A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began.

Islam Imamate

Master of sports in Moderation.
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
53,880
Reaction score
30,877
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia — For most of his adult life, Ahmed Qassim al-Ghamdi worked among the bearded enforcers of Saudi Arabia. He was a dedicated employee of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — known abroad as the religious police — serving with the front-line troops protecting the Islamic kingdom from Westernization, secularism and anything but the most conservative Islamic practices.

Some of that resembled ordinary police work: busting drug dealers and bootleggers in a country that bans alcohol. But the men of “the Commission,” as Saudis call it, spent most of their time maintaining the puritanical public norms that set Saudi Arabia apart not only from the West, but from most of the Muslim world.

A key offense was ikhtilat, or unauthorized mixing between men and women. The kingdom’s clerics warn that it could lead to fornication, adultery, broken homes, children born of unmarried couples and full-blown societal collapse.

For years, Mr. Ghamdi stuck with the program and was eventually put in charge of the Commission for the region of Mecca, Islam’s holiest city. Then he had a reckoning and began to question the rules. So he turned to the Quran and the stories of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, considered the exemplars of Islamic conduct. What he found was striking and life altering: There had been plenty of mixing among the first generation of Muslims, and no one had seemed to mind.

So he spoke out. In articles and television appearances, he argued that much of what Saudis practiced as religion was in fact Arabian cultural practices that had been mixed up with their faith.

There was no need to close shops for prayer, he said, nor to bar women from driving, as Saudi Arabia does. At the time of the Prophet, women rode around on camels, which he said was far more provocative than veiled women piloting S.U.V.s.

He even said that while women should conceal their bodies, they needed to cover their faces only if they chose to do so. And to demonstrate the depth of his own conviction, Mr. Ghamdi went on television with his wife, Jawahir, who smiled to the camera, her face bare and adorned with a dusting of makeup.

It was like a bomb inside the kingdom’s religious establishment, threatening the social order that granted prominence to the sheikhs and made them the arbiters of right and wrong in all aspects of life. He threatened their control.

Mr. Ghamdi’s colleagues at work refused to speak to him. Angry calls poured into his cellphone and anonymous death threats hit him on Twitter. Prominent sheikhs took to the airwaves to denounce him as an ignorant upstart who should be punished, tried — and even tortured.

Some funny parts from the article
Another time, I met a religious friend for coffee, and he brought his two young sons. When the call to prayer sounded, my friend went to pray. His sons, confused that I did not follow, looked at me wide-eyed and asked, “Are you an infidel?”
And so it was, after the sunset prayer, that I met Mr. Sheikh, a proud sixth-generation descendant of Mohammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab.

He was a portly man of 42 who wore a long white robe and covered his head with a schmag, or checkered cloth. His beard was long and he had no mustache, in imitation of the Prophet Muhammad, and he squinted through reading glasses perched on his nose while peering at his iPhone.

We sat on purple couches in the music-free lobby of a Riyadh hotel and shared dates and coffee while he answered my questions about Islam in Saudi Arabia.

“I am an open-minded person,” he told me early on.

It was clear that he hoped I would become a Muslim.
When it came to birthdays, which many Saudi clerics condemn, he said he did not oppose them, although his wife did, so their children did not go to birthday parties. But they had celebrations of their own, he said, showing me a video on his phone of his family gathered around a cake bearing the face of his son Abdullah, 15, who had just memorized the Quran. They lit sparklers and cheered, but did not sing.
And here was an interesting section that sheds some light on the Saudi view of dissent.
One evening in Jidda, a university professor invited me to his home for dinner. His wife, a doctor, joined us at the table, her hair covered with a stylish veil.

They had recently been married and he joked that they were meant for each other because she was good at cooking and he was good at eating. His wife chuckled and gave him more soup.

I asked about Mr. Ghamdi.

“From what I read and what I saw, I think he’s right and he stood up for what he believes in,” the professor said. “I admire that.”

The problem, he said, is that tolerance for opposing views is not taught in Saudi society.

“Either follow what I say or I will classify you, I will hurt you, I will push you out of the discussion,” he said. “This is anti-Islam. We have many people thinking in different ways. You can fight, but you have to live under the same roof.”

His wife had no problem with mixing or with women working, but did not like that Mr. Ghamdi had caused a scandal by making his views public. The royal family sets the rules, and it was inappropriate for subjects to publicly campaign for changes, she said.

“He has to follow the ruler,” she said. “If everyone just comes out with his own opinion, we’ll be in chaos.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/w...ia-islam-wahhabism-religious-police.html?_r=0

It seems some Saudis aren't as backwards within their homes but they seems almost completely pacified as a people. Some of the members of the royal family are itching to open up the country more and Westernize but they're doing so at a snail's pace and their starting point is so draconian it seems like it'll take a century of reforms at this rate for them to get even close to the liberal democracies of the world.
 
It's hardly surprising that Saudi religious laws have lumped in Arabian cultural practice not specifically mandated in Islam together with Islam.

Another Arabian cultural practice that allegedly goes against Islam is racism which Saudis are huge proponents of ; Muslims love to point out that Muhammed said an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and that 1 of Muhammed's early companions (Bilal) was Black.
 
That dude's going to get executed, no doubt about it.
 
Imagine being intelligent in a Muslim country and being surrounded by 99.9% religious zealot fucktards 24/7.
 
Imagine being intelligent in a Muslim country and being surrounded by 99.9% religious zealot fucktards 24/7.
The number might be lower than that but as one of the quotes in the OP suggests a lot of Saudis seem to prioritize obedience over voicing your political/religious beliefs. I'm going to requote it because of how absurd it is
“He has to follow the ruler,” she said. “If everyone just comes out with his own opinion, we’ll be in chaos.”
This is the mindset of a people who on a short leash.
 
So SA is like one giant safe space; got it.
 
http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/676086
Apparently it happened in 2014. The comment section is really interesting, a lot of support for women uncovering their faces.

I feel so bad for Saudi women. :(


As a women I want to be recognized for my accomplishments . If I cure cancer I want the world to know who I am not be a faceless black blob . I want to swim in the ocean without dragging 50 lbs of material behind me that could drown me . I want to be able to run and laugh - not be buried in material that's hot and restricts me like a coffin . I want to breath freely not gasp thru a continuos veil of material . I want men to control themselves !!! Like they do in western cultures so I'm not the one who has to live in a prison of clothing . I want to walk free on the streets by myself !! Because men in the Middle East have finally !! Learned restraint . The prophet allows my face to show why do you ( men) fear that so much ??
 
This is the mindset of a people who on a short leash.
That's also the mindset of the locals in the UAE. When I lived there, I never heard about any disenchantment nor was there any popular support for democracy or self-determination by the locals.

The locals were quite pleased with how their Sheikhs were running the country and were opposed to democracy or protests / anything that would rock the boat. They believed their elders knew best .
 
The word chaos keeps coming up. Like it's something to he avoided at all costs. Silly buggers, a bit of chaos is good. It helps shake things up, and out. Blindly following tradition is the least productive thing I can think of.
 
The word chaos keeps coming up. Like it's something to he avoided at all costs. Silly buggers, a bit of chaos is good. It helps shake things up, and out. Blindly following tradition is the least productive thing I can think of.

Chaos is for animals; a civilized people will find a civilized way to change.
 
Chaos is for animals; a civilized people will find a civilized way to change.
And yet here we are as a people; animals that have learned to control our urges. Well, some of us.

Notice I said "a bit of chaos". I'm not an anarchist, and perhaps chaos isn't really the term to describe what I'm thinking, but the repeated reference to it struck me as odd.

"Civilized people" shouldn't be used when speaking of the house of Saud.
 
Well, it a good thing the Saudi royals are running out of money (go figure). They'll lose their power eventually.
 
Well, it a good thing the Saudi royals are running out of money (go figure). They'll lose their power eventually.

The Saudi royals aren't necessarily the problem. They actually tried to open up Saudi Arabia to becoming more Western-ized in the 70's, which only ended up with a bunch of psycho jihadists taking over the Grand Mosque in Mecca, demanding that the royals step down.

So the royals essentially said "screw it, if religion is what you want, religion is what you'll get", and proceeded to turn back the clock to the Stone Age with the laws that were imposed. They're pragmatists, whose only intention is to stay in power. I doubt, in their personal lives, that they give a shit about Islam.
 
So SA is like one giant safe space; got it.
Ha, basically
That's also the mindset of the locals in the UAE. When I lived there, I never heard about any disenchantment nor was there any popular support for democracy or self-determination by the locals.

The locals were quite pleased with how their Sheikhs were running the country and were opposed to democracy or protests / anything that would rock the boat. They believed their elders knew best .
I remember a few years ago Jackie Chan said that the Chinese should not criticize China outside of China or in the presence of foreigners. I wonder if a similar sentiment exists in these countries; that is, that they might be hesitant to make their dissident feelings known to foreigners.
The word chaos keeps coming up. Like it's something to he avoided at all costs. Silly buggers, a bit of chaos is good. It helps shake things up, and out. Blindly following tradition is the least productive thing I can think of.
I agree but let's also remember that these societies are not as durable as our own. The US can handle some mass protests and some unrest. The Gulf monarchies? I'm not sure they can with the sectarian tension bubbling underneath and Iran itching to stir the pot.
The Saudi royals aren't necessarily the problem. They actually tried to open up Saudi Arabia to becoming more Western-ized in the 70's, which only ended up with a bunch of psycho jihadists taking over the Grand Mosque in Mecca, demanding that the royals step down.

So the royals essentially said "screw it, if religion is what you want, religion is what you'll get", and proceeded to turn back the clock to the Stone Age with the laws that were imposed. They're pragmatists, whose only intention is to stay in power. I doubt, in their personal lives, that they give a shit about Islam.
The Wahhabi religious establishment is also very powerful and acts as a sort of check on the power of the royal family. Obviously the power is more so in the hands of the monarch and the royal family but there is some tensions between the two as evidenced by this episode from the article.
Around the time he was rethinking his worldview, King Abdullah, then the monarch, announced plans to open a world-class university, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, or Kaust. What shocked the kingdom’s religious establishment was his decision to not segregate students by gender, nor impose a dress code on women.

Kaust followed the precedent of Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, which had also been shielded from clerical interference, highlighting one of the great contradictions of Saudi Arabia: Regardless of how much the royal family lauds its Islamic values, when it wants to earn money or innovate, it does not turn to the clerics for advice. It puts up a wall and locks them out.

Most clerics kept quiet out of deference to the king. But one member of the top clerical body addressed the issue on a call-in show, warning of the dangers of mixed universities: sexual harassment; men and women flirting and getting distracted from their studies; husbands growing jealous of their wives; rape.

“Mixing has many corrupting factors, and its evil is great,” said the cleric, Sheikh Saad al-Shathri, adding that if the king had known this was the plan, he would have stopped it.

But mixing was in fact the king’s idea, and he was not amused. He dismissed the sheikh with a royal decree.
But as I understand it the royal family can't just piss all over the religious establishment either. Dismissing one sheikh is one thing but collectively they have considerable influence and act as a conservative check on any aspiring reformist monarchs
 
Back
Top