Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Civilized dialogue is better taught at early age. Dr. Sami Angawi agreed. But unlike most of us, he decided to do something positive about what he believes in.
In his weekly “diwania”, called “Makkia” (after the holy city of Makkah), members can be as young as five years old. As part of a concentrated effort, they get training during the week on how to present themselves, and how to argue a case without getting personal. On Tuesdays, they practice, real-time, in the Makkia.
In a mixed but creatively segregated environment, women and men, young and old, sit together to talk, listen and discuss.
I attended last week’s meeting as a moderator. The discussion guest, Rajaa Al-Sanae, writer of the controversial novel “Girls of Riyadh”, couldn’t like it more. For the first time, she was surrounded by readers of all ages and sexes to discuss her book in an open, but professionally organized environment.
Evenly divided, the hall was occupied at the dimly lighted back by our better halves, wearing hijab. The other part was the men’s section. Men and women faced each other, but women could see us in the more lighted section better than we could see them. In addition, those who were men-shy could sit behind some sort of parting curtain. Rajaa sat in the middle.
We started by fielding comments from the older members and guests, but quickly turned the platform to the younger crowd. They were beautiful. Their comments and questions were well studied and prepared.
The kids came for training a couple of days earlier. They all had to read the book as homework. It showed. The younger people were even better than the older ones in the way they articulated their thoughts, built up their arguments, and presented their questions and comments.
I was impressed. This is exactly what I have been calling for. Our schools should do better, providing classes in dialogue and forums for debate. More important, we must allow them to speak up their minds. At home, class, mosque, they should be given the chance to formulate their own opinion, make up their own stand and decide for themselves what they want to achieve and be.
We shouldn’t interfere in every part of their lives. We can’t keep telling them from childhood to adulthood what to think, read, study, what future to choose, and whom to marry. If we do, we end up with followers but no leaders. Those who only know how to follow orders can’t hope for a bright future.
I was happy to see these kids differ in what they thought of a novel. Then remembered that the same book was published abroad, sold all over the world, but not where it really matters. Even in Riyadh Book Fair, this month, where all censored books of Ghazi Al-Gosaibi and Turki Al-Hamad were released for the first time, the book was taken off shelves. Four hundred books were permitted but then confiscated without explanation!
Banning books is widespread. Even in academic libraries, books are banned. Reasons, vary. The ban not only includes what is regarded as ideologically incorrect, but also the politically, socially and literally imperfect. With such a wide net, even our college students are not allowed self-determination. That’s why they shy away from scientific research and prefer, if not demand, textbooks at all levels, including doctoral.
Professors, including graduates of Western universities, have to oblige.
As a result, we get carbon copies of future leaders. They study the same thing, the same way, and reach the same conclusions. When they study abroad, they carry their package with them. It confuses them when asked to look for information and make up their minds about it. They find it hard to argue with their professors. Where they came from, it is one-way street dialogue. They sat at the listening end, respectfully, and trustfully — no argument allowed.
Then comes the really hard part — debate. This is what Dr. Sami, an American schools graduate, found lacking and tried fixing. To find yourself in a multicultural environment is hard enough. To have to make a constructive dialogue with men and women of all ages, thoughts, and background is too much for many.
What to do about it? The next National Dialogue Forum is about our outdated curriculum, and how to improve it. I suggest we transform the entire system to be based on free thought, open research and civilized dialogue. We have wasted ages and generations; we can’t afford to waste any more.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Saudi Women, Opportunities and the Road Ahead
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
Saudi Women, Opportunities and the Road Ahead
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Confusing Hate Speech With Freedom of Expression, Again!
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Many commented on my last column about the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. Some are still confused about the issue and couldn’t understand the strong Muslim response. But before I give a summary of the main arguments advanced by some of my readers, here’s some “breaking news” from Denmark.
According to MediaGuardian.co.uk, Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), refused to run drawings making fun of Jesus Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. He received an e-mail back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”
The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the e-mail, he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.
No comment! Now, let’s go back to some of the comments. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people in the West, including many in the US and Europe, and the overwhelming response is curiosity and cynicism.
Three trains of thought seem to come up the most: 1) In the West, Christians and Jews are mocked and insulted in articles and cartoons all the time.
This usually leads to many angry letters to the editors and public debate on talk radio and cable news. It never leads to violence and destruction. Freedom of religion also means that others don’t have to live by the rules of your religion.
2) The claim that hate speech toward religion is causing this rage seems bogus, since the Arab and Muslim press routinely prints horribly vile cartoons about Jews. This leads many to believe that this whole controversy is being contrived by anti-Western imams, or others with an agenda that includes attacking the West or causing a distraction, (Syria and Iran for example).
3) Don’t Muslims see the irony that in response to cartoons claiming an inherent link between Islam and terrorism, they commit acts of terrorism?
It seems many still don’t get it. You can’t compare the holiest man in Islam with Hitler, Statue of Liberty and Uncle Sam but to Jesus, Moses and Mary (peace be upon them). And you don’t compare apples to oranges. The Holocaust is an event, not a prophet.
The Western media is full of negative depictions of Islam and Muslims in movies, talk shows, news analyses and commentary, especially after Sept. 11.
But they never generated the outcry the Danish caricatures of the Prophet did.
I am against any stereotyping and targeting of people of any race or faith, in any part of the world.
That’s why I am calling for widening the scope of the anti-Semitism laws that protect Jews to include the rest of us. Can anyone explain to me why not?
Many commented on my last column about the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. Some are still confused about the issue and couldn’t understand the strong Muslim response. But before I give a summary of the main arguments advanced by some of my readers, here’s some “breaking news” from Denmark.
According to MediaGuardian.co.uk, Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), refused to run drawings making fun of Jesus Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. He received an e-mail back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”
The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the e-mail, he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.
No comment! Now, let’s go back to some of the comments. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people in the West, including many in the US and Europe, and the overwhelming response is curiosity and cynicism.
Three trains of thought seem to come up the most: 1) In the West, Christians and Jews are mocked and insulted in articles and cartoons all the time.
This usually leads to many angry letters to the editors and public debate on talk radio and cable news. It never leads to violence and destruction. Freedom of religion also means that others don’t have to live by the rules of your religion.
2) The claim that hate speech toward religion is causing this rage seems bogus, since the Arab and Muslim press routinely prints horribly vile cartoons about Jews. This leads many to believe that this whole controversy is being contrived by anti-Western imams, or others with an agenda that includes attacking the West or causing a distraction, (Syria and Iran for example).
3) Don’t Muslims see the irony that in response to cartoons claiming an inherent link between Islam and terrorism, they commit acts of terrorism?
It seems many still don’t get it. You can’t compare the holiest man in Islam with Hitler, Statue of Liberty and Uncle Sam but to Jesus, Moses and Mary (peace be upon them). And you don’t compare apples to oranges. The Holocaust is an event, not a prophet.
The Western media is full of negative depictions of Islam and Muslims in movies, talk shows, news analyses and commentary, especially after Sept. 11.
But they never generated the outcry the Danish caricatures of the Prophet did.
I am against any stereotyping and targeting of people of any race or faith, in any part of the world.
That’s why I am calling for widening the scope of the anti-Semitism laws that protect Jews to include the rest of us. Can anyone explain to me why not?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Hate Speech in the Guise of Freedom of Expression
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
“Freedom of expression is important, but so is respect for other people.” This was the opinion of Danish Vice Prime Minister Bendt Bendtsen in an interview with daily Jyllands-Posten about the paper’s action in publishing 12 demeaning caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that has pitted Denmark against the Muslim world.
“Freedom of speech is an important right, but it also carried with it an obligation to use good judgment,” he contended. “What Jyllands-Posten did is totally legal. I’ve got nothing against freedom of speech — it is important for us all — but if it can offend and hurt a lot of people, why use freedom of speech for that? This is about respecting other people’s cultures.”
Bendtsen reminded: “It was not unheard of for Danes to get upset over misused religious symbols: Two summers ago, a grocery store was forced to stop selling flip-flops with pictures of Jesus after religious groups complained.”
“Danish newspapers could possibly learn something from US newspapers, which tended not to try to push the limits of what was permissible,” he advised. “In the US, freedom of expression is also important. At the same time, there is also a tradition of showing consideration for others.”
I don’t think I can put it any better. It is amazing, though, that he needed to state the obvious.
The editors of the Norwegian, Danish, French and Jordanian newspapers that published the caricatures have something in common. They run small-time newspapers, and were probably trying to make waves, build up reputation and boost sales. This might sound cynical, but it is much better than the alternative explanation — religious hatred. One can’t call what these papers did an exercise of “maximum free speech”, as the Danish paper’s editor put it. If so, why not start with your own? Muslims believe in and respect all of Allah’s prophets and messengers and would not tolerate disgracing any of them.
If practicing “maximum free speech” was the real motive, then there are other ways to flex your muscles. Try, for example, casting a single shade of doubt on the “official” number of the Holocaust victims. People get imprisoned, fired and their character assassinated for discussing the issue.
Denmark and Norway are among the few European nations that have clean history with the Muslim “Ummah.” They didn’t join in the Crusades. They never colonized Muslim lands. They didn’t help in the creation and support of Israel. They took no part in the so-called “war on terror” against Arab and Muslim nations. Therefore, they have never been on any black list of the terrorists, the anti-Western, or anti-globalization activists.
With such a clean record, spotless history and profitable business relations with over 1,200 million Muslims, you expect Danish leaders to be wiser.
Why would the queen, prime minister and conservative Christian groups go out of their way to squander all these fortunes?
Why would they, out of the blue, insist on inflaming Muslim passions with mindless, hurtful, hateful statements and caricatures?
What is the cultural, intellectual value of depicting the holiest symbol of a fifth of the world’s population as a suicidal bomber, womanizer and terrorist ?
Hate speech got the world into its worst conflicts and wars, most on ideological grounds — Christian Crusades, European holy wars, Muslim sectarian civil wars, World War I and II, down to recent conflicts in Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo and neocon “crusade” on terror. Hate speech killed millions of Native Americans, blacks, Armenians, Jews, Bosnians, Indian untouchables, Chinese and Cambodian intellectuals, Chechens, Gypsies, and Kosovars. All started with some hateful doctrine based on race or ideological superiority, such as Nazism, Zionism, white supremacy and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. By dehumanizing and demonizing the other, it makes you feel superior and helps you rally your own behind a cause. It also justifies your acts of aggression, suppression and injustice.
So, what could and should the civilized world do to fight this disease? When Jews suffered because of hate speech, we invented the anti-Semitism law to protect them. I propose widening this umbrella to include the rest of us. The UN and other concerned international organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, must start collaboration to come up with such rules.
Otherwise, the current clash of civilizations will continue at a larger and more dangerous level and rate.
Humiliated people of a certain religion, race or culture may take it only for a while. The world’s most devastating war, World War II, was a direct result of humiliation the German race suffered at the hands of victorious World War 1 powers. Humiliating over a billion Muslims can’t go on for long without a hit back. Extremists, terrorist organizations and hate preachers are already working on it. Can we afford to wait until the damage is irreversible? We waited too long before and did too little. We should wake up earlier and do better ... this time.
“Freedom of expression is important, but so is respect for other people.” This was the opinion of Danish Vice Prime Minister Bendt Bendtsen in an interview with daily Jyllands-Posten about the paper’s action in publishing 12 demeaning caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that has pitted Denmark against the Muslim world.
“Freedom of speech is an important right, but it also carried with it an obligation to use good judgment,” he contended. “What Jyllands-Posten did is totally legal. I’ve got nothing against freedom of speech — it is important for us all — but if it can offend and hurt a lot of people, why use freedom of speech for that? This is about respecting other people’s cultures.”
Bendtsen reminded: “It was not unheard of for Danes to get upset over misused religious symbols: Two summers ago, a grocery store was forced to stop selling flip-flops with pictures of Jesus after religious groups complained.”
“Danish newspapers could possibly learn something from US newspapers, which tended not to try to push the limits of what was permissible,” he advised. “In the US, freedom of expression is also important. At the same time, there is also a tradition of showing consideration for others.”
I don’t think I can put it any better. It is amazing, though, that he needed to state the obvious.
The editors of the Norwegian, Danish, French and Jordanian newspapers that published the caricatures have something in common. They run small-time newspapers, and were probably trying to make waves, build up reputation and boost sales. This might sound cynical, but it is much better than the alternative explanation — religious hatred. One can’t call what these papers did an exercise of “maximum free speech”, as the Danish paper’s editor put it. If so, why not start with your own? Muslims believe in and respect all of Allah’s prophets and messengers and would not tolerate disgracing any of them.
If practicing “maximum free speech” was the real motive, then there are other ways to flex your muscles. Try, for example, casting a single shade of doubt on the “official” number of the Holocaust victims. People get imprisoned, fired and their character assassinated for discussing the issue.
Denmark and Norway are among the few European nations that have clean history with the Muslim “Ummah.” They didn’t join in the Crusades. They never colonized Muslim lands. They didn’t help in the creation and support of Israel. They took no part in the so-called “war on terror” against Arab and Muslim nations. Therefore, they have never been on any black list of the terrorists, the anti-Western, or anti-globalization activists.
With such a clean record, spotless history and profitable business relations with over 1,200 million Muslims, you expect Danish leaders to be wiser.
Why would the queen, prime minister and conservative Christian groups go out of their way to squander all these fortunes?
Why would they, out of the blue, insist on inflaming Muslim passions with mindless, hurtful, hateful statements and caricatures?
What is the cultural, intellectual value of depicting the holiest symbol of a fifth of the world’s population as a suicidal bomber, womanizer and terrorist ?
Hate speech got the world into its worst conflicts and wars, most on ideological grounds — Christian Crusades, European holy wars, Muslim sectarian civil wars, World War I and II, down to recent conflicts in Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo and neocon “crusade” on terror. Hate speech killed millions of Native Americans, blacks, Armenians, Jews, Bosnians, Indian untouchables, Chinese and Cambodian intellectuals, Chechens, Gypsies, and Kosovars. All started with some hateful doctrine based on race or ideological superiority, such as Nazism, Zionism, white supremacy and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. By dehumanizing and demonizing the other, it makes you feel superior and helps you rally your own behind a cause. It also justifies your acts of aggression, suppression and injustice.
So, what could and should the civilized world do to fight this disease? When Jews suffered because of hate speech, we invented the anti-Semitism law to protect them. I propose widening this umbrella to include the rest of us. The UN and other concerned international organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, must start collaboration to come up with such rules.
Otherwise, the current clash of civilizations will continue at a larger and more dangerous level and rate.
Humiliated people of a certain religion, race or culture may take it only for a while. The world’s most devastating war, World War II, was a direct result of humiliation the German race suffered at the hands of victorious World War 1 powers. Humiliating over a billion Muslims can’t go on for long without a hit back. Extremists, terrorist organizations and hate preachers are already working on it. Can we afford to wait until the damage is irreversible? We waited too long before and did too little. We should wake up earlier and do better ... this time.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Luxury Tax of Dubai Experience
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
“Yes, we have enough money to keep us happy for many generations, but we decided to make our country prosperity-maker for the world, starting with our immediate neighbors. Besides, after the business plane takes off, stopping or slowing midair is not an option.” This was the answer of a senior Emirati official I met during my recent visit to his booming, blossoming country.
True, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah are becoming profitable arenas for global heavyweight investors. They boast some of the world’s highest buildings, biggest shopping malls, artificial islands, best airlines and airports, among many other signs of affluence. The investment in the future is even greater.
I do appreciate the mentality of openness, transparency and optimism. The Emiratis make you feel that nothing is impossible to achieve if you have the will, the courage and the right attitude.
Still, I couldn’t help ask my candid host about the price they had to pay, the side effects and if it was really worth it?
Some 95 percent of Dubai’s population is expatriates. At the current rate, in ten years, the native population may go down to less than one percent. Most expatriates are from one racial background. Few locals have a stake in the huge development their country is making. You can hardly find them in the street, offices and boardrooms. In fact, you can go around Dubai for days and see no Emirati and speak no Arabic.
I relayed this to my host, and he was like waiting for the question. “You don’t see a problem with that?” I asked.
“Not really!” he said. “Yes, I would hate to miss my language in the street, but ... there is a price for luxury!”
What a price, I thought; then pressed on: More than just losing your language, you may actually lose your culture and identity. Your kids will grow in an alien world, where they become a tiny minority in their own country. They won’t need their language to communicate, because almost no one else uses it. They would look hard for an Arabic school to attend.
There is also the security dimension. How can you control a majority of a certain race if things went the Parisian way? In France, the rioters represented a small minority, but still it took a big power a long while to calm things down. How are you going to deal with a similar disturbance if your majority demanded more rights in what they may regard as their homeland?
To be fair, this is not just an Emirati phenomenon. The Bahraini labor minister submitted a study to the recent Gulf Cooperation Council summit about the worsening situation in the whole region. He warned that, soon enough, millions of expatriates will be eligible to full citizenship. Most are non-Muslim or non-Arab. Since all Gulf countries are now members of WTO, they can’t keep denying such rights to long-term residents. He suggested that for nonessential labor there should be a stay limit of six years.
The Emirati official was not alarmed. “Our expatriates”, he contended, “won’t rebel because they are happy. Losing cultural identity in today’s global village is normal. Dubai and other Emirate cities are now top global hub for business, media and entertainment. We do try to give a local flavor and touch to our cities, services and offerings. Look at this hotel, for example. It has Arabic and Islamic architectural look and feel, but was built by foreigners. What difference does it make? There is a price to be paid for luxury.”
But why do you have to get all your labors from one region? Since you do have a choice, why haven’t you diversified? I asked.
He was frank.
“Labor from the region we depend on is cheaper and more skilled. They expect less and give more. Security-wise, we have had the best experience, yet, with them than with other nationalities. Our economic boom is private sector made. If businesses prefer certain nationality and we don’t have a problem with that for the above reasons, then ... why not?”
The next few days in Dubai, I talked to people of different nationalities. He was right. Most were economically happy or OK. But politically, they were not. Many long-time residents demanded equal treatment. “Why Emiratis pay only a third of the outrageously expensive electric bills and we pay in full”, an Egyptian executive protested. “This means we subsidize the locals. It is not fair.”
An Emirati airport staff felt insecure. “I can’t argue even with a taxi driver, because his street population might gang up with him against lonely me! It is scary!”
I still think the Dubai experience is enriching, educating and enlightening. There are so many useful lessons we could learn from. But one of the most important is: There should be a limit to what price you pay for luxury!
“Yes, we have enough money to keep us happy for many generations, but we decided to make our country prosperity-maker for the world, starting with our immediate neighbors. Besides, after the business plane takes off, stopping or slowing midair is not an option.” This was the answer of a senior Emirati official I met during my recent visit to his booming, blossoming country.
True, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah are becoming profitable arenas for global heavyweight investors. They boast some of the world’s highest buildings, biggest shopping malls, artificial islands, best airlines and airports, among many other signs of affluence. The investment in the future is even greater.
I do appreciate the mentality of openness, transparency and optimism. The Emiratis make you feel that nothing is impossible to achieve if you have the will, the courage and the right attitude.
Still, I couldn’t help ask my candid host about the price they had to pay, the side effects and if it was really worth it?
Some 95 percent of Dubai’s population is expatriates. At the current rate, in ten years, the native population may go down to less than one percent. Most expatriates are from one racial background. Few locals have a stake in the huge development their country is making. You can hardly find them in the street, offices and boardrooms. In fact, you can go around Dubai for days and see no Emirati and speak no Arabic.
I relayed this to my host, and he was like waiting for the question. “You don’t see a problem with that?” I asked.
“Not really!” he said. “Yes, I would hate to miss my language in the street, but ... there is a price for luxury!”
What a price, I thought; then pressed on: More than just losing your language, you may actually lose your culture and identity. Your kids will grow in an alien world, where they become a tiny minority in their own country. They won’t need their language to communicate, because almost no one else uses it. They would look hard for an Arabic school to attend.
There is also the security dimension. How can you control a majority of a certain race if things went the Parisian way? In France, the rioters represented a small minority, but still it took a big power a long while to calm things down. How are you going to deal with a similar disturbance if your majority demanded more rights in what they may regard as their homeland?
To be fair, this is not just an Emirati phenomenon. The Bahraini labor minister submitted a study to the recent Gulf Cooperation Council summit about the worsening situation in the whole region. He warned that, soon enough, millions of expatriates will be eligible to full citizenship. Most are non-Muslim or non-Arab. Since all Gulf countries are now members of WTO, they can’t keep denying such rights to long-term residents. He suggested that for nonessential labor there should be a stay limit of six years.
The Emirati official was not alarmed. “Our expatriates”, he contended, “won’t rebel because they are happy. Losing cultural identity in today’s global village is normal. Dubai and other Emirate cities are now top global hub for business, media and entertainment. We do try to give a local flavor and touch to our cities, services and offerings. Look at this hotel, for example. It has Arabic and Islamic architectural look and feel, but was built by foreigners. What difference does it make? There is a price to be paid for luxury.”
But why do you have to get all your labors from one region? Since you do have a choice, why haven’t you diversified? I asked.
He was frank.
“Labor from the region we depend on is cheaper and more skilled. They expect less and give more. Security-wise, we have had the best experience, yet, with them than with other nationalities. Our economic boom is private sector made. If businesses prefer certain nationality and we don’t have a problem with that for the above reasons, then ... why not?”
The next few days in Dubai, I talked to people of different nationalities. He was right. Most were economically happy or OK. But politically, they were not. Many long-time residents demanded equal treatment. “Why Emiratis pay only a third of the outrageously expensive electric bills and we pay in full”, an Egyptian executive protested. “This means we subsidize the locals. It is not fair.”
An Emirati airport staff felt insecure. “I can’t argue even with a taxi driver, because his street population might gang up with him against lonely me! It is scary!”
I still think the Dubai experience is enriching, educating and enlightening. There are so many useful lessons we could learn from. But one of the most important is: There should be a limit to what price you pay for luxury!
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Haj: Some Lessons for the World
Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
Haj was an educating and ennobling experience. Like my last three holy journeys, I learned a lot about myself, ourselves and the world we live in. Here are some of the lessons.
Haj is an occasion where people of all colors, races and backgrounds live together, move as one, and do the same thing, the same way, at the same time. You can’t feel superior to others if you have to be an integral part of their thoughts, feelings and actions. It doesn’t matter here if you are from a better economic or social class, or have higher position or education. It doesn’t make a difference if you are culturally more sophisticated, elegant or better looking. Under the sunny sky of Makkah, in the squeezed crowd of millions, in the simple two-piece white dress everyone looks the same.
In the holy places you forget who you are and where you came from, at least in your relations with the others.
I saw men and women perform the same rituals at the same space and time. Women did not have to cover their faces. In fact, they were required not to.
No religious police, rules or regulations prevent them from doing what they had to do in the same place as men and with men. No one tells them to stay behind to take care of home and children. No one dares say they are lesser creatures than men, and should not be part of men’s tougher and superior world. In Haj, men and women are as equal as children of Allah can be.
If we could go back to our lives with such sense! If we were to give our women what Islam gave them! If we decided to stop mixing our Dark Age tribal traditions with the pure Islam of Khadeeja, Aisha and the great women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs!
There was no political or social enmity during the Haj. I saw Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris share the same tents and mosques. They helped each other and cared for one another. Iraqis and Kuwaitis, Sudanese of all tribes and races, Syrians and Lebanese, Moroccans and Algerians and many others who came from warring places were united under the blessings of one merciful God. If only the leaders of these nations would learn a lesson from this! If they could unite their peoples as they were united in Makkah under the banner of peaceful, encompassing and tolerating Islam!
Religious rivalry was absent, too. Muslims of all sects were praying to the same God, toward the same direction, behind the same imam. They were identical in their appearance, performance and feelings. Sunnis and Shiites, Salafis and Sufis, conservatives and liberals ate together, walked together, and prayed together. They didn’t ask, they didn’t tell, and they didn’t argue about the history of differences that occurred some thousand and four hundred years ago. If we could take that home with us, stop digging the past, and start planning for the future!
And there was no politics. We all prayed for a united and liberated Muslim nation. We prayed for the freedom of occupied Palestinians, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris and Afghanis. But there was no hatred of the non-Muslims. There were no calls for jihad against the peaceful nations and peoples of the non-Muslim world. For almost a week, we were busy praying for the betterment of our families and societies, and cared less for the confusing and dividing politics of governments and leaders. If we could continue to do so after Haj! If we could focus more on the improvement of ourselves rather than on the destruction of our perceived enemies and rivals!
In Makkah we all learned that the world is so small, life is so short, and death can be so close. I faced death with many others more than once. Most of us survived. If we could appreciate that and always remember that only love can make our lives worth living!
In the holy sites, we learned to resolve our differences peacefully. We had to share tight spaces, meager resources, and tough environment. Many pushed their way through tight crowds; others lost their temper standing in long lines for food or water. But every time we reminded ourselves that Allah won’t accept our Haj if we don’t make peace with each other.
Problems were quickly solved and compromises made with apologetic, friendly smiles. If we could always remember that most things are not worth fighting for! And that with more humility, less intransigence, and some compromises we could all live a better, happier and peaceful life!
If we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, could learn what we, the pilgrims did, our world will definitely be a much better and happier place!
Haj was an educating and ennobling experience. Like my last three holy journeys, I learned a lot about myself, ourselves and the world we live in. Here are some of the lessons.
Haj is an occasion where people of all colors, races and backgrounds live together, move as one, and do the same thing, the same way, at the same time. You can’t feel superior to others if you have to be an integral part of their thoughts, feelings and actions. It doesn’t matter here if you are from a better economic or social class, or have higher position or education. It doesn’t make a difference if you are culturally more sophisticated, elegant or better looking. Under the sunny sky of Makkah, in the squeezed crowd of millions, in the simple two-piece white dress everyone looks the same.
In the holy places you forget who you are and where you came from, at least in your relations with the others.
I saw men and women perform the same rituals at the same space and time. Women did not have to cover their faces. In fact, they were required not to.
No religious police, rules or regulations prevent them from doing what they had to do in the same place as men and with men. No one tells them to stay behind to take care of home and children. No one dares say they are lesser creatures than men, and should not be part of men’s tougher and superior world. In Haj, men and women are as equal as children of Allah can be.
If we could go back to our lives with such sense! If we were to give our women what Islam gave them! If we decided to stop mixing our Dark Age tribal traditions with the pure Islam of Khadeeja, Aisha and the great women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs!
There was no political or social enmity during the Haj. I saw Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris share the same tents and mosques. They helped each other and cared for one another. Iraqis and Kuwaitis, Sudanese of all tribes and races, Syrians and Lebanese, Moroccans and Algerians and many others who came from warring places were united under the blessings of one merciful God. If only the leaders of these nations would learn a lesson from this! If they could unite their peoples as they were united in Makkah under the banner of peaceful, encompassing and tolerating Islam!
Religious rivalry was absent, too. Muslims of all sects were praying to the same God, toward the same direction, behind the same imam. They were identical in their appearance, performance and feelings. Sunnis and Shiites, Salafis and Sufis, conservatives and liberals ate together, walked together, and prayed together. They didn’t ask, they didn’t tell, and they didn’t argue about the history of differences that occurred some thousand and four hundred years ago. If we could take that home with us, stop digging the past, and start planning for the future!
And there was no politics. We all prayed for a united and liberated Muslim nation. We prayed for the freedom of occupied Palestinians, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris and Afghanis. But there was no hatred of the non-Muslims. There were no calls for jihad against the peaceful nations and peoples of the non-Muslim world. For almost a week, we were busy praying for the betterment of our families and societies, and cared less for the confusing and dividing politics of governments and leaders. If we could continue to do so after Haj! If we could focus more on the improvement of ourselves rather than on the destruction of our perceived enemies and rivals!
In Makkah we all learned that the world is so small, life is so short, and death can be so close. I faced death with many others more than once. Most of us survived. If we could appreciate that and always remember that only love can make our lives worth living!
In the holy sites, we learned to resolve our differences peacefully. We had to share tight spaces, meager resources, and tough environment. Many pushed their way through tight crowds; others lost their temper standing in long lines for food or water. But every time we reminded ourselves that Allah won’t accept our Haj if we don’t make peace with each other.
Problems were quickly solved and compromises made with apologetic, friendly smiles. If we could always remember that most things are not worth fighting for! And that with more humility, less intransigence, and some compromises we could all live a better, happier and peaceful life!
If we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, could learn what we, the pilgrims did, our world will definitely be a much better and happier place!
Haj: Some Lessons for the World
Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
Haj was an educating and ennobling experience. Like my last three holy journeys, I learned a lot about myself, ourselves and the world we live in. Here are some of the lessons.
Haj is an occasion where people of all colors, races and backgrounds live together, move as one, and do the same thing, the same way, at the same time. You can’t feel superior to others if you have to be an integral part of their thoughts, feelings and actions. It doesn’t matter here if you are from a better economic or social class, or have higher position or education. It doesn’t make a difference if you are culturally more sophisticated, elegant or better looking. Under the sunny sky of Makkah, in the squeezed crowd of millions, in the simple two-piece white dress everyone looks the same.
In the holy places you forget who you are and where you came from, at least in your relations with the others.
I saw men and women perform the same rituals at the same space and time. Women did not have to cover their faces. In fact, they were required not to.
No religious police, rules or regulations prevent them from doing what they had to do in the same place as men and with men. No one tells them to stay behind to take care of home and children. No one dares say they are lesser creatures than men, and should not be part of men’s tougher and superior world. In Haj, men and women are as equal as children of Allah can be.
If we could go back to our lives with such sense! If we were to give our women what Islam gave them! If we decided to stop mixing our Dark Age tribal traditions with the pure Islam of Khadeeja, Aisha and the great women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs!
There was no political or social enmity during the Haj. I saw Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris share the same tents and mosques. They helped each other and cared for one another. Iraqis and Kuwaitis, Sudanese of all tribes and races, Syrians and Lebanese, Moroccans and Algerians and many others who came from warring places were united under the blessings of one merciful God. If only the leaders of these nations would learn a lesson from this! If they could unite their peoples as they were united in Makkah under the banner of peaceful, encompassing and tolerating Islam!
Religious rivalry was absent, too. Muslims of all sects were praying to the same God, toward the same direction, behind the same imam. They were identical in their appearance, performance and feelings. Sunnis and Shiites, Salafis and Sufis, conservatives and liberals ate together, walked together, and prayed together. They didn’t ask, they didn’t tell, and they didn’t argue about the history of differences that occurred some thousand and four hundred years ago. If we could take that home with us, stop digging the past, and start planning for the future!
And there was no politics. We all prayed for a united and liberated Muslim nation. We prayed for the freedom of occupied Palestinians, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris and Afghanis. But there was no hatred of the non-Muslims. There were no calls for jihad against the peaceful nations and peoples of the non-Muslim world. For almost a week, we were busy praying for the betterment of our families and societies, and cared less for the confusing and dividing politics of governments and leaders. If we could continue to do so after Haj! If we could focus more on the improvement of ourselves rather than on the destruction of our perceived enemies and rivals!
In Makkah we all learned that the world is so small, life is so short, and death can be so close. I faced death with many others more than once. Most of us survived. If we could appreciate that and always remember that only love can make our lives worth living!
In the holy sites, we learned to resolve our differences peacefully. We had to share tight spaces, meager resources, and tough environment. Many pushed their way through tight crowds; others lost their temper standing in long lines for food or water. But every time we reminded ourselves that Allah won’t accept our Haj if we don’t make peace with each other.
Problems were quickly solved and compromises made with apologetic, friendly smiles. If we could always remember that most things are not worth fighting for! And that with more humility, less intransigence, and some compromises we could all live a better, happier and peaceful life!
If we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, could learn what we, the pilgrims did, our world will definitely be a much better and happier place!
Haj was an educating and ennobling experience. Like my last three holy journeys, I learned a lot about myself, ourselves and the world we live in. Here are some of the lessons.
Haj is an occasion where people of all colors, races and backgrounds live together, move as one, and do the same thing, the same way, at the same time. You can’t feel superior to others if you have to be an integral part of their thoughts, feelings and actions. It doesn’t matter here if you are from a better economic or social class, or have higher position or education. It doesn’t make a difference if you are culturally more sophisticated, elegant or better looking. Under the sunny sky of Makkah, in the squeezed crowd of millions, in the simple two-piece white dress everyone looks the same.
In the holy places you forget who you are and where you came from, at least in your relations with the others.
I saw men and women perform the same rituals at the same space and time. Women did not have to cover their faces. In fact, they were required not to.
No religious police, rules or regulations prevent them from doing what they had to do in the same place as men and with men. No one tells them to stay behind to take care of home and children. No one dares say they are lesser creatures than men, and should not be part of men’s tougher and superior world. In Haj, men and women are as equal as children of Allah can be.
If we could go back to our lives with such sense! If we were to give our women what Islam gave them! If we decided to stop mixing our Dark Age tribal traditions with the pure Islam of Khadeeja, Aisha and the great women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs!
There was no political or social enmity during the Haj. I saw Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris share the same tents and mosques. They helped each other and cared for one another. Iraqis and Kuwaitis, Sudanese of all tribes and races, Syrians and Lebanese, Moroccans and Algerians and many others who came from warring places were united under the blessings of one merciful God. If only the leaders of these nations would learn a lesson from this! If they could unite their peoples as they were united in Makkah under the banner of peaceful, encompassing and tolerating Islam!
Religious rivalry was absent, too. Muslims of all sects were praying to the same God, toward the same direction, behind the same imam. They were identical in their appearance, performance and feelings. Sunnis and Shiites, Salafis and Sufis, conservatives and liberals ate together, walked together, and prayed together. They didn’t ask, they didn’t tell, and they didn’t argue about the history of differences that occurred some thousand and four hundred years ago. If we could take that home with us, stop digging the past, and start planning for the future!
And there was no politics. We all prayed for a united and liberated Muslim nation. We prayed for the freedom of occupied Palestinians, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris and Afghanis. But there was no hatred of the non-Muslims. There were no calls for jihad against the peaceful nations and peoples of the non-Muslim world. For almost a week, we were busy praying for the betterment of our families and societies, and cared less for the confusing and dividing politics of governments and leaders. If we could continue to do so after Haj! If we could focus more on the improvement of ourselves rather than on the destruction of our perceived enemies and rivals!
In Makkah we all learned that the world is so small, life is so short, and death can be so close. I faced death with many others more than once. Most of us survived. If we could appreciate that and always remember that only love can make our lives worth living!
In the holy sites, we learned to resolve our differences peacefully. We had to share tight spaces, meager resources, and tough environment. Many pushed their way through tight crowds; others lost their temper standing in long lines for food or water. But every time we reminded ourselves that Allah won’t accept our Haj if we don’t make peace with each other.
Problems were quickly solved and compromises made with apologetic, friendly smiles. If we could always remember that most things are not worth fighting for! And that with more humility, less intransigence, and some compromises we could all live a better, happier and peaceful life!
If we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, could learn what we, the pilgrims did, our world will definitely be a much better and happier place!
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Your Take on Arab Hypocrisy
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
"So that is all the Arab hypocrisy you cared to mention?" Many readers asked or seemed to ask.
Some reminded me of the way we talk and act on women issues. When Rajaa Alsanae, a Saudi dentist, wrote her first novel about the love lives of four Saudi girls, many exploded. They called the book "Sex and the City." While many similarities exists with the famous HBO's TV series, there was no explicit sex in the book, only the adventures, dreams and disappointments of four Saudi girls in their relations with the other sex.
The book is a true description of how many segments of society still treat women as a piece of property to be sold to the highest bidder. One girl was refused by the groom's mother because she was half American from a lesser family. The other lost her chance because she was divorced. The third had to play the game of aloofness with the man she loved, learning a lesson from a friend who was divorced because she showed her eagerness to have sex with her husband before she moved in with him. Naturally for many paranoid Saudi men, he suspected that she was experienced in the art of love, and he wasn't the first in her life. The fourth character was very traditional, but lost her husband to a Japanese girlfriend.
Love is the last thing considered in lots of traditional marriage arrangements. Many young hearts are crushed in the process without mercy, empathy or mere understanding.
Some of us, men and women, live in denial. They felt the book gave false impressions about our virtuous society. But few could deny the existence of these and many other similar tragedies. The best way to solve a problem is to admit it. You can't cure an illness if you don't know or refuse to know.
Hypocrisy rules when it comes to our women rights. We do make flowery talk: She is the beloved mother, sister, daughter and wife; the preserved and protected pearl and jewel. But most won't even utter their names in public, referring instead to "the family," or "dependents."
Because of such "dependency-property" attitude, our women need to get males' permission for education, work, bank accounts, travel, and even medical attention. Imagine that: a new guideline for girls schools stated that in case of emergency, the school cannot send students to hospitals without male guardian permission. Another rule stipulates that doctors, even in extreme emergencies, need to wait for such permission.
Foreigners and religious minorities also suffer from our hypocrisy. We talk about Islamic and Arab hospitality, principles and rights. We claim that we treat our foreign guests well and give them their due rights. The truth is too many suffer from physical, psychological and financial maltreatment.
The same goes for religious minorities, whether they are Muslims of other sects or non Muslims. They deserve more religious rights, starting with passion and respect.
Other respondents highlighted additional aspects of our hypocrisy, as they see them. Dr. Joseph Lerner wrote: "The religious differences within Islam are overwhelming. Then, there are the tribal-like aspects of the Arab world which impact the functional integrity of the existing states.
Consider the Arab response to Palestinian refugees. The Arab League has directed Arab countries not to grant citizenship to them. Some Arab countries refuse to accept them as refugees and those which do, limit their employment opportunities. Their living facilities are generally below national standards. Arab countries limit their financial assistance claiming the problem was caused by non-Arabs."
Muhammad Yusuf declared: "We Western Muslim’s can really understand that Arabs are cursed with hypocrisy. We followed the Islamic countries summit in Makkah and the Saudi National Dialogue where participants speak about a united Muslim Ummah, but it is all talk with no action. We see Arabs claiming that western Governments are trying to destroy Islam. It is not Western governments that destroy us, but Arab hypocrisy, backbiting, lying, etc, etc..
Saudi King Abdullah was right when he said in Makkah summit "Allah will never change to the better the situation of any people unless they first change themselves, as Allah promised in the Quran."
Chris Chrisman contended that "the first step in making change happen is to recognize the need for change. I am reading more and more articles by Arab journalists and intellectuals saying that their world cannot continue on the same course it has been maintaining. This is very hopeful. Have a great New Year.
Ralph Sorbris advise that the best way to improve Arab situation is to unite: "For the new Gregorian year of 2006, I wish you all the best and I look forward to see the formation of a common vision for the Middle East. A strong united Middle East would enrich the world."
"So that is all the Arab hypocrisy you cared to mention?" Many readers asked or seemed to ask.
Some reminded me of the way we talk and act on women issues. When Rajaa Alsanae, a Saudi dentist, wrote her first novel about the love lives of four Saudi girls, many exploded. They called the book "Sex and the City." While many similarities exists with the famous HBO's TV series, there was no explicit sex in the book, only the adventures, dreams and disappointments of four Saudi girls in their relations with the other sex.
The book is a true description of how many segments of society still treat women as a piece of property to be sold to the highest bidder. One girl was refused by the groom's mother because she was half American from a lesser family. The other lost her chance because she was divorced. The third had to play the game of aloofness with the man she loved, learning a lesson from a friend who was divorced because she showed her eagerness to have sex with her husband before she moved in with him. Naturally for many paranoid Saudi men, he suspected that she was experienced in the art of love, and he wasn't the first in her life. The fourth character was very traditional, but lost her husband to a Japanese girlfriend.
Love is the last thing considered in lots of traditional marriage arrangements. Many young hearts are crushed in the process without mercy, empathy or mere understanding.
Some of us, men and women, live in denial. They felt the book gave false impressions about our virtuous society. But few could deny the existence of these and many other similar tragedies. The best way to solve a problem is to admit it. You can't cure an illness if you don't know or refuse to know.
Hypocrisy rules when it comes to our women rights. We do make flowery talk: She is the beloved mother, sister, daughter and wife; the preserved and protected pearl and jewel. But most won't even utter their names in public, referring instead to "the family," or "dependents."
Because of such "dependency-property" attitude, our women need to get males' permission for education, work, bank accounts, travel, and even medical attention. Imagine that: a new guideline for girls schools stated that in case of emergency, the school cannot send students to hospitals without male guardian permission. Another rule stipulates that doctors, even in extreme emergencies, need to wait for such permission.
Foreigners and religious minorities also suffer from our hypocrisy. We talk about Islamic and Arab hospitality, principles and rights. We claim that we treat our foreign guests well and give them their due rights. The truth is too many suffer from physical, psychological and financial maltreatment.
The same goes for religious minorities, whether they are Muslims of other sects or non Muslims. They deserve more religious rights, starting with passion and respect.
Other respondents highlighted additional aspects of our hypocrisy, as they see them. Dr. Joseph Lerner wrote: "The religious differences within Islam are overwhelming. Then, there are the tribal-like aspects of the Arab world which impact the functional integrity of the existing states.
Consider the Arab response to Palestinian refugees. The Arab League has directed Arab countries not to grant citizenship to them. Some Arab countries refuse to accept them as refugees and those which do, limit their employment opportunities. Their living facilities are generally below national standards. Arab countries limit their financial assistance claiming the problem was caused by non-Arabs."
Muhammad Yusuf declared: "We Western Muslim’s can really understand that Arabs are cursed with hypocrisy. We followed the Islamic countries summit in Makkah and the Saudi National Dialogue where participants speak about a united Muslim Ummah, but it is all talk with no action. We see Arabs claiming that western Governments are trying to destroy Islam. It is not Western governments that destroy us, but Arab hypocrisy, backbiting, lying, etc, etc..
Saudi King Abdullah was right when he said in Makkah summit "Allah will never change to the better the situation of any people unless they first change themselves, as Allah promised in the Quran."
Chris Chrisman contended that "the first step in making change happen is to recognize the need for change. I am reading more and more articles by Arab journalists and intellectuals saying that their world cannot continue on the same course it has been maintaining. This is very hopeful. Have a great New Year.
Ralph Sorbris advise that the best way to improve Arab situation is to unite: "For the new Gregorian year of 2006, I wish you all the best and I look forward to see the formation of a common vision for the Middle East. A strong united Middle East would enrich the world."
Monday, December 26, 2005
Where Is the Arab Media Outrage?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
“So, where is your media outrage? Instead, you show Western hostage beheadings, allow Muslim fanatics to preach on TV and radio, and publish hate speeches against Christians and Jews. Where is the shame? Where are your principles? You should be campaigning for peace, tolerance and human rights and against intolerance, women and minority abuse, and religious fanaticism. That is the holy role of the media, Arab journalists!”
The above are not the exact words, but a summary of an American scholar’s comments during an international conference convened last week in Dubai on the role of the media to enhance security of Gulf states.
In my response, I said to him (in the general meeting and later in a smaller group discussion): What you are calling for is a classic academic and professional question discussed for ages in journalism schools and forums. Is our role to educate, preach and enlighten the public or just to provide accurate, updated and objective information? Do we campaign and rally for causes we support, or just provide an open marketplace of ideas and a neutral forum for debate and discussion?
The Western media in general, and the American in particular, stand for independence and neutrality: You give the masses well investigated and researched reports and news stories, supported by available evidence, background information and analysis. You allow all parties to have equal access to the public. You don’t take sides or make judgments, except in editorials. It is up to your audience to decide what and whom to believe, accept and side with. End of role.
When riots erupted in Los Angels after the acquittal of four white policemen accused of brutally beating black motorist Rodney King in 1991, the media professionally covered the events. They didn’t campaign for black rights or advocate a review of a long history of abuse and enslavement.
Journalists in non-democratic countries are justly accused of being tools of propaganda, mouthpieces of the rulers, and ideologically committed to one school of thought. They marginalize different viewpoints, campaign for certain causes, and serve their owners and controllers’ interests.
Most new independent media in the Arab world are moving away from the old ways. They attempt to provide as-is news and multi-perspective commentary. If you don’t like what is written, write a letter to the editor. If you don’t agree with a guest of a live show, call in and tell him so. If an opinion or a report on a website seems wrong, email them your correction. As long as your perspective, no matter how different or unique, is published or aired, you can’t complain about the equal opportunity and space given to those you disagree with.
In evaluating Arab media performance, we need to distinguish between mainstream media and underground outlets. The first is owned and supervised by governments and media corporations. Their policies prevent them from preaching religious hatred or siding with terrorists. After all, terrorists are enemies of the Arab states, as much as of the West. But at the same time, they cannot ignore their statements and actions. Professional coverage of events requires comprehensive reporting from all sides.
The non-licensed media are mostly Internet based. Comments are usually unsigned. Web blogs, electronic newsletters, mailing lists and discussion groups are uncensored and uncontrollable. Those are the ones who may preach and advocate, with impunity.
By the way, the mainstream media never aired or printed beheading videos and pictures, as some websites did. This turned the public against the perpetrators. The coverage of the suicide bombing of civilian compounds in Saudi Arabia and wedding parties in Jordan made most people see the ugliness of the terrorist organizations they may once have admired, believed or tolerated.
Finally, you cannot take media coverage out of context. The liberal US media tolerated outrageous breaches of constitutional principles after 9/11. Because they thought the administration was fighting a just war, they turned a blind eye to abuses of international rules, civil liberties and human rights — at home and abroad. Where was the outrage over the administration’s lies and sleazy and brutal tactics? Why did the New York Times accept the Bush administration’s request and delay a story about government eavesdropping on American citizens for a whole year? Where is the campaign against torture in CIA prisons around the world?
If the context allows for such tolerance on the American side, why can’t it also be applied to Arab media? After all, the media are supposed to reflect the public’s mood. In a world where the anger against Western policies has been boiling for decades, you can’t expect much sympathy for colonizers and occupiers. Instead, a minimum level of tolerance for some sort of violent reaction in response to even worse actions should be expected and accepted.
“So, where is your media outrage? Instead, you show Western hostage beheadings, allow Muslim fanatics to preach on TV and radio, and publish hate speeches against Christians and Jews. Where is the shame? Where are your principles? You should be campaigning for peace, tolerance and human rights and against intolerance, women and minority abuse, and religious fanaticism. That is the holy role of the media, Arab journalists!”
The above are not the exact words, but a summary of an American scholar’s comments during an international conference convened last week in Dubai on the role of the media to enhance security of Gulf states.
In my response, I said to him (in the general meeting and later in a smaller group discussion): What you are calling for is a classic academic and professional question discussed for ages in journalism schools and forums. Is our role to educate, preach and enlighten the public or just to provide accurate, updated and objective information? Do we campaign and rally for causes we support, or just provide an open marketplace of ideas and a neutral forum for debate and discussion?
The Western media in general, and the American in particular, stand for independence and neutrality: You give the masses well investigated and researched reports and news stories, supported by available evidence, background information and analysis. You allow all parties to have equal access to the public. You don’t take sides or make judgments, except in editorials. It is up to your audience to decide what and whom to believe, accept and side with. End of role.
When riots erupted in Los Angels after the acquittal of four white policemen accused of brutally beating black motorist Rodney King in 1991, the media professionally covered the events. They didn’t campaign for black rights or advocate a review of a long history of abuse and enslavement.
Journalists in non-democratic countries are justly accused of being tools of propaganda, mouthpieces of the rulers, and ideologically committed to one school of thought. They marginalize different viewpoints, campaign for certain causes, and serve their owners and controllers’ interests.
Most new independent media in the Arab world are moving away from the old ways. They attempt to provide as-is news and multi-perspective commentary. If you don’t like what is written, write a letter to the editor. If you don’t agree with a guest of a live show, call in and tell him so. If an opinion or a report on a website seems wrong, email them your correction. As long as your perspective, no matter how different or unique, is published or aired, you can’t complain about the equal opportunity and space given to those you disagree with.
In evaluating Arab media performance, we need to distinguish between mainstream media and underground outlets. The first is owned and supervised by governments and media corporations. Their policies prevent them from preaching religious hatred or siding with terrorists. After all, terrorists are enemies of the Arab states, as much as of the West. But at the same time, they cannot ignore their statements and actions. Professional coverage of events requires comprehensive reporting from all sides.
The non-licensed media are mostly Internet based. Comments are usually unsigned. Web blogs, electronic newsletters, mailing lists and discussion groups are uncensored and uncontrollable. Those are the ones who may preach and advocate, with impunity.
By the way, the mainstream media never aired or printed beheading videos and pictures, as some websites did. This turned the public against the perpetrators. The coverage of the suicide bombing of civilian compounds in Saudi Arabia and wedding parties in Jordan made most people see the ugliness of the terrorist organizations they may once have admired, believed or tolerated.
Finally, you cannot take media coverage out of context. The liberal US media tolerated outrageous breaches of constitutional principles after 9/11. Because they thought the administration was fighting a just war, they turned a blind eye to abuses of international rules, civil liberties and human rights — at home and abroad. Where was the outrage over the administration’s lies and sleazy and brutal tactics? Why did the New York Times accept the Bush administration’s request and delay a story about government eavesdropping on American citizens for a whole year? Where is the campaign against torture in CIA prisons around the world?
If the context allows for such tolerance on the American side, why can’t it also be applied to Arab media? After all, the media are supposed to reflect the public’s mood. In a world where the anger against Western policies has been boiling for decades, you can’t expect much sympathy for colonizers and occupiers. Instead, a minimum level of tolerance for some sort of violent reaction in response to even worse actions should be expected and accepted.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Unemployment: The Ticking Time Bomb
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
I just came back from two international conferences. The first, in Berlin, discussed Gulf states’ security, the other in Beirut was about “social issues in the eyes of the Arab media.” Both conferences highlighted a very clear and present danger: Unemployment.
In the Arab world, today, we face three dangers: Economic stagnation, political unrest and extremism. The first two inflame the third. Why have we had these problems for more than thirty years now with little signs of hope? Here is my take: Economic progress is based on creativity, liberty and the rule of law. Creativity cannot flourish in an environment of fear and police rule. Slaves and soldiers are trained not to think for themselves but to obey orders without a second thought. The rule of law can only be maintained with a system of checks and balances. You can’t get that in regimes that put all powers, executive and legislative, in the hands of one great leader or one group of decision makers who think of themselves as owners and not servants of the public. You can’t go far in an environment of unilateralism, nepotism, corruption and favoritism.
Since the creation of modern states in the Arab world, we were promised but so far denied these basic components of civilization and human rights. Most Arab countries today still insist on reforming without changing their mentality, attitude or corrupted systems. They offer opening windows without bringing down the ancient walls of tribalism, one-party rule and individual leadership. And when internal and external pressures persist, they make symbolic gestures, like releasing political prisoners, running sure-to-win presidential elections and allowing some live debate and media criticism that never reaches to the top and can be silenced anytime the givers decide to clamp down.
What does it take to solve the problem of unemployment in the Arab world? In the British Council-sponsored conference in Beirut we studied the worsening situation in leading Arab countries. The role of the media was extensively examined. But study after study showed that we need lots of immediate attention and extensive work to correct the underpinning problems.
Theoretical, political and ideological education systems are the biggest obstacle. Other administrational and social ills like nepotism, red tape, corruption, and state-dependent economies come next. Women as well as religious and racial minorities suffer the most, the young more than the old.
The newcomers to the job market, especially from these groups, find most seats already taken by those who won’t leave before they reach retirement age, beside the socially, economically or politically well-connected and the better prepared. The latter include those who were lucky enough to study in private or foreign schools in subject areas that were most needed, like foreign languages, computer science, engineering and medicine.
In my opinion, the best solution is to open up to the world. In this era of globalization you have no option anyway. So why don’t you start now at your own pace, and with your own initiative?
Opening up means you need to upgrade your standards. You cannot compete for investors if you cannot provide protection and guarantees for their investments. They need stable, workable, universally applicable laws. They expect a minimum level of transparency, accountability and openness. They are used to certain freedoms, liberties and rights. They must have unhindered access to certain government, legal, information and religious facilities.
We should provide their investments with updated and functioning infrastructure, such as communication services, public transportation and business amenities. We must upgrade our local talent, ease foreign recruitment in needed specialties and liberate our labor movement.
But first of all, we ought to change our isolationist, racist attitude towards foreigners. Our religion and Arab culture command us to be hospitable, kind and fair to our guests, no matter where they come from. Our current attitude is alien to what we are and what we stand for. It happens to be bad for business, too.
If we expand the dancing floor we don’t need to limit the number of dancers. In fact, we will have enough space for more outsiders who would enrich us with their talents, ideas and cultures. That is what made America, Canada and Australia such desirable destinations to the world’s best and brightest, including our own. Arab countries are not that crowded. There is enough room for many more people to join and enlighten the party.
Arab regimes don’t need to worry. Here we are not talking revolutions, but evolutional, short and mid-term solutions. Long term ones will present themselves if we start on the right track, at the right speed, with the right attitude.
What Arab regimes should worry about are the economic time bombs, such as unemployment. In the absence of social networks, like free social services and unemployment allowances, what options do frustrated, desperate and humiliated job seekers have?
Wrong turns might be the only available detours when the right road is blocked.
I just came back from two international conferences. The first, in Berlin, discussed Gulf states’ security, the other in Beirut was about “social issues in the eyes of the Arab media.” Both conferences highlighted a very clear and present danger: Unemployment.
In the Arab world, today, we face three dangers: Economic stagnation, political unrest and extremism. The first two inflame the third. Why have we had these problems for more than thirty years now with little signs of hope? Here is my take: Economic progress is based on creativity, liberty and the rule of law. Creativity cannot flourish in an environment of fear and police rule. Slaves and soldiers are trained not to think for themselves but to obey orders without a second thought. The rule of law can only be maintained with a system of checks and balances. You can’t get that in regimes that put all powers, executive and legislative, in the hands of one great leader or one group of decision makers who think of themselves as owners and not servants of the public. You can’t go far in an environment of unilateralism, nepotism, corruption and favoritism.
Since the creation of modern states in the Arab world, we were promised but so far denied these basic components of civilization and human rights. Most Arab countries today still insist on reforming without changing their mentality, attitude or corrupted systems. They offer opening windows without bringing down the ancient walls of tribalism, one-party rule and individual leadership. And when internal and external pressures persist, they make symbolic gestures, like releasing political prisoners, running sure-to-win presidential elections and allowing some live debate and media criticism that never reaches to the top and can be silenced anytime the givers decide to clamp down.
What does it take to solve the problem of unemployment in the Arab world? In the British Council-sponsored conference in Beirut we studied the worsening situation in leading Arab countries. The role of the media was extensively examined. But study after study showed that we need lots of immediate attention and extensive work to correct the underpinning problems.
Theoretical, political and ideological education systems are the biggest obstacle. Other administrational and social ills like nepotism, red tape, corruption, and state-dependent economies come next. Women as well as religious and racial minorities suffer the most, the young more than the old.
The newcomers to the job market, especially from these groups, find most seats already taken by those who won’t leave before they reach retirement age, beside the socially, economically or politically well-connected and the better prepared. The latter include those who were lucky enough to study in private or foreign schools in subject areas that were most needed, like foreign languages, computer science, engineering and medicine.
In my opinion, the best solution is to open up to the world. In this era of globalization you have no option anyway. So why don’t you start now at your own pace, and with your own initiative?
Opening up means you need to upgrade your standards. You cannot compete for investors if you cannot provide protection and guarantees for their investments. They need stable, workable, universally applicable laws. They expect a minimum level of transparency, accountability and openness. They are used to certain freedoms, liberties and rights. They must have unhindered access to certain government, legal, information and religious facilities.
We should provide their investments with updated and functioning infrastructure, such as communication services, public transportation and business amenities. We must upgrade our local talent, ease foreign recruitment in needed specialties and liberate our labor movement.
But first of all, we ought to change our isolationist, racist attitude towards foreigners. Our religion and Arab culture command us to be hospitable, kind and fair to our guests, no matter where they come from. Our current attitude is alien to what we are and what we stand for. It happens to be bad for business, too.
If we expand the dancing floor we don’t need to limit the number of dancers. In fact, we will have enough space for more outsiders who would enrich us with their talents, ideas and cultures. That is what made America, Canada and Australia such desirable destinations to the world’s best and brightest, including our own. Arab countries are not that crowded. There is enough room for many more people to join and enlighten the party.
Arab regimes don’t need to worry. Here we are not talking revolutions, but evolutional, short and mid-term solutions. Long term ones will present themselves if we start on the right track, at the right speed, with the right attitude.
What Arab regimes should worry about are the economic time bombs, such as unemployment. In the absence of social networks, like free social services and unemployment allowances, what options do frustrated, desperate and humiliated job seekers have?
Wrong turns might be the only available detours when the right road is blocked.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Our Youth’s Work Ethics and Attitude
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Every time I hear one more businessman or corporate manager complaining about his young Saudi recruits, I know before he finishes his first sentence it is going to be a complaint about qualifications and discipline. I don’t exactly know why, but so many graduates go to the marketplace with little patience, work ethics and discipline, not to mention other shortcomings in training and skills.
We must admit that our education system has problems. For one, it tends to focus more on theory and ideology than practicality and job related skills. Some thirty-five years ago our schools taught English and French. Now, we are still debating whether English should be taught in elementary schools. Worse, English teachers need better training themselves. My son had to convince his teacher that “is” doesn’t have to be capitalized and some university students were confused about where to use “is” and “are”.
Computers in many schools and colleges still use DOS. Laps are rarely well equipped and handicraft workshops are not part of the curriculum. Libraries are stuffed mostly with religion, history and Arabic literature books. Academic libraries are heavily censored and rarely updated and lack many resources. Public libraries can be counted on one hand, and only in the major cities—please forget about smaller towns and villages.
Still, the educational system is not the only problem our youth have. The way we raise them is another. We teach them at an early age to follow the official line without any questioning. They are supposed to read only textbooks. Independent research is not encouraged. They are told exactly where in textbooks to study — or memorize — for exams. When they reach university, they expect — and get — the same treatment. After all, most of their teachers either gave up on them or are trained that way themselves — garbage in, garbage out.
Wherever they go, our young are not encouraged to think, search and invent. Following the set rules is the norm. Few dare to break them.
This explains why our graduates are underskilled. But the train doesn’t stop here. We have work ethic and attitude problems, as well. Somehow, this generation is worse than the previous. A couple of generations ago we were OK. Our fathers and grandfathers worked harder, produced more, and had a much better attitude towards work and higher ethical standards. Is there a turning point when our workforce started to deteriorate? If so, when and how? If not, where did we go wrong and why?
I would say the economic boom of 1975-82 had a lot to do with it. Along that way, we got used to having easy money and an easy life. A whole generation was brought up in such a corrupting environment. Then came the conservative change of the curriculum around 1982. For the next 23 years the curriculum guardians kept the books almost untouched. They probably feared that any change would make them less conservative. The focus in this system is on teaching not inspiring, memorizing not understanding, directing not exploring.
Why am I going back to the problem of education? Because in the absence of family, school is the most influential institution left in our kids’ upbringing.
But why is the family is absent? It is the economic boom again. It made parents leave the most tasking and vital duties of their children’s’ upbringing to domestic helpers, if not to the street. Fathers go home to rest before leaving again for more work, or to join friends to play cards, smoke shisha, and watch sports.
Mothers go from family and friend’s gatherings to parties, from shopping to social outings. The kids are left in the care of Filipino and Sir Lankan maids. Older kids are given freedom to play, shop, and chase girls.
There are other culprits, too. What have the media done to educate and enlighten? What has the corporate world done to train and retrain? Aramco, SABIC, banks and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Abdullatif Jameel have achieved a lot by their focus on training, but what have the rest of our private sector been doing?
All the above are mere shots at the truth. I do know claim to know all the answers, but I do know that we need to talk. We need dialogue forums compromising experts, specialists, public and private decision makers, parents, and representatives of the new generation. We must discuss all issues in an open-minded format. No one group should censor, control or program our debate. It must be inclusive of all strands and stands — men and women, Sunni and Shia, liberal and conservative, and every shade of color in between.
Let’s do this, and answers will come rolling. Actions should immediately follow.
Every time I hear one more businessman or corporate manager complaining about his young Saudi recruits, I know before he finishes his first sentence it is going to be a complaint about qualifications and discipline. I don’t exactly know why, but so many graduates go to the marketplace with little patience, work ethics and discipline, not to mention other shortcomings in training and skills.
We must admit that our education system has problems. For one, it tends to focus more on theory and ideology than practicality and job related skills. Some thirty-five years ago our schools taught English and French. Now, we are still debating whether English should be taught in elementary schools. Worse, English teachers need better training themselves. My son had to convince his teacher that “is” doesn’t have to be capitalized and some university students were confused about where to use “is” and “are”.
Computers in many schools and colleges still use DOS. Laps are rarely well equipped and handicraft workshops are not part of the curriculum. Libraries are stuffed mostly with religion, history and Arabic literature books. Academic libraries are heavily censored and rarely updated and lack many resources. Public libraries can be counted on one hand, and only in the major cities—please forget about smaller towns and villages.
Still, the educational system is not the only problem our youth have. The way we raise them is another. We teach them at an early age to follow the official line without any questioning. They are supposed to read only textbooks. Independent research is not encouraged. They are told exactly where in textbooks to study — or memorize — for exams. When they reach university, they expect — and get — the same treatment. After all, most of their teachers either gave up on them or are trained that way themselves — garbage in, garbage out.
Wherever they go, our young are not encouraged to think, search and invent. Following the set rules is the norm. Few dare to break them.
This explains why our graduates are underskilled. But the train doesn’t stop here. We have work ethic and attitude problems, as well. Somehow, this generation is worse than the previous. A couple of generations ago we were OK. Our fathers and grandfathers worked harder, produced more, and had a much better attitude towards work and higher ethical standards. Is there a turning point when our workforce started to deteriorate? If so, when and how? If not, where did we go wrong and why?
I would say the economic boom of 1975-82 had a lot to do with it. Along that way, we got used to having easy money and an easy life. A whole generation was brought up in such a corrupting environment. Then came the conservative change of the curriculum around 1982. For the next 23 years the curriculum guardians kept the books almost untouched. They probably feared that any change would make them less conservative. The focus in this system is on teaching not inspiring, memorizing not understanding, directing not exploring.
Why am I going back to the problem of education? Because in the absence of family, school is the most influential institution left in our kids’ upbringing.
But why is the family is absent? It is the economic boom again. It made parents leave the most tasking and vital duties of their children’s’ upbringing to domestic helpers, if not to the street. Fathers go home to rest before leaving again for more work, or to join friends to play cards, smoke shisha, and watch sports.
Mothers go from family and friend’s gatherings to parties, from shopping to social outings. The kids are left in the care of Filipino and Sir Lankan maids. Older kids are given freedom to play, shop, and chase girls.
There are other culprits, too. What have the media done to educate and enlighten? What has the corporate world done to train and retrain? Aramco, SABIC, banks and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Abdullatif Jameel have achieved a lot by their focus on training, but what have the rest of our private sector been doing?
All the above are mere shots at the truth. I do know claim to know all the answers, but I do know that we need to talk. We need dialogue forums compromising experts, specialists, public and private decision makers, parents, and representatives of the new generation. We must discuss all issues in an open-minded format. No one group should censor, control or program our debate. It must be inclusive of all strands and stands — men and women, Sunni and Shia, liberal and conservative, and every shade of color in between.
Let’s do this, and answers will come rolling. Actions should immediately follow.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Our Youth, Reforms and Future
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
How do you make your youth more responsible, humanistic, and appreciative of their country, heritage and art? How can you make them more loving and lovable, caring and considerate? What changes you should apply to your education system and the way children are brought up? And how can we help some of them be less self-centered, violent, and hateful of the different other?
Is this a tall order? Not if all concerns are symptoms of the same illness. Not if the medicine comes in one package. Not if the alternative is self-destruction.
Why now? Why suddenly we have this problem and need urgent solution? And how can we solve it without antagonizing a powerful segment of our society and authority?
First, it is not a new problem; only our awareness of it is new. A whole generation was born in the middle of an economic boom that lasted seven years from 1975 to 1982. It started with the oil boycott crisis, Iranian revolution and Iraq-Iran war, and then quickly plunged into a long lasting recession.
With the huge and sudden influx of cash and foreign products, people and values, our morals and ways of life changed — not always for the better — and the virus of materialism ran into our system.
At the other end, a conservative movement went on the offensive. Worried of losing to new trends and modern decadence, they fought furiously. When Johaiman’s violent crusade to militarily change our world was defeated, the fundamentalist movement continued the challenge intellectually.
Since we were concerned that we might have strayed too far from the roots of our conservative society, we listened to them and swallowed too much of their prescribed medicine.
Some of us agreed, more were in doubt, and many revolted. The social balance and coherence were lost in the furious clash of principles, doctrines and religious interpretation.
Today, we stand to harvest what the winning school of thought single-handedly seeded in the last twenty-five years. Unrivaled and hardly checked or questioned, they made a lot of system alteration, curriculum change, school penetration, media watching, social progress administration, intellectual censorship, and comprehensive preaching and training.
Today, they are on the defensive, but they still stand by their strong-headed beliefs, resisting change and finding ways to continue their crusade. They are still influential in all the wrong places — schools, mosques and religious establishments.
Second, it is high time we did something about that section of our youngsters which lacks in worldly awareness, sympathy and direction. Those with no proper contact with the other half and the other who is different in religion, school of thought, race, language and culture tend to get confused, suspicious, and even hateful of them.
Exploited by people with extremist agendas, those angry and religiously motivated youngsters can be foot soldiers of dangerous ideologies. There is no more dangerous a soldier than the one who has no regrets, has nothing to lose, and is ready to take his own life for a cause.
Our experience shows that the only way to neutralize them is to eradicate them or re-educate them. The Interior Ministry’s re-education campaign has proved so successful that many ex-extremists are now working for the program that saved them to save others.
Third, we have no choice but to urgently solve the problem. If we keep ignoring it, denying its existence or leaving it to the healing of time, two terrible things would certainly happen.
One, the problem will persist, if not worsen, as long as the elements that produced it, the environment that encouraged it, and the rules that tolerated it are still in place.
Two, the world that waited too long for us to act will eventually get sick and tired of waiting. The least the rest could do is to leave us behind in their march toward a more integrated, liberated and prosperous world. Isolation is not an option in the New World Order.
Internally, the wiser and brighter might get the same message and reach the same conclusion — it is a hopeless case. Again two bad things might happen. They might get paralyzingly depressed. Or they may just leave us and pursue better life and future somewhere else. We can’t afford either.
So what do we do? There are a lot of proposed changes and reforms. We already know what we need to do, but disagree on the extent and speed. Shall we wait for everyone to come on board, or take the willing and move on? Do we take the winding country road or use the highway? If the latter, do we run in the fast or slow lane?
So far, we opted for the slower road of consensus-building to minimize friction and confrontation. No one is ready for a social upheaval — not in the middle of our war on terror and extremism.
I could be wrong. But this might prove too little, too late.
How do you make your youth more responsible, humanistic, and appreciative of their country, heritage and art? How can you make them more loving and lovable, caring and considerate? What changes you should apply to your education system and the way children are brought up? And how can we help some of them be less self-centered, violent, and hateful of the different other?
Is this a tall order? Not if all concerns are symptoms of the same illness. Not if the medicine comes in one package. Not if the alternative is self-destruction.
Why now? Why suddenly we have this problem and need urgent solution? And how can we solve it without antagonizing a powerful segment of our society and authority?
First, it is not a new problem; only our awareness of it is new. A whole generation was born in the middle of an economic boom that lasted seven years from 1975 to 1982. It started with the oil boycott crisis, Iranian revolution and Iraq-Iran war, and then quickly plunged into a long lasting recession.
With the huge and sudden influx of cash and foreign products, people and values, our morals and ways of life changed — not always for the better — and the virus of materialism ran into our system.
At the other end, a conservative movement went on the offensive. Worried of losing to new trends and modern decadence, they fought furiously. When Johaiman’s violent crusade to militarily change our world was defeated, the fundamentalist movement continued the challenge intellectually.
Since we were concerned that we might have strayed too far from the roots of our conservative society, we listened to them and swallowed too much of their prescribed medicine.
Some of us agreed, more were in doubt, and many revolted. The social balance and coherence were lost in the furious clash of principles, doctrines and religious interpretation.
Today, we stand to harvest what the winning school of thought single-handedly seeded in the last twenty-five years. Unrivaled and hardly checked or questioned, they made a lot of system alteration, curriculum change, school penetration, media watching, social progress administration, intellectual censorship, and comprehensive preaching and training.
Today, they are on the defensive, but they still stand by their strong-headed beliefs, resisting change and finding ways to continue their crusade. They are still influential in all the wrong places — schools, mosques and religious establishments.
Second, it is high time we did something about that section of our youngsters which lacks in worldly awareness, sympathy and direction. Those with no proper contact with the other half and the other who is different in religion, school of thought, race, language and culture tend to get confused, suspicious, and even hateful of them.
Exploited by people with extremist agendas, those angry and religiously motivated youngsters can be foot soldiers of dangerous ideologies. There is no more dangerous a soldier than the one who has no regrets, has nothing to lose, and is ready to take his own life for a cause.
Our experience shows that the only way to neutralize them is to eradicate them or re-educate them. The Interior Ministry’s re-education campaign has proved so successful that many ex-extremists are now working for the program that saved them to save others.
Third, we have no choice but to urgently solve the problem. If we keep ignoring it, denying its existence or leaving it to the healing of time, two terrible things would certainly happen.
One, the problem will persist, if not worsen, as long as the elements that produced it, the environment that encouraged it, and the rules that tolerated it are still in place.
Two, the world that waited too long for us to act will eventually get sick and tired of waiting. The least the rest could do is to leave us behind in their march toward a more integrated, liberated and prosperous world. Isolation is not an option in the New World Order.
Internally, the wiser and brighter might get the same message and reach the same conclusion — it is a hopeless case. Again two bad things might happen. They might get paralyzingly depressed. Or they may just leave us and pursue better life and future somewhere else. We can’t afford either.
So what do we do? There are a lot of proposed changes and reforms. We already know what we need to do, but disagree on the extent and speed. Shall we wait for everyone to come on board, or take the willing and move on? Do we take the winding country road or use the highway? If the latter, do we run in the fast or slow lane?
So far, we opted for the slower road of consensus-building to minimize friction and confrontation. No one is ready for a social upheaval — not in the middle of our war on terror and extremism.
I could be wrong. But this might prove too little, too late.
Empowering the Saudi Youth for the World
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
So what do we do to rescue our kids from the hell of extremism to the heaven of tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence?
I always say that solving a problem starts with a good, sincere question. Answers come automatically if you provide an environment of free thought, speech, and press.
Here is a good example. I raised similar questions in my last couple of articles and good answers were given to me on a golden plate.
It seems Dr. Haifa Jamal Al-Lail, dean of Effat College for Girls, and Dr. Ghazi Binzagr were studying the same problem and coming up with creative, practical solutions.
We are members of the International Relations Committee (IRC) of Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI). Our Chairman Amr Khashoggi asked us to think of ways of training our youth on how to communicate, appreciate and project our country and culture. Haifa and Ghazi came back with the following plan:
Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Program is dedicated to creating world-class ambassadorship. It has three basic strategies. One, to instill three identities: An understanding of the Saudi identity, an appreciation of the Arabian identity and the centrality of the Arabic language to it, and a deep admiration and respect for a tolerant global Islamic identity.
Two, to teach basic personal and interpersonal communication skills to guarantee maximum effectiveness of their communication with the world.
Three, to ensure that these programs will move the youths from the local to the global arena gradually and with wisdom (Hikmah).
The plans have three phases. The First Phase is entitled (Safwa) which means “select elite” in Arabic. It is also an acronym for the first letters of Saudi Arabian Future World Ambassadors.
The plan will find, recruit, and locally train Saudi youths to prepare them to become youth ambassadors to the world.
It will also select events that can become the building blocks for the first phase of the Saudi youth international empowerment program. The Second Phase is entitled (Safeer), which means ambassador in Arabic. Here, Saudi youths will be sent to selected parts of the world to participate in visits designed to link them with the world and help them understand how other countries work while also giving them the chance to represent Saudi Arabia to the world.
Selected youths will be sent to a country or two as samples of building blocks that can later become the foundation of Phase Two of the program.
The Third Phase (Majlis) which means “gathering” or “council” in Arabic is dedicated to creating a Saudi/International Youth Council.
The sponsors of such a plan will be ready to help Saudi youths host a first event in Saudi Arabia inviting youths from around the world (or selected countries) for dialogue, exchange, and understanding. If successful, we may choose to institutionalize this effort into a permanent Majlis: The Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Council.
The Action Plan for the First Phase will prepare 30-40 Saudi males and females to be ambassadors. The goal is to instill the Saudi Arabian, Arab and Muslim identities in young Saudi participants by lectures, training, field trips and discussion forums.
Lectures will explore the history, geography, social, economic, and political system of Saudi Arabia. They will also provide brief historical and socioeconomic and political information about the targeted foreign country.
Training will focus on basic personal, interpersonal and diplomatic communication skills and languages.
In the field trips, Saudi participants will visit cities and villages in Saudi Arabia, religious sites and foreign diplomatic missions (embassies and consulates) for the purpose of awakening in the participants a deep sense of purpose and identity.
The plans also call for a small forum for participants with the Saudi foreign minister, Saudi and foreign ambassadors so they learn more about foreign affairs. It will also train them in debating skills and give them practical experiences.
Executing the plan will require strong commitment from IRC members and all related public and private sponsors and parties for the entire program.
Recognition (certificate or trophy) would be given to all youth participants as an incentive to attract them and retain them for the entire program.
Funding should be available through sponsorship and support for processing the three phases required for the whole program. Crucial logistical controls must be in place before the program can be launched.
Selection of foreign country must take place before the program begins.
I congratulated Haifa and Ghazi on a project well done, and I offered to publish it in my column, hoping more interest from concerned parties would give it a head start. We need more of such plans ... more of such planners ... and more of as many enthusiastic participants, helpers and executors.
No problem is too big for a solution. As long as there is a will, there is always a way.
So what do we do to rescue our kids from the hell of extremism to the heaven of tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence?
I always say that solving a problem starts with a good, sincere question. Answers come automatically if you provide an environment of free thought, speech, and press.
Here is a good example. I raised similar questions in my last couple of articles and good answers were given to me on a golden plate.
It seems Dr. Haifa Jamal Al-Lail, dean of Effat College for Girls, and Dr. Ghazi Binzagr were studying the same problem and coming up with creative, practical solutions.
We are members of the International Relations Committee (IRC) of Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI). Our Chairman Amr Khashoggi asked us to think of ways of training our youth on how to communicate, appreciate and project our country and culture. Haifa and Ghazi came back with the following plan:
Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Program is dedicated to creating world-class ambassadorship. It has three basic strategies. One, to instill three identities: An understanding of the Saudi identity, an appreciation of the Arabian identity and the centrality of the Arabic language to it, and a deep admiration and respect for a tolerant global Islamic identity.
Two, to teach basic personal and interpersonal communication skills to guarantee maximum effectiveness of their communication with the world.
Three, to ensure that these programs will move the youths from the local to the global arena gradually and with wisdom (Hikmah).
The plans have three phases. The First Phase is entitled (Safwa) which means “select elite” in Arabic. It is also an acronym for the first letters of Saudi Arabian Future World Ambassadors.
The plan will find, recruit, and locally train Saudi youths to prepare them to become youth ambassadors to the world.
It will also select events that can become the building blocks for the first phase of the Saudi youth international empowerment program. The Second Phase is entitled (Safeer), which means ambassador in Arabic. Here, Saudi youths will be sent to selected parts of the world to participate in visits designed to link them with the world and help them understand how other countries work while also giving them the chance to represent Saudi Arabia to the world.
Selected youths will be sent to a country or two as samples of building blocks that can later become the foundation of Phase Two of the program.
The Third Phase (Majlis) which means “gathering” or “council” in Arabic is dedicated to creating a Saudi/International Youth Council.
The sponsors of such a plan will be ready to help Saudi youths host a first event in Saudi Arabia inviting youths from around the world (or selected countries) for dialogue, exchange, and understanding. If successful, we may choose to institutionalize this effort into a permanent Majlis: The Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Council.
The Action Plan for the First Phase will prepare 30-40 Saudi males and females to be ambassadors. The goal is to instill the Saudi Arabian, Arab and Muslim identities in young Saudi participants by lectures, training, field trips and discussion forums.
Lectures will explore the history, geography, social, economic, and political system of Saudi Arabia. They will also provide brief historical and socioeconomic and political information about the targeted foreign country.
Training will focus on basic personal, interpersonal and diplomatic communication skills and languages.
In the field trips, Saudi participants will visit cities and villages in Saudi Arabia, religious sites and foreign diplomatic missions (embassies and consulates) for the purpose of awakening in the participants a deep sense of purpose and identity.
The plans also call for a small forum for participants with the Saudi foreign minister, Saudi and foreign ambassadors so they learn more about foreign affairs. It will also train them in debating skills and give them practical experiences.
Executing the plan will require strong commitment from IRC members and all related public and private sponsors and parties for the entire program.
Recognition (certificate or trophy) would be given to all youth participants as an incentive to attract them and retain them for the entire program.
Funding should be available through sponsorship and support for processing the three phases required for the whole program. Crucial logistical controls must be in place before the program can be launched.
Selection of foreign country must take place before the program begins.
I congratulated Haifa and Ghazi on a project well done, and I offered to publish it in my column, hoping more interest from concerned parties would give it a head start. We need more of such plans ... more of such planners ... and more of as many enthusiastic participants, helpers and executors.
No problem is too big for a solution. As long as there is a will, there is always a way.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Ways of Dialogue With the Other
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Once I asked Abdullah, my young conservative friend, to join me in a “diwania” (weekly gathering). He was surprised to find people with diverse views among my friends. There were liberals and Islamists, those who belonged to the left or the right, and those, like myself, of the middle.
We talked and discussed. After heated discussions someone cracked a joke and we all laughed. On the dinner table we seemed to have forgotten our differences altogether. Abdullah couldn’t understand this. On our way back, he was thinking and pondering. Finally he asked: “How could you all be friends? How could you discuss divisive issues like curriculum change, roots of terrorism, minority and women rights, extremism, the attitude of youngsters, and joining the World Trade Organization and not get angry with each other? Early in the evening I thought you hated each other. One camp was almost shouting at the other. Then some of you came to an agreement. Others were whispering in the ears of the people they disagreed with earlier. And then you all joked and laughed like nothing happened. I might not understand, but please try explaining, anyway.”
I tried. I told him that in Islamic civilization, as in any other, people have not only the right but also the obligation to a free debate on all issues of concern to some or all. Since heated debates do cause fractions, dislike and anger, golden rules were set. They are almost alike everywhere. Basically, you express yourself as you wish, as long as you don’t insult the personal feelings of others. Talk about public issues as strongly as you like but never go personal with your opponents. Even if you disrespect his position, respect his person, and his/her right to speak his/her mind.
Abdullah thought for a while, and then looked hopelessly at me and said: “I need time to absorb all this. You see, I was raised in all-of-one-idea environment. We debate, yes, but within the same boundaries, under the umbrella of the same school of thought, representing different angles of the same issue. The other camps have always been alien to us. They represent the rival if not the enemy. You cannot be friends with others without their subscribing to your school of thought. Besides, these disagreements are too serious to be forgiven in a minute. It is not sports. You cannot just fight it out in the field or fan club, and then leave hand-in-hand. This goes against how I was raised. You may convince me intellectually that this is the true Islamic way, but I would need lots of time and effort to change my natural response and attitude.”
I wish Abdullah were a lone case. Unfortunately, he is typical of many young people raised by some teachers, scholars, trainers and fathers to be of one idea, one group, one way. They are not used to dialogue with the others. When they confront alternative stands and thoughts, they either avoid it or fight it. Whether the fight is mental or physical, they can’t help shielding their heads and hearts against the other’s message. They feel guilty for talking nicely to holders of contradicting thoughts.
Labeling is their best game. Instead of analyzing and attempting to understand the other’s point of view, they take the easy way out by judging people’s intentions and classifying them accordingly. So, I was called in different settings, by different people, or even the same ones, so many names. In a party, last Tuesday, I was labeled by the same person as Salafi (fundamentalist), Ikhwani (of the Muslim Brotherhood), liberal and American stooge. How can I wear all these hats and kofyas at once? Go figure! So, we do have a problem. Once we recognize it and decide to face it rather than ignore and deny it as we did for ages, it is not a hopeless case. Like Abdullah, many youngsters can be impressed. With comprehensive, well-planned and thought-out, enduring and relentless program we could change even the die-hards. At least we could teach them how to make a useful dialogue.
The idea is not necessarily to makeover people, but to teach them how to be civilized: Respectful, reasonable and sensible in dealing with the different other. They could insist on their beliefs if they so wish. They could preach and try to convince us to move over to their side of any argument. But they should do so following our Islamic rules of debate (Fegh alkhelaf), not by force, not with hate, disrespect and dissidence.
By the way, Abdullah became an active member of our “diwania.” He turned out to be a wonderful debater. Told you! It is not over, yet!
Once I asked Abdullah, my young conservative friend, to join me in a “diwania” (weekly gathering). He was surprised to find people with diverse views among my friends. There were liberals and Islamists, those who belonged to the left or the right, and those, like myself, of the middle.
We talked and discussed. After heated discussions someone cracked a joke and we all laughed. On the dinner table we seemed to have forgotten our differences altogether. Abdullah couldn’t understand this. On our way back, he was thinking and pondering. Finally he asked: “How could you all be friends? How could you discuss divisive issues like curriculum change, roots of terrorism, minority and women rights, extremism, the attitude of youngsters, and joining the World Trade Organization and not get angry with each other? Early in the evening I thought you hated each other. One camp was almost shouting at the other. Then some of you came to an agreement. Others were whispering in the ears of the people they disagreed with earlier. And then you all joked and laughed like nothing happened. I might not understand, but please try explaining, anyway.”
I tried. I told him that in Islamic civilization, as in any other, people have not only the right but also the obligation to a free debate on all issues of concern to some or all. Since heated debates do cause fractions, dislike and anger, golden rules were set. They are almost alike everywhere. Basically, you express yourself as you wish, as long as you don’t insult the personal feelings of others. Talk about public issues as strongly as you like but never go personal with your opponents. Even if you disrespect his position, respect his person, and his/her right to speak his/her mind.
Abdullah thought for a while, and then looked hopelessly at me and said: “I need time to absorb all this. You see, I was raised in all-of-one-idea environment. We debate, yes, but within the same boundaries, under the umbrella of the same school of thought, representing different angles of the same issue. The other camps have always been alien to us. They represent the rival if not the enemy. You cannot be friends with others without their subscribing to your school of thought. Besides, these disagreements are too serious to be forgiven in a minute. It is not sports. You cannot just fight it out in the field or fan club, and then leave hand-in-hand. This goes against how I was raised. You may convince me intellectually that this is the true Islamic way, but I would need lots of time and effort to change my natural response and attitude.”
I wish Abdullah were a lone case. Unfortunately, he is typical of many young people raised by some teachers, scholars, trainers and fathers to be of one idea, one group, one way. They are not used to dialogue with the others. When they confront alternative stands and thoughts, they either avoid it or fight it. Whether the fight is mental or physical, they can’t help shielding their heads and hearts against the other’s message. They feel guilty for talking nicely to holders of contradicting thoughts.
Labeling is their best game. Instead of analyzing and attempting to understand the other’s point of view, they take the easy way out by judging people’s intentions and classifying them accordingly. So, I was called in different settings, by different people, or even the same ones, so many names. In a party, last Tuesday, I was labeled by the same person as Salafi (fundamentalist), Ikhwani (of the Muslim Brotherhood), liberal and American stooge. How can I wear all these hats and kofyas at once? Go figure! So, we do have a problem. Once we recognize it and decide to face it rather than ignore and deny it as we did for ages, it is not a hopeless case. Like Abdullah, many youngsters can be impressed. With comprehensive, well-planned and thought-out, enduring and relentless program we could change even the die-hards. At least we could teach them how to make a useful dialogue.
The idea is not necessarily to makeover people, but to teach them how to be civilized: Respectful, reasonable and sensible in dealing with the different other. They could insist on their beliefs if they so wish. They could preach and try to convince us to move over to their side of any argument. But they should do so following our Islamic rules of debate (Fegh alkhelaf), not by force, not with hate, disrespect and dissidence.
By the way, Abdullah became an active member of our “diwania.” He turned out to be a wonderful debater. Told you! It is not over, yet!
Our Missing Middle
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
What is the difference between our right and left? I was asked this recently by a bright Saudi student. I said it was the missing middle. She thought for a moment then asked: What are we supposed to be as a nation? I told her: We are the nation of the middle, as the Qur’an has described us. But that we should tolerate those on both sides.
Again, she paused. Then she came back with a stronger question: “Why would we tolerate the extremists on both sides? We are a young nation starting our way on the road of progress and development. Do we need these divisions and dividers to distract us? They could continue their fight in prison, where they belong, but we cannot afford to have them around wasting our time and energy with their intellectual, if not physical, fight.”
I reminded her that we are not new to development and progress. The Umma ruled the world for centuries. We introduced Europe to science, medicine, astronomy and technology. Today, we are restarting, not starting on that road.
Great nations read their history well before importing experiences and experiments from others. Our culture not only allows but calls for sophisticated, civilized debates. The Qur’an is full of such debates. Allah has debated with the non-believers and believers alike, including his prophets. Remember His debates with Abraham, Moses, Muhammad (peace be upon them) and their peoples? He never says believe the hereafter because I said so. No, he gave evidence of His being and supported His statements with logical and physical proofs. His prophets did the same with the extremists and doubters.
To follow this divine example, we should allow for all kinds of peaceful expressions of thought, marketing of perspectives, and discussion of ideas. Let the left and right and all those in between make their cases and defend their positions and try as best as they can to bring us over to their sides.
As long as this is done without hurting personal feelings, attacking personalities, enlisting authorities or denying the others their equal right to free association, thought and expression, we will do fine. After all, we are a young nation, with educated and open-minded citizens among us. We are mature enough to listen to all, and, at the end of the day, make our own stand and take our own position.
Those who deny the other party their day in the court of public opinion, are not sure of their ability to persuade or, worse, of the validity of their case. If they are as sure-footed as they pretend, why would they censor academic libraries and international book fairs? Why are certain groups not allowed to present or defend their “mathhab,” doctrine or stand? How come one school of thought is the one and only voice heard, taught and preached? After they had their chance for decades to establish their ideologies in our heads, why can’t they trust us enough to listen to other points of views? Is it because they don’t believe in our ability to distinguish right from wrong, or because they don’t believe in their ability to convince us? Is it that they don’t believe in us or don’t believe in themselves?
My young friend looked at me tentatively, while absorbing what I had just said. Then she smiled and flashed her bright large eyes at me said: “Man! You know what you just said? You are telling me that all what we were taught, read and trained in all our life, is one-sided stuff. That we need to re-educate, reread, retrain ourselves all over again to absorb other schools of thought, other trends and perspectives, and to open up to the rest of the civilized world. This is a huge order! This is not an evolution, but a revolution! This is like reliving your life in a different a world, starting from scratch. Man! This is mass killing of our present characters and the remake of another!”
I laughed and said: “Girl! How lazy your generation can be! All that is needed for those who have already graduated from such a learning experience is to have a taste of a new one. For those who are still entering education, we should change the parameters of their experience, allow them more freedom to explore on their own, and let them come up with their own conclusions.
“We should stop breastfeeding them after their infant years, so they can depend on themselves the rest of their lives. We must open the world for them to research and study, discover and communicate with others, instead of limiting them to our own. How hard can this be for them? After all, babysitting people is harder than letting them grow on their own.”
What is the difference between our right and left? I was asked this recently by a bright Saudi student. I said it was the missing middle. She thought for a moment then asked: What are we supposed to be as a nation? I told her: We are the nation of the middle, as the Qur’an has described us. But that we should tolerate those on both sides.
Again, she paused. Then she came back with a stronger question: “Why would we tolerate the extremists on both sides? We are a young nation starting our way on the road of progress and development. Do we need these divisions and dividers to distract us? They could continue their fight in prison, where they belong, but we cannot afford to have them around wasting our time and energy with their intellectual, if not physical, fight.”
I reminded her that we are not new to development and progress. The Umma ruled the world for centuries. We introduced Europe to science, medicine, astronomy and technology. Today, we are restarting, not starting on that road.
Great nations read their history well before importing experiences and experiments from others. Our culture not only allows but calls for sophisticated, civilized debates. The Qur’an is full of such debates. Allah has debated with the non-believers and believers alike, including his prophets. Remember His debates with Abraham, Moses, Muhammad (peace be upon them) and their peoples? He never says believe the hereafter because I said so. No, he gave evidence of His being and supported His statements with logical and physical proofs. His prophets did the same with the extremists and doubters.
To follow this divine example, we should allow for all kinds of peaceful expressions of thought, marketing of perspectives, and discussion of ideas. Let the left and right and all those in between make their cases and defend their positions and try as best as they can to bring us over to their sides.
As long as this is done without hurting personal feelings, attacking personalities, enlisting authorities or denying the others their equal right to free association, thought and expression, we will do fine. After all, we are a young nation, with educated and open-minded citizens among us. We are mature enough to listen to all, and, at the end of the day, make our own stand and take our own position.
Those who deny the other party their day in the court of public opinion, are not sure of their ability to persuade or, worse, of the validity of their case. If they are as sure-footed as they pretend, why would they censor academic libraries and international book fairs? Why are certain groups not allowed to present or defend their “mathhab,” doctrine or stand? How come one school of thought is the one and only voice heard, taught and preached? After they had their chance for decades to establish their ideologies in our heads, why can’t they trust us enough to listen to other points of views? Is it because they don’t believe in our ability to distinguish right from wrong, or because they don’t believe in their ability to convince us? Is it that they don’t believe in us or don’t believe in themselves?
My young friend looked at me tentatively, while absorbing what I had just said. Then she smiled and flashed her bright large eyes at me said: “Man! You know what you just said? You are telling me that all what we were taught, read and trained in all our life, is one-sided stuff. That we need to re-educate, reread, retrain ourselves all over again to absorb other schools of thought, other trends and perspectives, and to open up to the rest of the civilized world. This is a huge order! This is not an evolution, but a revolution! This is like reliving your life in a different a world, starting from scratch. Man! This is mass killing of our present characters and the remake of another!”
I laughed and said: “Girl! How lazy your generation can be! All that is needed for those who have already graduated from such a learning experience is to have a taste of a new one. For those who are still entering education, we should change the parameters of their experience, allow them more freedom to explore on their own, and let them come up with their own conclusions.
“We should stop breastfeeding them after their infant years, so they can depend on themselves the rest of their lives. We must open the world for them to research and study, discover and communicate with others, instead of limiting them to our own. How hard can this be for them? After all, babysitting people is harder than letting them grow on their own.”
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Lamenting Our Missed Opportunities
There is nothing more bitter than missed opportunities. In the Arab world we had lots of that to mourn. And unlike the rest of the human race we can’t find a better time to do so than during our Eid celebrations. While others enjoy theirs, we tend to ruin our happy anniversaries remembering the worst moments in our history and keep asking what an Arab poet asked 1,000 years ago, “Eid, what kind of Eid did you bring with you?”
I hate to do the same and ruin what are supposed to be happy moments with similar remembrances. But since everyone else is doing it, why not me? Here is what I would mourn most: Our missed opportunities for freedom, democracy, progress and peace. I won’t go far in history, limiting my memory to the last hundred years.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Hussein ibn Ali, grand sharif of Makkah made a deal with the Allies. He was to lead a revolution against the Ottomans. In return he was promised to be declared the new caliph of the Muslim Ummah and the king of all Arabs. He did his part betraying the Muslim Caliphate that installed him but never received his ultimate reward. The English were kind enough to recognize him in 1916 as the king of Hijaz, install one son as the king of Iraq, a second as the emir of Jordan. But that was it. Not even the rest of Arabia and the Gulf area were to be under his control.
Still, there was a great opportunity for him and his sons to cooperate with the other Arab leaders, like sultans (later kings) Abdul Aziz in Riyadh and Fuad in Cairo to free and improve the rest of the Arab world. The colonizers were open to gradual progress starting with freeing slaves and giving women and minorities their due rights. Instead he insisted on pursuing his dream of being the king of kings. In the process, he antagonized the Saudis and ended up losing his fiefdom and destroying the dream of Arab unity. Later, the independent and semi-independent Arab governments decided in 1945 to start a process of unity under the Arab League banner. But even today, after more than half a century, we are still at square one.
When Nasser led the era of military revolutions in the Arab world, we were promised unity, freedom, reforms and progress. Instead, every colonel wanted to rule the rest. Even young Qaddafi of small Libya felt he deserved to lead the horde. Marriage projects like those between Egypt and Syria; Egypt, Sudan and Libya; and, in recent history, the cooperation councils of the Gulf states, the Western Arabs (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia) and the Eastern Arabs (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Yemen), either failed to achieve their set goals or disintegrated disgracefully. We had peace opportunities with our main foe, Israel, and lost them. The best chance was the road Egyptian President Sadat opened for us. Instead of working with him to negotiate as a group, most leaders felt insulted that he didn’t consult with them first. For this mistake they were willing to forgo the golden opportunity and fragment the Arabs into two camps — the small peace group and the “countries that are standing up and challenging.” Later the war party members were warring among themselves. We lost. Israel won. The end of the first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran presented another golden opportunity. We were then more in agreement than not. With the eight-year costly war no longer a distraction, we could have concentrated on getting our act together and working on achieving our goals and dreams.
Not so fast! Saddam couldn’t have a break of more than a couple of years before he started another adventure. This time against his brotherly allies who supported him in the previous aggression. We deserved this because we missed our opportunity to forge good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We had more in common with the new Muslim regime than we did with the Baathists.
One war led to another. The Third Gulf War, like the second divided and distracted the Arabs once more. Again, Arab leaders found a good excuse to delay reforms. Even with democracy a priority in the Anglo-Saxon agenda for the Middle East, Arab governments managed to find ways not to reform. A few improvements here, a couple of basic or meaningless elections there, and we convinced the world we are moving in the right direction. The Americans and British found something to show for their costly war, and the Arab governments managed to avoid costlier confrontations with the neo-Crusaders.
After 1426 Eid anniversaries we are mourning once more, unable to positively answer the Shakespearian question (to be or not to be). What a waste!
I hate to do the same and ruin what are supposed to be happy moments with similar remembrances. But since everyone else is doing it, why not me? Here is what I would mourn most: Our missed opportunities for freedom, democracy, progress and peace. I won’t go far in history, limiting my memory to the last hundred years.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Hussein ibn Ali, grand sharif of Makkah made a deal with the Allies. He was to lead a revolution against the Ottomans. In return he was promised to be declared the new caliph of the Muslim Ummah and the king of all Arabs. He did his part betraying the Muslim Caliphate that installed him but never received his ultimate reward. The English were kind enough to recognize him in 1916 as the king of Hijaz, install one son as the king of Iraq, a second as the emir of Jordan. But that was it. Not even the rest of Arabia and the Gulf area were to be under his control.
Still, there was a great opportunity for him and his sons to cooperate with the other Arab leaders, like sultans (later kings) Abdul Aziz in Riyadh and Fuad in Cairo to free and improve the rest of the Arab world. The colonizers were open to gradual progress starting with freeing slaves and giving women and minorities their due rights. Instead he insisted on pursuing his dream of being the king of kings. In the process, he antagonized the Saudis and ended up losing his fiefdom and destroying the dream of Arab unity. Later, the independent and semi-independent Arab governments decided in 1945 to start a process of unity under the Arab League banner. But even today, after more than half a century, we are still at square one.
When Nasser led the era of military revolutions in the Arab world, we were promised unity, freedom, reforms and progress. Instead, every colonel wanted to rule the rest. Even young Qaddafi of small Libya felt he deserved to lead the horde. Marriage projects like those between Egypt and Syria; Egypt, Sudan and Libya; and, in recent history, the cooperation councils of the Gulf states, the Western Arabs (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia) and the Eastern Arabs (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Yemen), either failed to achieve their set goals or disintegrated disgracefully. We had peace opportunities with our main foe, Israel, and lost them. The best chance was the road Egyptian President Sadat opened for us. Instead of working with him to negotiate as a group, most leaders felt insulted that he didn’t consult with them first. For this mistake they were willing to forgo the golden opportunity and fragment the Arabs into two camps — the small peace group and the “countries that are standing up and challenging.” Later the war party members were warring among themselves. We lost. Israel won. The end of the first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran presented another golden opportunity. We were then more in agreement than not. With the eight-year costly war no longer a distraction, we could have concentrated on getting our act together and working on achieving our goals and dreams.
Not so fast! Saddam couldn’t have a break of more than a couple of years before he started another adventure. This time against his brotherly allies who supported him in the previous aggression. We deserved this because we missed our opportunity to forge good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We had more in common with the new Muslim regime than we did with the Baathists.
One war led to another. The Third Gulf War, like the second divided and distracted the Arabs once more. Again, Arab leaders found a good excuse to delay reforms. Even with democracy a priority in the Anglo-Saxon agenda for the Middle East, Arab governments managed to find ways not to reform. A few improvements here, a couple of basic or meaningless elections there, and we convinced the world we are moving in the right direction. The Americans and British found something to show for their costly war, and the Arab governments managed to avoid costlier confrontations with the neo-Crusaders.
After 1426 Eid anniversaries we are mourning once more, unable to positively answer the Shakespearian question (to be or not to be). What a waste!
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Reforms? Why? Why Not?
My last article "Reformatting the Middle East" has generated many responses. Some were in agreement; others rationally disagreed.
Dr. Thuraya Arrayed is a prominent Saudi writer and women-rights activist. She writes: (I still hang on to my belief in true continuing reform. You do too. I hope to be there for it. How can we start our trip towards true reform in the Arab world?
What we need is a genuine sense of dedication as part and parcel of our value system. The norm now is "every one is for himself" and "get it any way you can". "Smear the others and even kill them to make sure you are the only one remaining on the scene.
Anyone who does not apply that norm finds himself with the short end of the stick. The grip of this destructive conception must be broken.
Reform has been either a dream or a nightmare because we continue to sleep and ignore our role in making our fate change direction.
Yet, it is a miracle that some of us still believe that reforms will become a reality. Our experience has been a past of continuous disappointments, a present that is reflecting the negative results of all the accumulation of wrong decisions and selfish actions by shortsighted individuals. No wonder it is also an experience of a dream future which never materializes as promised.
We have always been sold glittery lies, told what we would like to hear and believed it was honest promises only to find out it was the way to guarantee the "promiser" his self interests. So why are we still believing in reform??? Because nothing else is left to hang on to. The other options are worse: suicide, suicidal bombings or becoming suicidal bomber yourself. Who wants that? We all know that diffusing the power of these inciters of destruction and reestablishing the normal functioning of the brainwashed angry youth are the first step towards reform.
Rescue the educational system from the clutch of the perpetuators of ignorance and opponents of human rights, and you would have started a new generation that will demand reform as a right and as a continued driving force in their life style.
Egyptian political analyst Hatem Ezzeldin writes: (There was no revolution in Egypt and there were none in the Arab world throughout history. It is hard to compare what happened from army turnovers to true revolutions in Europe in nature, characteristics and outcomes.)
Saqib Bukhari (England) objects to the Western link to our reforms. He says : (It is wholly true that the Arab world and the wider Muslim world needs to be reformed and like you said, the push for reform has been at the loudspeaker for quite some time.
However, what I feel quite alarming is that you don't pay much attention to who are calling for these reforms and why. If one was to look at the political landscape of the Arab world and the aspiration of its populace, one finds that people can be categorized as "Nationalist", "Secularist", "Fundamentalist", "Socialist" and so on, calling for different types of reform. The reform debate currently at the forefront of global politics is extrinsically linked to the exportation of democracy and this odd notion of freedom and equality between the sexes.
For the West to be successful in such reforms, they can utilize the secularist (or sometimes called the modernists) coupled with military onslaughts as we are seeing in Iraq.
The cause for reform, then, is part and parcel of the war on terror, which in all intents and purposes, is a war on political Islam. Therefore, the current actions and policies of the West towards the Muslim world simply reinforce the rhetoric of the politicians in the early 20th Century. The "liberal" Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli held a copy of the Quran in the House of Commons and said, "Muslims can never be defeated until this (the Quran) is taken from them."
So, to conclude, the nature of these reforms is to counter the growing rise of the need for political Islam by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The Nationalist movements failed so if we want to call for reforms in the Muslim world, we need to realize that it's only through Islam we can rise and gain back our dignity.)
Virginia Johnston (Gainesville, FL) writes: (You must have heard about our special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. If the law cannot get to the truth of what has happen to the American people under the Bush administration, and as we hear the death rattles of our own democracy, we have no right reforming the Middle East.)
Dr. Thuraya Arrayed is a prominent Saudi writer and women-rights activist. She writes: (I still hang on to my belief in true continuing reform. You do too. I hope to be there for it. How can we start our trip towards true reform in the Arab world?
What we need is a genuine sense of dedication as part and parcel of our value system. The norm now is "every one is for himself" and "get it any way you can". "Smear the others and even kill them to make sure you are the only one remaining on the scene.
Anyone who does not apply that norm finds himself with the short end of the stick. The grip of this destructive conception must be broken.
Reform has been either a dream or a nightmare because we continue to sleep and ignore our role in making our fate change direction.
Yet, it is a miracle that some of us still believe that reforms will become a reality. Our experience has been a past of continuous disappointments, a present that is reflecting the negative results of all the accumulation of wrong decisions and selfish actions by shortsighted individuals. No wonder it is also an experience of a dream future which never materializes as promised.
We have always been sold glittery lies, told what we would like to hear and believed it was honest promises only to find out it was the way to guarantee the "promiser" his self interests. So why are we still believing in reform??? Because nothing else is left to hang on to. The other options are worse: suicide, suicidal bombings or becoming suicidal bomber yourself. Who wants that? We all know that diffusing the power of these inciters of destruction and reestablishing the normal functioning of the brainwashed angry youth are the first step towards reform.
Rescue the educational system from the clutch of the perpetuators of ignorance and opponents of human rights, and you would have started a new generation that will demand reform as a right and as a continued driving force in their life style.
Egyptian political analyst Hatem Ezzeldin writes: (There was no revolution in Egypt and there were none in the Arab world throughout history. It is hard to compare what happened from army turnovers to true revolutions in Europe in nature, characteristics and outcomes.)
Saqib Bukhari (England) objects to the Western link to our reforms. He says : (It is wholly true that the Arab world and the wider Muslim world needs to be reformed and like you said, the push for reform has been at the loudspeaker for quite some time.
However, what I feel quite alarming is that you don't pay much attention to who are calling for these reforms and why. If one was to look at the political landscape of the Arab world and the aspiration of its populace, one finds that people can be categorized as "Nationalist", "Secularist", "Fundamentalist", "Socialist" and so on, calling for different types of reform. The reform debate currently at the forefront of global politics is extrinsically linked to the exportation of democracy and this odd notion of freedom and equality between the sexes.
For the West to be successful in such reforms, they can utilize the secularist (or sometimes called the modernists) coupled with military onslaughts as we are seeing in Iraq.
The cause for reform, then, is part and parcel of the war on terror, which in all intents and purposes, is a war on political Islam. Therefore, the current actions and policies of the West towards the Muslim world simply reinforce the rhetoric of the politicians in the early 20th Century. The "liberal" Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli held a copy of the Quran in the House of Commons and said, "Muslims can never be defeated until this (the Quran) is taken from them."
So, to conclude, the nature of these reforms is to counter the growing rise of the need for political Islam by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The Nationalist movements failed so if we want to call for reforms in the Muslim world, we need to realize that it's only through Islam we can rise and gain back our dignity.)
Virginia Johnston (Gainesville, FL) writes: (You must have heard about our special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. If the law cannot get to the truth of what has happen to the American people under the Bush administration, and as we hear the death rattles of our own democracy, we have no right reforming the Middle East.)
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Reformatting the Middle East
Like democracy, “reform” is a catchword these days in the Arab world. Leaders promise it, media sing it, and people wish to believe it. But is it believable? Or is it just too good to be true? Or maybe something in between — buy one true promise and get ten lies free?
Before we decide which case is the case, let us review our progress on the road to reforms, so far.
The question of reforms is not new, and didn’t arise after 9/11. The promise arrived with every revolution and evolution phase in our modern history.
After we fought with the Allies in World War I against our rulers, the Ottoman Empire, the new regimes that replaced them promised to deliver us to a new world of freedom, progress and democracy.
The Western colonizers brought in some enlightenment, some sophistication, some modern infrastructure and some democracy. Many Arab metropolises like Cairo, Aden, Baghdad, Damascus, Khartoum and Casablanca became world class. They had life and semi-free press, parliaments, labor unions and other democratic tools and privileges. Airports, railways, ports, highways and many other modern infrastructure networks were built. In Egypt, the Suez Canal was finally dug and operated. In Aden, the new port was one of the world’s biggest and busiest.
It wasn’t enough, though. Humans hate to surrender their decision-making right to foreigners. Reforms were mostly in big cities and towns. Villages and remote areas were left almost as backward as they were found. Education was a minority privilege.
The military academies were for certain class. And the final decision on real matters, including who stays in power, was squarely in the hands of the occupiers.
Parliaments get dissolved, elected prime ministers dismissed, and kings assassinated. Alliances, wars and peace agreements have to get through London, Paris and Rome before they can be made. Nationalist movements were fought and subdued politically and militarily. In the end, only the army was left as a national institution capable of effecting change.
Nationalist officers swept the Arab world as one successful revolution encouraged another. From Egypt to Iraq, from Libya to the Sudan and from Syria to Yemen, Arab armies were on the march to reclaim their nation’s destiny.
Like the colonists, they promised reforms, but unlike the colonists they delivered few. In fact, freedoms were lost and democracy became a show business, a big lie, and a facade for police regimes. Prisons in the new states grew larger, the infrastructures older, the economy weaker and poverty more endemic.
There was growth in other sectors, like education, but quantity did not always match quality. Graduates of Egyptian, Iraqi and Sudanese colleges were way better, if lower in numbers, than today. Cultural life became too much politicized and propagandist.
The media turned into tools for state control and “political education” rather than means for free discussion and debate, as well as watchdogs on government performance. The revolutions that promised to correct, reform and then leave, became permanent. (Whom are you revolting against, if you are the ruler?)
So, could anyone blame Arabs for suspecting any claim of true reforms? Now many Arab governments are talking about reforms — real this time! At the same time, America is pushing a new agenda for the Middle East. The world would be safer, they reckoned, if disillusioned, dissatisfied, poor and angry Arab masses were given the chance to live a better present and dream of a brighter future. With good education, vibrant economy, real democracy, they won’t be easy recruits for the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi, the theory goes.
Reform or else was the message that reached Arab capitals. Many didn’t need much convincing. In Saudi Arabia the call for reforms and national dialogue preceded 9/11. In Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, the Sudan and Jordan, regimes felt the need to reform for their own reasons. Those include civil wars in the Sudan, Algeria and Yemen, civil liberties movements in Kuwait and Egypt and new leaderships in Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain. Are these reforms deep and wide enough? Not much or not at all. But they are good, small steps in the right direction. We need to encourage them, blow the wind in their sails, and make those steps steady and sure. Intellectuals in each county must take the lead and call for public involvement and participation. We need to continue building civic institutions that deliver the goods, not just the “see me I am here” charade.
And we all need to remember that to survive in the new world of borderless trade and transparent governance, this is the only way to go.
Before we decide which case is the case, let us review our progress on the road to reforms, so far.
The question of reforms is not new, and didn’t arise after 9/11. The promise arrived with every revolution and evolution phase in our modern history.
After we fought with the Allies in World War I against our rulers, the Ottoman Empire, the new regimes that replaced them promised to deliver us to a new world of freedom, progress and democracy.
The Western colonizers brought in some enlightenment, some sophistication, some modern infrastructure and some democracy. Many Arab metropolises like Cairo, Aden, Baghdad, Damascus, Khartoum and Casablanca became world class. They had life and semi-free press, parliaments, labor unions and other democratic tools and privileges. Airports, railways, ports, highways and many other modern infrastructure networks were built. In Egypt, the Suez Canal was finally dug and operated. In Aden, the new port was one of the world’s biggest and busiest.
It wasn’t enough, though. Humans hate to surrender their decision-making right to foreigners. Reforms were mostly in big cities and towns. Villages and remote areas were left almost as backward as they were found. Education was a minority privilege.
The military academies were for certain class. And the final decision on real matters, including who stays in power, was squarely in the hands of the occupiers.
Parliaments get dissolved, elected prime ministers dismissed, and kings assassinated. Alliances, wars and peace agreements have to get through London, Paris and Rome before they can be made. Nationalist movements were fought and subdued politically and militarily. In the end, only the army was left as a national institution capable of effecting change.
Nationalist officers swept the Arab world as one successful revolution encouraged another. From Egypt to Iraq, from Libya to the Sudan and from Syria to Yemen, Arab armies were on the march to reclaim their nation’s destiny.
Like the colonists, they promised reforms, but unlike the colonists they delivered few. In fact, freedoms were lost and democracy became a show business, a big lie, and a facade for police regimes. Prisons in the new states grew larger, the infrastructures older, the economy weaker and poverty more endemic.
There was growth in other sectors, like education, but quantity did not always match quality. Graduates of Egyptian, Iraqi and Sudanese colleges were way better, if lower in numbers, than today. Cultural life became too much politicized and propagandist.
The media turned into tools for state control and “political education” rather than means for free discussion and debate, as well as watchdogs on government performance. The revolutions that promised to correct, reform and then leave, became permanent. (Whom are you revolting against, if you are the ruler?)
So, could anyone blame Arabs for suspecting any claim of true reforms? Now many Arab governments are talking about reforms — real this time! At the same time, America is pushing a new agenda for the Middle East. The world would be safer, they reckoned, if disillusioned, dissatisfied, poor and angry Arab masses were given the chance to live a better present and dream of a brighter future. With good education, vibrant economy, real democracy, they won’t be easy recruits for the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi, the theory goes.
Reform or else was the message that reached Arab capitals. Many didn’t need much convincing. In Saudi Arabia the call for reforms and national dialogue preceded 9/11. In Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, the Sudan and Jordan, regimes felt the need to reform for their own reasons. Those include civil wars in the Sudan, Algeria and Yemen, civil liberties movements in Kuwait and Egypt and new leaderships in Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain. Are these reforms deep and wide enough? Not much or not at all. But they are good, small steps in the right direction. We need to encourage them, blow the wind in their sails, and make those steps steady and sure. Intellectuals in each county must take the lead and call for public involvement and participation. We need to continue building civic institutions that deliver the goods, not just the “see me I am here” charade.
And we all need to remember that to survive in the new world of borderless trade and transparent governance, this is the only way to go.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
‘Tribalizing’ Democracy!
Democracy is such a magic word! Politicians love to pretend it, intellectuals to explore it, people to demand it, media to measure it, and a bunch of organizations to watch it. Few, however, really understand what it is and where they stand on it — especially in the Arab world.
Lately, I read many scholarly and news reports about fake democracy in the Arab world. Almost nobody is rejecting democratic reforms these days for fear of looking bad before world public opinion. More importantly, it is politically dangerous to do so, since Uncle Sam may put you on his list of “failed regimes.” Depending on how much oil or terrorism you may have, or how inconvenient you are to Israeli and US interests (in this order), you could be erased, modified or seriously talked to.
Most governments either pretend to be more democratic than America, on their way to be, or don’t need to. When put under pressure and scrutiny to hurry reform measures and be more transparent about them, they play the “injured dignity,” you-hurt-my-feeling card. (How dare you instruct ancient civilizations on governing art?)
Others lecture you on how democracy must be homegrown, not imported, fit-for-all takeaway; and how we need time to grow our own. That “time break” means ages. By the time we reach there, they won’t be there, you won’t be there, or you won’t be interested anymore — an effective stalling technique.
The funny ones try to sell you the claim that we already have democracy. Look how the people adore their rulers, they say. Note how our leaders come from humble origins, visit with the roots and interact with the common man. People and destiny have chosen them. This is ultimate democracy.
The frustrating ones are smarter. They play the game as it should be played. “You wanna democracy? No problema! We give you one.” Then they give you a big show. Constitutions get changed, candidates run, media criticize, analyze and cover events, and the whole country party-celebrate! It is Elections Time! But the whole game is designed to re-elect the same aging rulers and preserve the same oldie regimes. The only difference is: It is now legitimate illegitimacy. Go figure.
One of those fakers gave me a lecture the other day. He went on and on about the history of democracy and its “rotten” application today. “Did you know that the original Athenian concept was democracy for free men only, as was the case in the first American version? Women, slaves and the poor were excluded,” he argued. “Western democracy is custom-made for the white man. The West is based on individualistic system, we are based on consensus. With tribal societies, like ours, we already have our own version of democracy. Leaders are ‘accepted’ by the people, and led by consensus. They have their ways of seeking, building and enforcing such consensus. At the end of the day, the whole nation — not just those who voted ‘yes’ — is on board in any project.”
I say to him and to all those like him, if you are so sure about what your people want, let them say so. Put in the scientifically proven mechanisms to measure their sentiments. Give every runner an equal chance and provide a level-playing ground. Allow the media to play its role as the people watchdog. Let all vote for whoever wishes to run and let the world scrutinize the vote and see that you won fair and square.
Once empowered with such mandate, you can implement your agenda with powerful authorization and public support. The civilized world may disagree, but they would have to respect the people’s choice.
Does this sound science fiction or foreign play? That is because nobody reads history.
History showed that only those who win people’s hearts by democratic means stay in power or leave peacefully. Democratic systems develop in time. Autocratic regimes do not evolve peacefully; they come with a revolution ... and end with one.
Lately, I read many scholarly and news reports about fake democracy in the Arab world. Almost nobody is rejecting democratic reforms these days for fear of looking bad before world public opinion. More importantly, it is politically dangerous to do so, since Uncle Sam may put you on his list of “failed regimes.” Depending on how much oil or terrorism you may have, or how inconvenient you are to Israeli and US interests (in this order), you could be erased, modified or seriously talked to.
Most governments either pretend to be more democratic than America, on their way to be, or don’t need to. When put under pressure and scrutiny to hurry reform measures and be more transparent about them, they play the “injured dignity,” you-hurt-my-feeling card. (How dare you instruct ancient civilizations on governing art?)
Others lecture you on how democracy must be homegrown, not imported, fit-for-all takeaway; and how we need time to grow our own. That “time break” means ages. By the time we reach there, they won’t be there, you won’t be there, or you won’t be interested anymore — an effective stalling technique.
The funny ones try to sell you the claim that we already have democracy. Look how the people adore their rulers, they say. Note how our leaders come from humble origins, visit with the roots and interact with the common man. People and destiny have chosen them. This is ultimate democracy.
The frustrating ones are smarter. They play the game as it should be played. “You wanna democracy? No problema! We give you one.” Then they give you a big show. Constitutions get changed, candidates run, media criticize, analyze and cover events, and the whole country party-celebrate! It is Elections Time! But the whole game is designed to re-elect the same aging rulers and preserve the same oldie regimes. The only difference is: It is now legitimate illegitimacy. Go figure.
One of those fakers gave me a lecture the other day. He went on and on about the history of democracy and its “rotten” application today. “Did you know that the original Athenian concept was democracy for free men only, as was the case in the first American version? Women, slaves and the poor were excluded,” he argued. “Western democracy is custom-made for the white man. The West is based on individualistic system, we are based on consensus. With tribal societies, like ours, we already have our own version of democracy. Leaders are ‘accepted’ by the people, and led by consensus. They have their ways of seeking, building and enforcing such consensus. At the end of the day, the whole nation — not just those who voted ‘yes’ — is on board in any project.”
I say to him and to all those like him, if you are so sure about what your people want, let them say so. Put in the scientifically proven mechanisms to measure their sentiments. Give every runner an equal chance and provide a level-playing ground. Allow the media to play its role as the people watchdog. Let all vote for whoever wishes to run and let the world scrutinize the vote and see that you won fair and square.
Once empowered with such mandate, you can implement your agenda with powerful authorization and public support. The civilized world may disagree, but they would have to respect the people’s choice.
Does this sound science fiction or foreign play? That is because nobody reads history.
History showed that only those who win people’s hearts by democratic means stay in power or leave peacefully. Democratic systems develop in time. Autocratic regimes do not evolve peacefully; they come with a revolution ... and end with one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)