The Long View on Bahrain

This week will mark the two-year anniversary of the uprising in Bahrain. A lot has changed since those first early protests, and yet so much remains the same.

New political groups have formed, but the main cleavage remains between those who have and those who have not. Broad political movements have fragmented, but the Khalifa have always taken advantage of such schisms to maintain their rule. The contagion of sectarianism has spread, but it has always infected Bahrain to some degree. The pearl monument has fallen, but its memory remains fresh as ever.

So, much remains the same as two years ago. And in fact, much remains the same from two centuries ago. The Bahraini uprising is only the latest iteration of Bahrain's long history in uprisings that have wracked Bahrain every generation under the Khalifa regime. The problem boils down to one simple truth: a minority of have's control the economic and political order, and the majority of have-not's will continue to revolt periodically until they succeed in building a more just system.

What Carl Sagan Would Say About Bahrain

For the past two weeks, I was in Bahrain conducting interviews for my thesis. With my research partner Reza Akbari, I hope to be soon writing and publishing several articles on what we've learned. I chose to study Bahrain because I believe it is not very well understood here in Washington, DC. There are three reasons for that.

One, most Americans (myself definitely included) did not pay attention to Bahrain until the uprising last year. As a result, we only hear about what Bahrain is now without understanding what Bahrain was before. That lack of historical context not only makes understanding what's happening in Bahrain now difficult, but it also makes predicting what might happen next impossible.

Two, some Bahraini voices have a much stronger presence in DC than others. Obviously the government, with its embassy and PR firms, can broadcast its perspective effectively. At the same time, Bahraini and international human rights groups have also done an excellent job in pushing their own narrative. And, to a lesser extent, the main opposition party Wefaq has also found a platform to push its views internationally. Yet there are many (exactly how many who knows?) Bahrainis who neither support the government nor the traditional opposition. Some have created new, predominantly Sunni groups as a kind of anti-opposition. Others feel completely unrepresented by any group. These voices go largely unheard outside of Bahrain.

Swiss Ban Minarets

I can't believe the Swiss actually banned minarets (a spire on a mosque traditionally used to call the faithful to prayer). But as the Christian Science Monitor aptly puts it, the "Swiss have just approved a constitutional change that won't do anything to solve its nonexistent problem of runaway Islamic extremism."

Well, they have more than solved a nonexistent problem. They have helped create several.

For one, the Swiss Muslim community was already respectful of their non-Muslim milieu. After all, there are only 4 minarets in the entire country, servicing approximately 400,000 Muslims. That's one minaret for 100,000 people.

But more importantly, none of the minarets actually broadcast the call to prayer. In other words, there is no public nuisance argument here about noise pollution nor any question of religious invasion of public space. Rather, the Swiss banned minarets because they object to their very physical existence. It's state-sanctioned religious persecution. And it's repugnant, whether the referendum passed democratically or not.

Furthermore, there are very real costs to this decision. One, the Swiss-Muslim community, if they are not alienated already, will be so now. Two, it fuels the Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West, a self-fulfilling prophecy that only persists out of intellectual laziness and/or religious prejudice. Three, it diminishes the West's ability to criticize other governments for their civil and human rights abuses. After all, how can we lecture Saudi Arabia for its restrictions on churches when Switzerland holds a similar policy against minarets?

In the end, a ban on minarets is no different than a ban on church bell towers. Persecution is persecution, regardless of the victim.

But more than anything else, I'm just disappointed. It's one thing when autocratic regimes spew intolerance. It's quite another when a liberal democracy - and one famed for its pacifism no less - can enact a law so illiberal and so intolerant. Let's hope the international outcry continues and forces them to reconsider this shameful legislation.

PS Things are a bit hectic at work, so posts will be intermittent (or non-existent) for the next week or so. But I'll be back posting daily soon enough.

The Grass is Greener

Gallup has released an interesting poll that asked people if they wanted to emigrate permanently from their home country and, if so, where would they go. In all, 16% of the world's adult population would leave their homeland if given the chance. That's approximately 700 million people.

Africans clearly stand out as the most willing to move from home, followed by Middle Easterners. Asians, meanwhile, seem most content where they are. Americans just slightly edge out Europeans as happier with their homes. Because the data is aggregated into regions, we shouldn't read draw too many conclusions from the map. For example, it's hard to imagine that the French are more willing to emigrate than the Afghans.




The second map, however, does break the data down into countries, revealing both some predictable and unexpected results. Predictably, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the United States is the most popular destination amongst the would-be emigrants. Approximately one quarter of the respondents, around 165 million people, chose the U.S. as their new home. Other popular countries included Canada, the U.K, France and Spain.

But surprisingly, even though 23% of Middle Easterners want to move elsewhere, Saudi Arabia was one of the most popular destination choices for emigrants, with 30 million people naming the desert Kingdom. In fact, if everyone actually moved to where they desired, Saudi Arabia's population would increase by 180%. Only Singapore would experience a larger percentage increase.


So, why do so many people want to move to a country that its own citizens want to leave? Without more exact data, it's hard to say for sure, but I'd bet the major factor is Islam. The Saudi interpretation of Islam, called Salafism, follows an extremely strict reading of the Qur'an. As such, it's largely a love it or hate it movement, with passionate followers and vehement detractors alike.


The Muslims who adhere to Salafism would understandably want to live in a country like Saudi Arabia. But I'd also imagine many Muslims around the world would willingly abide by such a strict interpretation of Islam, even if they personally do not subscribe to all of its tenants, in order to live near the birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed and the revelation of Islam. But at the same time, many Saudis find the conservative culture of their country constricting. In fact, Saudis are notorious for traveling to more liberal countries, like Egypt and Lebanon, in order to, putting it nicely, enjoy themselves and let loose.


In fact, you may have noticed that Egypt is another popular destination, likely for that very reason. As both a Muslim-majority and (relatively) socially liberal country, Egypt offers a good compromise for Muslims who are seeking a more open atmosphere that still maintains a level of cultural and religious familiarity. As such, I'd guess many Saudis would prefer Egypt over the United States, but that's just a hunch.


In short, we likely have a case of the grass is greener on the other side. Many Muslims want to live in a more conservative society like Saudi Arabia, while some Saudis wouldn't mind a little more freedom.


*As a side note, the Gallup poll only included Arab nationals and expatriates while surveying the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia. In other words, the huge numbers of migrant workers (usually from South Asia) that work throughout the Gulf Arab countires were ignored. This brings up another motivation to move to Saudi Arabia - finding employment.

Woman Divorces over Gitmo Nickname

According to Al Arabiya, a Saudi woman has filed for divorce after discovering her husband stored her name in his cell phone as "Guantanamo." The husband claimed he stored the name to protect her identity, in case prying eyes might learn her number when she called.

Such nicknaming is apparently common practice for Saudi husbands, but most men choose less offensive names for their wives. However, one man interviewed, Khaled Omar, said he stored his wife as "salary" because "she has no mercy when it comes to spending."

So what do we learn from this?

For one, men do stupid things no matter where they're from. And then they get caught. Two, women don't like it when they're compared to an infamous prison that denies basic due process to some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But, if you trust Mr. Omar, they do like shopping (I would add that most Gulf Arabs love shopping, not just the women).

But on a more serious point, the article notes the woman, who is currently 30 years old, has been married for 17 years. In other words, she was married at the age of 13. Yet for Al Arabiya, this uncomfortable fact is not worth mentioning.

Child marriage is a persistent problem in Saudi Arabia, as well as some other countries in the region. Just last month, a 12 year old Yemeni girl died during childbirth. In Saudi Arabia specifically, several high profile cases of child marriage have sparked debate within the Kingdom. In one case earlier this year, a judge annulled a marriage between an 8 year old girl and a 50 year old man. A strengthening women's movement and increasingly assertive press have begun to highlight such egregious cases.

Now, the Saudi government is considering setting a minimum age for marriage at 18 years, but has faced opposition from powerful, conservative religious leaders. Importantly, Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Child, a legally binding international treaty protecting the rights of minors. Yet, the country has been slow in meeting the convention's provisions.

While Islam is often used to justify child marriage by conservatives, it is not inherently an Islamic practice. There is currently an intense, internal debate about when marriage should be considered appropriate. For example, take a look at this article about child marriages in Malawi and the religious argument it sparks, with both sides citing religious sources.

One of the main points of contention is the Prophet Mohammed's marriage to one of his wives, Aisha, who was likely only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Many Muslims argue that morality evolves with history. Therefore, what was acceptable in 7th century Arabia may no longer be acceptable in the 21st century. But some conservative Muslims, who believe the Prophet's life set an eternal exemplar of righteousness, argue that Islamic morality was perfected in the 7th century and will never change. Thus if Mohammed married a child, it is moral to do so now.

The debate over polygamy follows a similar structure. Over the course of his lifetime, Mohammed married eleven women. However, the Qur'an also clearly states that a man should never have more than four wives at one time and can only marry additional wives if he can manage to treat them all equally and fairly. Importantly, many men in the Old Testament also had multiple wives, but years ago Judaism and Christianity eliminated polygamy as modern morality evolved. Now, Islam is currently undergoing a similar process, but the answer is far from settled.

Let Them Wear Veils

The Grand Imam of Egypt's al-Azhar University, Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, recently told a female student to remove her niqab (a veil that covers the face) during a lecture, ostensibly because he had trouble hearing her. After he faced outrage from conservative Muslims, Sheikh Tantawi went ahead and banned the niqab from the university. Now, a group of Egyptian MPs, lawyers and human rights group have sued the Sheikh to reverse the decision.

The New Republic's Marty Peretz took this development as an opportunity to blast President Obama for his speech in Cairo, where the President said, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." According to Peretz, "President Obama's indiscriminate endorsement of these curtaining contraptions is an intrusion into an active debate in the Muslim world, a reckless intrusion." Furthermore, Peretz suggests Sheikh Tantawi's decision is a "retort to Obama's intrusion."

I have to disagree on this one. President Obama sought to heal the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world in Cairo. For too long that relationship has been governed by mutual fear, instead of the "mutual interest and mutual respect" President Obama seeks to cultivate. Given Obama's purpose in Cairo and the millions of Muslim Americans the President represents, he has every right to speak about the veil. After all, why wouldn't the President speak about America's fundamental values of democracy, liberty and, yes, religious tolerance?

Part of the process of ameliorating our relationship must begin with the recognition that the veil is a legitimate symbol of Muslim piety. Many Muslim women choose to wear the veil, in the exact way many Orthodox Jews choose to wear kippot. There is no moral difference. However, there are certainly Muslim women who are forced to wear the veil against their will. Clearly, this is unacceptable and the U.S. must push for their right to dress as they please.

While Peretz brags about how many books he's read on the topic, he clearly hasn't spoken to many Muslim women. When I attended President Obama's speech at Cairo University (Peretz mistakenly says the speech took place at al-Azhar), it was obvious to me how excited the Muslim women were to hear the President's support for the veil. The comment drew some of the loudest applause of the entire speech. Nor were the women all conservative Muslims. Roughly half were students of the secular Cairo University, while many more women included Egypt's pop singers, movie stars and socialites (not exactly known for their religiosity).

Furthermore, it's outlandish to think Sheikh Tantawi would make such a fundamental decision only to retort the American president, as Peretz dubiously claims. After criticizing President Obama for inserting himself into an internal Muslim debate, Peretz oddly minimizes the validity of that debate with such an accusation. In addition, while al-Azhar University is considered one of the premier institutions of Sunni thought, it simultaneously carries a stigma of too closely following the Egyptian government line. It is impossible to understand the niqab ban without considering the long-lasting struggle between the Egyptian regime and Islamism. Just last week the Egyptian government detained 24 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading Islamist opposition group.

When Westerners like Peretz fixate on the veil while discussing women's rights, they do little to help real Muslim women. In fact, they only obfuscate the real problems Muslim women face every day, like economic inequality and insufficient education. That is the ultimate tragedy of arguments like the one Peretz lays out. Out of a desire to help, he only hurts the cause.

To see what real Muslim women are like, check out this photo album of Saudi women from Time Magazine and read this article by Sumbul Ali-Karamali about a recent Muslim women's rights conference in Malaysia. And if you're really interested, I wrote a comment to that article as well.