Justice for All, America

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa

I received many angry e-mails in response to my last article “The Make and Break of Saddam”.
What hurts me most in many responses is the acceptance of the double-standard principle. My position is: we either have international law or we don’t; we all follow the rules or we don’t. Frankly, I was expecting more support for this fundamental principle of the American Constitution from my American readers. Instead, I was shocked to hear the infamous racist cry of “Lynch ‘em” that I thought was merely an echo of a regretted past.
Saddam is a mass murderer. He should face justice and pay for all his crimes; we agree. But we don’t agree on the selective application of justice. In any crime, partners in crime are equally judged and persecuted. If we are fair, we should also judge those who put Saddam in power, maintained his rule against the will of his people, supplied him with weapons of mass destruction, bankrolled his attacks on his neighbors and covered up for him in the worst of his crimes.
As for the application of the Geneva Convention, you can’t have exceptions for the rich and powerful, white and bright. Whether it was Saddam or Rumsfeld, foot soldiers or high-ranking officials, all should be equally tried by the rules that were established after World War II and applied to the Nazis who burned millions of Jews, gypsies and dissidents in gas chambers.
America, then a force for justice, freedom and international law, led the world into the establishment of this and other global conventions and organizations. It is baffling and disheartening that the same US would be the one to break the rules, reject the International Court of Justice, and sideline the very United Nations it worked so hard to build. This is not the America I admired, the leader of the free world and the candle of our hopes and dreams, and it shouldn’t be yours — not under this un-American, bomb-and-kill, “God-told-me-so” administration.
Saddam is one of history’s worst criminals, but so is Slobodan Milosevic, who is treated with fairness and dignity. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Truman killed millions each (the latter used the first weapon of mass destruction in history and introduced the world to the nuclear age), and if they were to be tried I would have demanded the same for them.
Let’s be fair. Justice is blind to color, race and religion. Unless we stand selflessly by our principles against our strongest desires and greatest interests, the day will come when we sit on the same bench and wish the others would.

Monsters Made in America

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Some of my American readers were surprised when I wrote in my last article “America the Ungrateful” about the monsters America created and then dumped. They knew about the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines and Noriega of Panama, but didn’t expect to see on the list some of America’s worst enemies, like the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
I do believe in the innocence and goodwill of the average American and hope they stay this way, but what is killing me is their below average knowledge of their country’s foreign policy and the world outside the mighty island of America.
Innocence and ignorance can breed citizens who elect and support the wrong governments, legislators and leaders.
A quick lesson in history: The US government brought to power Nasser, Qaddafi and Hussein. It knew them well, but since they were furthering US interests — or so it hoped — against colonial competitors like the UK, they were installed and maintained. The same thing happened with other friends-turned-enemies like the Taleban and Afghan Mujahedeen, this time at the expense of the Russians, Chinese and Indians. Great crimes were condoned in the good old days, because the evildoers were then the enemy of our enemy. Only when the perpetrators were deemed useless, embarrassing or dangerous, they were recast as the bad guys — as international thugs and outlaws.
I could give similar examples in different parts of the world — Africa, South America and Asia — but this space won’t allow it, so I will stick with my neighborhood. The problems here are many. First, the US created monsters and let them loose on their own country, people and neighbors. Then it dumped them, withdrew from the crime scene, and let us deal with the resulting mess.
Finally, it had to fight them and dragged us into costly wars. The worst part is: The US always ends up blaming and accusing us of complicity, which they say deserves punishment of all sorts — for example Congress-sponsored sanction bills.
I know most Americans are fair-minded, and therefore I pose a couple of questions to them: Do they regard this practice as a fair political game? Do they subscribe to such doctrine? Finally, do they accept that these blunders are committed in their name?
I await their answers, and here is my email: kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Pakistanis Need to Come Home

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

My father was a great believer in Islamic unity. As he loved and admired King Abdul Aziz and King Faisal for their promotion of Islamic unity, so also did he admire Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. With its large population and strong army, its modernity and sophistication, Pakistan, he kept telling me, was our big brother who would never let us down in the hour of need, and when the time comes to liberate Palestine. He taught me that to be a good Muslim means to be a Pakistani at heart.
For him and his generation, the dream of a united Muslim nation was still fresh after the demise of the last great unifier, the Ottoman Empire.
I still remember the dark days when the war erupted between the two parts of Pakistan. I was too young then, but I couldn’t miss the gloom that enveloped the neighborhood majlis, where father and his peers listened to the radio and discussed the horrible stories coming from the field. I won’t forget seeing my father cry for the first time in my life when our beloved Pakistan finally disintegrated in a sea of Muslim blood and a world of destruction and despair. As he expected, this disintegration was a bad omen for the unity dream. It was downhill from that day on, one blow after another; until we reached the lowly state we are in today.
I remembered this sorry affair as I awaited my turn to speak to the Pakistan Repatriation Council celebrating Iqbal’s 126th birthday a couple of weeks ago. I remembered it because the council represents the case of one of the worst outcomes of this separation: The stranded quarter of a million Pakistanis in Bangladesh who fought for unity and have been living in miserable refugee camps since then.
In 1988 the Rabita Trust was established and signed by President Ziaul Haq and ex- Secretary General of the Muslim World League Dr. Abdullah Nasseef and assigned for the repatriation of stranded Pakistanis. Land was allocated for 40,000 houses in Punjab. One thousand houses were built, but only 60 families were brought in 1993. After that all efforts were frozen.
I bet most of us are ignorant about this tragedy, while those who know either don’t care or don’t do much. I wish I could do better and help. But, alas, I only have my heart, pen and voice. With the first I pray for them, with the rest I urge the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as international and Muslim organizations to cooperate in ending the misery of these people: They need humanitarian help, they need recognition, and above all they need just to go home.

Not in Islam’s Name

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, (kbatarfi@al-madina.com)

I was shocked and saddened to hear the news about the terrorist attacks on Jewish places of worship and education in Turkey.
Dozens of innocent people were going about their normal life, praying, meeting, taking care of their families, educating and entertaining their kids, and suddenly — boom! All goes up in fire, smoke and blood. In minutes the world you know is suddenly a sad memory, and the new world is full of fear, anger and tragedy.
Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it is becoming too familiar. Even in places unused to such terrible tragedies like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Terrorists seem incapable of distinguishing between what is consistent with their stated principles and what is total nonsense. How would the killing of an innocent person serve a cause, any cause?
What support can the scenes of carnage, of the scattered and burned bodies of women and children, offer to a message, any message? Why would the governments of Russia, the US and Israel, or gang leaders of Al-Qaeda, the IRA, KKK, Hindu militants and Jewish settlers order the bombing and burning of civilian neighborhoods, markets and places of worship?
Who are they trying to satisfy and appease? What benefits and public relations goals do they hope to achieve?
How can educated, sophisticated and enlightened leaders of established democracies and great civilizations compete in the same dirty arena with lowlife, heartless, insane psychopaths?
When American bombers target Afghan and Iraqi mosques, wedding parties, and Bedouin convoys on unverified tip-offs that there are wanted persons there, when Sharon uses American-made F16 and Apaches to hit buildings, streets and homes to assassinate Palestinian leaders, when Putin treats the whole of Chechnya as a practicing ground for killing, burning and destruction, where is the distinction between legitimate law-abiding governments and illegitimate lawless bandits?
How can the public then be convinced that the ways of the bad guys are wrong, if the supposedly good guys are doing the same thing the same way?
As a writer, I am supposed to explain to my readers, not to add to their confusion. But the world of terror is so confused and confusing that asking questions may pass as a step toward better understanding. So, let’s keep asking and demanding answers. The doers of evil owe us, at the very least, logical if not acceptable explanations.
On behalf of all good, true Muslims, I offer my wholehearted condolences to the families of the victims in the Turkish attacks, Jewish and Muslim alike. My heart goes out to every mother and father, sister and brother, daughter and son.
I would also like them to know that whoever did this does not represent Islam, Arabs or any decent human being. This dirty deed was not committed in my religion’s, my people’s or my name.

What the Terrorists Want

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Why? This is the question on everyone’s lips these days. It doesn’t make sense or seems not to. They are killing Arabs and Muslims. What is the point?
My take on this, as I told Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, is that the rope is tightening round the terrorists’ necks. Their networks are disintegrating under pressure. The ones who got caught are telling on the others. Plans are spoiled before they can be carried out. Leaders and operators are killed or captured. Cash and tools are found and confiscated. They must feel that they can wait no longer for the right moment — after the holy month of Ramadan — and the perfect target. Not with all the tightening security measures. They had to go after the softest, easiest, most vulnerable target they could find. Since their intelligence is getting as weak as their network, they might have got the wrong tip. Someone might have confused Lebanese residents of the compound with Westerners. The terrorists may have assumed that since the compound is close to the Diplomatic Quarter, it must house some Western diplomats.
What kind of statement are they making? They never had much of a point to start with. The American soldiers have already left. Saudi Arabia was not part of any campaign against Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, it was squarely in the anti-war camp. The statement-making is made the more difficult after it becomes clear that the compound was inhabited by Arabs and Muslims, not Westerners. So what can they say? Not much. It is simply REVENGE. Revenge against the government, revenge against society, revenge against the world. They felt left-out; they felt persecuted; they felt unheard. They wanted to scream for the last time before the tightening rope breaks their necks, “We matter; we can hurt you; we are here.”
I have been asked by Westerners what we can do to help. We can always increase state cooperation and increase media campaigns. As you can see, we are on the same side. But most of all, we should not panic. Closing embassies and issuing public warnings to expatriates give the terrorists the wrong message and hands them a victory. Wolves smell fear. They run after the fearful. It doesn’t become the most powerful nations in the world to act afraid. It assures the enemy and doesn’t give reassurance to allies. Besides, as I told a Western diplomat, in the war for the hearts and minds, the terrorists are losing a lot of ground. If you run now, you will have made their point for them and they will count it an achievement.

Tackling Terrorism Is Much More Than Chasing Terrorists: UK Envoy

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
Special to Arab News

Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles, Britain’s ambassador to the Kingdom, explains a polint during the interview in Riyadh. (Arab News photo)

JEDDAH, 12 November 2003 — Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles is the United Kingdom’s new ambassador to the Kingdom. The following are excerpts from a wide-ranging interview he gave to Khaled M. Batarfi of Al-Madinah newspaper.
Khaled Batarfi: Many believe that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. This view is helped by some views from the United States, some of which accuse Islam of advocating terrorism and idol worship. What is Britain’s position?
Sherard Cowper-Coles: People who make that kind of comment about Islam are betraying their ignorance. I believe Islam is a peaceful religion. I believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all People of the Book, and that there is far more in common between the three great monotheistic religions than there are things that separate them. People who try to take that sort of negative view of Islam are ignorant and have a misguided notion of what true Islam stands for....
And my job as ambassador here in the country which is home to two of Islam’s holiest places is to build bridges. I represent a country in which a significant proportion of the population is Muslim and the great majority is nominally Christian, and we have huge common interests in emphasizing the common values the two kingdoms share.
Q: So how do you explain your war on terrorism?
A: Personally I prefer not to speak so much of the war on terror as a war against individual terrorists. We obviously need to take top security measures against terrorists and detain terrorists who have threatened violent acts. But we also need to ask ourselves what it is that causes people to resort to terrorism. Are there excuses, are there pretexts, which drive young people who are often without hope and without jobs to resort to terrorism. If those grievances have a basis in reality, we need to address them.
My Prime Minister (Tony Blair) said many times that he believes that extremists across the Muslim world have used what is happening in Palestine as a recruiting sergeant for terror, as a cause, a grievance which young Muslims everywhere care deeply about and which leads some of the more extreme ones to resort to violence and terror. I don’t believe that violence and terror are ever justified. But we nevertheless need to understand that there are people who are quite ruthless in exploiting grievances like that to recruit terrorists.
Q: But don’t you agree that without solving the Palestine problem there will always be deep, potentially aggressive anger in the Arab and Muslim world?
A: That is why Tony Blair is pressing so hard to address the problem of Palestine. Only one country can really solve it, and that is the United States, with help from others. And that is why Blair and Crown Prince Abdullah and others have now been encouraging President Bush to get him engaged, and that’s why President Bush has published a road map and has become engaged in a way which didn’t seem likely at the beginning of his administration.
Now, there is a long way to go. But the Americans are now addressing the problem of Palestine in a way that they were not before. Talking about Palestine, I want to praise Crown Prince Abdullah’s initiative, which was quite a remarkable breakthrough in getting every single Arab country around to vote in favor of a resolution recommending normal relations with the state of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the lands it occupied in 1967. And, I have to say, I don’t think that initiative has received the recognition it deserved in the Middle East, Israel or in the United States. It was a great act of statesmanship, one on which, I hope, we can build in the months and years ahead and we can use that exchange of recognition; that recognition has to be a compromise to make progress in Palestine.
Q: Does Britain contemplate an exit plan for its troops from Iraq, especially before the next election. If so, does it need an approval from its American partner? And at what price?
A: We’re constantly contemplating when and how the coalition should hand over power to the true representatives of the Iraqi people. We have to recognize that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. The threat of weapons of mass destruction has been neutralized and the Iraqi people are starting to enjoy degrees of freedom and prosperity that they never knew before. A few facts: There are well over 100 newspapers in Baghdad, and electricity generation is at levels higher than it was before the war. Most of Iraq’s schools have been refurbished; massive work is going on Iraq’s infrastructure.
There is still a serious but localized problem of security, particularly in the center of the country. That is obviously a top priority. It would not be responsible for us having got into Iraq just simply now to walk out again leaving chaos behind. Our duty is to ensure stability, in our own interests and in the interests of Iraq’s neighbors, in the interests of the whole region. That is what we’re doing. But I can give you an absolute assurance that power will be transferred just as soon as is practical.
Q: How soon? Do you have a time frame?
A: We don’t have a clear time frame, but the UN Security Council Resolution 1511 says that a timetable for establishing a representative Iraqi government has to be formalized by Dec. 15.
Q: What are the costs for Britain in Iraq, and how are you planning to cover them? Does Iraqi oil figure in the equation?
A: It doesn’t. We will not be drawing down the income from the Iraqi oil to pay for the costs of the British forces in Iraq: They will be paid by the British taxpayer.
Q: And the costs of reconstruction?
A: Britain is giving very large sums. We have pledged over £550 million to Iraq’s reconstruction.
Q: To what do you attribute the relative calm in the areas you control in Iraq, and the lesser anger directed at you from the Arab media and public, compared to the United States?
A: Well, I’m not an expert on what is going on in Iraq. But I would say there are a number of factors. First, the religious makeup of the south, the Shiite majority there. I also have to say that for historical reasons British forces have a long experience of peacekeeping in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. And that may play a small contributory part. But not having been there I can’t speculate. America is clearly the No.1 target for all sorts of desperate groups.
Q: What about the public and the media?
A: America is the only surviving superpower, America led the occupation of Iraq and America is seen by many as a symbol of the imagined tensions between the West and the Islamic world.
Q: Europe was and still is part of the group sponsoring the road map project for Middle East peace. How do you evaluate the steps taken by Israel and the Palestinian authorities?
A: Well, not enough has happened on either side. That’s quite clear. The Palestinians need to be more active in restoring security in Palestinian areas, but in doing so they need help from Israel, in particular, the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, the use of disproportionate force. It has not helped the Palestinian authorities in their efforts to clamp down on terror.
Q: How do you view the Israeli attacks and assassinations even during the cease-fire negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions?
A: There is a mixture of motives. From outside, one needs to ask whether such actions are in the best interests of Israel or moderate Palestinians.
Q: In your perspective, why is the Ariel Sharon government doing this?
A: I’m not a spokesman for the Sharon government. It is not for me to describe why a particular government does things. But I do think that suicide bombers — whoever perpetrates them — are not acting in the interests of the Palestinian people. They have perpetuated a cycle of violence. They produce a very strong emotional reaction of anger, resentment not only in Israel but also elsewhere in the world, including the United States. I condemn utterly the suicide attacks, but at the same time we have to ask those of us who want peace in the Middle East what is it that drives young people to commit suicide in this terrible fashion. And the answer must be in part the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What we need is parallel steps by both sides, and all my experience in Israel and Palestine leaves me to believe that those parallel steps will not be undertaken without a strong and benign international presence.
Q: Do you think peacekeeping will work?
A: I don’t think peacekeeping will ever work. I think the only people who can guarantee security are either the Israeli security forces in the rather unsatisfactory manner they are trying to do that or, much better, reformed Palestinian security forces with international help and support. And what needs to deliver that is not a multinational peacekeeping force — American, British or Jordanian soldiers patrolling the streets of Jenin or Beit Hanoun. But you do need international observers and monitors to give the Israelis confidence that the Palestinians are maintaining law and order and to give the Palestinians confidence that every time there is an incident the Israelis will not re-enter the territory.
Q: How does Britain see the future of the Middle East after the Iraqi war? A haven of democracy and prosperity? Or a more realistic view?
A: Our foreign policy has always been to take the world as we find it and not as we would wish it to be. We’re pragmatists rather more than we are idealists. The truth is we are in there and we have to make the best of it in the interests of the people of Iraq above all but also in the interests of the region and in the interests of the countries outside the region. And of all the European countries I would put Britain as the country with the greatest experience and the largest range of interests and assets in the Middle East — cultural assets, intellectual assets, financial and economic assets, and security assets, a whole range of British engagement in the Middle East. So we all share a common objective.
I wouldn’t like to talk about the havens of democracy. What we want in Iraq is a stable, representative government which gives the people of Iraq a better and safer and freer life than they had under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Q: You talk about political solutions, but what about economic and social ones?
A: The way to tackle terrorism is a combination of tough security policy but also a range of political, economic and social measures to drain the support to the terrorists. Chairman Mao said guerilla terrorists were fish who swam in the sea of popular support. What we have to do is to drain the sea by a range of imaginative measures.
And this is what we did in Northern Ireland with some success, where we recognized that deprivation, lack of economic opportunity, lack of political opportunity, social problems in the Catholic areas helped produce a climate in which the terrorists thrived. So as well as taking tough security measures against the terrorists we spent billions of pounds and huge amounts of political effort trying to address the wider political, economic and social problems on which the terrorists feed and which they exploit for their own ends. And in the policies we have announced in terms of spending money and offering advice and consultancy, the United States’ own Middle East partnership initiative. All these are designed to recognize that tackling terrorism is a much more complicated problem than simply chasing the terrorists.
Q: Do you believe in regime change or gradual reforms?
A: Britain believes in gradual change. Stability is most likely to be protected by gradual change. It is not really possible or desirable to produce wholesale radical change across the whole region.
Q: With the help of the United States do you think the Middle East can be pushed to effect a change in its attitude toward reforms?
A: No. We believe that many of the governments in the Middle East are committed to reform. And we are there to offer help and advice and support where we can.
Q: Arab-British relations have been subject to some tensions before and after the Iraq war. How does your country plan to restore its usual good relations with the Arab world?
A: The best thing we can do to help produce good relations not only between Britain, in fact, the West as a whole and the Arab world is to make real progress in Iraq and real progress on Palestine.
Q: How do you respond to charges that you exaggerated the Iraqi danger and fabricated evidence that it possessed WMD? And how will this affect the reelection prospect of Mr. Blair?
A: Well, the British people will make up their own mind on Mr. Blair’s future. British elections won’t be held until June 2006. Which means there is plenty of time. On the question of allegations of weapons of mass destruction, all I can say is that British intelligence believed in very good faith that Saddam had such weapons and there was a danger that he would use them. And Lord Hutton’s interim report is just that: An interim report. Let’s wait and see what the final report says.
Q: Is it affecting the credibility of charges against Iran?
A: It is too early to say whether we are wrong or right on that. All I can say is that British intelligence is believed to be honest. It genuinely believed on the basis of information it had.
Q: Some hawks in the American administration still see their job unfinished without regime changes and earthshaking in other Middle Eastern countries. Where does Britain stand on this?
A: It’s not British policy to promote regime change.
Q: How does Britain see the US project for economic and political development of the Middle East?
A: As I said earlier, we strongly believe that security is best achieved through political, economic and social development. We strongly welcome the American Middle East partnership initiative. In this regard the move of Saudi Arabia to join the World Trade Organization is something we welcome.
Q: Would Britain follow in the footsteps of the United States toward bilateral free trade agreements with Middle Eastern countries?
A: Trade is now the responsibility of the European Commission in Brussels. And the EC is hoping to start by promoting free trade among all the 12 Mediterranean partners in the European Union by 2007. That will give the Union’s Mediterranean partners access to the market of 450 million people. In parallel to that the Commission is also negotiating to improve trade arrangements with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Q: What are your views on the Sharon government’s stand on Arafat, the security wall, Syria and Jewish settlements?
A: On the wall we are concerned about its route. It’s very important that Israel does not take unilateral steps that prejudice the peace process or which unilaterally seize areas of Palestinian land. At the same time we recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect itself. On Syria we very much believe in engagement — a dialogue with Syria. Prime Minister Blair has visited Damascus, and President Assad has visited London.
On settlements, we have always taken the view that the transfer of the Israeli population to the territories occupied in 1967 is illegal under international law. That’s the view of the British government, the US and every government around the world. We believe that the problem of settlements is a major problem not just for Palestinians but for the Israeli government, too. It should be solved as part of an agreement which results in Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
Q: Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad has accused the Jews of controlling the world media. Most European countries took a strong position against him, except for France. Where do you stand on this issue?
A: We do not think that sort of racial typecasting is helpful.
Q: After the Riyadh bombing, will the UK government review its position allowing elements of Saudi opposition supporting terrorism taking residence in Britain? If so, what kind of policies and procedures will be taken?
A: We keep a very close eye not only on the Saudi opposition but also on anyone in Britain who may be seen to promote terrorism. Under the British Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offense to support or encourage the commission of terrorist acts overseas. We keep the activities of all sorts of groups in the UK under close review. At the same time we have a law which protects the freedom of speech subject to various limitations and we have to respect those laws while making sure that they are enforced.
Q: Some Saudi businessmen complain that the performance of your trade departments in Riyadh and Jeddah is below expectations. What plans do you have to improve their performance?
A: I have had good reports of the excellence of commercial departments in Riyadh and Jeddah. Of course, we are constantly looking to ways of improving.
Q: Some note the absence of the usually strong activities of companies marketing Britain as an investment venue in areas such as real estate, education and joint ventures. They wonder if this is an outcome of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
A: Well, I wasn’t aware of that. I think that there is as much eagerness in Britain as ever for investment from Saudi Arabia and from the Middle East generally.
Q: Many see the independence of Britain’s economic policies as a thorn in the side of Europe, particularly with reference to interest rate changes and lukewarm attitude to Europe’s position vis-à-vis US grievances in the WTO. How do you answer such perceptions?
A: I think the whole world, including the European Union, benefits from the success of the open UK economy and that is something people should be giving thanks for. We look at particular issues such as sanctions, particular trade issues on a case-by-case pragmatic basis; this will not certainly be a lukewarm attitude. We decide what we think is in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Q: When can we see a united European front toward major issues and world troubles? Do you see an end to the apparent rift between Britain and influential partners like France and Germany?
A: I don’t recognize the premise of the question. Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, and Prime Minister Berlusconi are in very, very close touch. I don’t see any rift between Britain and its European partners. We had differences over the war in Iraq; we are now united behind the Security Council Resolution 1511. There is a very large measure of agreement on the Middle East peace process, our support for the road map and many other areas, including European defense, which complements NATO rather than undermines it.
Q: Last question. If Britain were to choose, which camp would it prefer: Europe or the United States?
A: The whole purpose of British foreign policy is to avoid having to choose. We believe that Europe benefits from our close relationship with the United States, and the United States benefits from our position at the heart of the European Union. It’s a win-win situation.

Testing US Democracy

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa

I used to brag about American democracy. When I met with my fellow Muslims at the Islamic Center of Eugene, Oregon, we debated hot religious and political issues such as extremism and the second Gulf War. I would defend Saudi relations with America, and others would attack my position. Many were democratic and sophisticated in their debating, but there were vocal others who would use emotional arguments, strong language and outrageous accusations in order to prevail. I used to tell them they should remember what they learned in American schools.
Debate is a means of reaching the truth, bridging misunderstandings, and learning more about each other and what we stand for. We don’t have to “win” an argument, since it is a win-win situation if we end up more enlightened and informed. I tell them how I discuss even hotter issues with Jews and Communists, with people who have the wrong ideas about everything I represent — be it my religion, culture or country. But after each discussion, we become friendlier and congratulated each other on the new knowledge we brought to the table.
Some of my Arab debaters consider my experience, others say: “Oh, but that is only in liberal schools. The real America is not that democratic.” I know that difficult experiences test people principles and morals. In a disaster, the sense of survival rules and we may behave selfishly and crudely. That is what I assume happened to the American sense of democracy, justice and compassion. The Sept. 11 firestorms confused their radars.
When we write, here in Arab News, to reflect Arab feelings and reactions to the wrongs committed in the so-called “war on terror”, we expect dialogue as sophisticated as US democracy. That is why we experience shock and pain when much of the e-mail we receive carries anger and hate.
The fire storm has long passed from New York and Washington to Kabul, Baghdad and the rest of the Muslim world. It is our turn to have our senses confused, not the Americans.
I still believe in what I learnt in American schools. I still believe they meant what they taught me. I only wonder when we are all going to come to our civilized senses. Hopefully, we will do so before the American storm of anger and revenge takes over the world.

America and the Business of Fear

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Fear has always been used to justify extraordinary measures in the Middle East. In the name of security, governments took away people’s liberty and civil rights, put them through severe economic deprivation, and enforced emergency rules that lasted for decades. Arabs, Turks and Kurds; Muslims, Christians and Jews have all been victims of this powerful tool of control.
Today, we are wiser to this cynical scheme. Israeli, Turkish, Persian and Arab intellectuals are awakening their frightened people to this terrible truth. The likes of Saddam and Sharon kept their respective nations in continuous conflict with real, imagined and manufactured enemies to justify their rule and ambitious, illegitimate, expansionist goals.
After Sept. 11, America officially joined the club. The Bush administration used the occasion to implant fear, anxiety and total submission to Big Brother in the American consciousness. They did a great job. The Americans did not mind or even question the justification of their country’s invasion and occupation of foreign land. It was enough to package and title any project “War on Terror” to have it accepted, and even when the US disregarded the Geneva Convention it went without much of a fuss. America is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Instead of guaranteeing world peace and security, it seems to be engaged in the business of fear. Homegrown and imported fears are being exported to the rest of us. Suddenly, terrorism was the number one issue on everyone’s agenda, whether we liked it or not.
The US president on his latest Asian tours told every leader, gathering and conference that he met to worry first about terrorists then discuss any other issue — starting with American interests, of course. Most were afraid and polite, few, like the Malaysian leader, were courageous and blunt enough to say: We do have agendas and interests of our own, you know. Why would we worry about the impact of our economic and security policies on USA, if the superpower of the world doesn’t give a damn about the impact of its selfish policies on us? The answer has always been: Because we say so.
I say: America shouldn’t be in the business of fear. It suits its legacy best to be in the business of liberation — from fear. It played this role during the world’s worst wars and longest peace. It led us in building the world’s greatest institutions, organizations and conventions. It helped us put freedom, democracy and prosperity at the top of our agenda, and leave fear behind.
For its sake, and ours, let’s hope it goes back to doing so.

Why Do We Hate the US?

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madinah.com

I asked and answered in this space last week the question why the Americans hate us, but not why we hate them.
I admit that too many Arabs and Muslims do hate America. It is not about the American way of life, not about infidels and crusaders, as much as about the foreign policies of the US government, corporate greed, Christian evangelicalism and the aggressive push for globalization to remake the world in the US’ image. Most of us have no issue with individuals, or with most Western countries. These countries are all rich and sophisticated, and enjoy democracy, freedom and human rights. Why, then, is only America regarded as “the enemy”? If it was about envy, the Swiss and Scandinavians would be the most hated.
America has never been so hated before. I remember, as recently as the Clinton era, when the US was seen as an idealistic country saving Bosnians and Kosovans, defending Chechens, democratizing Haiti, reaching out to Africa and Latin America, establishing and supporting international organizations and treaties, and pushing for peace in the Middle East and the Korean peninsula.
What happened to all this goodwill and good intentions? Why would America sacrifice all this capital to implement the impractical neoconservative agenda and serve Israel’s interests? Whatever the realpolitik interests this hawkish administration has achieved, or meant to, have to be balanced against the US image in world opinion. No country can be an island, even one as big as America. Americans would love to travel freely and safely around the globe, like they used to do in the old-good days when they were hailed as liberators and educators, makers and builders, helpers and partners, traders and investors, messengers of freedom, and ambassadors of peace.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to stereotype. I never accepted the notion that in a democracy, people are wholly responsible for their governments’ blunders. Religious, political and opinion leaders have always manipulated our perception of the world. Some were more successful than others. Misunderstanding, misdirected resentment, misplaced blame and unjustified wholesale charges led too many to hate and hurt. Hate manufacturers are making our world too small to hold us all, too dangerous to keep us safe, and too dumb to let us even talk to each other.
What can we do to overcome all these gaps and walls between us? I say communicate. Only by talking to each other can we cross these distances, build much-needed bridges, and learn how similar we are, how good the others can be, and what the global village is really about.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com

“But you burn your women after their husbands die, how dare you claim you have women’s rights in such a barbaric environment?” shouted my feminist colleague.
I was the only Arab/Muslim at an American school in a class with people who thought we burn women and marry hordes of women. I don’t blame them. Wherever they turn, we look bad. Hollywood, for one, keeps showing us as terrorists, womanizers and idiots. My kids had to explain a lot to their colleagues who had such ideas about sand niggers, camel kissers, oil diggers, and the “desert Kingdom.” Some of my university professors and many foreign correspondents think of us as primitive Bedouin with too much oil and cash that we use to terrorize the world. I bet these people think Africa is one country, Latin America is another, and people there live in Jungle Land.
I deal with similar assumptions all the time. People ask me: Why do you kill Jews, beat women, and hate us? I would tell them about how Jews escaped from Spain to Morocco and other Arab countries after the fall of the Islamic rule, because they faced forced conversion to Christianity and genocide; and how Jews in our midst still live in peaceful coexistence with their cousins, the Arabs. Some listen, some just don’t care. I would invite them to meet my wife and her Arab and Muslim friends and ask them in my absence whether they feel oppressed or denied any God-given rights; whether they would prefer to exchange their conservative, family-oriented kind of life with the Western liberal, individualistic model. Some come, some don’t, because they believe our women are not free to express their feelings and thoughts, or are hopelessly brainwashed.
Who is responsible for this distorted image of Arabs and Muslims? Mostly us. We should have done what our cousins, the Jews, learnt to do after centuries of misrepresentation and execution — good communication, that is.
In this failure we are guilty, but we are also victims. Our political, racial and religious rivals did what they had done to the Jews and are leading us to the same end. From Crusaders to Orientalists, from Zionists to evangelists, our history, culture, character and religion are intentionally misrepresented. With the international media in hand and all the power tools (money, technology and communication) in the other, the job was a piece of cake.
How to face this challenge? First, we should learn how to communicate in a sophisticated, positive way. If we start today, we have a long way to go. Since we have no option, we should take the first step — now.

A Palestinian State? No, Thanks!

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Once upon a time, the UN Partition Plan of 1947 offered the Palestinians 47 percent of their country. They didn’t like it. The Israelis, who were arriving from all over Europe, didn’t like it either. Then came the Oslo Agreement. It offered them 22 percent of the original land. They were tired of almost 50 years of Diaspora and brutal Israeli occupation and said yes. So did the Israelis.
Later on, the Israelis reconsidered. Barak’s generous offer at Camp David offered them 80 percent of the 22 percent of the 100 percent that was originally theirs. They didn’t like it, neither did the Israelis. Sharon came along with another offer in 2000: 42 percent of the 80 percent of the 22 percent of the original 100 percent, but with conditions. Among other things, he insists on the right to share control over Palestinian land, sea and airspace, and to “invade” anywhere, anytime he wishes.
The Zionists, including Americans, thought Sharon’s offer was way out of line. According to their Bible, only zero percent of the whole Palestinian land should be given to non-Jews.
It seems both Bush and Sharon were listening. The recent road map to peace approved by the quartet (the US, Britain, Russia and the European Union) now has Israeli-American conditions. The Palestinians should forget about Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees and the right to elect their own leaders or write their own school curriculum without prior approval from Bush and Sharon. In addition, the Palestinians have to live with a security wall that imprisons three million in the West Bank and one million in Gaza. The wall further eats into the remaining bits and pieces of their original land, isolates different parts, towns and cities — sometimes part of the same neighborhood — and keeps a large number of Jewish settlers on Israel’s side of the wall.
With their towns and leadership under siege, and with the Israeli army waging an elaborate war on civilians, I wonder what kind of state is left for the Palestinians to defend or to negotiate about. I would advise the Palestinian Authority to just pick up what is left of their dignity and leave, pronounce all peace agreements (or what is left of them) null and void, and start anew their fight for freedom. This way, Israel will be responsible, as an occupying force, for the welfare and security of the occupied. Sharon will not find a punching bag in the authority and someone to blame for every suicide attack. Instead, Israel, as an occupier, will be solely responsible for providing security to both Israelis and Palestinians.
I say: Quit a bad deal that keeps getting shoddier, and rekindle your struggle for full freedom. Whatever you get will certainly be better than this made-for-suckers scheme.
- kbatarfi@al-madina.com
- Arab News Opinion 12 October 2003

Our Media Bias

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Whenever you read or hear about a decision taken, or an event discussed, in our media you usually do not find views that dissent from generally accepted opinion.
When the consensus changes the arguments of commentators tend to change their opinion accordingly.
As far as our readers are concerned, they see us change lanes without any warning or explanation.
They see how we use double standards in our attitudes toward similar situations. While, for example, we show our sympathy toward Muslims in Britain or Algerians in France and criticize the Western media because it attributes every problem in these countries to our brethren we, at the same time attribute every failure in our society to the presence of “foreigners”.
This is one of many examples that clearly shows media bias and the absence of the opposite opinion.
Many writers here deal with our problems as if they were imported. They simply forget that the fundamentals of our media message are based on our Islamic and Arab virtues, which state that every person is responsible for his or her own actions. The crime of a foreigner is blamed on his whole community.
We have forgotten that the principles of international economics and free market systems ensure the need to open doors to competition in which only the better and the more competent win. Unfortunately, we are trying to force the employment of our less experienced youth in positions that require more experience and efficiency.
The result is that we end up with a stagnant economy and rising unemployment rates.
One of the essential characteristics of a sophisticated media is its balance of coverage to include all sides of an argument. Balanced newspapers, therefore, insist on finding dissenting opinions. This is the only way to ensure justice, include all sides of the debate, and enrich and enliven the national dialogue.
— Kbatarfi@al-madina.com
— Arab News Opinion 5 October 2003

America Is Held More Accountable

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

A British diplomat asked me recently: “Why do the Arab media spare us in their campaign against the US even though we are partners?”
I told him that history, culture and a proper reading of politics lead us to differentiate between an aggressive leader and a reluctant follower; a long record of blind support for Israel and the typical European line. As an older, more experienced player in world politics, the British are generally wiser in their approach to complicated problems
Besides, the Muslims and Arabs who visited Britain since Sept. 11 have not sensed much change in attitude. In a country faced with similar terrorist threats to America, the British haven’t panicked. They didn’t use harsh and indiscriminate security measures against residing and visiting Arab and Muslims. Except for tighter visa procedures, most visitors reported normal treatment officially, commercially and socially. This explains the record number of Arab visitors to Britain this summer, in contrast to a decrease in visitors to America in the region of 90 percent.
Another important factor is knowing that only Blair’s government, with many notable dissenters, was part of the anti-Muslim Anglo-Saxon crusade. Many in Parliament, the media and Blair’s own party were vocal in their objections. Most public opinion polls show most Britons were against the Iraq war. The same can be said about other forced or reluctant partners in the “coalition of the willing”, such as Italy, Spain and Australia.
On the other hand, the US government took a gung-ho attitude. Guns were raised, while un-American, un-ethical and illegitimate regulations were introduced. Double standards became commonplace, from a biased position on Arab-Israeli issues to cruel treatment of Muslim and Arab Americans, not to mention residents, students and visitors. Disregard for international laws and human rights, as is the case of Guantanamo and the un-sanctioned war on Iraq, tarnished America’s reputation and consumed most of the goodwill it earned after Sept. 11, not just in the Muslim world but in the greater court of world public opinion. Ask any American traveler, businessman or diplomat and he will tell you how much harder it became to live, work or do business abroad.
In conclusion, I told my English friend, the Arab media, like the Arab people and the rest of the world, hold America more accountable for the crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They regard the British as a reluctant partner trying to do their best in the circumstances. We appreciate, for instance, the efforts to temper the insane US reactions and their reasonable record in the areas they control in Iraq. The sum of these factors explains the different attitudes toward the two partners in this unholy alliance.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com
— Arab News Opinion 28 September 2003

What’s Wrong With the Picture?

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

A few months ago — or was it years? — an American president announced in a loud strident voice to an incredulous world at every opportunity that Iraq was a dangerous breeding ground for terrorism and that it had weapons of mass destruction.
If we don’t take action now, he argued, we will soon pay a greater price than that paid on 9/ 11.
Iraq, he assured us, will be liberated and transformed into a showcase for democracy, prosperity and Western-style freedom. The backward and corrupt states of the region will thus learn from the Iraqi experience in order to benefit their oppressed peoples. America will no longer support dictators or betray their subjects who only long for a better life.
Those words were very convincing and many who had at first resisted decided to give America the benefit of the doubt. Besides, who could be sure, Saddam might be the ncarnation of evil who would sooner or later hold the entire world hostage to his nefarious and wicked schemes.
Some months later, America did it. It liberated the Iraqi people from a terrible tyrant. That, however, was all! The day after Saddam fell, anarchy marched in. It seems the US planned very well for war and combat but simply forgot about peace. The US planned for freedom but didn’t pay much attention to the kind security that allows freedom to take root and prosper. Though the Iraqis had once feared for their safety if they angered the regime, they are now afraid even if they anger nobody. Murder, rape and theft are normal daytime activities. Before the tyrant fell, they had taken for granted the basic amenities of modern life — electricity and running water. Now they they have been liberated, they have neither nor do they have other basics such as jobs, hospitals and schools. Jamal Khashoggi was one of those who believed the American promises. He didn’t learn from the events in Afghanistan and argued that the Americans “know-what-they’re doing.” I asked him recently if he still believed in the dream and he stood his ground, blaming everything on “them” — the jihadi, the Baathists, etc. He sounded, once again, like the president and his neoconservative, neo-Zionist team. I reminded him that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had made similar promises after Camp David. Egypt was to become an Arab paradise. Like Nasser before him, the dream and dreamer ended up in history’s cemetery. The way things are going, I fear Bush and Jamal’s promised wonderland will be even a bigger cemetery. Iraq seems to be moving along the same road Afghanistan is taking to, chaos and anarchy. The difference is that we have more wild neighbors, a fragmented society, armed citizens and our gas and oil is a minefield.
- kbatarfi@al-madina.com
- Arab News Opinion 21 September 2003

Let’s Open Doors for Tourists

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Those in Saudi Arabia who demand price management for tourist services so that they can compete with neighboring countries forget that in an open, free market, you simply cannot do that.
The only solution is to open all doors for tourism as a sustainable industry, not as a seasonal or occasional one. As long as our tourism season only runs for two months during summer holidays, service providers will continue to depend on the revenue of 8 weeks to cover their overhead and maintain their facilities the rest of the year.
The cost will, naturally, be passed on to the customer. No way can we compete with countries that run their investments most of the time and distribute their costs over longer periods and higher rates of use.
One of many problems facing this challenged industry in Saudi Arabia is limiting tourism to certain seasons. In winter, when the weather is delightful in most regions, few people are able to travel around because schools close during summer holidays only.
The door is also closed to foreign tourists who would love to enjoy swimming, tanning and water sports in our warm seas in fall and winter, and all-year activities like mountaineering, hiking, car racing, and conferences.
If we were to encourage year-round tourism, we should foster tourism projects in regions that are in great need of investment and work opportunities. Just imagine the crowd if we established schools for mountain sports in Abha, recreation facilities in Al-Baha or Al-Ahsa, or if we turned small ports like Rabigh on the Red Sea and Al-Qateef on the Gulf into free trade zones.
I thought these ideas were brand-new when I addressed a conference last month in Abha that discussed the challenges facing the future of Saudi tourism, but, to my surprise, I found that the host, tourism pioneer Prince Khaled Al-Faisal, Governor of Asir, has already campaigned for similar ideas.
If so, what stands in the way of realizing these dreams? The answer I reached after listening to investors’ complaints can be summarized in two words: Red tape.
As long as rules and regulations do not encourage and support investment projects with grants and loans, and do not shield investors from maddening bureaucracy, and as long as we continue to complicate visa procedures instead of facilitating them, we will never be able to compete with investment-hospitable countries like the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Egypt.
If we don’t move now, the prices we complain about will continue to burn us every season and we will always look for an escape to overseas havens to enjoy a more merciful summer.
- kbatarfi@al-madina.com
- Arab News Opinion 7 September 2003

In Defense of Amr and Reem

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Father, may his soul rest in peace, was a fan of American foreign policy. For him, the last great American President was Eisenhower, who ordered Israel, Britain and France out of occupied Egyptian towns in 1956.
Since then, America, for him and his generation, equaled Israel itself, if not worse. He first began to modify his stand during the first Gulf War of 1990. This was not the result of US actions or policies, but rather of the demonstration of its democracy.
I remember him relaying with amusement the anti-war views he heard on the Voice of America, asking with some confusion: How can American radio talk this way about their president?
When I told him the radio was owned and funded by the government, his amusement — and respect — increased.
“A nation that is independent and free enough to say to their leaders a brave NO deserves my respect. A system that allows such debate and differing stands without fear of oppression is closer to Islam than any Arab dictatorship,” he often said.
When I wanted to study for a doctorate in journalism in America, he agreed only because of his admiration for its democracy and freedom.
“Learn how to present your views they way they do and the trip is worthwhile,” he said.
Five years later, I learnt what he had hoped and I returned a better journalist. By that time, he had had two strokes but was well enough to know about what I had done. I told him also how well my wife, American-born children and I had been treated and how good the American people and schools were.
He smiled and nodded, and I felt that he no longer confused America, the country and people, with its government’s foreign policy.
My father died after the “mega-crime” of September 11, but by the time it was committed he was no longer mentally fit to see what had gone wrong with the American democratic system.
He probably went away thinking America of Bush Jr. was still the same America that treated Bush Sr. as a public servant, rather than a divine prophet.
I remembered my father’s positive view of American democracy with sadness as I followed the media campaign against my friends Amr and Reem Mohammed Al-Faisal, and indeed against myself, in such “respected” media outlets as The Wall Street Journal and United Press International (UPI) — not to mention all the hate mail. It seems the great American democratic system has no stomach now for intellectual criticism and opposing views.
- kbatarfi@al-madina.com
- Arab News Opinion 31 August 2003

Our Arrogant Friend

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@hotmail.com

I have a friend who is rich and powerful. The problem is he knows it. In his arrogance, he decided not worry about a good education or human relations. Sports, entertainment, market news is all he cares to know about.
Very much living for himself and his family, he doesn’t worry about what the world thinks about his actions in pursuit of selfish interests and pleasures.
This carelessness about others puts him in many tight spots, which he fails even to admit. But the latest one has been so tight that now he demands help (or else!). But since he insisted in doing what he did against our best judgment, most are saying: Serve you right. Those who are afraid of the consequences of his disappointment or hope for some reward are trying to help him sort things out. But with an ego so big, pride so injured and advisers so stupid, he seems to get deeper and deeper into the grand mess he managed to put himself in.
Since we are his best friends, we are in the same boat. If he passes the stormy seas, we survive and hope for a better day with a more sensible captain. If he goes under, we go under too.
Sound familiar? For America’s friends it is sadly very much so. While many are feeling vindicated and telling the superpower of the world: “We told you so,” most are fearful of what the injured tiger might do. After the bombing of the UN headquarters and the Jordanian Embassy, the warning message is loud and clear. The peacekeepers’ job is to keep peace — after peace is established. With the kind of violent environment in Iraq, only those who really have to would take a chance. Therefore, the only two options left are to stay or leave.
The first is very costly. It requires more investment and commitment — double the number of troops to guard peace and hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild the environment for peace. Politically, the US desperately needs to swallow its pride and try for a UN cover — a Security Council resolution authorizing international help for Iraq.
Diplomatically, it needs to mend relations with friends and foes alike. European and Mideastern allies and opponents (such as Iran and Syria) are Washington’s best potential partners in peace. Intimidation may go only so far, but beneficial partnership is the only viable long-term strategy.
The second option (pack and leave) is not only humiliating and discrediting to the US but will also make a dangerous breeding ground for terror more dangerous. Leaving now, therefore, is not a sensible option.
Let’s hope and pray that our powerful friend takes the right path, consults the right people and makes the right choice, this time.

Martian Spying on the Arab World

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Some of my friends accused me of living in “another world” because I have not been following the events of the Superstar show now showing on the Lebanese-Saudi-owned satellite channel Future TV. This show takes the form of a competition to choose the best amateur singer in the Arab world by tallying votes cast by phone, e-mail and mobile text messages.
Crowds went wild in Lebanon because the Lebanese candidate was voted out as a result of organized calling campaigns by public and private Syrian and Jordanian authorities.
I imagined a Martian spying on the Arab world and speculated on what he would write about us:
“After examining domestic and international records of economic and societal conditions in the Arab world, I found out that unemployment rates reach over 40 percent, even in countries rich in natural resources. The gap between rich and poor is getting wider, with 10 percent of the population owning 80 percent of resources. The Arab world is not only poor by international poverty standards, but it is also extremely poor in its scientific and cultural productivity.
“For the last 500 years, it has not produced any significant scientific contribution to human civilization. Since the fall of Andalusia, the southern part of Spain, it is living on the remnants of other civilizations, depending on other nations for just about everything — from the needle to the rocket. People in the Arab world eat what they don’t cultivate, dress in what they don’t make and reside in what they don’t build. This absolute dependence encouraged others to occupy and exploit their countries and kept them in the dark ages.
“Despite all these serious failings, one gets a different impression when one follows their media. Arabs are busy following sports and entertainment news. They spend on such activities more than they do on universities and academic institutions. People demonstrate not to demand social justice, human and political rights or revolt against state oppression and failures, but rather to chant slogans in support of the candidacy of a singer. This is happening in an Arab country, Lebanon, whose capital and southern borders are periodically subject to military strikes from a historical enemy, Israel.
“What is more baffling is that governments and elites share this interest to the extent that they allocate free international telephone lines, organize campaigns and encourage citizens, rich and poor, privileged and oppressed, working and unemployed, to call and vote for their national hero or heroine ‘to preserve the honor and good name of their country’.
“I might be growing old and stupid and therefore I have to retire from this job, or that the Arabs really deserve what they befallen them and their place in history’s junk yard.”

The Civilization Bridge That Never Was

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com

A Saudi concerned with the state of our relations with the West in general and the United States in particular asked me: “Who is responsible for the mess? Us or them?”
The truth is that we are all responsible. In decades of easy communication and transport, both sides missed many opportunities to build that elusive bridge between our civilizations. Yes, there was a bad blood between us — religious crusades, colonization and all. Yes, there is Israel and the West’s responsibility for its creation, expansion, and oppression of our Palestinian brethren. But most of this is now history.
New generations of good and decent people came and went without being introduced to each others. If they had been, they would certainly discover that what we have in common is much more than what makes us different. After all, we are the same species, living in the same boat, facing the same challenges to our environment, interests and future.
The real question then becomes: Why no one went first to say hello, I am Mohammad or John, this is my identity, culture and interests. What about you?
Is it fear of the unknown? Is it the need to feel superior to others, especially the different others? Or is it that the people in the middle whose exclusive religious, political and social authority is threatened if the “we against them” mindset is to become “we are all equal and same”?
I believe all those reasons are important, but the most important one is the failure of our thinkers and media, education and social institution in their most crucial task of bringing people of different civilizations and heritage together to work on common problems, dreams and interests. Instead, they worked in isolation or in competition to advance limited national aspirations.
While the world is increasingly becoming one village, the people who are freer to move and cooperate today are inadequately equipped to make the best of such freedom and material cooperation. They don’t know much about each others’ cultural environments, and they don’t appreciate the benefit of mixing different backgrounds for the advancement of human identity.
What can we do to change this? I would say: Go direct! With the miracle of the Internet and cheap, reliable communication and transportation we are able to speak to and learn about one another without biased and agenda-laden mediators. After years of communicating with friends all over the Earth, I have found this to be the best bridge of understanding and friendship.

Saudi Women and Schizophrenia

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com

When I wrote here about our schizophrenia two weeks ago, the first example I gave was about how we behave in different environments in different ways. We get into planes to travel abroad and by the time we get off a plane in another country we have become different people. Many women, discarding their abayas, change into tight and revealing clothes, while some men seem to forget many of their important traditions and religious regulations.
Many women thought I was targeting their freedom to dress as they wish.
“Is it not enough that you force us into certain behavior and dress code at home, you want to follow us with your prison rules abroad,” one angry reader wrote me.
Others, including my mother, took issue with my explanation that women don’t have to cover their face or wear black abaya, as long as they cover hair and body. Their argument is: Yes, most Islamic schools of thought don’t require this particular dress code, but our society needs it.
What I really, truly, wanted to say is: We have to synchronize our beliefs, behavior and attitude. If we believe in our religion and culture, then Allah is everywhere. We cannot pray five times a day in Saudi Arabia, and then skip even Friday prayers abroad. We shouldn’t cover hands and toes at home, and wear shorts when we are away. If working in a mixed environment is allowed in Islam, then it should be permitted inside the Kingdom as well as outside. Why may families mix freely in London, but not in Riyadh? Why can women drive in Bahrain, but not in nearby Dammam? How come we let them study in Dubai in mixed schools, but won’t give them the same right in Jeddah?
We need to agree first on what is acceptable in our religion and what is not. Our religious establishment should come together in a forum and discuss all issues with the aim of giving clear guidelines and advice.
Families and individuals could then decide for themselves how to behave on the basis of the information given. And once a consensus has been reached, we should all act consistently.

Why Invest Here?

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatafri@al-madina.com

The problem of tourism in our country is similar to the investment problem, namely that we are not yet convinced that we are in real need of it.
And we still have to be convinced that those who manage and encourage these activities need to change their conventions, systems and methods.
How is it that an investor bringing huge capital to establish a large tourism project, after getting all the necessary licenses and passing through a marathon of boring procedures, can then find out that some anonymous individual has canceled the project on the day it was supposed to open?
Is it acceptable that, after a company builds a complete tourism city on land granted by the government, the Ministry of Finance can then come along and object to it, throwing the whole project sideways?
One hears many other stories that are equally shocking.
An investor put his own money along with that of partner in land he bought, and then suddenly discovered that the agreement had been canceled and the price he was being charged had increased.
Another built a residential compound, then discovered that the contract was altered — just after the building was complete and the houses were ready for occupancy.
A third established a factory for the production of medicine, then had to come to terms with the instruction that he had to pay customs on imported components despite the fact officially there is no customs’ duty on medicine.
A Turkish investor decided to invest SR70 million by establishing a large factory but got so bogged down in bureaucracy for a year that he ended up out of sheer frustration canceling everything.
One of our tired and bored investors told me about a trip he had made to Dubai. At that time, he didn’t have any investment project in mind. As soon as those responsible for developing investment activities heard of his arrival, they rushed to him and offered him many proposals and ideas with attractive facilities.
After choosing a project, he asked them about their conditions. They replied: “You tell us yours.”
Before he had chance to ask about the paperwork, the license was sent to his hotel — the very next day.
Many other investors have gone elsewhere because they have faced intolerable obstacles here.
Without supporting and encouraging investors and introducing laws to protect them, we can hardly blame foreigners for not being enthusiastic about coming here — or criticize locals for investing abroad.

US Views on Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

The text of the interview of Lorne Craner, assistant secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, with Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi from Al-Madinah Newspaper. Jeddah, July 21, 2003
Q: First I would like to ask a general question: Why are you here?
A: I am here because I have wanted to come here for quite some time. I have been intrigued to hear of ferment in the Kingdom in terms of human rights and democracy. From the outside I can say we have seen more individual small steps in the last year and a half than we have seen since 1993. Having done this type of work for a while and having seen how big things can start with small steps, I was very intrigued to come to Saudi Arabia. To see what really is going on and to encourage people, both in the government and outside the government, to continue this kind of movement.
Q: What were the most intriguing topics on your agenda?
A: After the burning of the girls’ school here there were some things that we hadn’t seen here before. The formation of the journalist association was intriguing. I think there has been a series of small things that if you had read about one or two, you would not think they are related. But if you put them together, then it indicates that something is going on. There is something of a trend here and that is an encouraging sign.
Q: Are you watching the freedom of the press for example? Are we freer today to express our opinion than we were before?
A: Freedom of opinion is an important thing, but definitely being able to report on things that you could not report on before. There are fewer boundaries on what is acceptable, and if those boundaries begin to fall, then that is a good thing. Because in a country where people are going to make decisions in their lives about what they need to do economically and politically, the more information they have the better the decisions they can make, and the more informed the decisions they can make. You can sense that people are able to report on things that they could not report on five or ten years ago. I think that is certainly good. Does that mean that everything is perfect? No.
Q: If this free speech environment resulted in more angry columns against America, would you accept this as a price?
A: Yes. But if you look at our history, especially the recent past and what we have done, the best example is the Philippines. We have very large bases in the Philippines. There were times when former President Marcos was not viewed as being democratic and no longer represented the will of his people, and without getting into historical details, we encouraged him to leave, knowing very well at the time that a democratic Philippines would not let us continue on those bases, and indeed that was what happened. Are we less happy now with the Philippines than we were under Marcos? No, we are much happier, because the Philippines is a very democratic country where people are able to express what they want, and the people there feel closer to the United States now than they did then.
Q: Let me bring in some other examples: Germany and Japan and South Korea; and there are other examples such as Iran and Venezuela but especially in Iran.
A: Let’s talk about Venezuela first.
Q: Well, the impression here is that after Venezuela became a democracy and for the first time elected a president, you seem to have been unhappy about it. And there was a revolution there.
A: I am shocked. No, Venezuela has been a democratic country for over a century. It is one of the few still standing democracies in Latin America. It was the paragon of democracy in Latin America for many years. We used to tell people, if you want to talk about democracy go talk to the Venezuelans, because they have been doing it for decades. What happened in Venezuela in fact was that in some institutions the underpinning of democracy started to fall apart. The political parties that exchanged power for decades stopped representing the people. And as a result people turned to something new. I was down there during the election. It was a perfectly conducted election. And the president won fair and square. Is he doing things that we are not happy about? Yes, and we have expressed that. We have the freedom to express things that we do not agree with. But it was not the case that he was the first democratic president. I am not sure how many they have had over the centuries.
In the case of Iran, that is something we learned from. And it is part of the reason why we are so interested in seeing democracy in the rest of the world. If you have a copy of Colin Powell’s book in English or in Arabic — I understand that it has been translated — he tells a story of going to Iran in 1978 and he is taken around by an army general and they see the Iranian army generals’ brigades — I think it was called the Peacock Army Brigade. And the general says to Powell: “These are the best men, the most proficient men, they will stand by the Shah until the last shot is fired; they will never ever defect on him.” Secretary Powell tells the story of coming back to the United States and he said: “I turned on my TV and there it was, the Iranian revolution.” He said that the Peacock Brigade had defected on the very first day of the revolution. He also said that the general who took him on a trip in Iran was lying in a morgue; he was dead because of the revolution. He said the mistake we made in Iran was to invest only in the leader of the country and not in the people of the country. Because of that we earned the lasting enmity, for generations, of the Iranian People. And I think for people like the secretary of state, the president and Condoleezza Rice, who grew up in an era were we did these things, we invested only in the leader of a country and not in the people of a country, we learned our lesson. That is not a moral thing to do, and not a smart thing for the US to do. That is the lesson that we have learned.
Q: If we took this lesson and saw what you have learned from the Arab world, what did you learn?
A: I think it is clear in this administration — I cannot speak for the previous administrations — it is clear what this president, secretary of state and national security advisor have learned from it, which is that there should not be any region on earth where there is what is what is called a democratic exception. And that is what did occur for many years, and for decades where we were interested in democracies in Latin America and central Europe and South East Asia and Africa, but there was much less of an interest officially in this region. I think what this president, his secretary of state and the national security advisor have said is that this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to say that we stand strongly for human rights and democracy in every region of the world, but we leave it here. Why is it not acceptable?
Q: Why was it acceptable for previous administrations?
A: You have to ask the people from those days. There were official policy-makers doing that. For this crew, this administration has had long-standing pre Sept. 11 interest in doing that.
Q: But this crew treated Chairman Arafat, who was an elected president, as a non-elected.
A: The issue is not being always in agreement with every democratically elected leader. We just had a long dispute with the Germans and the French. Nobody would doubt their leaders were democratically elected. But that does not mean that we cannot have disagreements with them. You can have disagreements with democratically elected leaders. What it really means is that while you might disagree on the substance with a democratically elected leader, that you have created a bedrock in both countries, if you are a democracy, to have a relationship that continues to exist — by virtue of both countries being democratic, and both countries accepting certain principles. So our relationship with the French will endure, and our relationship with the German will endure. But when we have disagreements with dictatorships it really freezes the relationship. Our relationship with the Palestinian people endures as you are seeing not only from the president’s statements on the road map but from his constant personal involvement on the issue to try and make things better. We would like to see a state of Palestine that a) lives in peace with its neighbor, and b) where not only do they have democratic government, but a government that has democratic inclinations.
Q: Yes, but in the case of France and Germany, the US did not demand that the people choose another leader as it did with the Palestinians? That is the difference between disagreement and demanding to change the leadership.
A: I think what we said is that another negotiator on the part of the Palestinians is more likely to be able to produce peace at home and with Israel. The Palestinians have selected that person. He is involved in what many people would agree is very productive negotiations.
Q: People here see double standards as in the case of Egyptian human rights. People say that when the accused are not Americans or if they are Islamists, then America would not intervene. How do you explain that?
A: I have to tell you as a human rights person that getting people out of jail is not the be-all and end-all of human rights and democracy. The be-all and end-all of democracy is when somebody who has to leave a country and wants to return to their country after they got of prison can go back to that country. It is when dissidents who were in prison and get out of prison can go to a newspaper and write a column criticizing the government and nothing happens to them. It is when the system changes so that people can express their opinion. That is something that we are dedicated to doing in all regions of the world.
A country becoming democratic does not depend on the US; it depends on the people in that country. We cannot create a democracy. I think people would be disappointed in the results if we created a democracy in our image. I do not think people in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, or Bahrain want an American-style democracy in their country. I do not think they want an American culture in their country. Our lifestyle in America is fine in America because we have decided that this is a culture that suits us, but is not a culture for everyone. Nor is our system a perfect system for every country. We want people to get involved and be involved in the decisions of their government and adapt it — not adopt it — to the local circumstances. Just like what is happening in Afghanistan now. People around the world have to figure out how they want mechanically to run their own democracy, just as the French decided they would do it different than the British, and we decided to run our democracies different than the British, but we are all democracies.
What you get at the end of the day on the part of the people is that they feel they have more of a say in their political system. They have more control of their political system and they have more political responsibilities than they had before. It is worth it because they have control of their own lives. And that is not dependent on the US but on the people of the country. We can help, but we cannot create.
Q: Is that the case in Iraq?
A: Yes, We can give the Iraqi examples; at the end the Iraqis must be the ones who decide. We cannot decide that for them because we do not have a sense of what they want or how they want their democracy to work. We cannot transplant our system to theirs because it would not work. Our point is to ensure that the citizens have a say in what government does, and ensure that the citizens have a sense of their responsibilities in this system. But how they do it is their business. For example, just the other day there was a demonstration outside the US headquarters by thousands of Shiites. It is their right to demonstrate and express their opinion. I doubt that under the Saddam regime thousands of Shiites would have been able to demonstrate outside Saddam’s palace. We may not agree with what they are saying, but as I said it is their human right to demonstrate and express their opinions. The only rule is that you cannot incite violence among American troops, but other than that, the newspapers can say whatever they want.
Q: Do you think that security is the first human right?
A: I think that there are many human rights that are important. I do not consider security the first and most important human right. There are a lot of human rights. It is very important that people feel secure, but I would not go as far as saying that security is the first human right.
Q: When you planned for this occupation of Iraq, you seem to have planned the very small details of the invasion, but it does not seem that you have anticipated what could happen after. It seems that you are planning as you go along.
A: You have to remember first of all that we did not have a lot of experience. We do not go and occupy a lot of countries. When we went into Iraq, we had to reach back for over 50 years to learn from other experiences. There were many things that we did anticipate and planned for. We expected a lot of refugees and planned for that. We were worried about environmental and health consequences and we planned for that. What we did not do is say, let us wait for another six months and see what else could happen. There were a lot of things that were anticipated and planned for and other things we did not anticipate and did not plan for. Many things that you haven’t seen are because we planned for them.
Q: Was policing the country, like the museums, something you did not plan for?
A: On the museums, I have to say that the first concern of our troops in Iraq was to protect themselves and the Iraqi people, and if in the course of that they did not send enough tanks down to the museum to protect pieces of art, they had a lot of things to think about at that time. If you go back to that example you will find that most of the looting took place even before the war had begun.
Q: Here people feel that the US has double standards. There is different treatment of American and non-Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in Guantanamo. While the US is one of the leading countries in the field of human rights, it seems that you are not being true to your principles. The other thing is that there is different treatment of Arabs and Muslims in America. Now you have emergency laws to deal with them.
A: Let me comment on the treatment of Muslims in America. I think that if Sept. 11 had happened in any country other than America, the treatment of those who were thought to be responsible for such attacks would have been much worse than what happened in the US. I believe one Muslim was killed in America after Sept. 11, and I believe [the killer] is now in jail.
Q: The United States is sending too many confused messages in its policies. You do not seem to be able to give one precise message.
A: I think all the explanations that have been given are valid. I do not think it is a confused message. I think it is a message with different parts. The immediate goal is to get Al-Qaeda on the run and to capture and kill as many of them as possible so that there is no more Sept. 11 and May 12. Our long-term goal is to help the people of many countries to have their voices heard.
Q: What is the difference between intervention and help in Saudi Arabia?
A: The limit is what people ask for. And I hear people and government asking for economic and political reforms. In the end it’s a job for the Saudis, it’s not a job for the US.
Q: Do you think that we will succeed in joining the WTO?
A: (from Ambassador Jordan): I think that if the actions that are taken that are required for membership in the WTO, I think there is a great interest both in the US and the WTO for Saudi Arabia join. It is up to Saudi Arabia to make sure that its laws and membership requirements conform to those of the WTO, I think there a big chance for Saudi Arabia to be part of the WTO.

Yes to the Religious Police... but

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Those who argue that the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is unnecessary fall into two groups: The indecent, and the victims of terrible mistakes. As for the rest of us, we do need the commission to guard and preach Islamic values and morals in our society. Whenever we see its officials patrolling streets and public places, we feel safer.
We understand that the commission’s shortcomings are simply a reflection of our own. If some of its officials are narrow-minded or too strict in implementing rules, that is a product of our social and religious upbringing. If the attitude is “hear and obey,” that is what we have been practicing in our homes, schools, universities and public institutions. As for the lack of training, weak qualifications and shortage of intellectual and information resources, this is true in all our organizations, private and public. Considering all that, the question becomes: Why all of a sudden this strident campaign against the commission?
Many believe it was part of an American smear campaign against our religious institutions, education curriculum and social traditions. Whether this is true or not, we should not ignore the fact that at least some of the complaints against the commission are right. It is high time we discussed these issues objectively with the aim of reforming, not humiliating. We should always remember that the commission is a social institution not above the law or criticism. The commission’s officials and workers are human beings and may make mistakes.
They need to be given good advice, training and guidance and should be disciplined or reprimanded if needed. Top of my list, the commission needs to correct two un-Islamic ways: Their deep suspicion of people, and the requirement that suspects should prove their innocence. If we change these roles of conduct, then members would not intrude homes, public parks, restaurants, family sections and cars to demand that people prove their innocence.
The commission’s officials must also stick to their jurisdiction. It is not their right to confiscate merchandize they deem improper. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of Commerce. If the commission has an objection to a particular product, they must raise the issue with the concerned authorities. A retail trader should not be punished. He buys a product from a wholesaler who has brought it legally into the Kingdom after receiving an official license. They also should not conduct raids on resorts, hotels and housing compounds and ask the management to produce lists of guests and residents, or take it upon themselves to verify the relation between women and men in cars and restaurants. If there are violations in this respect, they should be tackled by the concerned security and commercial agencies.

Waste Not, Want Not

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

The American journalist smiled as he pointed to a large buffet organized by the firm hosting the media delegation. “Finally, we have found a good reason to come to your country again,” he said.
Dipping a piece of bread in the houmus, he added: “I wish there was a plan to distribute surplus food after every party.”
I did not reply, but asked myself what would have been his reaction if he had attended some of our weddings and other ceremonies where the number of sheep slaughtered is actually greater than the number of guests.
What would have been his impression if he had witnessed some people boast of the kind of food they order, be they at home or in restaurants or at open buffets, which they in fact eat very little of.
I recalled something Prince Muhammad Al-Faisal once told me about how the people of Taif used to live. They invited people to their home and slaughtered only the animals they really needed, then distributed the surplus among their neighbors.
Waste and extravagance are not part of our ceremonies alone. They have become part of our everyday life.
Take electricity. While there is a shortage of supply in many new districts or remote areas as a result of the lack of resources, our cities are illuminated by floodlights.
I compared this situation with the American cities where I have lived for many years. Streetlights there are strong enough only to help drivers see their way clearly. Economic use of electricity is evident in houses and commercial complexes, where lights are kept on only in rooms which are being used.
The case of water is even worse. We waste this valuable resource at swimming pools, public gardens and car wash centers. Even those who live near rivers and lakes and have plenty of rainfall use water cautiously, as if they were in the desert itself.
It amazed me when Dr. Ghazi Al-Gosaibi, the minister of water and electricity, stated that half of our water problem could have been solved by preventing wastage.
Instead of conserving underground water as a strategic storage to use in emergency, we waste this natural resource for agricultural purposes as we produce subsidized wheat more than what we require and export the surplus at less than cost price.
Consumption is another area of extravagance. You purchase a mobile phone today and replace it tomorrow when you find a new model. It is the case of almost all other products.
We have to remember that nations in the past were destroyed because of their extravagance of God-given resources. So, let us fear God and use the natural resources in an economic and judicious manner.
Arab News Features 1 June 2003

Yes, We Have Problems

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com

He told me angrily: You generalize things about us and speak little on others. Fear God. Who told you that all our curricula and all our religious views are set against others, that we do not tolerate others’ views, we do not accept other schools of thought and movements, and we want to establish domination over all other views, thoughts, beliefs and trends?
I replied: I did not use these words, and it would not have been right if I had told you such things. What I talked about was the reality we are living in for several years. I have read our curricula, heard Friday sermons at mosques and listened to the cassettes, read the books, fatwas and other publications which prove that there is a movement that calls for the “unification” of curricula and sermons. Advocates of this movement also address the public with a narrow viewpoint, a single interpretation and a single school of thought.
This movement was not confined to the Kingdom but was taken to other countries by students and preachers. I still remember a case while I was in the United States. It was about to create division among the Muslim community and create confusion among the new Muslims there.
The issue started when a Saudi woman told her American Muslim counterparts that covering her face is a part of the religion and that their faith would not be complete without that. She also explained to them an edict issued by a prominent Saudi scholar in this respect. When the issue created a din and bustle, my wife contacted me from the women’s section of the Islamic center and informed me what had happened.
I approached the husband of the Saudi woman who raised the issue and told him to convince his wife that there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars. These differences are sometimes good for the Ummah. I also reminded that his wife (who raised the issue) used to reveal face while driving her car.
His reply was not very encouraging: “We Saudis follow our own school of thought and our own scholars. It is not good that we promote the views of others, especially at this situation when our Ummah is facing so many problems and many scholars show leniency in expressing their views. Many have left the school of the puritan Muslims.” His reply compelled me to intervene to settle the crisis. I asked my wife to tell the American women about another edict on the issue and this helped cool down the situation and resolve the crisis which was about to divide the community into “foreign” and “Salafi Arab” Muslims.
But it did not change the stand of this man. He instead rallied Gulf Muslims against me and accused me that I was attacking Islamic scholars, that I lacked allegiance toward the nation, that I was playing with the religion to win the friendship of the Americans. He also raised doubts about my beliefs and he was even about to declare me an “infidel”.
I said: Don’t you think that the reasoning of this man is the prevalent one in our society? We have to frankly admit that we have a problem, because admission is the first step on the road to successful treatment.
He said: The problem is limited to a few individuals like your friend and some extremist thinkers and jihadists. But this is not so widespread as to be called a phenomenon. Punishing the perpetrators of crimes would be adequate to deter others and establish justice.
Speaking of thinkers, even if they are extremists, they are just reactionaries who came to oppose secularists and atheists.
I said: But it is a phenomenon and we should not ignore it. What we see today is a reality. The same way we fought drug traffickers and traders, we have to fight terrorism, starting from its advocates and supporters to those who issue edicts in favor of them. They show others the way to paradise while of course steering themselves, their children and friends away from that path. It is not justice to describe a deviant thought as reactionary to opposite thinking. The view that calls for committing crimes, declaring others as “infidels” and pouring hate on opponents is not true belief. The opening of the door of dialogue to all schools of thought is necessary — it is not possible to shut away with the advent of satellite TV.
He said: It’s clear that you are biased in your viewpoint, because you speak a lot against one side but little against the other. Why don’t you explain the situation which led these mujahedeen to adopt extremism and prefer violence in place of dialogue? As long as you search for the roots, why don’t you speak profusely on the political, security and social aspects of the issue?
I told him: It appears that you don’t read what we write. Because we have discussed these issues before they were raised by the extremists. We still talk about reforms, the conspiracies of enemies and their injustices. But focusing on such topics now with the reasoning of “Yes, but...” will only justify these crimes — the criminals from those who provide them with intellectual support to those who carry out the operations must be punished with no “buts”. If they asked for a dialogue we would have talked our differences with them, but since they started a war, war is what they shall get.
Arab News Features 25 May 2003

Yes, We Have Problems

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

He told me angrily: You generalize things about us and speak little on others. Fear God. Who told you that all our curricula and all our religious views are set against others, that we do not tolerate others’ views, we do not accept other schools of thought and movements, and we want to establish domination over all other views, thoughts, beliefs and trends?
I replied: I did not use these words, and it would not have been right if I had told you such things. What I talked about was the reality we are living in for several years. I have read our curricula, heard Friday sermons at mosques and listened to the cassettes, read the books, fatwas and other publications which prove that there is a movement that calls for the “unification” of curricula and sermons. Advocates of this movement also address the public with a narrow viewpoint, a single interpretation and a single school of thought.
This movement was not confined to the Kingdom but was taken to other countries by students and preachers. I still remember a case while I was in the United States. It was about to create division among the Muslim community and create confusion among the new Muslims there.
The issue started when a Saudi woman told her American Muslim counterparts that covering her face is a part of the religion and that their faith would not be complete without that. She also explained to them an edict issued by a prominent Saudi scholar in this respect. When the issue created a din and bustle, my wife contacted me from the women’s section of the Islamic center and informed me what had happened.
I approached the husband of the Saudi woman who raised the issue and told him to convince his wife that there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars. These differences are sometimes good for the Ummah. I also reminded that his wife (who raised the issue) used to reveal face while driving her car.
His reply was not very encouraging: “We Saudis follow our own school of thought and our own scholars. It is not good that we promote the views of others, especially at this situation when our Ummah is facing so many problems and many scholars show leniency in expressing their views. Many have left the school of the puritan Muslims.” His reply compelled me to intervene to settle the crisis. I asked my wife to tell the American women about another edict on the issue and this helped cool down the situation and resolve the crisis which was about to divide the community into “foreign” and “Salafi Arab” Muslims.
But it did not change the stand of this man. He instead rallied Gulf Muslims against me and accused me that I was attacking Islamic scholars, that I lacked allegiance toward the nation, that I was playing with the religion to win the friendship of the Americans. He also raised doubts about my beliefs and he was even about to declare me an “infidel”.
I said: Don’t you think that the reasoning of this man is the prevalent one in our society? We have to frankly admit that we have a problem, because admission is the first step on the road to successful treatment.
He said: The problem is limited to a few individuals like your friend and some extremist thinkers and jihadists. But this is not so widespread as to be called a phenomenon. Punishing the perpetrators of crimes would be adequate to deter others and establish justice.
Speaking of thinkers, even if they are extremists, they are just reactionaries who came to oppose secularists and atheists.
I said: But it is a phenomenon and we should not ignore it. What we see today is a reality. The same way we fought drug traffickers and traders, we have to fight terrorism, starting from its advocates and supporters to those who issue edicts in favor of them. They show others the way to paradise while of course steering themselves, their children and friends away from that path. It is not justice to describe a deviant thought as reactionary to opposite thinking. The view that calls for committing crimes, declaring others as “infidels” and pouring hate on opponents is not true belief. The opening of the door of dialogue to all schools of thought is necessary — it is not possible to shut away with the advent of satellite TV.
He said: It’s clear that you are biased in your viewpoint, because you speak a lot against one side but little against the other. Why don’t you explain the situation which led these mujahedeen to adopt extremism and prefer violence in place of dialogue? As long as you search for the roots, why don’t you speak profusely on the political, security and social aspects of the issue?
I told him: It appears that you don’t read what we write. Because we have discussed these issues before they were raised by the extremists. We still talk about reforms, the conspiracies of enemies and their injustices. But focusing on such topics now with the reasoning of “Yes, but...” will only justify these crimes — the criminals from those who provide them with intellectual support to those who carry out the operations must be punished with no “buts”. If they asked for a dialogue we would have talked our differences with them, but since they started a war, war is what they shall get.
Arab News Features 25 May 2003