Next Sunday, May 16, is the International Day Against Homophobia, or Idaho for short. Uniquely among the Arab countries, it will be observed in Beirut (as it has been for several years now).

Rather controversially, the title of this year's Idaho event in Lebanon is "Ana Shaz" ("I am queer") – a re-claiming of the Arabic term of abuse.

In countries such as Lebanon, where the idea of a Gay Pride event would still be too much for most people to stomach, Idaho provides a more socially-acceptable opportunity for some public activism. Even so, in previous years, sections of the media have tried to make out that it involves sordid goings-on.

I happened to be in Beirut in 2005 at the time of the city's first Idaho event. The organisers had booked a conference hall in the Monroe Hotel for a showing of the documentary, I Exist. I went along, mainly to see if the hotel would decide to cancel the booking at the last minute. But they didn't, and around 200 people watched the film.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 11 May 2010. Comment

Child labour in the Middle East

Blocking Skype in Yemen

Double standards in Saudi Arabia

Today's Arab News has an interview with Sir William Patey, who has just moved to Afghanistan after three years as Britain's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is changing, he says, and for the first time in ages it has a sovereign and group of senior people who are thinking long-term: “They accept that you can’t just go on the same old way.”

This is probably true, as far as it goes, but Patey seems determined to look on the bright side and any hint of criticism is couched in suitably diplomatic language. “Saudi Arabia,” he says, “is investing hugely in the education of women but is not realising the benefits of that investment ... I am not confident that women will be able to exploit their education.”

It's typical of the bland interviews that departing British ambassadors give to the local press – which don't necessarily reflect their real thoughts. Their final (but private) reports to the Foreign Office in London tend to be a lot more interesting. 

I have no idea what Patey's final dispatch to London says, but in 1972 Willie Morris, the departing ambassador in Riyadh described life in the kingdom as like "being shut up in a theatre where the repertoire consisted of extravagantly over-written and over-acted plays constantly repeating themselves". 

His confidential memo, released into the public domain 30 years later, went on:

It is a great tragedy that, with all the world's needs, Providence should have concentrated so much of a vital resource and so much wealth in the hands of people who need it so little and are so socially irresponsible about the use of it ... What they do with the wealth is often comedy and sometimes farce; there are also legal, social and religious dramas, and the theatre of the absurd is never far away.

A country where the Head of State has strong personal views about the iniquity of male sideburns and where the barbers are ordered to cut them to levels consistent with morality; where a probable murderess of foreign nationality escapes with a deportation order because the only alternative is decapitation – and is prevented from leaving until she gets an exit visa; a dry country, where one can find a Minister incoherently drunk in his office before noon – who could fail to be diverted in such a country, or fail to develop claustrophobia from time to time, and want to get out of the theatre into a street of real people outside?

Meanwhile, Ahmed al-Omran of the Saudi Jeans blog reflects on the current debate about gender mixing and makes the important point that this time the battle is not between liberals and conservatives but is taking place among the conservatives, and is likely to continue. But he wonders if this debate is really changing how the Saudi public feel about gender mixing – and suggests it is not:

Socio-religious beliefs are very difficult to change. Even more difficult in a conformist society like ours ... For examples, look at hospitals which have always been some of the few places in the country where men and women work side by side. I currently train at a hospital pharmacy in Hofuf. The pharmacy has separate windows to serve male and female patients, but from the inside pharmacists and technicians of both sexes work together without segregation. To reduce dispensing errors, a new policy has been recently implemented where some female pharmacists work on the male window while some male pharmacists work on the [female?] window.

I asked a female colleague, let’s call her Zainab, what is it like to work on the male window. “Work is work,” she said, “it’s the same for me here or there.” A male colleague who was in earshot, let’s call him Basheer, turned to me and asked, “would you let your wife work in a place like this?” I was shocked by the question, but I calmly replied that I certainly would. I said it is a respectful and professional work environment, so what’s the problem? I glanced quickly at Zainab who was standing next to me, then asked him: do you find anything dishonorable or disgraceful about working here?

Basheer said that some guys are jealous and can’t let their wives mix freely with men. “I’m that kind of guy,” he added. I was struck by the hypocrisy of what he said. He finds it acceptable for him to be here and work with other women, but apparently the same rules don’t apply to his wife. This kind of hypocrisy, however, is nothing new. It is a typical symptom of the double standards many Saudis practise in their lives every day.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 7 May 2010. Comment

Yemeni body language

What do these gestures mean? The Yemen Times explains.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 6 May 2010. Comment

Money versus love in Oman

Omani women can now appeal directly to Sultan Qaboos if their family do not allow them to marry the man of their own choice, according to a royal decree reported in The National. The paper explains:

Many parents, according to judicial experts, use the court of law to prevent their daughters from marrying, with reasons ranging from demands for high dowries to getting married to a man within the family clan. 

Lutfi al Rashdi, a lawyer at Salmi Legal Consultancy in Muscat, said: "What the royal decree basically means is that if the court rules in favour of the parents, then the girl can appeal straight to the sultan and the judgment can be overruled, depending on the circumstances."

It's a step forward, of sorts. But surely the real solution is to devise a system that works fairly without a need for intervention from the unmarried Sultan.

One factor, The National says, is that with larger numbers of young women going out to work, families have become dependent on their incomes – which they lose when they marry. 

That, in turn, is pushing up the bride price which can be as high as 10,000 Omani rials ($25,000), plus several thousand rials-worth of jewellery:

“If the boy cannot pay that, then the woman is not allowed to marry him. It all boils down to pure greed. In other words, daughters are sold off to the highest bidder,” said Fatma Fallahy, 74, a marriage counsellor in Muscat.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 6 May 2010. Comment

Britain and the Middle East

With Britons voting today in an general election, you may be wondering how a change of government could affect Middle East policy. Rosemary Hollis discusses the question here. 

For myself, I suspect it would make little difference and anyway, as Hollis points out, the days when Britain had much influence in the region have long gone.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 6 May 2010. Comment

Absurd ban on Sufi ceremonies

Egypt's absurd ban on Sufi dhikr ceremonies continues. This is the most stupid government move since the great pig massacre of a year ago and a major infringement of religious freedom.

So far, the ban hasn't been getting much comment in the media or the blogs but it's good to see some resistance on the ground. Al-Masry al-Youm reports that "hundreds of Sufi followers entered Sayyeda Zeinab mosque [in Cairo] after noon prayers last Friday, reciting Quran and Sufi chants." And good luck to them.

The ban is symptomatic of the Mubarak regime's mentality: imposing uniformity and control for control's sake. Naturally, it's being implemented with "complete coordination" between the government and the government-controlled Supreme Sufi Council (SCC) whose chief, Abdel Hadi al-Qasabi (or Qasbi), is 
a Mubarak appointee.

“This decree comes as a re-enforcement of Law 118 that requires any Sufi sect to get a permit from SSC in order to establish a sect," al-Qasabi says, noting – horror of horrors – that many unregistered Sufi sects hold ceremonies when and where they want.

But why on earth is there a law requiring them to be registered? Why should they have to keep the awkaf ministry informed about their activities? Egypt has 74 Sufi orders; why can't they be allowed to function independently?

Of course, the Sufis are not alone in this. Newspapers, civil society organisations, trade unions and the like all have to be licensed, registered and supervised by the authorities too. The question, with all of them, is "why"?

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 5 May 2010. Comment

Anti-smoking students banned from exams

More absurdity from Egypt. About 50 students at Cairo university have been banned from completing their end-of-year exams because of their unauthorised activities on campus. They broke the rules, apparently, by sticking up anti-smoking posters.

Perhaps the nastiest part of it is the way they were informed of the ban:

“They received letters at home yesterday,” says Ashraf Omar, a student who has not been targeted by the university administration.

“Nobody warned them, or even brought it to their attention before. They all just received letters at home telling them they would not be allowed to take the final portion of their year-end exams.”

According to the students, the letters bore a post date of 17 April, and cited the university’s decision as having been taken on 31 March.

“They waited to send these letters out,” fumes Mostafa. “They wanted us to receive them now, in the midst of our exams – so it would be too late to do anything real about it.”

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 5 May 2010. Comment

Elton John faces Egyptian ban

The Egyptian musicians' union is seeking to prevent Elton John from performing at a private concert in Egypt on May 18, because of his sexuality and his views on religion.

Mounir al-Wasimi, head of the musicians' union, told the German news agency: "How do we allow a gay, who wants to ban religions, claimed that the prophet Eissa [Jesus] was gay and calls for Middle Eastern countries to allow gays to have sexual freedom?"

Wasimi says the union – which is the only body "authorised to allow performances by foreign singers in Egypt" – is "coordinating" with the authorities to ban the concert.

Elton John is also scheduled to perform at the Mawazine Festival in Morocco on May 26, but there appear to have been no strong objections to that.

In an interview with The Observer in 2006, Elton John said:

"From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Last February, he told Parade magazine:

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East – you're as good as dead." 

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 2 May 2010. Comment

Head of religious police dubbed an atheist

  
Amid unprecedented public debate in Saudi Arabia about gender segregation, the head of Mecca's religious police has complained that he and his family are suffering threats and verbal abuse – including accusations of atheism – as a result of his controversial views.

Ahmed al-Ghamdi caused a stir last December when, in an interview with Okaz newspaper [in Arabic], he challenged strict interpretations of Islamic rules on mixing of the sexes. He has also questioned the need for believers to attend congregational prayers.

Since then, according to Arab News, he has "been receiving continuous threats".

He said he has also received threatening SMS messages on his cell phone with some people calling him an infidel and an atheist. Meanwhile, others have been leaving messages on his car saying they want to kill him. Some other[s] have written abusive comments on the wall of his home. According to one website, some people have claimed that the Ghamdi tribe had disavowed him.

Saudiwoman's Weblog discusses some of the other repercussions of Ghamdi's remarks. Last month there were a number of false reports that he had been sacked from his post, including one posted on the religious police's own website which was later removed.

In today's Arab News report, Ghamdi seeks to clarify his views:

"What I said was that women are allowed to go out to meet their own needs and that of society while wearing a veil or a loose overcoat or any other decent dress without creating any suspicion or jostling with men, because they need to go out for education and work," he said.

"There is nothing wrong for women to go out for such purposes. It has been approved by the shariah and renowned scholars," he added.

The nub of the religious argument here is that ultra-conservatives fail to distinguish between chaste mixing of the sexes in public (ikhtilat) – which is permissible – and forbidden khulwa (or khalwa) which according to some definitions means people of the opposite sex being secluded together in "a place of privacy which is not usually accessible to others".

The National points out that other prominent Saudis have expressed similar views, including Muhammad al-Issa, the justice minister:

But Mr al Ghamdi’s remarks made bigger ripples because of his position with the commission, whose agents patrol malls, restaurants, universities and other public places to make sure men and women are not mingling.

The furore set off in conservative circles by Mr al-Ghamdi’s arguments is even more intense within the commission [the religious police], which is already coping with rising public criticism of its sometimes aggressive behaviour and with a fierce internal debate over its policies.

The political observer Abdullah al Shammary said that right now,“there is something like a revolution inside the commission. There are huge discussions about its role.”

Ghamdi's views on congregational prayer [in Arabic] have also stirred up debate about the closure of shops at prayer times – the enforcement of which is one of the religious police's most cherished activities.

Quoted in Arab News, he says he says he is not trying to discourage daily prayer in mosques, but "while emphasising the importance of congregational prayer I said we should not brand as infidels those who perform it at home with or without a reason. It should not be considered a sin but they will surely lose the reward of congregational prayer."

Public debates of this kind would have been inconceivable in Saudi Arabia just a few years ago, and there is little doubt that King Abdullah has decided to let them happen. How long Ghamdi will keep his job remains to be seen, because the forces of reaction are still strong. But the genie is now out of the bottle and the issues themselves will not go away.

Growing numbers of Saudis are beginning to recognise that the old ways are not sustainable in a modern world. The National says: 

Many outside experts believe that economic realities will be the most influential factor in breaking down sex segregation, especially as more women enter the job market. But in such a religious society it is important that social change be seen as compliant with Islam.

This is why the debates have to be conducted in religious terms. To outsiders, the actual arguments – relying as they do on citing various religous authorities – may seem obscure and even bizarre, but it is probably the only way that change can win public acceptance.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 2 May 2010. Comment

The king ... with women

   
Yesterday several Saudi newspapers, including Arab News and al-Watan, published a very unusual photograph showing King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan surrounded by a group of more than 30 women. (The complete picture is here.)

The women attended a National Dialogue forum on "society and health services" in Najran on April 8-10. Al-Watan says the king was "keen to emphasise the role of women and their active participation in the development process". Those taking part in the forum received copies of the photo when they returned home.

Though the forum itself was not of much consequence, the picture is remarkable. Viewed in the context of the ongoing debate about gender mixing in Saudi Arabia, it can be interpreted as a sign that the king is trying to nudge the country in a more liberal direction.

The Saudi Jeans blog notes that the photo was taken on April 11 and suggests that newspapers held back from publishing it while awaiting official approval.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 1 May 2010. Comment

Controlling Egypt's Sufis

Sufis are the latest religious group to fall foul of the Egyptian authorities' control freakery. Earlier this week, security forces in Cairo closed the Sayyeda Zainab and Sayyeda Nafisa mosques after night prayers and turned off their lights in order to prevent the holding of Sufi dhikr ceremonies. This was the first implementation of a ban announced earlier by the interior ministry.

According to a ministry official quoted by al-Masry al-Youm, the ban is "intended to preempt undesirable behaviour at such gatherings, such as the shouting of invocations and late-night loitering in mosques". 

The ban, which applies to all Sufi dhikr gatherings, is said to be temporary until such gatherings can be "more comprehensively regulated". It was allegedly introduced "in coordination" with a prominent (but hitherto unnamed) official from the Supreme Council of Sufi Orders.

It's not entirely clear what lies behind this, but there appears to be some kind of internal battle within the Sufi orders – in which the Egyptian government may be taking sides. On February 14, al-Masry al-Youm reported:

A conference held by leading representatives of Sufi religious denominations on Saturday called for the registration of all officially acknowledged Sufi orders and for forbidding what it called "intruders" from organising events not in accordance with established Sufi doctrines.

Conference participants criticised some of the dances performed during religious events organised by what they called "false" Sufi sects. They also condemned the practice of erecting tents that are shared between men and women at these events.

"Sufism must be purified from such intrusive practices," Sheikh El-Husseini, leader of the Husseini Sufi order, said.

According to another Sufi leader, Sheikh Alaa Eddin Abul Azayem, "No genuine Sufi order would ever allow men and women to share the same tent at a religious event."

As head of state, President Mubarak is officially in charge of Sufi affairs in Egypt. Last month, he appointed Abdel Hady Ahmed el-Qasbi (a member of the upper house of parliament) as Grand Sheikh of the Sufis. This followed months of legal wrangling between Qasbi and Mohamed Alaa el-Din Abu el-Azayem, head of the Azamiya order, after the death of the previous Grand Sheikh.

A few days after Qasbi's appointment – in what may or may not be a related incident – security forces arrested 20 Sufis from the Ahmadiya order who were meeting at a house in Derenka (Assiut province). Those arrested included seven members of Mubarak's own National Democratic Party.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 1 May 2010. Comment

Previous blog posts