Saudi Gazette runs a piece on ‘mixing’ of the sexes in public places that really kicks down the door of stereotypes, particularly those held by many Saudis. The head of the religious police, formally the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, says that not only is it permitted, but those that object to it are doing it in their daily lives. It has always been religiously permissible, but weak ahadith have been seized upon by cultural conservatives to insert a non-Islamic practice into Islam.
The article notes that support for this sort of mixing comes also from Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi and Egypt’s Grand Mufti.
Those are strong words and coming from this source, might even have an effect. If taken consistently, they could also change the way women function in the workplace, not just KAUST, the focus of the article.
Hai’a chief: Kaust an ‘extraordinary move & huge accomplishment’
Majid Al-MufadhaliMAKKAH – The head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Makkah has added his voice of support to the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (Kaust) and addressed the issue of “ikhtilat” – the mixing of the sexes – that has prompted numerous scholars and commentators to speak out in recent months.
“The term ‘ikhtilat’ in this usage is a recent adoption that was unknown to the early people of knowledge,” Sheikh Ahmed Al-Ghamdi said in a lengthy interview with Okaz.
“Mixing was part of normal life for the Ummah and its societies.”
“The word in its contemporary meaning has entered customary jurisprudential terminology from outside,” Al-Ghamdi said.
“Those who prohibit the mixing of the genders actually live it in their real lives, which is an objectionable contradiction, as every fair-minded Muslim should follow Shariah judgments without excess or negligence,” Al-Ghamdi said.
“In many Muslim houses – even those of Muslims who say mixing is haram – you can find female servants working around unrelated males,” he said.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
December:11:2009 - 11:31
Of course, mixing is permissible in islam. That’s what veiling is all about – it is meant to enable the woman to go out and mix with men. If they don’t go out then there is no need to veil. Of course, neither veil nor segregation should be there in a truly free society, but even if one looks at it from the strict Islamic point of view, veil is meant to give the woman the freedom to mix with men. Saudi Arabia has interpreted it wrongly and it is refreshing to see at least one former chief of religious police acknowledging it.
December:11:2009 - 17:02
..nah..the saudi scholars and the saudi’s that are heavily influenced by saudi scholars still believe ‘mixing’ is forbidden; and the come up with these orgy scenarios to justify it.
it’s just that when the king kicked out that scholar for politely criticizing kaust’s mixing, people now all of the sudden are justifying it islamically. in this case, it is the progressive (and right) idea, but it just shows you how much thought-shaping power the al-Saud’s have.
…if only the people could talk about how a monarchy, the basis of the society, is unislamic.
December:11:2009 - 21:40
Scientific development and protecting the fixed principles of religion are not congruous. If this is what KAUST is about then they’re no further along than any other university in the KSA. In order for science to “develop”, religion may have to be tread upon.
Why oh why is free thinking such a threat?!
December:11:2009 - 21:48
I guess we should be thankful for the small steps taken here. A member of the Hai’a has loosened the interpretation of mingling. Another baby step is taken toward openness. The blog needs renamed to “Babysteps Arabia” since that seems to be the theme.
December:11:2009 - 21:51
Me please see my post about Norman Bates propping up his mom and other propping up their relatives. I think if King Abdullah got on the stage earlier it wouldn’t be such an OBVIOUS& ABRUPT switch over in mental logic. Deperate times call for desperate measures and I say do that shit as soon as possible so we can live like normal humans.
Get my point. I am just thankful we got some normal reasoning going on these days!
December:12:2009 - 02:13
I keep wondering why this relatively meaty bit of news isn’t making a larger impact. This has been out for days. Yet I don’t see that many discussion about it on the net or the blogosphere.
December:12:2009 - 05:20
some of you here seem to be satisfied by social change initiated by one person. well, you should all pray that abdullah lives for 150 years.
i, however, will not be satisfied unless there is a system for political change..ie. transparency, popular participation, free speech, elections, and accountability. this is the only guarantee for progress…yeah so basically nothing like the country is now.
enjoy your “hopes”.
December:12:2009 - 07:40
You’re right that social change cannot be accomplished by or on the shoulders of one person. It can be initiated, though. King Abdullah is serving as a catalyst, a role that one or a few people can accomplish. We can, and do, hope that having started a reaction, that reaction continues to completion.
You might end up satisfied in your lifetime; you might not. I do think the end-state you desire is a worthwhile one, but you know that it’s not going to happen in any time that goes under the name ‘soon’.
But what’s a good and realistic alternative to the process now under way? Who is going to make change happen faster? It’s not changing the minds of a couple of people, even a couple thousand people. It’s going to take changing the attitudes of something like 18 million people. And many of those will have to acknowledge that they’d been wrong about major issues most of their lives. That is not something that happens quickly.
December:12:2009 - 15:46
@8 as usual, i agree with you. it almost seems you’re advocating for one of the few “advantages” of a dictatorship.
but you can’t shortcut a people’s change (call it progress or regression) by dictatorship. the result is not stable.
if i just wanted personal/social freedoms, then you’d see me speaking well of dubai. dubai is a closed dictatorship and we have recently seen why it’s important to have openness. a dubai resident is living a fake freedom defined by one person..and it’s just a personal freedom too.
i have more respect for a taliban-like regime if that’s what the people chose. they will see their problems as their own fault and they will have to go through a process to get to a more reasonable result.
check out the idea behind the J-curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_J_Curve:_A_New_Way_to_Understand_Why_Nations_Rise_and_Fall
December:12:2009 - 15:53
I don’t know what kind of people ever chose a taliban-like regime! If you know of any examples please give them to me. Such taliban like regimes do not allow people to think for themselves and chose if the “specific” freedom is a go or a no go.
December:12:2009 - 19:50
@10 Sparky,
I think Me is saying he’d have more respect for a Taliban-like regime IF it were chosen by the people. People become invested in the political process when they vote. They tend to take a little more ownership of their political situation if they played a part in its implementation.
This is one upside to Obama getting elected in the US. People who never voted in a local dog-catcher election stepped up and made a choice for President. They are now more responsible for the direction of the country and more accountable for their personal situation.
Anyway. You are correct, nobody chooses a Taliban-like government. That’s why democracy is out of the question for the Taliban-types.
December:12:2009 - 21:31
I thought it was a great article, and a very positive step. Most lasting change happens by evolution, not revolution and backlash. Usually it is led by the intelligentsia and the powerful in the society, no matter how they came to power. Babysteps are good if they lead the society forward until the changes are on a firm footing.
Science and the basic principles of religion are not mutually exclusive. Most of the great scientists were profoundly religious while question previous man-made theories of the natural world. They were accused of heresy by their less enlightened contemporaries but were not disbelievers. In the Abrahamic faiths man has been given free will and is encouraged to seek knowledge to the limits of his capacity, but not to pretend to god-like omniscience, nor seek to replace God. There is a lot of room for manoeuvre in that.
December:12:2009 - 22:27
What I like about a democracy is that you can choose what freedom is a go or no go for your “personal” self. When I go to Dubai with my family, I cover and don’t drink. I have swam in 5 star hotels looking like a stuffed cabbage. Same goes for the U.S. I have seen different people practicing a broad range of freedoms.
Certain places there are slight differences in the type of freedoms. In the U.S. I have gone to McDonalds drive thru with a face mask on not a literal one but like a white creamy solution for purifying the skin. I get strange looks but it is a little freedom I have… I have gone out late at night a in complete covering with face cover and all to a 24 hour gas station/ convenient store. Got a few strange stares there too. The point is I could pick which one I wanted and nobody stopped me. That is freedom to choose.
December:12:2009 - 22:40
Also studying the English Monarchy might be of interest to people in Saudi and how they transitioned. People in Britain for the most part really love the royal but not entirely ruling family in that region of the world.
December:12:2009 - 22:52
Crap Ahh sorry guys I forgot that those calling for a constitutional monarchy have been locked up and falsely labelled terrorists. Ahhh man sorry please disregard comment 14 and carry on with your miserable lives until some type of change occurs hopefully that change will not be peaceful politcal activists turning into violent Al-Q (or any other VIOLENT) sympathizers!!!
December:12:2009 - 23:31
The English Kings were never, (save for a short period during the Hundred Years War) nearly as rich as the Sauds are today; in fact, the English monarchy is remarkable for so often keeping taxes down and remaining poor compared to its counterparts on the Continent.
Rather, a more appropriate comparison may be to the Spanish Monarchy which, soon after consolidating its rule on the Iberian Peninsula, struck it rich on the gold and silver of the New World and proceeded to fund a binge of Imperialism, emigration, and religious wars.
December:13:2009 - 08:22
I am not that familiar with Spain. I will research it. There are different theories on history. Some believe and cite proof that it always repeats itself in stages. I don’t subscribe to that belief. I believe people can learn from past mistakes and not repeat them. I don’t know if we must wait upon the intelligentsia to aid this cause or a Facebook and a Saudi Magna Carta.
December:13:2009 - 09:42
2nd piece of advice if eat person stopped eating crap, change would happen faster than you can blink a dink your eyes.
December:13:2009 - 10:20
Breathe….basically if ye serve me a pile of shit Im gonna throw it back in your FACE!
I love you all heheheheheheheh
December:13:2009 - 11:02
Actually, when the Taleban first came to power in Afghanistan, they were popular not only with Afghans, but with foreign governments, the US included. They stopped the battles between the war lords (mostly by removing the war lords), cut crime, stopped opium production… for a while. Then they showed their ‘truer’ colors and stomped all over civil and human rights and grew extremely unpopular with the West, at least.
If Afghanistan had had elections, they would have been elected. If Saudi Arabia had elections, I don’t doubt that conservative Islamists would win. That is why elections are not the definition of democracy. A civil society needs to precede elections if they are to be truly democratic.
December:13:2009 - 11:14
Well how do we get a civil society?
An eye for an eye?
Guidance Requested!
I don’t give a crap about elections to be honest and they have been prone to corruption as well. I want what others’ have been saying here:
1. Transparency
2. Accountability
3. Fairness under the law
Three simple request please
December:13:2009 - 13:06
Sparky, the whole principle behind nobility is that the nobles get to decide what laws they have to obey, and which they can ignore.
If you want transparency you’ll have to do the digging behind executive decision-making. (A free press helps.)
If you want accountability you have to develop a mechanism to exert public pressure. (Mass demonstrations will do.)
If you want “fairness under the law” you have to develop an alternate system of justice. (A “people’s court” or “Star Chamber”.)
They may go through some polite motions, but the nobility isn’t going to do these things for you just because you request it, though elements within them may be co-opted to do bits and pieces – if they don’t co-opt you first, that is.
December:13:2009 - 13:33
@20 john, my first major disagreement with you!
ELECTIONS *ARE* THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY! DON’T CONFUSE DEMOCRACY WITH FREEDOMS!
Furthermore, i’m not sure what you mean by “conservative islamists”. i thought you were past the western characterization of the country as /just/ “liberal” vs “conservative”. if elections were held, “saudis” as a whole want political freedoms as in 21. social freedoms would be somewhat like the other gulf states (sans dubai and bahrain) with the freedom to speak freely against rulers. this is what the people want.
..oh and i don’t know how you expect an independent “civil society” to be formed /first/ before democratic institutions. only the hypothetical benevolent dictator might allow for that.
@22 thanks for knocking some sense into 21.
December:13:2009 - 15:10
IMO, a civil society forms when and where people can talk to each other about the goods and services provided in their community AND accept that they have a duty to make these things happen. So there isn’t a civil society in prisons or communist countries, because the authorities dictate everything, but civil society did exist in the London of Henry VIII, even though he was the most absolute monarch England has ever known, even though speech was restricted, because London had a representative (not democratic) government which provided goods and services to citizens who felt they had a responsibility to ensure things like sewerage and financial transactions worked.
And Sparky has plenty of sense, much of it uncommonly good!
December:13:2009 - 23:47
I think Sparky makes a good point in the #14 we are to disregard
- and I agree with John and disagree with “Me” on who Saudi’s would elect- though I wish it were the other way around. And I think some of the fiascos in our Municipal elections have shown even more issue than what’s being discussed here.
Solomon2- I think by most definitions, representative governmnent (Republics) are still seen as a democracy – just not a “direct” democracy. Of course the real measure is who is allowed to vote IMHO.