Saudi woman berates religious police for criticizing her manicure

“You’re not the boss of me,” a Saudi girl declared to a member of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or muttaween, in a video posted on YouTube that sparked debate inside and outside the Kingdom over the role of the religious police. 

The video appeared to show an argument between the girl and a member of the muttaween after he stopped her at a mall in Riyadh and told her to go home because of her manicured nails, lipstick, and strands of hair visible beneath her headscarf. 

“You don’t see a strand of hair from other girls while you are showing off your manicure in a public venue,” the muttawa member said.  “It is my duty you tell you this.”

“You can’t forbid me from wearing nail polish,” said the girl.  “The government has banned you from coming after us.  Your job is to give advice to people, then leave them be.”  She then called over mall security for assistance. 

The video sparked heated debate about the role and tactics of the religious police, a force of approximately 3.500 members who patrol the streets of Saudi to enforce prayer time, conservative dress, gender segregation, and other Islamic edicts.  Many more volunteers and vigilantes reinforce the body’s ranks. 

Supporters of the girl argued the muttaween acted “uncivilized” and the girl had done nothing wrong.  Eman al-Nafjan, who blogs at Saudiwoman, wrote, “From the very beginning, the man disrespectfully shouts at her… The CPVPV are portrayed as sacred and the embodiment of how Islam was at the time of the Prophet. However, everything I’ve ever read shows otherwise. The way a CPVPV sheikh struts around malls with a fancy cloak on his shoulders and two subordinates flanking him, enjoying the atmosphere of fear their entrance causes and sometimes going as far as terrorizing people, is not the way I’ve read that the Prophet behaved.”

Others argued she was improperly dressed and abused technology to distort the interaction.

The muttaween later announced it filed a formal complaint against the girl for posting the video on YouTube. 

King Abdullah recently began to reform the feared religious police after it faced harsh criticism for the way it spoke to people and a 2002 incident where commission members stopped schoolgirls from fleeing a burning building and hindered rescue efforts because they were not properly dressed. Around 15 girls died and 50 were injured in the flames.  Among other changes, he appointed a moderate to lead the force and banned car chases. 

According to Reuters, earlier this year, a video of the religious police attacking a family outside a shopping mall in Riyadh was posted on YouTube, getting more than 180,000 hits and generating strong criticism.

I asked a lot of girls about their interactions with the religious police and got mixed responses.   “Before, they were uneducated and spoke harshly to people,” one Saudi girl said.  Today, they must meet certain requirements and are more professional, she said.

Another disagreed.  “They are not good people,” said the second girl.  “The way they talk to you makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not very nice and sometimes I just don't want to go out because of it.” 

I had only one interaction with them, when we were at the gates of an all-girls’ university and they drove by, yelling, “Cover your head!” But there were times, like the first night we were in Riyadh and walking around on the streets, where they left us—a mixed group of boys and girls, obviously Western and assumingly unmarried—alone. 

There is also a difference between the letter of the law and practice.  While certain things are not necessarily banned or mandated, muttaween members, and vigilantes in particular, are known to enforce stricter standards of conservative dress and religious practice than is required.  

Stoking fears about political Islam

The fear-mongering consuming both the West and the Middle East over the rise of political Islamist groups is overblown.  There is a moderating effect for those groups who reach a position of power, as evidenced by the actions of Islamist groups in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia.  None of them have even moved slightly toward the Iranian model, instead embracing a Turkish model in which they are political first and foremost, ruling on values embodied in Islam.  We have pseudo-religious parties in Europe, so I find it extremely hypocritical to get our panties in a twist. 

In Egypt, there is a possibility of backsliding away from the goals of the revolution over fears of insecurity and the goals of Islamists.  There’s this strange collaboration between liberal forces and the establishment to marginalize Islamists.  I think this is dangerous, as the majority of Egyptians support such candidates.  Marginalize these voters, and you estrange them from the system.  They need to buy in to the system, to feel included.  This is especially true as this is the first free election in Egyptian memory.  Their disillusionment will lead to the systems delegitimization.  

They will know if the elite work against their wishes. 

The Washington Post ran an interesting op-ed this morning on the topic.  This is not an endorsement.  But it’s worth a read and raises interesting points. 

His point about minority groups is particularly notable.  Whenever I speak with Copts and they say they support felool candidates because they think they will be better protected, I die a bit inside.  It’s sacrificing your country’s and fellow citizens’ freedom and progression for nominal protection. 

And look at what happened at Maspero.  The government is just as willing—if not more so—to put down and kill Copts as Muslims. 

It’s a dangerous bargain that perpetuates their outsider status in the larger Egyptian community. 

Political Islamism is not to be feared 

By Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian prime minister

 The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president of Egypt has moved on to the second round of voting. As fear mounts over the rise of Islamists, nostalgia for the old Arab world is stirring among many inside and outside the region. Some are starting to push the argument that former regimes restricted personal freedoms and stifled economic development but at least we all knew who we were dealing with and where we stood. And chaos was held in check.

 Today, a glance at headlines around the globe leads one to believe that Islamism is pitted against secularism in the battle for control over the new Arab world. This rise of Islamists clearly stokes fear in the West and leaves many clamoring for the good ol’ days when the good ol’ boys were in charge.

 Don’t buy the hype.

 This thinking ignores reality. It whitewashes the problems of the past, reflects unrealistic expectations for instant political transformations in the wake of revolutions and mislabels the battle being waged in the Arab world. This is not a clash between Islam and the rest — this is a battle for pluralism. It pits the believers in pluralism from both secular and Islamist camps against those who cling to outdated notions of exclusion or superiority and insist on disenfranchising others.

 For this battle to be won, we can’t ignore three critical lessons emerging from the ashes of the old Arab world.

 First, constituent politics are unavoidable and necessary. Reforms imposed from above are not enough to achieve political maturity. All groups and parties need to shift gears and participate in politics on the ground to fulfill society’s wants and needs.

 This is perhaps the most important lesson, and Islamists seemed to figure it out decades ago. One need only point out the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Some secularists, on the other hand, alternated between elitist political theorizing and smearing partisan politics. This thinking left many of them out of touch and lacking sufficient networks on the ground to be successful. In the short term, this is good news for Islamists, but constituent politics is the only way to defend individual liberties and protect political rights.

 Second, the reliance of certain groups or minorities on dictatorial regimes to safeguard their rights and guarantee their way of life — while usurping the rights of their fellow citizens — is simply untenable. For example, Tunisia’s former regime defended women’s rights but ignored the rights of many others. Many Syrian Christians have supported the government of Bashar al-Assad, which has killed thousands over the past year, purely because Assad’s Alawite regime protected their religious rights when alternative rulers might not.

 These are unacceptable, unsustainable bargains. Instead of ignoring the mistreatment of others, groups should fight for the rights of all, regardless of affiliation. This is the only way they can be seen as fellow citizens rather than as minorities.

 Third, Islamists lost their holiness the moment they entered politics. Whether religious or secular, conservative or radical, in or out of government, all those who enter the political fray can no longer adopt a holier-than-thou approach. Electorates across the Arab world will now view all who aspire to lead them equally.

 The field in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya and elsewhere is now open to all, and the people alone are the true source of authority. Society has claimed the right to bring in or remove anyone from power. Religious parties can’t hide behind religion or indulge in pretensions of sainthood — slogans such as “Islam is the solution” won’t fly without being accompanied by actions. And secularists can’t ban Islamists from politics under the pretext that the latter are uncommitted to pluralism, particularly because secular forces were often the ones curtailing open politics in the past. Both parties’ “holiness” is over.

 Groups will be held accountable if their programs succeed or fail in meeting citizens’ needs. Rhetoric and slogans will ring hollow if they are not matched with their promises — concrete programs that create jobs and defend rights. This is what will end up being the main criteria for political parties’ success or failure in the Arab world — the ability to deliver rather than to pontificate.

 This means that all must work together to defend basic rights and transition to true democracies. Policies of exclusion must give way to inclusion. Only a coalition of pluralists can succeed in building a democratic society where the majority rules, where minority rights are respected, and where individual rights are safe and the rule of law applies to all, without favoritism.

 The battle for pluralism has begun.

Ikhwan vs. Felool: Quick thoughts on the Egyptian election results

The results of the first round of voting for the Egyptian presidency point to a runoff between Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, a felool, or remnant, of the previous regime.  Both options are unattractive to Egypt's revolutionary youth.  They are stuck between voting for a conservative candidate whose platform is perceived to run counter to their ideals, a member of the former regime--which sucks in and of itself, and not voting at all.  A boycott, however, is a terrible option and would only further marginalize them. 

Morsi supporters.
AP photo

That they find themselves in this situation is largely self-inflicted.  The revolutionary youth and left ran multiple candidates, dividing the vote, rather than rallying behind one candidate.  I said before, half jokingly, they did what liberals do best--bicker and eat each other alive.  Just look at the Democratic party. It's the same thing--such a big tent that it's difficult to unify everyone.  Our repubs are much better at imposing party discipline (at least until the rise of the Tea Partiers, whom them have now embraced), as the felool and Islamist candidates are able to do.  

Graffiti in Cairo depicting Mubarak and SCAF leader Tantawy as the same person, with felool candidates Amr Moussa and Ahmed Shafiq behind them.
Reuters photo

I've spoken to a lot of expat Copts in the US and all of them voted for Shafiq.  It hurts me inside to see how their fear of an Islamist presidency pushes them to embrace figures from the same regime.  A win for Shafiq is really the end of the revolution.  Especially after going to Saudi, I know Egypt will not be like that.  The society is too dynamic, the political sphere too open, vested interests too deep, for Egypt to turn incredibly constricted.  There may be bold-name reforms to symbolize the new government's embrace of shariah--no booze or bikinis, although even that is unlikely.  

It is unlikely the FJP (MB's party) will even pursue such policies.  Their model is more Turkey's AKP, the ruling Islamist party, than Iran's theocratic government or Saudi's monarchy-Wahhabi model.  It's the economy, stupid--they're going to have to deal with Egypt's floundering economy first and foremost.  

Many of the expat and upperclass Egyptian youth rallied behind Mohammed el-Baradei, but he didn't even run.  

The transition was never going to be smooth or quick.  

I hope fear doesn't win the election. 

Eager Lion: US will lead massive 12,000 soldier, 19 country "irregular warfare" exercise

The United States will lead a massive military exercise involving over 12,000 soldiers and 19 countries, based in Jordan.  Fellow participants include Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Australia.  The exercise, dubbed Eager Lion, will span two weeks.

According to the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), the purpose of Eager Lion is to strengthen military-to-military relationships between participating nations through joint approaches, integrating all instruments of national power to meet current and future complex national security challenges. 

“The message that I want to send through this exercise is that we have developed the right partners throughout the region and across the world…insuring that we have the ability to…meet challenges that are coming to our nations,” said United States Major General Ken Tovo, commander of United States Special Operations Forces.

Major General Tovo addresses reporters in Amman.
Photo: France 24

Major General Tovo took pains to emphasize no forces would be deployed to Jordan’s north bordering Syria.  “This has nothing to do with Syria.  We respect the sovereignty of Syria,” he explained. 

The exercise is expected to draw criticism from Iran, which is facing intense pressure from Western and Arab capitals to curtail its nuclear program and perceived regional aspirations. 

It is also meant to emphasize continued United States engagement in the region despite withdrawal from Iraq and United States support for Jordan.  Jordanian officials are concerned about unrest spilling over its borders from Syria entangling its own restless Palestinian population.

Publicly, officials from participating countries say the operation is aimed at no country in particular, but instead against “realistic threats.”

Best Defense: Pakistani PM blames entire world for failing to get bin Laden for so long

Via Best Defense: 

"I think it's an intelligence failure from all over the world, Pakistani PM Gilani told a London newspaper.

But--it happened in your backyard, dude. Nor in Argentina's nor indeed in ours.

Ouch.

US military taught officers to use "Hiroshima" tactics for "total war" on Islam

Danger Room reports the US military taught its officers to use "total war" against the world's 1.4 billion Muslims.

From Dooley's slides

"We have now come to understand there is no such thing as moderate Islam," Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, who taught the course, said.  "It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction."

International laws protecting civilians are "no longer relevant," continued Dooley, who suggested using the tactics of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to Islam's holiest cities, and destroying Mecca and Medina.

The program was first brought to the public's attention by Danger Room and subsequently cancelled in April of this year.

Such talk in no way represents the beliefs of the majority of those in our armed services, and certainly none that I have met.  Every soldier, marine, and sailor I have spoken with would be appalled with the suggestion of complete annihilation of a society, no matter their political orientation.  Those who would advocate such tactics are in the minority, but their radicalism is what gets noticed and mars the reputation of the United States military abroad.  These classes, as well as mistaken drone strikes killing women and children and Staff Sgt. Robert Bales massacring innocent Afghans reinforces this idea the United States is at war with Islam.

The Arabist flagged Danger Room's report.  The site's main admin, Issandr el-Amrani, is a respected blogger. To see the extent of the damage such reports do to our reputation abroad, just see his posting on the subject.

The US military: the world's most advanced fighting force, technologically bleeding edge, probably the most complex logistics and planning effort by anyone on the planet.  The core of the American empire. Unfortunately, it is also plagued by complete morons and apparently a culture of genocide.  

Our military is respectable, professional, and determined to protect the innocent at home and abroad.  But idiots like Dooley and Bales (and not to mention their supervisors) drowns them out.