Posted on 07/03/2002 11:38:28 AM PDT by HAL9000
Some months ago, an old debate was revived in Saudi newspapers. The subject: whether religious leaders should be allowed a share in political power. Things have moved on since. But in the course of that debate an unambiguous message was sent out - namely, that it is the state that makes the final decisions. The religious scholars and others may have an acknowledged say in the decision-making process, but not the final say and no power of veto.This was made plain when it was announced subsequently that the General Presidency for the Education of Girls was being merged with the Education Ministry. Previously, the GPEG was one of the most important bastions of the religious establishment, which had exclusive control over the education of females from kindergarten through university - the idea being that it could be trusted to ensure they would not be exploited, and no ideas inimical to its ultra-conservative views would be put in their heads.
The occasion for ending this arrangement was a fire at a school in Mecca in which 13 young girls lost their lives. The tragedy, and the bungled way it was handled, brought to a head a host of public grievances about clerical mismanagement of the GPEG, prompting Crown Prince Abdullah to make the bold move - said to have been decided in principle some time earlier - of abolishing it and handing responsibility for the education of both sexes to a single government department.
While the public welcomed the move, the religious establishment did not like being stripped of an institution that had connected it to virtually every family in the kingdom. Nor did the associated conservative religious current, which saw it as violating an old agreement under which the religious establishment was given control of girls’ education in exchange for accepting it in principle. Readers may be unaware of the intense religious opposition that originally faced the introduction of girls’ education in the mid-1960s under the late King Faisal, who had to call in the army to protect some schools.
To understand the relationship between the Saudi state and the religious establishment, it is important to refer back to the debate that raged some months back. It was begun by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the urbane former director of intelligence, in response to an off-the-cuff comment by Sheikh Abdullah al-Turki, secretary-general of the World Muslim League and a member of the Council of Senior Ulema, the kingdom’s highest religious body.
The sheikh had remarked, at a meeting called by Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss the fallout of Sept. 11, that the kingdom’s ruling body consists of its civic rulers and religious scholars.
Prince Turki took issue with him in a newspaper article, arguing that “those responsible for affairs of state are the rulers,” while “scholars only act in an advisory capacity.” He quoted a number of Islamic jurists in support of his view, before concluding that “Sheikh Abdullah al-Turki’s definition of those responsible for the affairs of state is at variance with the agreed wisdom of most other jurists. In fact, his point of view is only embraced by a few scholars.”
The problem is that those “few” include a scholar who is seen as an authority by most of the kingdom’s ulema, and whose judgments are still widely followed in religious affairs: the late Sheikh Abdel-Aziz bin Baz was the kingdom’s mufti until his death in 1999. Sheikh Abdullah al-Turki’s view of the scholars’ role is known to be widely shared within the religious establishment, not least because bin Baz himself elucidated it in a 1993 lecture.
No one objected to what bin Baz said then, but much has happened since, including Sept. 11 and the demise of the Taleban model of clerical rule. This seems to have strengthened the government’s resolve not to allow anyone to intrude on its exclusive prerogative - as in any modern state - to formulate foreign policy. The feeling is that any other arrangement is a recipe for confusion and chaos, and that the scholars’ authority should be restricted to offering advice in the form of religious rulings, which the government can then incorporate into legislation or policy.
These, one can confidently say, are the ground rules Saudi leaders are now trying to uphold. And they can probably count on the support not just of the kingdom’s intelligentsia and bureaucrats, but also a broad swathe of moderate Islamists who strongly advocate civic reforms that would preserve the role of Islam in public life, but without anyone claiming a monopoly on the truth.
Official thinking in this regard was summed up in a recent article by Prince Talal bin Abdel-Aziz in which he challenged the “potentially very confusing” claim that affairs of state should be decided jointly by rulers and scholars. In Islam, Prince Talal argued, religious scholars are not supposed to exercise political power or compel their followers to do anything. “Scholars do not carry swords, they cannot run government ministries, and cannot send the guilty to prison,” he wrote. “A scholar’s authority is derived from his ability to influence people, as well as his capacity to advise the country’s rulers. It is, in short, a different kind of authority, that turns scholars into guardians of the nation and representatives of the people, if that is indeed what they are.
But it does not endow them with any political power, which should be restricted to the country’s rulers. Political power is gained by the rulers through the choice of the people, and the way it is exercised varies in different countries and political systems.”
Prince Talal characterized the granting of political power to ulema as both alien to Islam and an impediment to “the democratic progress that we are striving for” in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
“How can we give political powers to individuals who the people have no role in choosing? I know of no principle in Islam that puts religious scholars on a level higher than the people, permitting them to exercise political power just because of their religious credentials.”
This line of reasoning should not be seen as an attempt to detract from the central role of Islam in the state. What this debate (which carries on in public and private gatherings) makes clear is that while Saudis agree on the supremacy of Islam as society’s point of reference, they aspire to a sort of Islamic pluralism. What they don’t want is for one circle to have a monopoly on the faith. Some Saudis, indeed, have been calling for a reappraisal of all the prevalent tenets of Islamic political jurisprudence.
They include Abdullah al-Hamed, who was active in the Islamist reform movement that emerged after the 1991 Gulf War, and argues that political conventions and traditions, unlike religious rituals, must be adapted to changing times and social values.
“The political jurisprudence we inherited from the Abbasids is inadequate for running a modern state,” he wrote. “We must remedy this situation before secularism overwhelms us with its concepts of justice, rights, education, technology, and organization - the reasons behind the ascendancy of Western civilization.”
The Saudi religious establishment now faces a choice: It can be a partner in the process of change spearheaded by the leadership (which began years before the Sept. 11 attacks), giving advice; or cling to its old ways. But the signs are not encouraging. Saudi scholars still have reservations about photo ID cards for women, insisting they be identified by fingerprints rather than revealing their likeness in photographic form. The government decided not to wait for their agreement and went ahead with the new image-bearing cards anyway. In so doing, the government demonstrated that in matters of public policy, it was not going to let the ulema stand in its way. Its move was generally welcomed by the public, as evidenced by the deluge of requests for the new cards (the old photo-less ones caused countless bureaucratic and legal problems for Saudi women).
The only objections voiced were in a few internet forums and letters to the press bemoaning the demise of female modesty and chastity. Stiffer resistance was encountered in plans for education reform, another area where the religious establishment has failed to keep up with public opinion.
When Education Minister Mohammed al-Rashid, seen as a reformist Islamist, criticized the way students are made to memorize lessons by rote (he described it as “parroting”), he was savaged by a leading member of the Council of Senior Ulema. Sheikh Saleh al-Fozan expressed his disgust that “some of our own people want us to become like the infidels who want us to renounce our religious beliefs and follow in their footsteps by changing our education curricula that are based on the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet.” Without mentioning the minister by name, he added that “a parrot is he who repeats the demands of the enemies of Islam that we should stop teaching the Koran, in order that we abandon our faith.”
Not the most constructive exchange and not one that instills optimism about the future of education reform in the kingdom. The process of reform began many years ago. Numerous committees were formed to produce studies and recommendations which, according to officials, could have revolutionized education and adapted it to the country’s changing economic needs - had the religious establishment not vetoed them.
It is doubtful that the religious establishment still retains such powers. Saudi writers respond daily to Sheikh al-Fozan’s hard-line perorations. No one stops them, in contrast to the old days when the good sheikh could have silenced anyone who challenged his opinions.
Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi is a Saudi political analyst and deputy editor in chief of Saudi Arabia’s English-language Arab News. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
Ironic that Saudi Arabia should actually be more "liberal" than the State of Israel in this regard!
And who would know more about exploiting girls than Muslim clerics?
I see this as a good sign. Imagine actually being allowed to show your face in public after years of enforced seclusion behind a veil. Freeing the women of Saudi Arabia one step at a time will bring about great changes IMHO.
I see this as a good sign. Imagine actually being allowed to show your face in public after years of enforced seclusion behind a veil. Freeing the women of Saudi Arabia one step at a time will bring about great changes IMHO.
I guess this sorta undercuts the argument of that Muslim woman in florida that's asking to have her license re-instated because she won't be photographed full-face for the photo ID!
That was my thought as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.