and Qutubism, the latter being Bin Laden's ideology). The next post was Wahhabis and Qutubis, which presents further information on the disputes between the two groups. Subsequently, I posted an article to my clip blog called On Terrorism, Methodism, Saudi "Wahhabism" and the Censored 9-11 Report, in which historian Gary Leupp looks at the history of the Wahhabi movement. Finally, I posted What direction for Saudi Arabia?, featuring another article, this one by Muslim scholar Muqtedar Khan, who looks at the "Saudi civil war" between the ruling family and the militants in the country who oppose it. Along similar lines is Al Qaeda on the march, which looks at recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia:

The Islamic militant attack on the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Monday is evidence that a major showdown with the Saudi government is in the works. The Saudi rulers are now at the receiving end of what al-Qaeda-practiced militant jihadism has in mind: to bring down that dynasty, and an end of the era in which the birthplace of Islam sounded nothing more than the personal fiefdom of the Saudi family... ...Saudi rulers' own perspectives regarding militant jihad were largely focused on expelling the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s. After that, the major purpose of their political and religious activities in Central Asia, or even in such countries as Indonesia and the Philippines, was to promote Wahhabi Islam, not necessarily militant jihad. However, they did not have much objection if al-Qaeda harped on it in Central Asia, China or even Russia. The September 11, 2001, attacks on the US started an era when Saudi Arabia was eventually forced to revisit its lackadaisical approach toward militant jihad. Since the US became a victim of it, it also demanded a major doctrinal revision of it. However, it is easier said than done. The doctrine of militant jihad is not something that can be tinkered with at will, or supported/opposed based on changing political objectives and realities. The preceding in essence describes the dilemmas of the Saudi government today. Washington thinks Riyadh has the capability to deprive jihad of its militancy simply because it is being used against the US. About the best the Saudi rulers may be able to do is to instruct a group of Islamic scholars who are on their payroll to issue new fatwas (edicts), stating something to the effect that "changed circumstances no longer warrant its applicability, etc". But fatwas along those lines have no papal authority, since no such power exists in Sunni Islam. As the US and Saudi bureaucrats argue and bicker over these legal issues, al-Qaeda seems bent on operating on the basis of its own version of global jihad, whose two chief purposes are to overthrow the Saudi government and continue to harm the US, its citizens and its assets anywhere and everywhere. The Saudi-al-Qaeda conflict, though it has not yet reached its final stage, has undeniably reached a point of no return. It will have to result either in the eradication of al-Qaeda or the end of the Saudi regime. No one knows that better than the Saudi government.

migrant workers in Saudi Arabia

Almost exactly a year ago (where does the time go?) I posted about the mistreatment of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia. That post noted that this mistreatment is not uniquely directed at Palestinians but rather is directed at all non-Saudis. Human Rights Watch recently released a report on the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. The exploitation of immigrant workers is not limited to Saudi Arabia, of course. To learn what Islam teaches about how workers should be treated, see The Quran and Worker Justice (PDF). As is often the case, this reprehensible practice is not only not part of Islam, but in fact is condemned by it. Just a reminder, folks.

a tiny step forward

Saudi Arabia to hold municipal elections

Saudi reformists on Tuesday hailed as a major step a government decision to hold elections for the first time in the absolute monarchy but hoped it would not be a one-off move to appease growing calls for reform. Saudi analysts said plans for municipal polls were a signal the government was serious about expanding popular participation in the kingdom which has come under pressure from inside and in the West to grant more freedoms and quash militancy. "What is taking place in Saudi Arabia is a very radical reassessment of the social contract," the English-language Arab News daily said in an editorial. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in the capital Riyadh on Tuesday in a rare show of public opposition, demanding reforms, during the kingdom's first human rights conference. Abdul Rahman al-Sueilam, head of the Saudi Red Crescent Society, said the government was trying to reach out to citizens by introducing local elections. "This step reflects the changes and developments taking place in the Saudi society. We are optimistic that this step is an attempt to allow society to participate in order to sense their needs," Sueilam told Reuters. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, has come under intense scrutiny after the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Abdullah al-Hamed, a former university professor who was jailed after signing the first reform petition in the early 1990s, said nothing short of a move towards a constitutional monarchy with a parliament would reassure citizens. "On the surface this is a step in the right direction...But we are facing the challenge of violence, and many people support Osama bin Laden and his likes, and this step does not meet this challenge," he told Reuters by telephone. "We need a publicly announced government reform strategy for a constitutional monarchy, separation of powers, a parliament and announcing civil, economic and social rights of citizens." He said the one-year timeframe to prepare for municipal polls showed the state was aware it could not afford to waste time. But he said it was not clear if councils would be merely advisory like the appointed consultative Shura Council or if they would have power. Election regulations are also not known. The cabinet said half of council members would be elected. EXPERIMENTING WITH DEMOCRACY In taking this action Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, has joined a growing trend towards experiments in democracy in the mainly conservative Gulf region. Analyst Dawoud al-Shiryan said the move would help curb militancy by providing channels for people to air grievances other than through violence. "This step was a message directed internally and externally that there is a serious (intention) for political and economic reforms." King Fahd has pledged to expand reforms and the kingdom has launched a national dialogue centre to promote tolerance. Reformists have repeatedly petitioned de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah to allow wider political participation, elections, freedom of expression and fair distribution of wealth in the country, the world's largest oil exporter. "So that we are not left standing on one foot, we need faster steps to establish a national foundation based on mutual trust, public opinion and to narrow the gap between the government and citizens to build a more stable foundation in our long journey ahead," the leading al-Riyadh daily said.

Palestinians in Saudi Arabia

In order to learn more about immigration law and keep up to date on what is happening, I recently subscribed to an email list that each week sends out links to recent decisions issued in immigration law cases. One of the decisions issued this week was in the case of Ahmed v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3315 (3rd Cir. Aug. 20, 2003) (PDF document). Omar Ahmed was born in Saudi Arabia but was of Palestinian descent (his parents moved to Saudi Arabia). Ahmed arrived in the U.S. in 1995 on a visitor visa, which he overstayed. He was caught by Immigration and put in deportation proceedings. It was at this point that he sought asylum in the U.S. In order to be granted asylum, an immigrant must show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country on account of his belonging to some social group. Ahmed based his asylum claim on the treatment given to Palestinians in Saudi Arabia:

The IJ [immigration judge] recognized, based on Ahmed’s testimony, that Palestinians in Saudi Arabia are relegated to officially sanctioned second-class status incorporated into the legal and social structure of Saudi Arabia. Ahmed sought to portray this treatment as persecution providing grounds for asylum. He testified that although his parents have lived in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and Ahmed was born in the country, neither he nor his parents have been able to obtain Saudi citizenship because Saudi Arabia reserves citizenship for people of Saudi descent. To remain in the country, Palestinians must renew their residence permits every two years for a fee of 2,000 Riyals (about $530). Palestinians must also be "sponsored" by a Saudi Arabian citizen to own real property, work, or own a business. To illustrate the harsh effects of this requirement, Ahmed related that his father had successfully operated and expanded a grocery store for 15 years, only to see his Saudi sponsor - the de jure owner of the store - take the business away once it became profitable. Each time a Palestinian wishes to change jobs, he must change sponsors for a fee of 6,000 Riyals (about $1,600). Ahmed testified about his experience while growing up in Saudi Arabia. He was barred from certain activities during high school and initially was not allowed to attend a university because he was an alien. Although he was able to gain admission to King Saud University in Riyadh because of his talent for soccer and the connections of a family friend, he was forced to study political and administrative science at the university because aliens could not choose their own topic of study. After graduating from the university and searching for a job for more than a year, Ahmed was hired in 1993 to sell cars. He testified that he was paid one-third as much as his Saudi counterparts and had to work significantly longer hours.

It's well known that the Arab countries have failed to give Palestinian refugees a real home in their countries. Apparently their "solidarity" for Palestine doesn't extend to helping out actual Palestinians. This is shameful and a disgrace. And Saudi Arabia's policies make a mockery of their claim to be an "Islamic state" (though many of their other laws already did that, as I have pointed out on other occasions). The group of Muslims who like to claim that Saudi Arabia is some sort of Islamic ideal should have an interesting time trying to justify Saudi's racist immigration policies even against other Muslims. Incidentally, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of two lower immigration courts in denying Ahmed asylum, on the grounds that the treatment he faced in Saudi Arabia did not rise to the level of persecution, nor was it targeted only at Palestinians (all non-Saudis face similar restrictions).

what direction for Saudi Arabia?

In Saudi Arabian-U.S. Relations at Crossroads, Muqtedar Khan examines the U.S.-Saudi relationship. First, he analyzes the Saudi ruling regime, noting:

Saudi Arabian foreign policy has been guided by the singular overriding desire of regime continuity. In spite of its claims that it is an Islamic state, Saudi Arabia has remained consistently pragmatic and rational in foreign relations: It has not used Islam as a criterion for them, as Iran has. Saudi leaders have, however, used Islam as a legitimizing tool, first to boost their domestic constituency by building a strategic alliance with Wahhabi Islam, and then to court the global Muslim community with the expansion and lavish redecoration of the holy mosques in Mecca and Medina and the financing of Islamic projects worldwide.

He then examines what he calls the "Saudi Civil War", the battle between the regime, which has closely tied its fortunes to the U.S., and Islamist groups, like that of Bin Laden, who want to see the Saudi regime replaced by what they consider to be a purely Islamic state. He writes:

The fervor of Islamic resurgence has led to a widespread call for regime changes in most of the Muslim World. Islamists have come to power in Iran and Sudan but have failed to everywhere else, with particular lack of success in Egypt and Algeria. Meanwhile the United States, in collaboration with Pakistan and the Saudis, has produced a new type of Islamic fighter, the modern mujahedin, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and thus Bin Laden was created. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, this new breed of Islamic fighters turned to new battlefields. Some chose Kashmir and others chose Bosnia and Chechnya. But Bin Laden decided to go home and try to make Saudi Arabia a more Islamic state. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is considered by many Muslims as off limits for non-Muslims, infuriated Bin Laden and acted as a catalyst to exacerbate the conflict between the kingdom and the prince of mujahedin. In the Saudi civil war that resulted, the United States took sides and has since worked to protect the regime from terrorists as well as other Arab threats, such as former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Over the years Islamists in Egypt, such as Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's right-hand man and mentor, had concluded that Egypt could not be transformed as long as it enjoyed U.S. support. Bin Laden soon reached the same conclusion about Saudi Arabia.

Khan then examines the U.S.'s dilemma:

Now the United States faces the daunting challenge of protecting as well as reforming Saudi Arabia. It needs the present regime to stabilize geopolitics and the oil economy. Regime change in Saudi Arabia could bring pro-Bin Laden forces to power. Maintaining status quo is also unacceptable because Sept. 11 happened as a result of existing conditions in the kingdom. Even though U.S. President George W. Bush has repeatedly proclaimed that his administration will go after all those who harbor and support terrorists and that he hopes to democratize the entire Middle East, it is generally understood that Saudi Arabia is excluded from both these measures. But the United Sates cannot continue to keep the Saudi Arabian issue on the back burner. There are many issues and questions with regards to Saudi Arabia; they cannot remain classified for long. If democracy will reduce terrorism, then we must talk democracy in Saudi Arabia. If liberal Islam promotes dialogue and co-existence, then we must help make the voices of liberal Muslims in the kingdom heard over the cacophony of the fatwa regime. In the war on terror, the Saudi regime and the United States have common interests and common enemies. Perhaps a more open dialogue between the two will help them protect their interests. For their part, the Saudis have depended on two routes to security--the United States and Wahhabi Islam. Now both countries are at the crossroads.

what do the Saudi people really think?

The highly-respected polling firm, Zogby International, recently conducted a survey of the attitudes of ordinary Saudi Arabian citizens about terrorism, Bin Laden, American culture, and American policy:

In July 2003, working with our Lebanese partner Information International, SAL, ZI began a nationwide study of Saudis from four principal areas of the country (Riyadh, Jeddah, Damman, and Abha). In all, a random sampling of 600 Saudis was surveyed in face-to-face interviews. The margin of error for the study is 4.1 %. Summary of the Findings While establishing that policy strains remain central to defining Saudi attitudes toward the U.S., our findings challenged many of the unfounded assumptions that exist regarding Saudi views. Saudis almost unanimously reject the use of terror attacks against innocent civilians. When asked "is the killing of innocent people ever justified", 99% of our respondents replied "no", only one percent indicated "yes" as their answer. More than nine out of 10 Saudis reject bin Laden's actions which have killed thousands of innocent civilians. In separate questions, they state that these actions are not consistent with Islam and their own values as Saudis. 94.5%, for example, agreed with the statement that Osama bin Laden's actions, "that have killed thousands of innocent civilians on a number of continents" are "not consistent with the values of Saudis." 88% agreed that those actions "are not consistent with the values of Islam." Only 2.5% and 1.5% respectively disagreed with each of these statements. At the same time 99% of all Saudis agreed that the May 12, 2003 terrorist bombings that struck the expatriate compound in Riyadh "was inconsistent with their values as Saudis and Muslims." More than 9 out of 10 agreed that "innocent civilians in the U.S. did not deserve to die in the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York City." More than eight out of 10 say that "Osama bin Laden does not speak for me and my family." While showing strong negative views toward U.S. policy in the Middle East, specifically toward Palestine and Iraq, and displaying an almost 10% decline in favorable attitudes toward some of the manifestations of America (since the April 2002 poll) more than nine in 10 indicated that "the people of Saudi Arabia have no quarrel with the American people." When asked to rate the importance of several issues, Saudis ranked their concerns in the following order: personal finances, employment opportunities, Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, political reform, terrorism. 96% said that their "personal finances" were "very important", 85% said "employment opportunities" were "very important", while 51.5% said the same about the Arab-Israeli conflict. 36.5% said Iraq was "very important" and 35% and 27.5% respectively said that political reform and "terrorism" were "very important". Finally, when asked to give their overall impression about U.S. policy toward Palestinians and Iraq our respondents displayed largely negative views. Only six percent have a favorable attitude toward the U.S.'s Iraq policy and only one percent have a favorable view of the U.S.'s Palestine policy, with negative attitudes toward those policies being 81.5% and 93.5% respectively.