The Religious Policeman

.....than swallowing a load of condoms.

Girlfriend Used Saudi Prince's Boeing 727 To Smuggle Cocaine

According to trial testimony, the Colombians were looking for new ways to smuggle cocaine when Lopez suggested to Usuga that they approach the Saudi prince, who could travel the world in a Boeing 727 outfitted with extra tanks for long flights. He could also travel under diplomatic immunity, thereby avoiding most customs inspections.

He wasn't directly involved, you understand.

The 2-ton shipment, valued at $30 million, was transported in May 1999 from Colombia to Caracas, Venezuela, where it was loaded onto al-Shahaan's jet, according to testimony. The aircraft flew to Saudi Arabia and then on to Paris, where the cocaine was stored in a suburban stash house.

All of the cocaine went to Paris, apart from the Prince's "commission", which was no doubt dropped off en route in Saudi. Or perhaps the 727 just flew that dog-leg because they'd run out of the in-flight chicken dish.

Prince Nayef bin Sultan bin Fawwaz al-Shaalan, who married into the Saudi royal family, is believed still to be living in Saudi Arabia, but never apprehended.

....historic monument. This time it's the Hijaz Railway Bridge in Madinah.

Meanwhile, having read the story in the London "Independent" about Saudi Arabia's destruction of monuments, the Saudi Ambassador to London, HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal, wrote to the "Independent" to say

What rubbish.

Oh, dear, he hasn't quite got the nuances of English usage here. "Rubbish" is what Soccer playes say in tabloids like the "Sun", when they're accused of a torrid night's passion with a female supporter in some cheap hotel. The "Independent" and its readership is much more up-market, they prefer phrases like "factually incorrect".

But then what would you expect if you use two completely unreliable sources: Ali Al-Ahmed, a disgruntled one man ‘organisation', whose modus operandi is to spew out anti Saudi material of any kind (its basis on fact being fairly irrelevant) and Sami Angawi, the equally disgruntled former director of the Pilgrimage Research Centre who was fired for the mismanagement of affairs and wants to attack all those that now have responsibility for the Two Holy Places.

That's what's called an "ad hominem" attack. Or, if you prefer the Soccer theme, it's kicking the man, not the ball. Why doesn't he start talking about the subject?

Perhaps your readers would be interested in what is really happening. Every artefact discovered has been preserved and protected and will be displayed in new museums in Makkah and Madinah - indeed some artefacts are already on display. In all, more than $19 billion has been spent on preserving and maintaining these two Holy sites.

Well, that'll be news to the residents. And where exactly are these "museums"? I've never seen any sign of them. And $19 bn? You've got to be joking. Perhaps that sum has been spent on tent cities for pilgrims and multi-story parking lots, and new tunnels and overpasses so that pilgrims can get crushed to death in a different place each year, but on archeological preservation? Gimme a break!

Perhaps the Ambassador should read the newspapers back home. Or just look at the headlines. How about

Madinah Municipality Razes Hijaz Railway Bridge

That's in today's "Arab News", amongst others.

Historians and Madinah residents are outraged with the municipality’s decision to raze a section of the well-known Hijaz Railway, which was constructed in 1900 by the Ottomans.

Therein may lie the problem. Some monuments are a reminder of a time when "Arabia" was just that, before it became the personal fiefdom of the Saud family. There are three "issues" with this railway.

• It was built by the Turkish Ottomans, at a time when they ruled most of the peninsula. Ignore the fact that its purpose was to bring pilgrims to the holy sites, it's a reminder of colonial domination.
• It carries strong memories of T.E.Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia", "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and all that; he and the Arab guerrillas were forever blowing it up. Then came the Allies' post-WWI settlement, which gave Arabia to the Hashemites (now rulers of Jordan), and not the Sauds.
• It was a masterpiece of Western technology and industry, at a time when Arabia was not capable of such things. Our first and only railway was built in 1947, when many other countries were starting to pull up theirs.

So I'll be very surprised to see any parts of this railway preserved as part of some mythical $19bn program. When you come on your "Vacation of a Lifetime" to Sunny Saudi Arabia, don't expect the Hijaz Railway Preservation Society to be offering "Murder Mystery Dinner Train" specials!

We had a great day out at the Carnival yesterday. So many people were having so much fun dancing and singing and smiling, it was clearly sinful on a galactic scale.

The only problem we had, the Alanezi tribe, was that it was a warm day, and our ice creams started to melt before we could finish them off. Result - sticky hands, chins, clothes, everything.

Which reminded me of this item I came across a little while ago. It's the tale of a lady and her friend who were enjoying ice creams in Riyadh's newest and most upmarket mall, the Kingdom Mall.

The muttawa—or religious police—are a self-elected goon squad of fundamentalists who surveil the Magic Kingdom's inhabitants, particularly its expatriates. The purpose of their scrutiny is to ensure conformity to their own warped, narrow-minded interpretation of Islam. Their scrutiny is often asinine and always absurd, as the following mundane example illustrates.
A woman and her female friend were sitting on a bench in the Kingdom Mall, eating ice cream cones, when along came a muttawa, accompanied by a police officer. (You can always spot a muttawa by his beard, his thobe—the white gown worn by local men—that is always four or five inches too short, and a mien of profound hatred of all things different.) The muttawa approached the women, pointed a menacing claw, and hissed, "Don't lick it that way!"
Not being an authority on the subject, I can't with any confidence say there isn't a sura buried somewhere in the Qur'an covering the moral etiquette of licking ice cream. I suspect, though, the muttawa had wandered a bit beyond his moral jurisdiction.
"We just looked at each other," the woman told me. "I mean, how else are you supposed to eat an ice cream cone? You have to use your tongue, right? We just sat there and watched our ice cream melt until he wandered off. Stupid muttawa."

"Stupid Muttawa". How unkind. They are public servants, just trying to do a thankless task in the interests of our moral purity. Some people think that the Muttawa live on a constant diet of fast food and confiscated porn, so that any lady who extends her tongue beyond her lips, especially to lick something, is going to evoke guilty and lascivious thoughts, provoking a sexually-repressed and puritanical reaction. But nothing could be further from the truth. Quite simply, there is a wrong way to eat an ice cream, and there is a right way.

Just to clarify things, and for the guidance of the pious and right-minded citizens of Saudi Arabia, the Muttawa have issued another book in their "Muttawa Guide" series. Following on from the runaway success of ""Hide those Bruises"; the Muttawa Guide to Extreme Cosmetics", this one's bound to be an even greater success.

...and if that doesn't grab the attention, what will?

The cricket's over, one day early, England won although it was close at times. So I have a free Bank Holiday, and the A's have prevailed upon me to take them to see the Notting Hill Carnival in London. It's like Mardi Gras in New Orleans (perhaps an ill-timed comparison), and with its combination of music, costumes, and sheer fun, is about as distant from Riyadh as possible. Am I being a bad Saudi parent, exposing the young A's to something they will regret never seeing back home?

Anyway, I don't have much time for posting, so I'll just include this sad tale with a happy ending, thanks to reader Shari. As you probably know, we do have cats as pets in Saudi, but there are also many tribes of feral cats, usually centered round rubbish skips in the neighborhoods or behind restaurants. Skipper, as he is now known, seems to have been a pet kitten that was discovered to be blind, and possibly put out with a feral tribe, in the hope that they might adopt him. Fat chance. Cats are not pack animals like dogs, and the tribes are extended families, not cooperating individuals. Anyway, here's the story.



Skipper, a new cat at Best Friends, may be blind, but he doesn’t seem to have noticed. He’s about the happiest, snuggliest cat you could ever want to meet, and so independent ... he even came here all the way from Saudi Arabia!
Skipper was living in a feral cat colony in Saudi, but he wasn’t really wild. He seemed to be a pet that someone had dropped off into the group, perhaps thinking they would be friends for him. But the colony caregiver, Nancy Hashim, saw that he’d been beaten up, and she didn’t think a blind cat was safe on those streets! Since he was friendly, her thoughts wandered to a place as remote as Best Friends Animal Sanctuary – about as far from Saudi Arabia as you can get! Was there any chance they’d take a blind cat from the Middle East?
Indeed, she lucked out. Best Friends had a space. And blind or not blind, Skipper was welcome to fly over. Talk about a worldly cat!
Since his arrival at Best Friends, Skipper has wooed the staff with his hugs and cuddles. Far from seeming handicapped, Skipper walks around with confidence, sensing the presence of objects and people. He’s handsome and exotic-looking, and seeking a good home! In the meantime, we welcome him to the good old U S of A.
Watching Skipper play with this toy feather, you'd hardly think he was blind! It's almost impossible to tell sometimes.....

And the latest update:

Skipper was a blind, friendly kitty living in a feral cat colony in Saudi Arabia when he was rescued and flown to Best Friends. This charismatic young cat charmed the socks off of the staff and visitors alike. Now, he's a spoiled cat living in Salem, Oregon with Jill and Jaco Haley. "Skipper was the friendliest cat we met at Best Friends," Jill said.
Jaco said they are taking Skipper to the vet soon to talk about the possibility of a corneal transplant which might give him sight. "It’s going to cost a couple of thousand or so but I can either keep that money in the retirement fund or spend it on him, and Skipper is a worthwhile investment," Jaco said.

...for the day, time for a few random thoughts.

Australia did very badly in their first innings, so they were made to "follow on", which is like what happens at school when you do a bad essay, you're kept in and made to do it again. They're doing a bit better this time round but probably not enough to change the final outcome.

I put a new picture up in the corner. The last one wasn't "muttawa" enough. "Muttawa", as well as being a noun meaning a Religious Policeman, is also an adjective meaning the same as "pious" or "zealous" in other religions. So this guy is really muttawa. And no, it's not my photo, I'm not nearly that good-looking.

Remember my post earlier this month entitled "Don't Panic"? Basically:

- the panicky Western embassies in Riyadh had closed down because of a terror threat.



- our Interior Ministry, lead by Prince "Nasty" Nayif, said that this was complete nonsense, there is "No Terror Threat"; "Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman said the Kingdom had no solid information of any threat of terrorist attacks inside the country.
“We have no confirmed information about any imminent terrorist threat in the Kingdom."

- Then, a few days later, there were raids on terrorist hideouts - "Saleh Al-Oufi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, was killed in a shoot-out with police and security forces in Madinah yesterday. In a coordinated strike, security forces raided premises in both Riyadh and Madinah after locating armed terrorist suspects. In Riyadh, four terrorists died and one was arrested. In Madinah, two died — including Al Oufi — and one was injured."

- And today, the same Interior Ministry, led by the same Nasty Prince, announces that "they had thwarted terrorist attacks, including one in the capital Riyadh, during a series of coordinated operations against Al-Qaeda suspects last week. In all, 41 suspected militants have been taken into custody. Security forces managed to... prevent vile attacks that were imminent, when they targeted militant hideouts in Riyadh, the holy city of Madina and the northern town of Arar on Aug. 18, said an interior ministry statement."

So, just in case you've lost the plot at this point, which is understandable, the Interior Ministry has now thwarted some terrorist attacks that were imminent, and which could even be described as a "terror threat", but this terror threat was nothing to do with the terror threat that the embassies warned about, because Prince Nayif said that their particular terror threat was not a threat. Instead, we're talking about a different terror threat, one that was a real threat, although it's now of course it's no longer a threat. I hope that's clear. If it's not, you weren't paying attention.

I must interview Prince Nayif some day...

Meanwhile, down in Taif, in the bottom left-hand corner of the country, all is not well. The soccer stadium is empty. The grass grows silently. The "Ooh" of the crowd is no more. According to this article in the Saudi Gazette

"When Al-Watan, the Arabic language daily newspaper, reported that a sheikh has issued an edict in Taif alleging that Islam prohibits football, the entire team Al-Rasheed football team deserted the game.
Since then Islamic scholars scrambled to point out that the edict has basis in the Qur an or Sunnah and encouraged many young men to seek extremist activities.
Hussein Al-Talehi, director of Al-Rasheed team, pointed out that the controversial edict given by some of the online scholars brainwashed some of the promising players in the team to the extent that many of them left for Iraq seeking Jihad, Al-Watan reported in later editions."

I can understand why they stopped playing. There they are, in the dressing room at half-time. The score is 4 - 0 against them and they've just spent 45 minutes being kicked all over the park. Then the Manager starts up at them. He's never seen such a poor performance; they mustn't give the other team time on the ball, they need to get stuck into them. He's never seen such a bunch of girlies since his wife's Tupperware party. The only reason they're not crying is that their Mascara might run. Carry on like this and he's going to buy eleven Zimmer frames.
He storms out, leaving them with the team Imam. At least he'll say an encouraging prayer, boost their spirits. But no. He says he's been reading the Quran and there is no mention of soccer. In fact soccer was invented by the Kuffar, the infidel, who first played it with a pig's bladder, by men who display their knees. Therefore it is evil, is sinful, is prohibited, and will condemn the players to eternal hellfire, unless they repent.
So much for morale. Talk about rock bottom. The Al-Rasheed team falls apart, and heads off to Iraq to become suicide bombers. Meanwhile the Imam collects a tidy sum from the bookies.

Conversation between two mothers in a Saudi supermarket:

Mother 1: Oh hello, haven't seen you for ages*, how's little Abdullah?

Mother 2: Little Abdullah? He's really big now. He went off to Iraq to be a suicide bomber. And little Mohammad?

Mother 1: Same thing. No longer little either. He also went off to be a suicide bomber in Iraq

Mother 2: There you go. Don't children blow up quickly these days?


* (Ironic greeting exchanged between veiled ladies.)

Continuing to plumb the depths, here's a photo of a Saudi Airlines 747 at prayer time.















(No humans were hurt during the production of this photograph.)

I always enjoy reading the comments in this blog. It’s nice to receive the compliments, but also to hear other contributions and viewpoints, even those that disagree. As long as it’s all civilized and polite, long may it continue.

Very many times, a comment makes me stop in my tracks. It’s perhaps unfair to single out just one, but I’m very fond of the Irish, the way they talk and their sense of humor, and this exchange had me choking over my coffee.

The Koran is the direct unaltetered word of Allah. Is should need no interpretatio and anyone who thinks so is a kuffar. If Allah commmands that I need to beat my wife because she is disobedient then I have to by Allah's words through the prophet (swt). Allah knows best. Men and women have equal rights before Allah, but Allah has made men a step above women. That is in the Koran. You are not a Muslim if you cannot see that, and bound for hellfire.Abu Jihad | 08.24.05 - 11:40 am | #

"but Allah has made men a step above women.”       Tell you what, Abu Jihad (Did you really call your son "Jihad", what a great idea, I'll call my next kid "genocide"), if you come over to Galway you can tell my mother that, she still works in the market there, and then when youve spat your teeth out, you can try and figure out why she can punch your lights out when youre a step above her.Padraigh | 08.24.05 - 2:02 pm | #

Next time you’re in Galway Market, better not complain that the apples are bruised, otherwise you could be too.

I was also very touched by this one, from a 16-year-old seeking advice. Now the young A’s see me as a source of finance, transport, excursions and homework assistance, but rarely advice. And certainly not advice about fashion, music, what’s “cool”, or how to behave. So I was really very touched.

Dear Sir;I am 16 yrs. old. My Father caught me whistling and threatened to beat me. He said whistling is forbidden because it attracts evil spirits. Is this a parental fatwa? If I do not whistle loudly, will the spirits ignore me?Faal | 08.25.05 - 10:30 am | #

But how to reply?  The most sensible advice was

BTW to the 16 year old whose father thinks whistling attracts evil spirits:1) get a life and tell your father to do the same;2) leave home and go into the real world where people don't have stupid superstitions; and 3) if you can write English that well, don't you realise that whistling is a happy thing to do, or is this yet another way of Islam ruining peoples' lives? Grrrrr(image placeholder)Sue | 08.25.05 - 11:01 am | #

But as a Muslim, could I say that? You see one half of me still sees the Imam as the fount of all wisdom and knowledge, while the other half of me says I should rely on a combination of the most credible bits of the Quran, plus the knowledge and self-reliance I’ve picked up in a largely Western education.

The problem with Imams is that they can adopt an “Imam knows best” attitude. Ask them why they state something, where’s the reference in the Quran or the Hadiths, and they can get very difficult. “It’s not your place to question the will of Allah”. Well fair enough, but show me the passage where it says that it is his will, and not something you’ve made up just to look scholarly or learned, or something half-remembered from a lecture at the Imam University when you were waking up from a reverie about a donut with pink icing.

Anyway, I was always taught in my childhood that it was wrong to whistle. But aren’t adults infuriating, they’ll never give you the definitive answer, just some stuff about Jinns (evil spirits). Not a big problem in my case, I never could do the necessary with lips and teeth to produce a sound; perhaps that was Allah’s will. However these days we have the internet. Go to an online Quran , type in “whistle”. Nothing, nada, zip. There is nothing in the Quran that prohibits or indeed mentions whistling. Perhaps they hadn’t learnt how to do it back then, and with the prohibition on dogs, why would they need to?

So let’s ask the Imam after all, at a site for just that purpose. Key in “whistle”, what do we get?

Is there a prohibition against whistling with one’s mouth or by using a whistle?

It is not permissible to whistle through one’s mouth or an instrument. However, if there is a dire need, for example, to call out at a distant person or a lost person and there is no alternative, then one will be excused.

Same old answer, but no source reference, so I’m inclined to dismiss it as folklore. Especially when in the other Q and A we get.

Can you tell me something about jinns. When I work midnight shift, I hear noises and whistles. Do they harm you in anyway? Do they do physical harm to humans because humans can't see them? kindly explain in details

Jinns are also like human beings, obedient and disobedient.It is possible that the disobedient Jinns cause harm to human beings. In order to protect oneself from the mischief and harms of Jinns one should stay in the state of Wudhu, perform all the Salaat, recite Aayaatul Kursi after every Salaat and the four Quls before sleeping.

You see, Jinns whistle. That’s why we shouldn’t whistle as well, they may come over and start rubbing up against us, or bring us a stick to throw.

Well it’s taken a long time and we haven’t answered Faal’s question yet. My advice, Faal, go with Sue’s answer, I can’t better it.

The Ask the Imam site is certainly interesting. An Imam down in South Africa runs it. It’s well worth a visit; click “Random” for a random ruling. If you’re into superstition, search “Jinn” and see all the problems those little fellas are causing. If you’re in a vulgar, Chaucerian sort of mood, do a search on “wind”, and see all the problems that people have when they pass wind during prayers or wudhu (ritual washing).


I may not be posting for the next two or three days. It’s a “Bank Holiday” weekend. Not only that, (and I appreciate that this will be as interesting to US readers as the Nebraska High School Basketball Finals are over here), England are playing Australia at Trent Bridge in Nottingham, the series is all tied at the moment, England are currently “in” and  306 for 5, it’s a funny ground is Trent Bridge, if it’s cloudy then the seam bowlers can’t get the ball to reverse swing….

Have a great weekend.

The British "Interior Minister" has now published his proposals for deporting those who incite terror in the UK.

Clarke unveils deportation rules

The home secretary has published the grounds on which foreigners considered to be promoting terrorism can be deported or excluded from the UK.
Charles Clarke issued the list of "unacceptable behaviour" by those said to indirectly threaten public order, national security, or the rule of law.
The grounds, drawn up after the 7 July London bombings, include provoking and glorifying terrorism.

However, civil rights groups are objecting.

Amnesty's Halya Gowan said: "The vagueness and breadth of the definition of 'unacceptable behaviour' and 'terrorism' can lead to further injustice and risk further undermining human rights protection in the UK."
And the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) says the list of "unacceptable behaviours" is "too wide and unclear".

Amnesty has a good track record in exposing government abuse, not least in Saudi Arabia, so I'll be interested to see what they say as things develop. The Muslim Council of Britain is another case entirely - I'll come on to them in a bit.

The government here is still reluctant to send people back to governments that are, shall we say, less gentle than theirs. My view has always been that if you come here from that sort of country, then you should be grateful to live among the tolerant and civilized British, and if you abuse their hospitality, then you deserve to be sent back.
A particular case in point is the Saudi Dissident, Muhammed al-Massari, about whom I was uncertain earlier. However it is now emerging that he has changed from Dissident to something far more sinister.

Saudi exile runs urban warfare website in UK.

A PROMINENT London-based Saudi dissident, Muhammed al-Massari, is running a website that features a guide to urban warfare for potential terrorists.
In a series of video and audio clips, the Beginner’s Guide for Mujahed gives detailed advice on physical training, the surveillance of enemy targets and operational tactics.
It features footage of an Arab instructor who recommends would-be holy warriors to invest in a knife for self-defence, saying: “Of course, this knife is mainly for stabbing and is not suitable or good for beheadings.”
Referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq whose followers murdered the British hostage Ken Bigley by slitting his throat, the instructor adds: “As far as beheadings are concerned, we ask our brothers to seek Abu Musab’s advice on this issue as he has more experience in this.”

What a little charmer. But presumably there's no vagueness or "wriggle room" about whether this is "unacceptable behavior". He should be put on the Saudi Airlines flight to Riyadh this morning. However that won't happen until the British government gets assurances about his treatment out there. But why be so concerned about his treatment? Make him someone else's problem, not yours. You won't hear many ordinary Brits lamenting his fate.

Elsewhere we read that:

Last year he described Tony Blair as a legitimate target for assassination.

Now that resonates with other recent news. Under the same legislation, will Pat Robertson appear on the UK terror database?

The global database will list those who face automatic vetting before being allowed into the UK.

Who knows? Although Robertson has recanted ( an apology that has satisfied only a minority of CNN readers)
saying "sorry, I was wrong" won't let people off the hook.

Articles already published, as well as speeches or sermons already made, will be covered by the new rules.

Which makes sense, but something puzzles me. You see, there is a certain Muslim over here who has been appointed by the government to a post to help "rooting out extremism in the wake of last month's suicide bombings in London"

Top job fighting extremism for Muslim who praised bomber

What I find puzzling is the appointment of Inayat Bunglawala, given what he has said in the past, and said recently. Here one little gem that has dropped from his mouth:

"The chairman of Carlton Communications is Michael Green of the Tribe of Judah. He has joined an elite club whose members include fellow Jews Michael Grade [then the chief executive of Channel 4 and now BBC chairman] and Alan Yentob [BBC2 controller and friend of Salman Rushdie]."

In his eyes, being Jewish is proof in itself of guilt. And then, being friends with Salman Rushdie, need I say more?

I definitely wouldn't go for any of his racing tips, he always seems to back the worst horse.

In January 1993, Mr Bunglawala wrote a letter to Private Eye, the satirical magazine, in which he called the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman "courageous" - just a month before he bombed the World Trade Center in New York......Five months before 9/11, Mr Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, who he regarded as a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain.

But are those the remarks of a naive youth, since retracted? He says so

Mr Bunglawala said: "Those comments were made some 12 or 13 years ago. All of us may hold opinions which are objectionable, but they change over time. I certainly would not defend those comments today."

Which is presumably why he's been picked for the government job. That and the fact that he works for the Muslim Council of Britain. Who? Well, when I ask Muslims over here if they've heard of it, most haven't. It's a self-styled body that purports to represent Muslims in Britain. Presumably that's why Tony Blair looked in that direction for his appointments, there's certainly no other choice. However it certainly doesn't represent me.

The BBC did an excellent expose on the MCB last Sunday, showing how little leadership it gave and how two-faced it was.

It features an interview with Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who says members of the Palestinian terrorist organisation Hamas are "freedom fighters".
Sir Iqbal compares Hamas suicide bombers to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi.

You've got to love the tolerance of the Brits. They even give knighthoods to terrorist apologists.
The program also had an example of the two-faced behaviour of clerics from my own country - tolerant and pluralist when talking to the outside world, nasty little bigots when addressing "the faithful".

The programme also shows a leading Saudi cleric, an honoured guest of the East London Mosque, claiming that Islam is "the best testament to how different communities can live together", while back in his pulpit in Mecca, he has referred to Jews as "monkeys and pigs" and also as "the rats of the world". Christians are "cross worshippers" and Hindus "idol worshippers".

So what did our Mr Bunglawala, the now-reformed former racist, have to say about this program?

"Mr Bunglawala said that the BBC had allowed itself to be used by "highly placed supporters of Israel in the British media to make capital out of the July 7 atrocities in London"."

Nice one! It's those Joos again! You just can't get away from them! Let's ignore the fact that the July 7 (and July 21) atrocities were caused by Muslims in the name of Islam, let's not show some leadership here and acknowledge that the Muslim population here needs to do some serious bridge-building, let's switch into victim mode, and blame the Joos, again. I watched the program. Israel hardly got a mention, it was all about Britain. But never let the facts get in the way of a chance to blame the historical enemy.

And this is a man appointed to "a government role in charge of rooting out extremism"? Gimme a break.

I'm sorry, but sometimes I just can't find the humor in some situations.

Posted by: alhamedi / 1:51 AM|

Take your pick...

Fatwa 1

Fatwa 2

Enough of the heavy geopolitical stuff. I'm starting an Advice Column.

"Dear Alhamedi

My wife won't do what I tell her. What should I do?

Inadequate

Dammam"

Dear "Inadequate from Dammam". The answer is all in the Quran. As it says there

1. Tell her to behave.
...if that doesn't work...
2. Go and sleep by yourself
...and if that doesn't work...
3. Beat her
...because that works every time

Yours
Alhamedi

No, this isn't black humor, along the lines of Humphrey Bogart's ghost's advice to Woody Allen in "Play it again Sam"
"Dames are simple. I never met one that didn't understand a slap in the mouth or a slug from a forty-five."
Instead it's real life advice, written by Ghada Al-Hori and published in the "Al Watan" newspaper, in 2005 (and that's CE, not BC)

Punishing Disobedient Wives

Really, the title says it all, but sadly, there's far more. It's what you get when you take:
- a book written 1400 years ago
- and an absolutely literal, fundamentalist interpretation
- by someone with no sense of reality or balance
- who was "educated" at the worst Theological College in the world, the Imam University in Riyadh.
The result is the religion as practiced in Saudi Arabia, and many other parts of the world if the fundamentalists get their way.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Muslim, a believer. But, as with the Jewish and Christian religions that are based upon even older writings, all sacred scripture needs to be intepreted in the context of its time and its human as well as divine author. This fundamentalist stuff just gives me the creeps. As our "scholar" says

I find it unacceptable when some people twist the meaning of a particular verse in the Holy Qur’an — especially the one which permits a husband to beat his disobedient wife. Those who do the twisting must understand that the permission is only given under certain circumstances and that the beating is intended as a remedy for specific situations.

Just in case you thought that hitting women was just for psychotics, drunks, inadequates, muggers, losers and of course the Muttawa, you do need to appreciate that it's OK in "specific situations".

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, righteous women are devotedly obedient and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. And to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first) and (then) refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly)...

As an anthropological insight into gender roles and behavior 1400 years ago, it's revealing. But our Imam University graduate obviously yearns for those times. He still thinks it's for real.

It is quite obvious here that Islam adopts a gradual approach starting with verbal admonishment of the wife, then seeks a period of refraining from conjugal relations and, finally, if the husband finds the situation very serious, he may strike his disobedient wife.

There's none of your liberal "shared responsibility within relationships" rubbish here. First the wife has to put up with ther husband's verbal haranguing, telling her off like a naughty child. Then when that doesn't work, he departs from the conjugal bed, which I would imagine in this case is an enormous relief to her, at least she gets a rest from his nagging for eight hours, not to mention the gropings of her ill-tempered and selfish spouse. But then, when he's tired of sleeping on the studio couch, he gets to move on a stage, and belts her.

The beating which is only prescribed in the case of disobedient wives is intended to serve as a remedy in an unusual situation. If the husband feels the wife is behaving in a disobedient and rebellious manner, he is required to rectify her attitude — first by kind words, then gentle persuasion and reasoning. Beating as a last resort must never be understood to entail using a stick or any other instrument that would cause pain or injury.

No need to use a stick. Besides, there's never one around when you need one. The fist is handier. You can still do this sort of damage, as in the case of this Saudi TV presenter, who presumably has now learnt her lesson and is much more obedient.

Psychiatrists tell us of people, including women, for whom a cure lies in beating.

Our author, Ghada Al-Hori, obviously feels the need to bring in some academic support for his argument. But I suspect these psychiatrists are imaginary, like those imaginary friends he had when he was a child. Which psychiatrists, exactly? What are their names? Hannibal Lecter, wasn't he a qualified psychiatrist? Humphrey Bogart?

The controversy over the beating of disloyal and rebellious women is part of the campaign against Islam.

Here we go again. Its the old "nobody loves us, they're always picking on us, we're the victims, we are the world's one and only true religion but everyone's just horrid to us" moan. You hear it all the time in Saudi but can avoid it in the UK if you choose your mosque carefully, these whingeing imams make you feel you are in a religion for losers. They'll never appreciate that Islam gets a bad press because certain of our "brethren" fly into skyscrapers and blow up trains and chop peoples' hands off and say it's OK to beat women, all in the name of Islam.

There is a passage in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, (Deuteronomy 21.18-21) that says:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

The Jewish and Christian religions moved on from this a long time ago, some millenia in fact. You don't see piles of battered corpses of youths in baseball caps and trainers at the gates of Western towns. Their religions have kept the most important parts, and left the historical stuff behind. So have the majority of sensible Moslems around the world. So why do we in Saudi Arabia treat the Quran so literally? And why are we surprised when the rest of the world think we're completely mental?

Posted by: alhamedi / 2:54 AM|

The new Iranian President has now declared war on that scourge of modern times, liberalism.

Ahmadinejad pledges war on Liberalism

The neocons in the US have problems with "liberals". So do the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. Maybe they should get together.

Signaling his election would bring a clear break from the previous reformist administration of Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad pledged to fight off liberalism that he argued threatened Islamic values....

.....We should expand a culture that promotes virtue and prohibits vice

"promotes virtue and prohibits vice" Now there's a chilling phrase. It has a sort of familiar ring. Now where did I see that before....?



Of course, on the side of a Suburban containing Mr Acne and his colleagues. It's the name of our own beloved Muttawa, the off-white warriors, the heroes of the Makkah school fire.

So does this mean that Iran are going to institute Religious Police over there as well? Well, why should we Saudis have all the fun, let's spread a little sunshine elsewhere. Maybe they could have their own "Religious Policeman" blog as well.

Just a word though, Mr President. As a believer in "fundamental Islamic values", you will of course be familiar with the following Hadith, (reported saying of the Prophet, PBUH).

"Ali reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took some silk in his right hand and some gold in his left, declaring, "These two are haram (forbidden) for the males among my followers."

Now that ring on your right hand looks, to my eyes, just a little bit dodgy. I know that silver and metal rings are OK, but when the Muttawa start crawling around your streets, they're not into subtle distinctions, and you could find yourself whisked off in one of their Suburbans for a bit of physical religious education.

Take my advice, ditch the ring. You're trying to look like a hard-line Islamic fundamentalist President, not a ladies' hairdresser.

I keep looking for the good news about Iraq.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. A group of countries got together and kicked hell out of their army, turfed them out of Kuwait. Fair enough. But since then they've not been a problem for the Saudis. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a problem for segments of his own population. But the same goes for many governments today or in the recent past. How about Uzbekistan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan (and indeed for the majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa), should I go on?

However, Messrs Bush and Blair and Berlusconi etc. decided that this was one situation they had to do something about. They had no problem with dictatorships as such, just dictators who didn't like them, and coincidentally were sitting on top of oil. Never mind that this wasn't a pure military war, this was something that needed an understanding of the mindset and ethnic loyalties and religious groupings in a region where their previous interventions had been, shall we say, less than successful.

However, they needed a reason. But Don't Mention the Oil. So they came up with the Lie of the Century. As Dr Goebbels may have said, "If you're going to tell a lie, tell a whopper, and better still, one that can't be found out until too late". So Colin Powell went to the UN and told us all about those Weapons of Mass Destruction. What a performance. And he did it with a straight face.

So in they went. Surprise, surprise, no WMD. But Don't Mention the Oil. After all, we have got rid of a one psychotic dictator. We've replaced him with tens of thousands of psychotic Shias and Sunnis wiping each other out, taking hostages and cutting their heads off, kidnapping doctors and professionals for money, the ones who haven't fled to Jordan, that is. Soldiers, security forces, civilian population killed in their thousands, who's counting? We've created "Jihad World" for all those stupid indoctrinated Saudi kids, let them be the suicide bombers, there's plenty more where they came from. We could have 24 X 7 suicide bombers, except the power stations keep breaking down, they can't see where they're going at night.

No matter. Don't Mention the Oil (because by now it is regularly going up in smoke and is slipping out of the grasp of the Western oil companies). All will be well when there are elections - no, wait, when there's a parliament - no wait, when there's a constitution.

Did Messrs Bush and Blair and Berlusconi and all the other silly B's really imagine that this collection of self-seeking and opportunist individuals would come up with a constitution like the US or the UK? With Civil Rights and Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Worship. In a region where the only true democracy is, dare I say it, Israel?

Let's see what the London "Daily Telegraph" has to say about that.

US yields to demand for Islamic role in Iraq laws

The United States yesterday finally abandoned the fading dream of turning Iraq into a beacon of secular democracy in the Middle East, as it backed demands for the new constitution to enshrine Islamic religious law.
This raises the prospect of new laws being assessed against verses from the Koran, and risks alienating the country's non-Muslim minorities as well as more secular Muslim groups, particularly the Kurds.

Let me see if I've got this right. You see, I live in a country where everything is based on the Koran, it's ruled more by Imams and Religious Policemen than by the nominal "King"; to see what that means in practice, just keep on reading this blog to find out. To the south is Yemen, where the standard fashion accessory is the AK47, and it makes the Wild West look like the Regency Tea Rooms in Bath, England. To the east is a collection of minor Sheikdoms that are relatively liberal, but too small to have any influence. Further east we've got Pakistan that is only prevented from becoming an Islamic Republic by the will-power of its lonely President, and Afghanistan, say no more. To the north-east we've got Iran, with a new super-conservative-Muslim President who's going to make his own nuclear weapon, which he'll no doubt call "Allah's Bomb".

And now, Messrs B, B and B, you're going to allow the previously-secular Iraq, our northern neighbour, to turn into yet another Islamic Republic paradise. And where will they get their inspiration from? From the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, of course. They'll feed off us, and we'll feed off them, in a never-ending competition to be the nastiest, most repressive, most intolerant, and most stupid theocracy in the entire world.

Thanks a bunch, guys.

Here's one of those little snippets from the "Saudi Gazette" that regularly gets me choking over my coffee. It displays the worst of our country in a totally innocent and oblivious way.

STUDENTS COMPLETE COURSE IN ROBOTICS

Thirty-nine gifted Saudi students coming from all over the Kingdom, between 15-16 years old, completed month-long live-together and study-together intensive courses in robotics and electronics at the King Abdul Aziz University (KAAU) Center for the Gifted Students.
The training involved basics in the fundamentals of robotic and electronic designs, subjects in which most of the students did not have prior background, execution of projects in these fields, and finally competition among the completed projects, said Dr. Ibrahim Olwi, director general of the Center for the Gifted Students.

Great. 39 gifted students from all over the country, brought together for some intensive training, to develop and build robots. So what could be wrong with that?

Well, closer examination of the photo and the article reveals the answer. Not one of the gifted students is female. The 39 most gifted students are, by one of those freaks of statistics, all male. Isn't that strange? When God was handing out the intelligence genes, didn't the girls get any? Or are these genes exclusively attached to the male y-chromosome? Or is it just that, as always, we totally ignore the abilities and talents of 50% of our population?

God help this country if it ever becomes possible to buy embryo screening at the pharmacy. There'll be a 99% male birth-rate, and then we'll puzzle why the population is in terminal decline.

Rant over. It makes me splutter my coffee all over myself, I'm starting to look like a Muttawa. Let's change the subject. I was bemused at the choice of some robots.

Muhaidib and his team had assembled a toy car that does somersaults, which they entered into the competition. We were all excited and graded excellent, he said.

Not very impressive. We have real cars that do that, no problem. You get a Toyota Landcruiser, fill it with a family comprising father, third wife, mother, Filipino maid, and nine children, none wearing seatbelts. Place small child on knee of driver, to cushion any impact against steering wheel. Open windows because a/c a bit dodgy, children can put heads out, it keeps them amused. Give father shawarma to eat while driving. Set off down Dammam Highway, comfortably exceeding speed limit, in so-called "emergency lane" next to concrete central reservation. Father gets call on mobile phone, which he is compelled to answer, even though it's in pocket of trousers awkwardly covered by outer thobe and small child. Result? Car hits central reservation, somersaults, family scattered over six lanes. No problem.

I met great people who like me have the passion to study science, said
16-year old Saad Al-Shehri from Abha. He said his robotic project of a sumo wrestler is one of the best achievements of his life.

A robot of a sumo wrestler? The mind boggles. Presumably it's spherical, and rolls all over the place scattering salt.

There is in the UK a TV program called something like "Robot Wars". Teams build remote-controlled robots and get them to fight against each other. They use weapons like minature pickaxes or hammers or even circular saws. The young A's think it's great. I pretend its a bit beneath me, but watch stealthily from behind a newspaper. It's best when one robot's steering mechanism self-destructs in flames and and the immobile victim is helplessly cut in two by the opponent. Cool.

So is that what our young students did with their robots? Highly unlikely. That would constitute FUN, and as you will appreciate by now, FUN is prohibited in Saudi Arabia. Our version of Islam was invented by Mr Wahabbi, whose motto was:

"Sin may sometimes be fun, but fun is invariably sin. God commands you to be miserable"

or something like that. So the sumo wrestler will never get to beat the crap out of the toy car. Shame.

Posted by: alhamedi / 1:36 AM|

A comment from a reader suggested that the wording on the Saudi Flag actually translated as "This country may contain nuts".

How unkind. We may be a little eccentric. Perhaps we have a "unique cultural identity". Possibly a little "out of sync" with the 21st Century. But nuts?

What the heck, he's probably right. But there are nuts and there are nuts. Just like peanuts and walnuts and coconuts. So it is in Saudi Arabia.

There are those people in Jeddah. They have a Corniche, so they think they're living on the Mediterranean. They tend to smile and laugh. You occasionally see couples furtively holding hands. What libertines.

Then there are people like me who live in Riyadh. We're more proper. No holding hands. Not a lot of smiling either - what is there to smile about in Riyadh?

Then there are the people from Qassim, pronounced Gass-eem. A district centered round Burayda, 200 miles north of Riyadh. Where Wahabbi (who invented our really fun version of Islam) originally came from. Burayda is described in Lonely Planet or the Rough Guide as the "most unfriendly place in Saudi Arabia". And then some. Remember those old movies about creepy New England towns called Spookyburg or Witchville, where some innocent guy wanders in by mistake, it's all knee deep in mist and the silent locals just stare and don't say anything, the guy ends up next morning as a puddle of ectoplasm on the ground? Well Burayda makes those places look like New Orleans. In Mardi Gras.

So the following article doesn't actually mention Qassim, but there's nowhere else on this planet that it could be.

STORY OF SAUDIS WHO NEVER SEE THEIR WIVES

Imagine a husband and wife who have lived together as complete strangers for half a century.

Believe it or not, it actually happens here in Saudi Arabia. There are husbands, brothers and sons who have never seen the faces of their own wives, sisters and mothers let alone cousins and aunts. There are wives who never showed their faces to their husbands since they have tied the knot a long or short time ago.

Bear in mind that these husbands will only have seen their wife's face for about 20 minutes, at their one and only pre-wedding meeting. Since the wedding, they've remained veiled for their husbands, and for their children, for years, even for decades.

Children should wonder how their parents managed to conceive them when their fathers never saw their mothers. But that s probably just as well because, like their fathers, they haven t seen what their own mothers look like.

Children should wonder? I've always had a little trouble with this concept myself. How do you show affection to someone who's always veiled, how do you share those little intimacies, how do you procreate? Perhaps there are people who would get a bit of a thrill from making love to a veiled woman, but after a few decades it's bound to pall. Let's change the subject.

Some don't even let other women see their face.

This tradition has been part of my life since the day I opened my eyes on the world, she said. Believe it or not, I have never seen the faces of even my closest female relatives my cousins and aunts.
She said every member of her tribe believes it is a great shame for women to uncover their faces at any time, thus there is no chance for a female face to be seen by anyone.

There was however one situation that struck a chord. Husbands often ask wives how they look. They do it because they're genuinely wanting an opinion, most males being clueless about what to wear or what matches with what. (And a nice thing about living in the Kingdom (Saudi, not United) is that you always wear white, so life is simple). Wives, on the other hand, are usually seeking reassurance. When asked "What do you think of this dress / hairstyle / outfit", they already know the answer, they just want the male to confirm it. So you're faced with a situation where there is only one correct answer and at least ten incorrect ones. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "What do you think" definitely don't cut it. Similarly any half-hearted response is dismissed as mealy-mouthed; they want a definite opinion. Yet you're being tested on a subject you know absolutely nothing about. It's like that nightmare you have, where you're doing the oral exam for Mandarin Chinese and you haven't learnt a word in your life. So you desperately try to read the body language to see which way to jump. Get the "wrong" answer and you suffer for your lack of taste / tact / interest or loyalty. Get the "right" answer and there may well be the dreaded supplementary - "Yes, but why do you think that?"

So I had some sympathy for the man who accidentally saw his wife's face after probably 30 years. Although an accident, it posed the unspoken question, "How have I weathered over three decades?". This man would have seen her for a few minutes as a youth, and not seen her face, or indeed any other woman's, ever since. He probably had no concept of skin aging. He'd certainly never developed a technique for giving the "right" answer.

She said she only uncovers her face in total privacy, after she makes sure her husband and children are out of the house.
Only then I can feel free to change my clothes and remove my veil, she said. One day I walked over to the living room with my face uncovered. I never knew my husband was sitting there watching the TV. He saw my face.
She said her husband screamed when he saw her without a veil.
I ran to my room and I locked myself up for several hours. When I came out, he was very angry at me.

No, screaming wasn't the best response. If she looked like the Elephant Man, it would perhaps have been understandable. Or if her face had rotted away with leprosy. Or if "she" turned out to be a trans-sexual. But in this case, assuming a wife who had aged normally, I think a little more tact would have been appropriate.

What is of course revealing about the power relationship there, and indeed throughout much of Qassim, is that he was the one who was angry. He wasn't pinned out on the sand. He wasn't made to spend the next month in the camel enclosure. He was allowed the luxury of indulging his anger.

I asked Mrs A what she thought of the idea of a 24 X 7 veil. She said it would be an improvement, but that I should remember to keep it out of my soup. Ouch.

I know I have been hard on our security forces in the past, in their dealings with internal terrorists. They were forever surrounding the enemy, but never actually capturing or killing them.

Well, all credit where credit is due, they're finally getting their act together.

Al-Qaeda Chief in Kingdom Killed

Saleh Al-Oufi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, was killed in a shoot-out with police and security forces in Madinah yesterday. In a coordinated strike, security forces raided premises in both Riyadh and Madinah after locating armed terrorist suspects. In Riyadh, four terrorists died and one was arrested. In Madinah, two died — including Al Oufi — and one was injured.

It used to seem like the terrorists were getting tip-offs before every raid. Perhaps now they are using the equivalent of "The Untouchables" - a group of security men who can actually keep their mouths shut.

...except when eating their shawarmas, of course. Some things will never change.

I don't know whether it's a case of "No news is good news", but there haven't yet been any reports of the execution that was due to take place today, and would have happened by now (1430 BST).

An article in the Saudi Gazette gives us rather more detail about the death of the man in question.

However, she refused to give details about her story, noting that details are in the government files.
Amal was only 20 years old when a young man, who is a neighbor of her in-laws, broke into her house in the absence of her husband and attacked her. She carried her husband's hunting gun and shot him dead with three bullets to the head.
I begged him to leave me alone and get out of my house but he insisted, so I killed him to defend my home and honor, she said.
As a strong-willed woman who has been raised up on the mountains of Aseer where women share with their husbands the rigors of life, Amal cut the corpse into pieces and burned it. Then she wrapped it in a blanket and threw it in the garbage believing that the story will end at that point.

Like much of this story, the article raises more questions than it answers. Is this the same story as in the government files? What was the involvement of the husband then, and now? Was she really capable of cutting up a corpse and burning it without help?

On the other hand, there is this account:

A source close to the case, who asked not to be named, said according to the investigation, Amal said the man was threatening her with revealing their previous relationship before she got married as he kept photos and cassette tapes of her talking to him. He kept blackmailing her and she pretended to submit to his desire until she dragged him to her house where she killed him, the source said.

For "dragged", read "lured", it's a better translation. So what's the real story? As I said before, we're never likely to know. Saudi "justice" comprises of secret trials and public executions.

However the lady seems to have won everyone over, including the prison staff.

He (the Prison Director) described Amal as one of the best women in Kahmis Mushayt, the area where she lives. He said she belongs to a good family and a well-known tribe. He said that her file is clean since she entered the prison. Aseeri also confirmed the good conduct and behavior of Amal. She said Amal has become one of the prison staff as she helps them to deal with newcomers and calm them down until they integrate with the rest. She also makes Dawa (Preaching) to non- Muslim female prisoners. She memorized the Holy Qur an and most of the Prophet s sayings (Hadith).
She is loved by everyone and she takes good care of her friends not only in her cell but also in other cells, Aseeri said. I am quite sure that if she is forgiven she would be an active and good member of the society because she learned her lesson and now she is ready to help other women in the society to learn from her experience.

There's also a web site built by her supporters, http://www.freethegirl.com/ If you click on the arabic word in the grey block in the middle (that means "entry") you'll find yourself confronted with some very active discussion groups, almost 100% in her support.

So it seems that virtually everyone wants her to be pardoned for whatever it is she's done, or not done, as the case may be. Let's pray the dead man's family come round to that same point of view.

Our Government suddenly seems to have taken fright that the oil may soon run out, and have seized upon foreign tourism as a source of revenue.

Foreign Ministry to Issue Tourist Visas Starting Next Year

Starting next February, the Foreign Ministry will issue tourist visas to all prospective visitors regardless of their religion, press reports said yesterday quoting an informed source at the ministry.

“The ministry will issue tourist visas to Muslims as well as non-Muslims after Dul Hijjah 1426,” the source told Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News. The source said it was imperative that the Kingdom implement a visa regime to boost tourism and as part of preparations to join the World Trade Organization.

“Muslim tourists will receive visas for both Umrah and tourism,” the source said, adding that Muslim women must have a legal companion while non-Muslim women should have a sponsor in order to get visas.

Knowing how many readers of this blog have been inspired by the idea of visiting Saudi Arabia as tourists, I thought I would find out more about what is actually involved. So here is the exclusive "Religious Policeman" interview with the Minister for Tourism.

RP: Good Morning, Minister.

M: Good Morning. May I say how much I enjoy reading your blog, and your readers' comments?

RP Thank you. Can I start by asking how many non-Muslim tourists came to the country last year?

M: Yes, 5,537.

RP: Oh that's not many, we don't seem to be very welcoming to non-Muslims.

M: Perhaps not, but we had 7,300,000 Muslims come on Pilgrimage and other visits. Non-Muslims could have converted to Islam and there would have been no problem. However, if they don't want to do that, and I do appreciate that circumcision can be painful in adulthood, we're now going to make it easier for them to come here as tourists.

RP: That's good. How?

M: They'll be able to get visas on arrival at the airport, just like Dubai.

RP: So anyone can fly into Riyadh or Jeddah and just pick up a visa at the airport?

M: Men can, certainly, and married couples, as long as they can prove they're married, so they'll need to bring a Marriage Certificate, four copies translated into Arabic and certified by a lawyer. Not a Jewish lawyer, naturally. Women, on the other hand, will need to be sponsored by someone inside Saudi Arabia.

RP: But suppose they don't know anyone in the country?

M: Well, we can't help them there, can we? We're not a Dating Agency.

RP: And what about couples who aren't married, or gay couples?

M: Well as you know, we behead homosexuals, and stone adulterous or loose women to death, so it's probably best if we don't let them in in the first place, otherwise there'll be no end of paperwork.

RP: OK. So we'll allow single men and bona-fide married couples in. But they already go to places like Dubai in hundreds of thousands, it's a major international resort. Why should they come to Saudi Arabia instead?

M: Well, we have lots of sun.

RP: So does Dubai. Can they sit under a sunshade and have a drink, like in Dubai?

M: Certainly not, and if there's any drink in their suitcase, they'll go to prison. But we're not like Dubai, we offer a unique cultural experience.

RP: So they can go and see a show with folk dancing, the sort of thing Greece is good at?

M: How long have you been in Britain? You know we don't have theatres or cinemas or concert halls. No, what I meant was, there are 6,366 heritage and antiquities sites in the Kingdom.

RP: But aren't we knocking these down as quick as we can drive the bulldozers?

M: That's only for the non-Islamic sites and sites that could be associated with idolatry - so just old monuments and fortresses, historic buildings, houses of famous people, things like that. Certainly not the mosques.

RP: So they can go and look round the famous mosques, like they can in Bahrain for example?

M: Well they can certainly look at the outside.

RP: But not the inside? After all, that's where they'd see the beautiful decorations, get a sense of stillness and reverence.

M Oh no, if they go inside we'll put them in prison.

RP: And of course they can't go and visit the spiritual center of Islam, Makkah, or historic Madinah?

M: If we ever found them there they'd certainly go to prison, unless they were lynched first. But they always have the option of converting to Islam.

RP: OK, lets talk about seaside holidays instead. After all, tourists usually want one of two things; a unique cultural experience, or the four S's.

M: The four S's?

RP: Yes. Sun, sand, Sangria and sex.

M: Well we certainly have sun and sand, and I think you already know the answer to the other two.

RP: Well, one thing we have that Dubai doesn't, and that's the deep water Red Sea with coral reefs. Just the place for snorkelling and scuba diving holidays. What can we offer tourists there?

M: Well, the biggest resort on the Red Sea is Jeddah, but nobody swims there, you must have read all the stories about the raw sewage. However we do plan to build some resorts further up the coast.

RP: So men and women will be able to go swimming up there?

M: Certainly

RP: Together?

M: I didn't say that. Swimming together, as you know, is un-Islamic. Most hotels only allow the men to go swimming. However there are one or two already that are more relaxed, and allow men to swim in the morning and women in the afternoon.

RP: And can the women go topless?

M Certainly not. They must keep their heads covered at all times.

RP: Isn't that a bit difficult, swimming in a full-length abaya and headscarf, particularly scuba diving?

M: No, haven't you seen the new fashions?

RP: What fashions?

M: Look at this website, there are lots of fashions the women can wear.

Saudi Beach Wear

RP: Don't you think that looks completely ridiculous, like a clown in a Circus?

M: Well, I wouldn't want to wear it, but then I don't have much sympathy, women should stay at home to look after the children and do the cooking.

RP: So where will you be going on vacation, Minister?

M: Well, strictly off the record you understand, and like any Saudi who can afford it, I'll be going abroad. I like the South of France. Nothing like a glass of Chablis in a pavement cafe on the Boulevard des Anglais in Nice. Why be in Saudi Arabia when there are so many great vacation spots?

RP. Indeed, Minister. Thank you for the interview.

M: My pleasure. Are you going to do any more photos of kittens?

I am grateful to JS for drawing this snippet to my attention.

Livestrong, Saudi-style

The enterprising gentleman ( from the Indian sub-continent of course, we Saudis are not such innovators) is selling a neat line in green wristbands with the inscription "Proud 2B Saudi").










There are two problems with that. The first is that not many of us are actually proud to be Saudi. Proud to be Arabs, yes, and Arabs from Arabia, yes, certainly. But the name "Saudi Arabia" derives from the time when the country was conquered by AbdulAziz Al Saud, who then "christened" it (if I can use that expression about a Muslim country!) after his own family name. Conceited, or what? Even the world's most self-important and psychotic egos didn't do that. Did you ever hear of "Kim Korea" or "Ulyanov Russia" or even "Idi Amin Uganda"? But our modest and demure royal family have dreams of grandeur that the rest of us can't begin to imagine. So while the Saud's and their related families think "Saudi Arabia" is a great name, the rest of us think it sucks, big-time.

The second problem is, as you will see from this list of wristbands, its meaning is ambiguous....

Awareness Wristbands

....because there's also a green wristband that says "Kiss Me, I'm Irish". Now there are many Irish in the Kingdom; indeed if they ever left, the major dairy in the Riyadh area, Almarai, would grind to a halt, and all the cows would burst. So there could be lots of these Irish wristbands in circulation, which would of course give the Muttawa a big problem. Therefore we can expect them to be inspecting wristbands soon. A green "Proud 2B Saudi" will be OK, but if it says "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" then you're in for big trouble. Don't expect them to kiss you, although you probably wouldn't enjoy being kissed by "Bad Breath", "Mr Acne" or "Black Teeth". No, they'll make you wear their own wristband instead. It's modelled on the "Support Our Troops" wristband, and says "Support our Religious Police". It's dirty white with coffee stains, and smells like stale sweat. They'll sell like hot cakes on eBay!

I am grateful to MZ who wrote me with this link:

Segregated Saudis Flirt Via Bluetooth

As someone who remains devoted to his 3-year-old trusty Nokia 5110, I am not a Bluetooth user myself. However I am delighted to see Bluetooth being used in the continual struggle to evade the Religious Police, in the cafes and restaurants of the Kingdom.

...the men and women flirt and exchange phone numbers, photos and kisses.
They elude the mores imposed by the kingdom's puritanical Wahhabi version of Islam — formulated in the 18th century — by using a 21st century device in their mobile phones: the wireless Bluetooth technology that permits users to connect without going through the phone company.

I remember writing a year ago that the Muttawa were fighting a losing battle with the latest generation of mobile phones. They wanted to ban them (of course) but couldn't do so, because you can't buy anything else these days. So the younger generation are exploiting them for all they are worth, and becoming very romantic and poetic in the process.

But connecting by Bluetooth is safe and easy. Users activate the Bluetooth function in their phone and then press the search button to see who else has the feature on within a 30-foot range.
They get a list of ID names of anyone in the area — names, mostly in Arabic, often chosen to allure: poster boy, sensitive girl, lion heart, kidnapper of hearts, little princess, prisoner of tears. Some are more suggestive, like "nice to touch" and "Saudi gay club."
Users then click on a name to communicate with that person.

Abdullah Muhammad is issuing a challenge that no self-respecting Muttawa could resist...

On a recent warm night, Abdullah Muhammad sat in front of his laptop at a sidewalk cafe waiting for his computer's Bluetooth to pick up nearby users.
"I use Bluetooth to meet girls," said the 24-year-old businessman. "The religious police cannot catch me."

Fortunately his name does not give him away, being shared with several million other Muslims. But they won't like the implication that they can't keep up with the technology - after all, they can now work most of the buttons on their Playstation consoles. So they'll be all over these perpetrators like a bad rash. Their problem will be the use of subterfuge. In the physical world, you can normally spot a Muttawa at 200 meters, by his bad complexion, straggly beard and thin hairy legs appearing from the bottom of a short and rather dirty thobe. In the virtual world, more guile will be needed. They'll park their Suburbans outside a suspect restaurant and switch on their Bluetooth devices. Problem is, they won't have enough guile to use fanciful ID's, and may just come up with some personal characteristic. But names like "Mr Acne", "Bad Breath", or "Black Teeth" might give the game away.

....tragic or otherwise.

‘Khamis Mushayt Girl’ Faces Execution

The 26-year-old mother of three, called the ‘Khamis Mushayt Girl’, convicted of murdering a man six years ago is scheduled to be executed next Thursday after the slain man’s family failed to attend the meeting set up by tribal leaders in Asir to talk about a possible last-minute pardon.

Saudi executions are invariably grisly. This one promises to exceed all previous records.

The details are uncertain, because all Saudi trials are conducted in secret, without reporters, and without independent defense lawyers, so there's no-one around to give an objective account. She apparently killed a man who had attempted to have sex with her. Perhaps he was an attempted rapist who got more than he bargained for. Perhaps he was someone she had been seeing, which would have been against all social and religious norms, and wouldn't have helped her case in such a male-dominated system. Perhaps she just went out and killed an innocent man. As I say, we'll never see the transcript, so we'll never know.

She was sentenced to death, but sentence was postponed for five years, presumably because her children were dependent on her. Where the father was or is, we don't know (but his absence won't have helped her case). Her only hope now is that the family of the dead man will forgive her, in which case she won't be executed, but will be imprisoned and have to pay "blood money" instead. However for all these years they have refused to do so. Next Thursday, August 18th, is the date set for the execution. This one promises to be the grisliest Saudi execution spectacular of all time.

Personally I don't have a problem with the death sentence, in principle. However in practice too many innocent people have died all over the world from miscarriages of justice followed by the death penalty. I would like to see its use restricted to crimes of murder, where there was DNA or other totally incontravertible evidence. Others, I know, disagree in principle, and I can respect that. However I don't believe that the death sentence as such is the problem here.

I also have no problem with a pardon issued by the family who forgive the perpetratator. It is perhaps the point where the Islam and Christian religions come closest together. In both cases, forgiveness brings spiritual benefits, but in Islam's case, forgiveness also has a more practical result.

The big problem is, of course, the public execution. Next Thursday it will no doubt take place outside the major mosque in Asir, after midday prayers. Now there will be tremendous pressure on the dead man's family to forgive her, possibly including visits by princes and regional governors. They could pardon her at any time up to the moment when the executioner raises his sword. So you can guarantee that with all this public interest, the place will look like a soccer cup final, from young children thru to old grannies. Either way it's high drama for the audience; there may be a pardon and tearful reconciliation, or else a swift and bloody conclusion. There'll be no chance for a dignified end for the young lady concerned, in some quiet corner of a prison. This one is played out in full public view. What is even worse these days, the combination of Saudi medieval brutality with 21st century technology means that there'll be lots of mpgs's in circulation from cameras and camera phones. There's a thought next time they broadcast one of those commercials on TV showing what a modern and civilized place Saudi Arabia is.

Let's hope the family relent. It's obviously difficult to forgive, but bitterness and resentment are the acid that dissolves our souls.

...are not necessarily the same thing.


Omar Bakri Mohammed is a terrorist sympathizer. He is quoted as saying that "he would never warn police if he learned of an impending suicide bomber attack by fellow Muslims". Personally, I'd handcuff him to a seat on a Circle Line underground train, travelling round and round for 18 hours a day, and then see how he felt about the issue. The ever-tolerant Brits are now discussing whether they they can stop him returning to the UK from Lebanon. It seems he has heart problems.....

Bakri to have heart op on NHS

.....and would prefer to have his heart surgery in St Thomas's Hospital, London. I don't blame him. The heart surgeons at St Thom's may be Godless infidels, but they do a neat angioplasty, they're certainly better than the Muslim guys in Beirut, and they don't take a prayer break in the middle, leaving your chest cavity open to the elements. Not only that, but it's free, on the National Health Service. And even better, depending on where your bed is, you get a great view of The London Eye / Houses of Parliament / Lambeth Palace (home of the head of the Church of England) so you can dream about a really cool terrorist outrage.
But wait; there's more. It seems that the British Welfare State has been subsidizing him all along. I know the Brits pay a retainer to the "Poet Laureate" and the "Master of the Queen's Music", but I didn't realize there was an official "Jihadi.to the Court of St. James".

He receives £331.28 a month in incapacity benefit and £183.30 a month in disability living allowance because of a leg injury he suffered in his teens.
Both payments will continue for at least six months while he is abroad, as long as he plans to return, as will the housing benefit on his home in Edmonton, north London, and his council tax benefit.
His wife, who remains in Britain with their seven children, can also continue to claim a benefits package thought to be worth at least £1,300 a month. Bakri drives a Toyota people carrier worth £30,000, paid for under a scheme called Motability.

Beats the heck out of passing the skullcap round for alms in some rat-infested mosque in a war-ravaged suburb of Beirut. He'll be back, if they let him.

Meanwhile, the case of Mohammad Al-Masari is different. In 1996 he was one of a number of academics who set up an opposition movement, certainly peaceful at the time, within Saudi Arabia. Some of them were imprisoned, whilst he managed to escape to Britain, where he has remained ever since. However to the best of my knowledge he has not broken any laws in Britain, and is not thought to be among the 10 "undesirable foreigners" detained by the British Government today.

The Saudi Government has been moving heaven and earth to get him repatriated ever since 1996. They've made various murky allegations against him, including terrorism. Four Saudis who confessed on TV to a Riyadh car-bomb attack in 1996 said that they were "influenced" by Mr Al-Masari, whatever that is supposed to mean. Now anyone familiar with the saga of the so-called "booze-bombers" will know how much reliance to place on a Saudi TV confession. In that case, the alleged "booze-bombers"'s said in an insincere monotone that they planted the various car bombs, which was patent nonsense, and that their "controllers" were two highly respected British Embassy diplomats, which was completely ridiculous. So the only people who believe Saudi "TV Confessions" are the same people who believe that Soap Operas are real.

The Saudi Government won't let this one go, and the London Bombings is a perfect opportunity to smear Mr Al-Masari by association.

Turki Blasts Britain on Saudi Dissidents Issue

Prince Turki Al-Faisal, a former chief of Saudi intelligence, told The Times he had been “going round in circles” with British authorities over the threat posed by Saudi dissidents in Britain.

The reason he's been "going round in circles" is that the British Government has no trust in the Saudi legal system or their assertion that he is a terrorist, and know exactly how he would be treated if he were returned. (The Saudi legal system is completely secret, and does not meet Western standard of human rights or legal practice in virtually any respect).

There is a world of difference between a "dissident" and a terrorist. Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi were very renowned "dissidents" but they were certainly not terrorists. Now I have no knowledge of what Mr Al-Masari has been up to since he came to London, but for me it would take more than the word of someone like Prince Turki to convince me that he had any terror connection. I do have enough faith in the British legal sytem to believe that if he were were a threat, then they would have prosecuted him through due process of law. And if Saudi Arabia had a proper legal system, and had evidence against him, then they could have presented that evidence in the UK and had him extradited to face a fair and open trial in Riyadh. However the first didn't happen and the second is very unlikely.

It therefore appears to me that the Saudi Government's constant whining about this subject is just a cynical use of the "terrorism" label to attempt to get hold of, and quietly dispose of, a constant thorn in their side.

.......in the march for Womens' Rights. A very plucky lady, Fawzia Muhammad Al-Mubarki, has set out on a career as a Passport Expediter. Woman Stamps Her Passport to Success A Passport Expediter? This probably needs a bit of explanation.

When I came to the UK and needed a driving licence, I got the paperwork, photo and a check together and sent them to an address in Wales. Three days later, my driving licence appeared in the post. So what, you may say. Well, in Saudi Arabia, we have massive unemployment, and a massive job creation scheme known as the Civil Service (although the "Civil" does not refer to the politeness of its servants). "Civil" servants pursue job preservation strategies that involve making everything as time-consuming, complicated and difficult as possible. Thus, to get a driving licence in Riyadh requires a trip to a compound in north-west of the city, and a visit to 8 separate windows in turn. When I say "visit to", I mean "queue at". And I do not mean a queue like a polite and orderly bus queue here in England. A Saudi Arabian queue is a semi-circular crowd, several men deep, all struggling and straining like an English rugby scrum, at whose center is possibly the window you want - but you'll never know until you get to the window, because they don't have signs like "collect your form here" or "enquiries", just "Window no.3". So initially your queueing may be totally abortive. However, go to the right 8 queues, in the right sequence, shove / push / wriggle your way gradually to the front to be served, and you'll eventually get your licence. It literally takes hours. You have to do it in person because they test your blood type and your eyes. If you aren't there when they open at 8 am, you run the serious risk of still being there at prayer time around mid-day; when everyone heads for the prayer hall and you've lost your hard-won position in the scrum at Window No. 7.

It's a bit different for passports and visas. They are a bit more modern there, and have tickets. Go in the morning, collect your ticket, go back sometime in the afternoon, take a seat in the massive hall facing the 3 civil servants who are at desks raised on a platform, go up to them when your number is called, and you're in business. Unless something is wrong with your paperwork, of course, in which case repeat the whole thing the next day. The hall is awful - too little air-conditioning - it's like being in the World Body Odor Championships. Every now and again some old Bedu wanders in out of the desert, he's never heard of tickets or waiting, he just goes up to the guys on the platform, there's then a shouting match between him, the civil servant, the person who was being served, and the cop on duty, which is quite good entertainment, it helps the time to go more quickly.

So, to get back to the point, a Passport Expediter is someone who gets a passport or visa on behalf of a client, for a fee, to save them wasting complete days of their life. I have to say I'm full of admiration for her. Personally, I'd rather eat glass than do that day after day, week after week, month after month. At least it's in the Passport Office, where they have tickets. I don't think she'd survive the queues for a Driving Licence. Unless, of course, she took along our friend with horns, in the posting from two days ago. Put him on a leash and she'd get to the window right away, no trouble.

Meanwhile, one step back.

Three Wives Kicked Out at Once

A man married to four women kept his promise that he would divorce his wife if she spoke to her married daughter, Al-Madinah newspaper reported. The reason was that the daughter had previously refused to give her father part of her salary. The father rejected his daughter and refused to allow her to enter his house and as a result, her mother was divorced. The husband then demanded his second wife to raise the children from the first wife whom he had divorced. She refused and he kicked her out. He then asked the third wife to take care of all the children and when she refused, he kicked her out as well. The fourth wife, fearing that she too would be kicked out, agreed to take care for all the children.

Happy Families, Saudi-style. The problem is, of course, that divorce is too easy for men. Get a lawyer, pronounce "I divorce thee", and you have just condemned your ex-wife to a lonely, embittered and frustrated existence. You won't be surprised to know that the process is rather more complicated for women divorcing men. I have long advocated that for a man to divorce his wife should be a 16-step process, administered by the Driving Licence Agency - that would do wonders for the stability of Saudi family life.

(Mrs A and I have been very happily married for many years. However when I suggest, in jest, that a second wife might give me a new perspective on life, she replies, in jest, that when her brothers have pegged me out on the ground in the desert, near the scorpion colony, that life might be somewhat shortened.)

(Al-Hamdulillah = Thanks be to Allah (God))

..as the relatives of the released prisoners are quoted as saying. Why were they imprisoned? For being reformists of course. You can have sex with pre-pubescent girls in Saudi Arabia, and be a newspaper hero. But advocating political reform is a crime, and you get banged up for it. Then we bang up your lawyers as well.

Abdullah pardons 5 Saudi Reformers

King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, pardoned Monday night five Saudi reformers including three recently convicted protesters Ali Al-Domaini, Abdullah Al-Hamid and Matrouk Al-aleh who have been calling for political and judicial reforms in the country, as well as their lead lawyers Abdul Rahman Al-Laham and another Saudi intellectual, Dr. Saeed Bin Zair, who was earlier sentenced for five years imprisonment.

The papers and TV are full of Abdullah's mercy, wisdon etc., ignoring the fact that he put them in gaol in the first place, in the name of King Fahd who was:

- gaa-gaa
- in Marbella, Spain
- exchanging fluids with his intravenous Johnny Walker drip

at the time of their arrest and trial.

Prince Abdullah has been "the man" for the last 10 years, nothing happened without his involvement. Still, don't knock it. If you can lock people up for no good reason, and then receive fulsome praise when you release them, it sounds a lot more rewarding than my job, and no doubt yours as well.

Any other country, you'd sue the hell out of everyone for wrongful arrest. In Saudi, the same relatives have to perform the humiliating ritual of Worshipping and Adoring the Royal Buttocks. They are therefore quoted further:

We laud King Abdullah for his pardon of the three reformists and their lawyer Abdul Rahman Al-Laham as well as Dr. Saeed Bin Zair.

Mmm. I'm not sure that's quite grovelling enough; just a hint of feistiness at the back of the palate, like a Rioja wine. "We who are not fit to shovel up the droppings of his camel, humbly laud King Abdullah etc..." would be more appropriate. Otherwise our reformers, their lawyers, a few relatives, and a couple of passers-by could all find themselves scooped up and back in gaol. Absolute monarchs, like small children, can be very petulant.

...a goat picture.

We Saudis eat goats. They're a favorite dish for family celebrations or the major festivals. What's more, we like our meat fresh, so we tend to slaughter them ourselves in the yard at home. I'm not a vegetarian, but that's not something I like to do, however there's usually a family member happy to oblige.

Perhaps I've been around the Brits too long, and picked up their sense of Fair Play and Cheer For The Underdog, but I'm with the goat in this particular story.

A goat nearly killed a man when it butted a father in the stomach with its horns. Al-Riyadh newspaper reported that the father bought the goat in celebration for his daughter’s transfer from a small village to teach in Ahsa. When the father was getting ready to slaughter the goat, it charged, butted him hard in the stomach and ran away leaving the man in serious condition. The family took him for treatment to a nearby hospital and decided to delay the ceremony and buy food from a local restaurant instead of slaughtering the goat. As for the goat, it was sold back to the animal market.

...like those panicky US diplomats in Riyadh, they're always issuing security warnings.

No Terror Threat, Says Interior Ministry

The US Embassy in Riyadh and its consulates in Jeddah and Dhahran will be closed today and tomorrow due to terrorist threats against the missions’ buildings in the Kingdom, the US Embassy announced here yesterday

However, the Interior Ministry, led by Prince "Nasty" Nayif, says there's absolutely no threat. And if that's what he says, then I don't know about you, but I'm happy to believe him. After all, those Americans bleated warnings back in 2003 and 2004 and what happened?

Housing compounds got blown up, that's what happened.

But then, I'm exaggerating, as always. As the article goes on to explain

In 2004, a few Westerners were killed in a spate of terrorist attacks in major cities in the Kingdom.

Storm in a teacup, really. A bunch of terrorists just went into a housing compound in Khobar, indiscriminately shooting anyone in sight. Then they went from door to door, looking for infidel Westerners or Christians to wipe out. Only a "few" people were killed; well 50 people were taken hostage, and 22 murdered, to be precise.

Wikipedia 29_May_2004_Al-Khobar_massacres

However, the majority of the victims in those attacks were Asians and Arabs.

Oh, that's alright then.

So the Westerners had no need to worry last year, as they don't now? Well, the Westerners I've known in Saudi have always been very plucky and resilient, but with that attack, following the attack on 3 compounds in 2003, they left in droves. And I don't blame them.

An example - the British School in Riyadh used to have a majority of British and European pupils, with a minority of Asians. That has now swung completely the other way. When all the British Aerospace families leave later this year for a "safe", self-contained compound 30 miles north-east of the city, then it'll be a British School in name only. That's the result of all these attacks, which the Interior Ministry said would never happen.

It would be nice if Nayif were right and the US were wrong. I just have a sinking feeling it'll be the reverse.

This may be the "Arab News"' idea of humor, maybe they really do have zero ethical judgement, maybe I'm just getting cranky about terrorist supporters, justifiers, equivocators and apologists.

Lawrence of Arabia Could Have Slipped Through Blair’s Laws

His family called him “Ned.”
Like the July 21, 2005 London train bombers, he was as British as cricket.
And like the London bombers, Ned, young, intense and often scowling, with beady, deep-set eyes, blew up trains.
He killed people, destroyed millions of dollars of property, and caused populations to panic.
He sought to topple some governments, some kings and princes, and to place his friends into power.
What would Great Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair do about Ned?
Go figure.

We are talking about Lawrence of Arabia here, aren't we? If so, how many civilians did he deliberately target? Wasn't he a guerrilla leader who fought against the Turkish Army that was occupying other countries? Weren't the trains that he attacked full of Turkish soldiers, with not a civilian in sight?

Did Ned belong to Al-Qaeda? No.
But he’d understand it very well.
Was Ned a terrorist?
Ask the Turks.
Was Ned a freedom fighter?
Ask the Arabs.
Was Ned a good British citizen?
The British were never quite sure about Ned, the man they knew as T.E. Lawrence.
Lawrence of Arabia.
Go figure!

So T.E.Lawrence would "understand" Al Qaeda well? He was a noted orientalist, and understood the Arab mind well, and found them cruel on occasions when fighting each other, but the idea of deliberately terrorising a civilian population would, I'm sure, revolt both him and the Arab leaders of that time. It's like saying that other great guerrilla leader, George Washington, would also "understand" Al Qaeda well.

Sarah Whalen, author of this article, comes across as a moral imbecile with an ethical IQ around 30. Or perhaps she just wrote it to draw a "clever" analogy; if so, I look forward to her next article comparing those two renowned animal lovers, Queen Elizabeth and Joseph Stalin.

(BTW, if you're tempted to write to the author at the address quoted in the article, don't bother; I tried, and it doesn't exist)

With the new King Abdullah in place, Saudi journalists are scrambling over each other to write deferential and fawning prose about him. Take The "Arab News"'s Dr. Khaled Batarfi (Barfi?).

Never Far Away From the People

If you really have nothing better to do, read it in its nauseous totality. However one particular passage struck me as "the pits", even by the standards of this particularly groveller.

Once I came late, and all the spaces around the prince were taken, so I sat in the empty place next to him. This was supposed to stay available to unexpected senior guests. Many were surprised at my daring move, but the prince was not. To show all that it was OK, he started talking to me about the weather. He said: I smell rain, can’t you? I asked: How can he tell? He smiled his fatherly, loving, encompassing smile and explained: The air is wet, you know! He should know. A Bedouin at heart, he is never away from the desert or the people.

A Bedouin at heart! Born and grew up in palaces and South of France villas, he'd run a mile rather than share a tent with a Bedouin and his smelly goats. If he could run a mile, that is. That's unlikely, even when he was young, you don't get fit sitting around in palaces and private jets.

I thought that sort of journalism went out of fashion with Stalin's death. However I look forward to Dr Barfi's future articles. Especially the one about how Prince Nayif ("Nasty Nayif") keeps bunny rabbits and loves to stroke all his fluffy pussy cats. With photos, of course!

Chilling reading for Brits this morning in their London "Independent"

Intelligence chiefs warn Blair of home-grown 'insurgency'

Intelligence chiefs are warning Tony Blair that Britain faces a full-blown Islamist insurgency, sustained by thousands of young Muslim men with military training now resident in this country.
The grim possibility that the two London attacks were not simply a sporadic terror campaign is being discussed at the highest levels in Whitehall. Fears of a third strike remain high this weekend, based on concrete evidence supplied by an intercepted text message and the interrogation of a terror suspect being held outside Britain, say US reports.
As police and the security services work to prevent another cell murdering civilians, attention is focusing on the pool of migrants to this country from the Horn of Africa and central Asia. MI5 is working to an estimate that more than 10,000 young men from these regions have had at least basic training in light weapons and military explosives.

The Brits are such a kind and tolerant people, but sometimes I really fear for them, that their tolerance will lead them to tolerate something that eventually destroys their tolerant society. Take the current debate about clamping down on foreign nationals who preach support here for terrorists and suicide bombers. Prime Minister Blair has proposed legislation to have them deported to their own country. Yet there is a vocal group here that says "Oh no, you can't do that, not if their own country is somewhere where they could be tortured".

Now I sometimes feel that I'm tempted to see everything in shades of grey. But there are some issues that are so black-and-white, they are "no-brainers".

• If you come from a country where you are likely to be tortured, then when you go as a Guest to another country, isn't it plain common sense to keep your head down and your mouth shut, rather than preach violence against your Hosts and risk getting kicked out?
• If your home government wants to torture you and another country grants you shelter, what sort of Guest are you if you advocate violence against your Host?
• Are the only people to be punished for advocating violence the ones who come from benign countries; are you to be immune if you come from a country with no human rights?
• Perhaps people who advocate terrorism, and governments that torture, deserve each other; indeed, they are a "marriage made in Hell".

The Brits do need to wake up that in this particular game of Cricket, they are not playing Australia. They are playing the Talibaan, who bowl with grenades and bat with AK47's.

Many thanks for your responses, and to one person in particular who emailed me with the precise solution.

(Apologies in advance to non-UK or Commonwealth readers for any technical jargon in this post)

I am writing this with half an eye on the Second Test Match from Edgebaston,

England versus Australia

Australia are "on 82 for 3, chasing 200 more runs with 7 wickets in hand".

I love cricket. I've loved it ever since I came as a schoolboy to England, many years ago. As someone whose only opportunity for sport in Saudi had been soccer on a concrete-hard pitch of compacted gravel and sand, cricket was a luxury. I enjoyed fielding on the boundary, sliding on soft moist grass to stop the ball going over the line, getting grass stains on my long white trousers. We used to get afternoon tea in the clubhouse, tea or orange juice and sandwiches. The sun always shone, the birds always sang, there was the sound of leather on willow, the tension as the sun started to set with the result still in doubt, "There's a breathless hush in the Close tonight - Ten to make and the match to win!" as the famous poem goes.

People from other countries don't usually "get it" with cricket. It's not like football or basketball, where there's a cut-and-dried result after a short period of time. Cricket is like life; it's ambiguous and indeterminate. It's days before you get a result, three or four or five, and even then it may be a draw, or the game may just come to a stop because of the weather. You can go to matches and spend whole days of your life just watching it.

I can never understand why Saudi's don't play cricket - it suits their national temperament. They play soccer very badly, because they have big bottoms and spindly legs, and are not physically aggressive and quick enough. Put our national soccer team up against any UK soccer team and they'd be kicked into the stand. But the pace of cricket, with its late start, regular breaks for meals, and leisurely progress towards some sort of conclusion (perhaps), fits the national personality. You can drive around Riyadh and see games between teams of expatriate Pakistanis and Indians, but sadly we never join in.

Australia are 132 for 4. Ambiguity as always, they may win, or equally lose, and if it rains it will be a draw. No more blogging for today, I've got a game to watch.

...which I am definitely not!

Any suggestion as to how to get rid of the large expanse of nothing at the top of the blog, between the date and the start of the text, which seems to have appeared since I posted last year?

I often come across the suggestion, in the more neoconservative crevices of the Internet, that someone should "nuke Mecca". Well, according to London's "Independent", they don't need to bother. It is already being destroyed by the neoconservative wing of the Islam faith, the Wahabbis.

The destruction of Mecca: Saudi hardliners are wiping out their own heritage

Historic Mecca, the cradle of Islam, is being buried in an unprecedented onslaught by religious zealots. Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades.
Now the actual birthplace of the Prophet Mohamed is facing the bulldozers, with the connivance of Saudi religious authorities whose hardline interpretation of Islam is compelling them to wipe out their own heritage.

The Wahabbi sect originated in the north-east of Saudi Arabia and have since established their ultra-zealous views throughout Saudi society, including the religious establishment and the government. Put simply, they are the reason why Saudi Arabia is such a weird place.

One of their tenets is that there should be no memorial to any person, living or dead, as this could lead to idolatry. Hence King Fahd's unmarked grave (although who would want to idolize him, apart from Johnnie Walker shareholders, I cannot imagine) and the criminal destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. And the problem with Mecca in their eyes is that, being the birthplace of Mohammad and numerous of his relatives and followers, it is riddled with historic buildings and places. "No problem", say the Wahabbis, "we'll bulldoze the lot (and in their place we can build another multi-story hotel to cater for some of the millions of pilgrims annually. We may be narrow-minded fanatics, but we're not stupid)".

Most of the buildings have suffered the same fate as the house of Ali-Oraid, the Grandson of the Prophet, which was identified and excavated by Dr Angawi. After its discovery, King Fahd ordered that it be bulldozed before it could become a pilgrimage site.
"The bulldozer is there and they take only two hours to destroy everything. It has no sensitivity to history. It digs down to the bedrock and then the concrete is poured in," he said.

The problem with the Wahabbis' logic is two-fold

• Having a building that commemorates someone, doesn't necessarily usually lead to idolatry. Many days I drive past the Albert Memorial in London, erected in his memory by his wife, Queen Victoria. But I have never seen people prostrated in front of it, or walking round it many times.
• The Kaaba in Mecca, the large stone in the center, is itself a form of memorial to Abraham (Ibrahim), Mohammad, or even Adam. The logical extension of their views is that they should destroy it, but somehow I don't think they will. Logic is not their strong suit.
  

However this destruction is probably of academic interest to all non-Muslims, who cannot visit Mecca, unless they are trained in repairing Mercedes buses. For an explanation of that riddle, you'll need to read earlier posts!

The King Saud University in Riyadh teaches both men and women. However forget Western notions about boys and girls lying about together on the lawns of Academe discussing Proust. For one thing, Proust is far too risqué. Secondly it's 120-plus fahrenheit out there and there's no grass. Thirdly, of course, the two sexes don't actually get to mix. They are taught in their own complexes, seperated by fences and gates, with their own single-sex staff. (I exaggerate. Sometimes men lecture the women. How? They do it over closed-circuit television, with microphones and loudspeakers for questions).

There was a woman lecturer there called Hatoon Al Fassi; that's her picture above. She was renowned for being outspoken on Womens' Rights and democracy issues in Saudi. She was also renowned for wearing the traditional (and much more colorful and attractive, although still Islam-compliant) womans' dress of the Asir region in the south-west of the country, rather than the "ninja" black head-to-toe number that most wear. She was a darling of the diplomatic circuit, and you'd often see her at Western embassy receptions, getting regular invitations because she presented a modern-yet-traditional outspoken face of Saudi womanhood, and basically was far more interesting that the spoilt, materialistic, trivial, typical Saudi Princess with limited language skills.

Then one day she became a little too outspoken. So what happened? She was hauled into the Dean's office and told that she no longer had a job. About the same time her husband, who worked somewhere in Government, had a similar interview with his boss, and he was out of a job. After all, what do you expect if you can't keep "your woman" under control? So much for Womens' Rights.

So what's the "Progress" I'm referring to? Well, about a year later, following due warnings, she got her job back. That's progress, isn't it? She even gets allowed out to international conferences, so the Saudi Government can show how enlightened it is. How outspoken she is at these I can't say, but I suspect it's much less than before.

Hatoon Al Fassi

And what does our new King and Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques have to say about Womens' Rights?

In a recent article in the Arab News (the English-language sister paper to an Arabic-language paper that is about as independent as "Pravda" used to be),

Abdullah to Push Ahead With Reforms

He is quoted as saying

"Abdullah has been a staunch supporter of women’s rights. He said Saudi women have started entering the mainstream of national life and hoped that social attitudes toward them would change for the better within a few years."

Let's put "within a few years" into context. We Arabs have a saying "bukhra inshallah" which translates as "tomorrow, if Allah wills it". And to quote the old joke, "Does "bukhra" mean the same as the Spanish "mañana"? "No, it doesn't have quite that sense of urgency."

So we can expect to see some movement on Womens' Rights "within a few years", Saudi-style. That'll be about the time when the entire country is living in stilt houses because Global Warming has turned it into a tropical swamp. If you wonder why, as a nation and a race, we're so slow, take a look at our bottoms. It's not a subject that obsesses me, but it's a well-established fact that Arab men have wider hips and more cushioned backsides than other races. And God (or Allah) has a purpose for everything. He wouldn't make it so easy for us to sit down if he wanted us to rush around making progress all the time, would he?

On the BBC News this morning was a man called Garri who lost the bottom half of his left leg in one of the London Tube bombings. I was really impressed with his courage and positive outlook.

You can find it on the BBC page here 'I feel sorry for them': Blast survivor's view on London bombers

Also, he was a Muslim. However his reaction was that of a good human being, irrespective of religion. He didn't hate the bombers, but just regarded them in effect as losers whose only hope of making a name for themselves was to kill lots of other people. His concern was for the people who were less fortunate than he.

I personally value this one Muslim over all the narrow-minded, fanatical, self-righteous ones that I have had the misfortune to meet over many years.

A reader has asked my opinion of this blog. I feel humble - after all, we're talking about a Major League blog here. Nevertheless, with all due deference, here are my thoughts.

1. The original posts by the owner, Charles, are a very useful source of examples of idiotic behavior by Muslim extremists and their sympathisers. Clearly he is putting forward his own world view, and I have no argument with that; aren't we all?

2. What I do find off-putting about LGF is the behavior of its camp-followers. Each original post is followed by hundreds of comments. While a few of these are original, witty, even insightful, the overwhelming majority are repetitious one-liners that just agree with everyone else. I just don't see the point of their "contributions". They remind me of my Uncle and his cronies sitting round drinking coffee and smoking their sheesha pipes, discussing the ills of the world. Someone would say the same thing he said yesterday, and the rest would say "Yes", "That's right", "I know", more or less in turn. Same thing yesterday, same thing tomorrow. You wonder why they don't have anything more pressing to do, like a job or a family or a game of golf, than write "bastards" or "right on" for the nth time. Perhaps they all need reassurance that other people think like them.

Thankfully it's not registering any new commentors, so at least the tedious repetition is contained.

3. Just as you can go to some Muslim sites and see the true "dark side" of Islam, down in its depths you can see the alternative "dark side". Comments along the lines of "Let's round up all the Middle East in one large camp and rape all the women and eat all the children and then nuke all the rest" keep popping up. I don't know how serious they are, but some of the contributors do seem to view genocide as a solution to any conflict. Sometimes it reads like a porno site for wannabe war criminals. Genocide didn't work for Hitler, nor for Slobodan Milosevich, not even in Central Africa, but they obviously get really excited talking about it.

4. As a result of all the commentors agreeing with each other, there's no real debate. There's never any sense of balance either. No doubt if Pope Benedict went in there and repeated his comment that there's often little difference between Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli Army when it comes to indiscriminate deaths of civilians, they'd jump all over him and call him a "Birkenstock-wearing, Tofu-eating, tree-hugger" - (this being a Mantra to ward off anyone to the left of Darth Vader, same as garlic and crosses for vampires). There's little room for "on the one hand ... on the other". It's a very flat and one-dimensional world where everything is simple and there are no complications or ambiguities.

So I go there for news sources. But stimulating debate or insight - forget it.

News from home. And indeed it is Good News.

Abdullah vows Justice for All

I look forward to the early release of all those who were imprisoned for daring to advocate democracy, and an apology for the wrongful imprisonment and torture of the so-called "booze bombers".

Some observations from Mrs A (transcribed by me - her English is not good yet, but improving)

It is complete freedom to be able to walk around in public without being dressed head-to-toe in black non-breathing synthetic material. However I have not gone as far as some of the young girls who have bare stomachs. In spite of what the Imams say back home, this lack of modesty does not drive the local men into a frenzy of lust.

Being able to drive is a mixed blessing. I haven't gone out alone by myself yet. The driving is much better than in Riyadh, possibly because they have to take a proper driving test and be 18 years old, and also the fact that there are more women drivers. However the roads are very crowded and slow.

The children get on well with the children here, just like children everywhere.

The weather changes every day. Sometimes it changes during the day. You never know what to expect or dress for.

Shopping is nuch easier because there is no 30-minute stop for prayer time. I pray when I choose to, not when the Muttawa say I should.

There are no Muttawa! As Muslims, we can take responsibility for our own religious observance.

More later.

Here I am, back again, just like the proverbial bad coin.

Why? Well, in the last 12 months, events took me to the United Kingdom, where I was once schooled, and where I now work. I am much freer to post in safety, but it wouldn't have been very smart to do so the day after I arrived, so I've only just started up now. I will be returning to the Magic Kingdom from time to time, and so there will be gaps in my posting, which may or may not coincide with these intervals, just in case our heroic security forces are keeping track. As there are several thousand of us working here at any one time, and several hundred arriving or leaving each year, I am satisfied enough that I can maintain my anonymity.

I thought I'd got away from terrorist attacks but obviously that was a mistake. As someone with an obvious Asian appearance I feel a bit wary but that's not surprising. I think the British are starting to wake up to the "dark side" of Islam that we see so much in Saudi Arabia but is something new to them over here. Life as a moderate Muslim is getting increasingly difficult. Perhaps I should become a Christian, but where I come from they call that Apostacy and you get your head chopped off for it.

Thanks for all the comments in the meantime, which I'm always interested to read.

In the 12 months since I last posted, there have been 3 major events.

The terrorist cell that was continually being "surrounded", finally got surrounded by some part of the security forces that didn't leak like a sieve and wet themselves at the sound of gunfire, and its command structure was decapitated. For the time being, our home-grown or trainee terrorists are going to Iraq, because:
- it's nearer than Afghanistan
- it's full of soft targets
- they get to kill Americans, Europeans, Women, and lots of Shiites.

We had an election. That was Good News. The Bad News was
- it was only for the local councils, who just deal with garbage.
- it was for a minority of council representatives, the rest were government appointments
- women couldn't vote
However let's not be cynical, it was a start. Things move slowly in the Arab World.

King Fahd died.
Now I know that I made him the butt of some jokes, but I do feel slightly sorry for him, as one would for any reactionary despot who kept absolute power and the country's wealth within a narrow family circle, but suffered from heart problems, diabetes and alcoholism over a period of 10 years and finally curled up his toes. Like the late Pope, no-one should be forced to stay in any job past retirement age.
He is succeeded by Abdullah, who is relatively progressive, but will be held in check by the rest of the greedy and narrow-minded Saud family.

I'll have a lot more to say on this subject as time goes on, but for the time being let me offer a few personal observations.

1. The invasion of Afghanistan got rid of the Talibaan regime, which was good. However it more or less stopped in Kabul, and Osama bin Laden is still somewhere over there watching satellite TV and enjoying the scenes of devastation as they appear in Bali, Madrid, London and who knows where else. Meanwhile the US and its allies sent its huge armed forces into Iraq, which, although ruled by a psychotic with little regard for human life, was no great threat outside its own frontier, and in that respect was little different from Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan, apart from their lack of oil. In doing so they have transformed that drab and dull country into a true Disneyland for wannabe Jihadis. The bored, unemployed and gullible youth of Saudi Arabia have been flocking across the border in search of excitement, danger and the chance to go to Paradise. The Iraqi insurgents, who are certainly not stupid, have been more than happy to allow this seemingly-endless supply of morons to kill themselves as suicide bombers, while the Iraqis themselves do the hi-grade stuff like remotely-detonating roadside bombs and firing anti-tank weapons.

Now President Bush isn't the brightest star in the sky, but I've always credited Prime Minister Blair with having a few more brain cells, and it might gradually dawn on the pair of them that:
- they haven't even won a single battle in the War on Terror
- they have created more terrorists than they have killed
- getting rid of Saddam Hussein is only worthwhile if you can guarantee that his regime will be replaced by one that is universally respected, can control the country by itself, and is not run by a bunch of loony imams; there seems to be no guarantee of that at the moment
- there might be more benefit by redeploying their troops to where they can actually fight terrorists, not create them - parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a start.
- there might be even more benefit in using their intelligence forces to penetrate terrorist organisations, instead of using them as stooges to produce concocted evidence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and other nonsense.

2. The real seed-corn of Islamic terrorism is the hatred that is spewed out in mosques and madrassas throughout the world. They feed on real or imagined grievances in Iraq, Palestine, or Chechnya, but if those didn't exist they'd go looking for others, because there is a certain faction of my co-religionists who sincerely believe that Islam is destined to become the One and Only True Religion of the World. Cut the oxygen off from them and we'll start to cut out the cancer rather than just deal with the symptoms. And that will involve, amongst other things, being not very nice to Saudi Arabia.

3. Being very close to the English and the recent events in London has reminded me what nice people they are, but it really is time for "no more Mr. Nice Guy". These are a people who will apologize to you if you bump into them, and it's really your fault. There is a substantial proportion of the UK population who are still concerned about not upsetting the Muslim community here, for example by targetting young Asian men for searches. Well, I have three thoughts on that:
- it's the Muslim community who should be worried about not upsetting the majority, not vice-versa. It's the majority who are getting blown up, and they don't find it funny.
- the suicide bombers have so far been young Asian men, not Scotsmen in kilts or heavily pregnant ladies with small children. It therefore seems a sensible use of police time to concentrate on the former and not the latter.
- they shouldn't let anybody in, and then take an age to expel people who shouldn't be here. They could actually learn something from Saudi Arabia in that respect, or better still, Australia.

I'm sure I'll have more to say on this later.