In this Asharq Alawsat editorial, Editor-in-Chief Tariq Alhomayed lays the blame for the continuance of extremism in Saudi Arabia at the feet of the family. If a family seeks to protect its sons (and daughters) from drugs and other criminal acts, it is equally obligated to protect them from extremism. The government alone, he says, cannot provide full protection. The ‘silent majority’ must drop its silence and start shouting down those who promote or otherwise enable extremism.
Your are also Responsible
Tariq AlhomayedIf the Saudi authorities had been unsuccessful in uncovering the recent terrorist plot in the kingdom, the consequences would have resembled a destructive earthquake. The magnitude and the hideousness of the plans and the extent of their destruction are astonishing to any human being.
Previously, I had written that the war on terror was not only about security; we also highlighted the importance of improving education and religious discourse, and doing away with the features of extremism, however, today, it is inevitable that we approach the region, which seems, through the silence that surrounds it, to have become immune from blame, and it is always compulsory that discourse is addressed to the state, whether Saudi Arabia or otherwise.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
May:01:2007 - 10:46
As you know I am not a fan of Tariq. Not wanting to get too personal here, when I could, what I would tell Tariq is “Physician, heal thyself.”
I am not sure, I’d have to ask my wife, but I believe Tariq’s oldest daughter attended the Saudi run ISA school here in Northern Viriginia. Until recently, long after Tariq and his family left the DC area, this school was teaching the same sorts of things.
If you send your children knowingly to schools that teach this stuff, what room do you have to preach?
He talks about women’s rights, and again, not wanting to put too much personal information here, Tariq needs to take a look in the mirror.
Tariq certainly needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.
May:01:2007 - 15:02
abusinan, even if the author is as hypocritical as you say, why should anyone accept that as criticism of the article itself?
May:01:2007 - 19:45
Solomon,
If the advice he is giving out is so good, why doesnt he follow it himself? Unless, of course, it is nothing more than hot air.
There is a phrase for this in Arabic:
Kalam fadi.
May:01:2007 - 20:31
I see. Well, I learned years ago when studying Western Civ that while there were some saints, some of the greatest advances in art, philosophy, and government were made by awful hypocrites with disgusting habits and morals.
In any case, an argument stands independently of the name on the “author” line. “Kalam fadi” is thus logically unsupportable.
May:02:2007 - 08:44
Not at all Solomon because if someone does not mean something it means it’s implementation is not assured.
Saudi is full of “kalam fadi”. As a matter of fact, I love Arab culture, but despise “kalam fadi” even though it plays such a large role in it.
I guess being a Westerner I appreciate free, open and honest speech.
My point is that Tariq, I do not feel, believes any of what he is writing, nor do most Saudis in power.
Their war on AQ only started when they felt that the Saudi establishment was threatened. They had no issue with it when it happened outside of Saudi.
They dont care about the Christians or the Jews, as long as it happens outside of the Kingdom. That is why I call words like these “kalam fadi”.
If the Saudi establishment could ever work out a treaty with AQ that said AQ would not threaten the Saudi regime but keep on it’s activities outside the Kingdom, the Saudi establishment would agree in an instant.
That is exactly why those words are “kalam fadi” (empty words) because there is no weight in them.
May:02:2007 - 09:04
Abu Sinan: I’m not as cynical as you, I guess. I do think there has been honest introspection and a realization that what happens ‘outside’ affects what happens ‘inside’. I think there is a large number of Saudis (I don’t know if it’s a majority) who are sincerely concerned about what the failures in education and the capitulation to religious extremism has done to them and their country. They’re trying to find a way around it.
May:02:2007 - 11:06
I am cynical. I am married to a Saudi from a well known family in Mekkah. I know a lot of Saudis and have traveled a lot in the area.
It is my opinion that what the Saudi establishment is trying to do, is to do as little as possible and try to appease both sides, the terrorists and the USA.
In the end I dont think either side will be appeased. What I find is that you get two different ideas from Saudi leaders depending on who they are talking to and in what language.
May:02:2007 - 14:34
abusinan, I appreciate what you’re telling me: that all Arabs have to do is trash somebody’s reputation and then they can ignore whatever he or she was trying to communicate. Good moral repute comes first, a quality that must be judged by the recipient of the message, not the sender.
That reminds me of a story about Khrushchev’s speech to Communists denouncing Stalin in 1956. While listing Stalin’s terror campaigns against the Communist Party, somebody in the chamber yelled out, “And where were you when all this was going on, comrade?”
“WHO SAID THAT?” Khrushchev shot back. The entire hall fell silent.
“That’s where I was.” concluded Khrushchev.
Khrushchev, who was very active during the period of the deadly purges of the Ukraine in the thirties, was nonetheless instrumental in dismantling many of the worst elements of the Soviet terror state. I suppose, by your reasoning, if his audience had been Arabs rather than Russians Khrushchev would have been hounded into silence and out of power entirely.
In fact, since almost everyone in the Party shared in these crimes, they would feel obliged to cover things up and keep everything going pretty much as it was before. Which is exactly what Khrushchev’s successors did after booting him out of office. Political reform stagnated until Gorbachev – the first Soviet General Secretary who had not participated in murderous purges – came to power.
Can there ever be an Arab Khrushchev?
May:02:2007 - 14:47
Solomon: I think your comment is exactly on point.
May:02:2007 - 15:10
I guess I dislike the idea of someone preaching about an idea that they do not practice in their own personal life.
May:02:2007 - 15:32
Yes, hypocrisy is not an endearing trait. Nor is immoral behavior in one sphere much support for moral behavior in another. But as long as we insist that consistency in all things be a benchmark, we’re going to always have behavior that ‘scandalizes’ masses.
May:02:2007 - 20:53
abusinan, I do sympathize a little. I didn’t like discovering, probably in high school, that hypocrites are effective social reformers – It seems so unfair! All the heroes I learned about in grade school were perfect people, weren’t they? – but the facts had to be accepted, or else history would be reduced to fiction.
(No, my history instructor didn’t teach this to us. But he did point his class to books where we could read about such people and their personal lives ourselves. Since John brought up the subject of “immoral behavior”, I’ll add that I wrote a bit about this in December, that some “history is just too titillating to be taught.”)
In this specific case, Tariq Alhomayed explained to his daughter that her teacher, whom he had been paying money out of his own pocket for, had been teaching her lies. So Alhomayed changed his mind.
Changing one’s mind is not hypocrisy. But if you didn’t read through his article because by applying “Kalam fadi†you already “knew” the man was a hypocrite, how could you ever find out that you were mistaken? Is this somehow Alhomayed’s responsibility?
May:03:2007 - 08:21
Solomon,
You miss the point, I dont think Tariq has changed his mind. I think he has simply written what he thinks some people want to hear.
May:06:2007 - 13:09
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=418069&issue=10386
Enough said about this guy. His own words say it all.
May:06:2007 - 20:49
It’s a eulogy, right? Never been to a Muslim one, but in the ones I have attended people try to maximize the good and minimize the bad, even if they had good reason to detest the departed, because it is more important at that moment to comfort bereaved friends and family. So I don’t consider this a valid supporting example that Tariq writes “what he thinks some people want to hear” because in this instance that’s undoubtedly what he’s supposed to do.
That said, your words have sensitized me. Tariq thus appears to have been the Prince’s man since at least the day of his wedding – on his payroll, that is. What could have been the conclusion of the speech, “Before you think of children, think of their education -” other than an offer for a job or allowance?
Yet, what was that about the role of the state to protect people from bureaucracy? Is that not a veiled reference to royal bribery and thus an allegation that the Prince believed that this was the proper function of the Saudi state? Is that a criticism or a parody, or am I reading it way off?