Unforgivable Saudi crimes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 The House of Saud continues to cause immense damage to the Ummah. Their wrath is especially reserved for women and expatriate workers. They do not want women to be seen, only used by lecherous Saudi men. The worldwide Muslim Ummah faces a serious dilemma vis-à-vis the Saudi rulers. They have been in occupation of the Arabian Peninsula since 1932 when they invaded the Hijaz with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah and declared their desert kingdom. While claiming to be governed by the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the noble Messenger (pbuh), the fact that they call themselves a kingdom ruled by a king goes against the basic tenets of Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an. The noble Messenger (pbuh) and his illustrious successors never called themselves kings or princes. Nor did they allow hereditary rule as is imposed in “Saudi” Arabia. This is one, albeit major, problem. The other is the wholesale destruction of the historical sites of Islam under the guise of expansion of the Haramayn (Makkah and Madinah) as well as modernization to make room for the ever-growing number of pilgrims. Muslims worldwide look at this vandalism in stunned silence and appear helpless to prevent such destruction. Is it necessary to build five-star hotels or open McDonald’s restaurants and Starbucks coffee shops by demolishing the home of Khadijah (ra), the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) beloved wife and companion for 25 years, and the house of his friend Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra)? Entire mountains are being wiped out to make way for steel and concrete monstrosities called modern buildings. On what authority do the Saudis indulge in such vandalism? There is also another aspect of the Saudi conduct inherited from their bedouin tradition that has nothing to do with Islam: the total control of women to the point of locking them out of life altogether. Women must be covered head to toe, must be accompanied by a male guardian if they wish to go outside the home and they cannot drive cars. Saudi court preachers argue that if they were allowed to drive, it would encourage promiscuity. Perhaps the Muslim women that drive cars elsewhere in the Muslim world are all promiscuous! Are Saudi men really all that pious?

In 2010, a Saudi preacher came up with a ludicrous solution to the dilemma of women not driving. Obviously they must be driven by a male relative. Often, such a relative is not available (Saudi men are bone lazy and do little or no work). Most Saudi families have chauffers; these are all expatriate men. Since they are not related to women they are required to drive, a Saudi preacher suggested that if the dirver were to drink the breast milk of the woman, he would become like her son (what if the woman is not married?). This raised questions about the method of consuming such milk: through the bottle or straight from the source! One female Saudi commentator wrote: instead of going into such convoluted arguments, why not allow the women to drive? Saudi women, more than half the population, constitute only 17% of the workforce. According to the 2009 Global Gender Gap Report, Saudi Arabia ranks below such other Muslim countries as Kyrgyzstan, Gambia and Indonesia. Activist Wajeha al-Huwaider compares the condition of Saudi women to slavery. If a widowed woman wishes to remarry, she must seek the permission of her son! Saudi preachers have also made other idiotic suggestions like ziwaj al-misyar (marriage while traveling). What this means is that a man can take a temporary wife because he is away from home. The “temporary wife” has no rights afforded to a wife in a normal marriage contract. She stays at her parents’ house and is visited by the “temporary husband” at his convenience. This practice has become quite common in Saudi Arabia where men take additional wives without telling their “regular” wives (most Saudi men have more than one wife, often three or four; the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Abdulaziz ibn Saud had 23 wives from whom he sired 37 children!). Since “temporary wives” stay at their parents’ homes, this saves the man embarrassment in front of his “regular” wives. The fatwas dished out by Saudi court preachers are meant to keep women under control and give men a license to indulge in every obnoxious behavior. Can the Muslim Ummah remain silent or indifferent in the face of such crimes committed in the name of Islam?

Egypt-and-Iran-why-different-outcomes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 In Egypt the Ikhwan failed within one year while in Iran, the Islamic movement has established a government that is still in place and going strong. Why? The Ikhwan made the mistake of working within the system while Imam Khomeini understood that the existing system had to be demolished. Egypt and Iran are two very important countries. Developments in either affect the entire region. Consider the military coup against the elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi. Despite his faults — and there were many — the manner in which the US-Zionist-aligned military overthrew Mursi’s government raises serious concerns among Muslims and even non-Muslims that believe in respecting people’s rights and how power is exercised. The July 3rd military coup has taken Egypt back to square one. In fact, the old jahili system was never abolished. The ouster of former dictator Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 was merely cosmetic since remnants of the old regime remained fully entrenched in all major institutions: the military, police, interior ministry and the judiciary, to name a few. These remnants had the full backing of the business class, which had been the principal beneficiary of the old system.

In this column we repeatedly questioned the Ikhwan’s wisdom of operating within the old system. It was also unrealistic to assume that just because the Freedom and Justice Party, political wing of the Ikhwan, won the election that it would be allowed to implement its policies freely. Mursi and by extension the Ikhwan’s approach was flawed on many counts — not the least of which was to work within the old system. No luxury class in any society has ever given up its privileges voluntarily. These have to be taken away, by force if necessary, to ensure fairness and justice in society.

Let us compare this with Iran. On August 4, Dr. Hassan Rohani will be sworn in as president of Iran after his victory in the June 14 elections. Unlike Egypt, there is no threat of a military coup against Dr. Rohani, despite the fact that Iran’s military is arguably stronger than Egypt’s. How has Iran become coup-proof while Egypt like almost every other Muslim country suffers at the hands of the military?

The Islamic movement in Iran led by Imam Khomeini clearly understood the nature of the imposed order in society. The Imam was absolutely clear: the Shah and all the institutions he had built were illegitimate and had to be uprooted. Nor did the Imam overlook the fact that such measures would arouse the wrath of the imperialist powers that would attempt to undermine the Islamic Revolution and the fledgling Islamic State. Thus, the masses had to be prepared for the long hard struggle ahead, as the Prophet (pbuh) had done in Makkah and Madinah. The Imam purged the military of the corrupt top brass and put them on trial for crimes against the Iranian people. Concurrently, the Sepah was established as a revolutionary force that prevented the military from carrying out a coup. Iran’s military was deployed to its primary function: defence of the borders, not to lord over people’s representatives.

In Egypt on the other hand, the Ikhwan and Mursi assumed that if they played within the existing system and surrendered to US-Zionist interests, they would be allowed to complete their term in office. The haste with which the military overthrew Mursi surprised even seasoned observers. It was assumed that the military would allow sufficient time for Mursi to fail — he was set up to fail by the entrenched old guard — and people would automatically turn against him. This would have happened had he been given enough time but it seems Egypt’s imperialist and Zionist masters got impatient and decided to strike.

This brings us to the question of clarity of thought in the Islamic movement. Most leaders of Islamic movements fail to analyze the socio-economic and political order in society properly. They assume that there is nothing wrong with the prevailing system; and all that is needed is for good, honest men to run it more efficiently. Events in Egypt have once again exposed the fallacy of such thinking and the price the Ikhwan have had to pay. This scenario will no doubt repeat itself in every Muslim society where such faulty thinking prevails. True leadership sets a directional course, and inspires and guides people toward achieving it. When the collective energies of even a small number of ordinary people are harnessed for the achievement of a pre-set goal, the results are often spectacular. This is what the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) teaches us. When even highly qualified people fail to take account of these simple facts, they end up paying a heavy price. This explains why the Ikhwan have failed in Egypt and why the Islamic movement succeeded in Iran. If Muslims care to reflect, they would easily understand this basic point. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought