The Saudi Menace: an abuse of wealth and authority

I want to write about the pernicious international influence of Saudi Arabia that threatens the lives of people not just in Muslim countries but also here in the West.  The Saudi influence is particularly worrying for three reasons:

-    first, it is brain washing on an industrial scale and with negative consequences, especially for developing countries which need investment in decent education, not 7^th century propaganda; in the West, it is encouraging Muslim immigrants and their children to adopt a counter subculture that in many respects is not only opposed to western values, but seeks to replace them with Saudi-interpreted Islamic ones;

-    second, it is backed not just by huge financial resources, but comes laden with religious symbolism and self-proclaimed religious authority which gives it a false legitimacy; and

-    third, it is curiously schizophrenic and contradictory: within a western environment, it claims to celebrate  the achievements of Islamic, usually Arab, civilization (although it is not as if the Gulf Arabs are renowned for their enlightened views or respect for human rights); however, in Muslim communities (even within western countries) it is directed at projects that preach a narrow, fundamentalist and orthodox interpretation of Islam that is intolerant and brooks no opposition or debate.   Moreover, it seeks to enforce itself through the use of force. 

The latter view, unsurprisingly, is the obnoxious Saudi invented view of Islam called Wahabism and dominates the teaching in Quran schools, Islamic centres and madressas that the Saudis fund across the world. While in the Muslim third world this propaganda and brainwashing goes unchallenged, in the west it plays out under the guise of cultural institutions or charities.  In both instances, these projects are funded by Saudi financed cultural ministries.

The investment operates rather differently within a western environment, however.  The Saudis, and the Gulf Arabs, are a very insecure lot culturally, given their sparse contributions to world civilization compared to other nations and cultures.  (Even the 1001 nights are not really Arabian, but a compilation of stories from various other cultures.)  The Gulf Arabs reserve their most fervent insecurity for their old enemy, the Persians, who of course far surpass anything the desert Bedouins have ever come up with.  (No, I am not Persian, a Shia or from a Shia background!)  It is perhaps for this reason they are so keen to project themselves as ‘cultured’ to the West and eager to invest in centres such as the one in Oxford University.

While much was made of Libyan gifts to the LSE, Saudi donations towards the Islamic Centre in Oxford University have gone largely unnoticed.  No one has stopped to ask why if that civilization is worth promoting, the Saudis don’t invest in such projects in their own country or why they choose to support financially and ideologically religious schools that preach intolerance, fundamentalism, the disregard of human rights and any debate or investigation.  If the Saudis brown nose the Brits, the Brits are equally good at brown nosing the Saudis.  Money and oil lubricates this sordid mutual flattery.

I feel that these projects, whether in the Muslim world or in the West, need to be seen for what they are: an unwelcome interference and a cynical manipulation of what people within those communities think.  Ultimately, this impacts on all our lives and in a negative way.  This is especially the case in the third world, where education is grossly neglected by corrupt governments.  Here, it is not a case of a modern/progressive versus an orthodox/backward looking Islam, but rather two competing orthodox backward looking ideologies (the Saudis and Al-Qaeeda) – although sometimes I think they are two sides of the same coin.  In one respect, I think, the Saudi madressas provide the necessary mental preparation that makes its graduates so vulnerable to Al-Qaeeda/Taliban overtures.  In the West, this orthodox, backward ideology is trumpeted as a religious revival, a reclaiming of lost or stolen identity – and worse, political power. 

Unfortunately, Saudi authority rests on potent symbols: religion and wealth.  They (the Saudis) have successfully usurped religious authority through a mix of historical, cultural and geographical coincidence: they come from the same region as the Prophet Muhammed and so the cradle of Islam; are ethnically and culturally of the same stock as  the Prophet and have, within their borders, two of the holiest places of worship in Islam- Mecca and Medina.

In the eyes of many, therefore, they represent an embodiment of Islam and so to be Muslim is to be Arab, specifically Saudi Arab.  Arabic is the language of the Quran and any discourse on Islam is littered with Arabic phrases as if to couch them in local vernacular is being sacrilegious.  The most poignant example of this for me is the virtual eradication of a beautiful greeting that I grew up with: khuda hafiz (God protect you). Instead, in the narrow minds of many now it is more Islamic and more correct to say Allah hafiz, something that even an Arab wouldn’t dream of saying.  But Khuda is Persian, Allah is Arabic and god you see is – you guessed it - an Arab it seems! 

In this context, it is hard not to view as anything but cynical the adoption of an overtly religious flag with its Islamic declaration of faith, and more recently the adoption by their king of the title of “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, a title historically associated with the Caliph in Islam (and one ironically adopted by the very Ottoman Sultans that the Saudis disliked so much and helped bring down).

I think for some these associations and symbols make criticism of the Saudis synonymous with criticism of the religion – and so blasphemous.  This keeps the Saudis safe, while the power they wield through oil keeps any criticism from the West at bay.  They like to play the great mediators, when in fact they are part of the problem not the solution.  It is noteworthy how they are always at the ready to offer support or give refuge to vile dictators or corrupt politicians from Uganda to Pakistan – and strangely silent over crises such as Darfur to name just one. 

Of course, what the Saudis do in their own time is their business – it is the negative effects of their interference and their hypocrisy that irks me.  Under the guise of education, they are spreading a narrow, rigid and fundamentalist ideology that comes close to being fascist in its outlook and forced implementation, easily degenerating into terrorism.  Of course, for the Saudis this matters not a jot – it is not they who are being killed.  In the meantime, while they support the preaching of a strict, puritanical Islam, they themselves escape to the West to indulge in the very decadence that their brand of Islam condemns. 

The hypocrisy of ‘converts’ or born again Muslims in the West is no better.  While enjoying the economic and social benefits of a liberal, enlightened society they see fit to not only criticise and mock it, but then to lecture on the virtues and benefits of Islamic societies, societies that their parents fled from and which these critics are welcome to return to if they consider the West so awful.  They see it as their human right to adopt their odious (and in my opinion, ignorant) views which in turn seek to deprive those same rights to others.  The contradiction is beyond their intellectual competence – or perhaps neatly pushed to one side by their hypocrisy. 
 

It reminds me of a silly Asian schoolgirl in London who took her school to court for not allowing her to wear ‘Islamic’ dress to school.  The school had allowed her to wear the shalwar-kameez common throughout the Indian subcontinent, but the misguided girl insisted the dress was not modest enough for Islam!  She wanted to dress like an Arab – the hallmark of a true observant Muslim in her eyes.  Who had put these silly notions into her head, I wonder?  Rightly, she lost her case. 

But it is time to stop tolerating such behaviour.  Enough is enough!

In a very small way I think this is beginning to be realised by the Pakistanis in London at least.  In a previous post I recounted my visit to a London mosque financed and run by Pakistanis.  At the time, I chose to emphasise a different aspect of this effort (an aspect that I think is still valid), but now I also see it as an attempt to take control of their religion rather than remain beholden to Saudi paymasters with their pernicious agenda.  I congratulate the Pakistanis on this awakening and wish them well. 

I admit I am not enthusiastic about their religion-focussed outlook - and while there I noticed that several of the men folk and children were attired in the Middle-eastern jalabiyah – a garment foreign to the Indian subcontinent, but no doubt worn in the mistaken belief that it is somehow more religious. But at least it's a start. 

And then, just this week I heard about a case in Pakistan where a woman had taken on two jobs - both menial - to pay for her children's schooling rather than send them to the free madressas on offer.    

But these are isolated incidents.  More is needed and on a bigger scale.  Until people, and the Muslims specifically, realise this and begin to see the wood for the trees, they will continue to be locked in a downward spiral of ignorance and servitude.  And until the West continues to turn a blind eye to the Saudis because it suits them they will be seen as colluders and hypocrites.  Worse, if they choose to ignore it through a misguided definition of and blind allegiance to plurality/multi-culturalism, they will have allowed the rot to set in their own societies.

Charitable giving & education - Islam and an investment model of morality

Call it synchronicity, call it mere coincidence, call it an over-active imagination, but - 

Not long after my recent post on lifelong learning, I went to a Quran reading for a friend’s deceased parents held at a London mosque.  The mosque was  frequented mostly by Pakistanis, was an impressive structure and, given the leaflets and notices on display, seemed popular and well run. 

I assumed that it had been funded by money from Saudi Arabia, but a lady assured me that it had, in fact, been built through donations from the local community.  She went on to explain how her husband, a veteran fundraiser, had discovered over the years that money was always forthcoming for mosques, cemeteries and Quran schools.  However, when he had tried to raise money to build ‘ordinary’ schools 'back home', few seemed interested.  This struck me as strange – and depressing. 

Later, I reflected on the short sermon given by the imam at the end of the reading.  Apparently, according to the Prophet, such Quran readings generated extra credit in the deceased’s ‘good deeds account’ on Judgement Day - or in common parlance, brownie points to aid entry into Paradise.  Sweet.  (So, if your parents end up in hell, it'll be your fault for not holding enough Quran readings on their behalf!)  This triggered a chain of thoughts:

-> hadiths quite often link the doing of a particular deed to benefits on Judgement Day –do this and X sins will be forgiven, do that and you will receive so many good deeds, recite this so many times ... ->

-> The religion appeared to have a rather low opinion of its adherents if it felt that moral behaviour could only be induced by offering these ‘bribes’ – as if there was no other reason for doing good.  (Granted, Islam is not alone in this and it is common to most religions.)  ->

-> I remembered a saying I had heard quite often as a child: paradise lay at the feet of your mother.(No, I was not horrid to my mother nor particulary naughty!)  Thinking about this now, I find it shocking – what kind of people need to be bribed (with heaven or anything) to love their own mother? 

More generally, how might this trade in good deeds shape their view of morality?  And what does this say about the religion’s ability to win the moral argument? (Some would argue that it had long since lost it by the morally dubious if not plain ridiculous 'pricing' of martyrdom at 72 virgins, but we will leave that for another post!)

Of course, the Prophet was a trader by profession, so perhaps the metaphors of bargaining, pricing and returns came naturally to his thinking.  Perhaps the people he was preaching to also had trader mentalities, although this dents somewhat the much-trumpeted claim that Islam is a universal religion for all time.  Moreover, given that Islam was a new movement, spreading the word and bringing more people into the ‘fold’ were no doubt important.  (There are several hadiths regarding the benefits of building mosques, with one even promising an equivalent house in paradise.) 

But 1400 years later, Islam is a global religion with a significant presence.  The problem for it and Muslims today is not quantity, but quality.  There might be more than a billion Muslims in the world, but the vast majority are illiterate and live in countries that rank as the most dishonest, corrupt and dirty, with appalling human rights - hardly a recommendation for the religion now, is it? 

Schools on the other hand, are more ambiguous.  While the Prophet might have urged his followers to travel as far as China in search of knowledge, as far as I know this didn’t increase one’s chances of getting into Paradise.  So, like canny businessmen, were people merely following earlier advice that offered the best and surest  ‘returns’ in the next life?  And with morality so firmly based on rewards in the afterlife, no wonder the Prophet made such a fuss about the importance of believing in a heaven and the next world!  

Or am I just being cynical? 

But what are the effects of such a view?  Ostensibly, the strategy could be seen as clever – a win-win situation: the donators get into heaven, and the money brings in not just more recruits but hopefully observant Muslims that benefits the rest of society.  Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out that way.  I think this is due to a combination of adopting a narrow view of what constitutes religious practice and of education generally.

In his book Desperately Seeking Paradise, Ziauddin Sardar mentions an encounter with a minister for science and research in one of the Gulf states.  Mr Sardar was anxious to discuss the ministry’s research, but always received the same response:  “‘Why bother about it when we can afford to buy it?’” (p120)  (This cavalier attitude hasn't dimmed over the years, it seems.  Amidst the recent Arab Spring of protest against oppressive regimes, the Saudi king announced huge increases in stipends for Saudi citizens - no doubt to buy their loyalty and acquiescence.)  With such an attitude, it might explain why these ‘nations’ import architects to design their hideous and inappropriate buildings (that are built by labourers mainly from the Indian subcontinent and who are treated almost like slaves – not much after-life credit to be gained in being humane to them, I suppose?); and why the tar on roads – developed for a different climate - melts and bubbles in the intense heat.  They couldn't be bothered to use the few brain cells they have to come up with their own solutions to their own problems.

Meanwhile, it is well-known that that same wealth funds a significant (if not major) part of the madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan (and other parts of the world) - in the name of spreading Islam!  However, the issue is not of madrassas, per se - for these establishments can be a force for good.  Rather, it is the narrow notion of education that is limited to a religious context defined by the self-appointed 'clerics' or 'ulema'.

On 4 January 2011, the governor of Punjab in Pakistan, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards for attempting to reform the obnoxious blasphemy laws in the country.  The next day, the BBC World Service’s News Hour featured an interview by Owen Bennett-Jones with Tariq Khattak, the editor of an English daily The Pakistan Observer.  Mr Khattak saw nothing wrong with the murder, thought the governor had it coming to him and appealed to the opinion of certain mullahs in Pakistan to support his outrageous view.  It is worth mentioning that for an editor of an English newspaper, his command of the language was rather poor.

Mr Bennett-Jones questioned both the rationale for killing merely for dissenting, the issue of differing interpretations of texts and the editor’s acceptance of the views of men whose education was limited to a theological framework.  Limited only according to him, the editor replied defiantly, but in their eyes (and presumably the editor’s) these mullahs were sufficiently educated.  And there the matter rested. 

Had it been just the editor, one could have dismissed him as a lone idiot, but there are many in the country who support his view.  More alarmingly, a significant number of lawyers were keen to defend the murderer in court.  One has to question the moral reasoning of such lawyers - to say nothing of the quality of education they received - to want to defend such cold-blooded murder.  What hope is there of building a civil, law-abiding society - something sorely lacking in most Muslim countries. 

Alarmingly, this attitude is not confined to the backstreets of Pakistan, but is alive and kicking in London as well - as is evidenced by the sickening story of a Religious Education teacher beaten up (and almost killed) by four conservative Muslims - who remain unrepentant.  (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13566526 )

So, on the one hand it is heartwarming to see Muslims giving so generously to help themselves, even if motivated by self-interest - especially, given the huge amounts of money governments spend on defence compared with education, unaware that their biggest enemy is not India, Israel or Zionists, but the ignorance that festers within their own borders and their own minds. 

However, would it not also be admirable if thought were given to how that generosity is employed?  If morality is to be based on an investment model (and I am not suggesting that it should), is it not advisable for investors to periodically check the performance of their ‘portfolio’?  Is it not incumbent to ask if the enterprise conforms - and continues to conform - to what the religion claims to uphold?  And if the charity benefits the giver, is it not also incumbent that it does likewise to the receiver too?

Or do the givers prefer to remain blissfully unaware of the havoc it wreaks on others?  Is that havoc also part of the credit system and religion they subscribe to? Do they think they get a ‘commission’ on each atrocity committed – the better to secure their entry into paradise?    

But wouldn’t it be ironic if on the Day of Reckoning, their accounts were shown to be swollen by misdeeds – misdeeds generated by the money they gave with Paradise in mind, and now good only to propel them in the opposite direction?  No number of Quran readings, then, would be of any use.  Unfortunately, it would also be too late for the country and of little comfort to those whose lives have been ruined by this sordid trade in ‘good’ deeds.