So… Saudi Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is about to establish women’s sections. It’s to be assumed they they will be charged with dealing with female sinners. I guess that’s a step forward in empowering women. Women will have a new category of jobs toward which to aspire. The women who receive their attention will be spared the humiliation of males making personal comments about them. Too, female vice police will be able to enter places where no male should (properly) tread, e.g. beauty parlors and spas.
As odious as the organization and its goals are to most Westerners, the existence of the Haya is strongly supported by a majority of Saudis. Personal autonomy and responsibility take second place to social and religious order in this society. That’s simply a fact. The Haya is showing that it is adaptable in its taking on new roles—that’s not bidaa, is it?
This piece from Saudi Gazette/Okaz notes that the organization is looking at reforms in other areas, though there’s not much given in terms of exact policies. I did note that they want to take a look at the way the Haya interacts with the diplomatic community, though.
Women depts, curriculum inclusion for Hai’a proposed
Khaled Al-ShalahiMADINA – Over 40 scholars and researchers have offered proposals to improve the work of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (the Hai’a) by including the organization’s principles in educational curricula, setting up nationwide regional Hai’a councils, and opening women’s departments at Hai’a offices to “communicate with women”.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
First, based on what scientific study or survey does it say that the majority of Saudis support the current Haya’s practices. I think it is more like Saudis support the idea of “promoting virtue and preventing vice” the HOW is not included in that majority support opinion.
I’m weary of anything that comes out of that office and I am running like the roadrunner outta hell away from anything they plan on instilling or installing in my brain.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
And here I thought they had always had a woman’s section…you always see female muttawa at the Haram.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
It’s interesting that Haya means “shame related to honour (that needs to be guarded)” in Urdu. I wonder what it means in Arabic.
John,
I’m sorry I’m being critical of this post. First, must all demonic practices of Saudi Arabia be endorsed by the democratic world on the excuse that it has a support in the local population? The way I see it, there is a limit to which local sensitivities should be accommodated. Anything and everything shouldn’t be legitimised because there is popular support at the local level. This policy of Haya is absolutely inhuman by all standards and it must be denounced.
Second, popular support is often built by way of social conditioning that comes through the inculcation of a particular set of ideas through the education system. In the context of this Haya system, it’s a vicious circle operating, which involves moulding the popular psyche towards accepting the autocratic practices through education that doesn’t encourage questioning the system and through coercive law that intimidates the populace into accepting a system like the Haya. Hence, many popular responses that are supportive may in fact be calculated to present a masked view before the observer/interviewer and often, people are really brainwashed into believing that Haya is a good and necessary system.
Third, using the women’s force is not necessarily an “empowering” move. It simply means that the women are being coerced to follow an autocratic regime by using the agency of women themselves. I think it’s even a bigger humiliation to womankind than before. The real empowerment will come when the law will change and the society will follow the changed set of laws. If the laws remain inhuman for women and women themselves are brainwashed first into accepting these laws as normal and then using these laws to coerce their fellow-women, I think this country has sunk really low. Same goes for using the women lawyers, who are really an insult to the womankind if the laws themselves are oppressive.
The news report doens’t explain in what direction the new equation with the diplomatic community will go.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
Your criticism is welcome, truly.
I do not think that majority opinion is the end-all of politics. That way lies the Mob. It cannot be ignored lightly, however. The majority of Saudis do support the role of the Haya (pace Sparky!) and think that meddling in other people’s private lives is perfectly fine, if those private lives go beyond where the majority feels safe. That, of course, is exactly where the problem is to be found. ‘Community standards,’ ‘conventional wisdom,’ ‘We know it when we see it’… these are all subjective matters, dependent upon not only the observer’s sense of propriety, but also that of the ostensible offender.
Another word for ’social conditioning’ is ‘culture’. Cultures are the product of groups of people more or less accepting and asserting the same things. There can be vast cultures (almost meaninglessly vast) as in Western or Islamic cultures. There can be fine granularity, down to the individual family–useful for some purposes, not for others. But culture is what is found in a particular place at a particular time among a particular group. It is pretty factual, but again when you get down to the individual grains, you find differences. Cultures ought not be given immunity from criticism, nor artificial barriers to change. But we have to accept that cultures are and that they do have their own values. Wishing them away won’t change them.
The Haya is not going to have to go out and kidnap women to fill these positions. They will be turning applicants away, in fact. Many, many Saudi women are as intransigent in defending their culture as the men. Sure, you can argue that they’ve been brainwashed. That might even be true in many instances. But it’s not universally true. There are Saudi women, educated in the West, who believe that Saudi society is perfectly correct in all matters. They not only seen no need for change, they think change can only be detrimental to important social values.
I think they’re wrong, but I can’t pretend they aren’t there.
I think the thing that we all need to remember is that were not just talking political philosophy here. As firmly as you or I might think that women should be as equal to men as their genes permit (i.e., nearly 100%), there are those who believe, equally firmly and fervently, that that is not the case, and further that it is a crime against God and man to think otherwise.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
I don’t think those at the Haram are formally mutawiyyat (??) but rather volunteers to help people perform rituals ‘correctly’. They seem to be comfortable in parlaying that status into one of moralizing angel, though.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
“There are Saudi women, educated in the West, who believe that Saudi society is perfectly correct in all matters. They not only seen no need for change, they think change can only be detrimental to important social values.”
These women you refer to who are educated in the West were they sent to the West by their own government? That is an important factor into considering their particular vies on any given topic. I know Saudi women who were educated in the West not because the government handed them a check but because they were there for other reasons (parents were there, brothers) and they studied from their own bank roll and they see MORE need for change.
ONe thing to keep in mind is that people don’t tend to bite the hand that feeds them. Thus, in all regards rest assured that those who are biting are the ones who haven’t been fed.
Also my hub studied in the States but he was completely financially supported by his family not the government!
December:17:2009 - 09:02
It is sooo hard to edit without the screen moving forward backwards and spinning. K I think these women you speak of are “Saving Face” out of respect to their respective country Saudi Arabia. Get them alone in a room and see what they have to say to someone they really trust.
I know women hermits whose husbands studied there and they were secluded from American society and life. Yes, you will find some of these women happy with the status quo of women. These are the same women who are afraid to open the door if someone knocks on it because they think it is a Texas chain saw massacre man.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
John,
Coming from a diverse society myself, I know about cultural differences and am comfortable seeing people with different practies. But the religious police is about coercing the people into leading a life the State wnats them to lead. That is wrong, undemocratic and must be condemned by all democratic people. The argument about people thinking it is right to have a religious police doesn’t hold here. That way you’ll endorse cannibalism, selling of girls for money, human sacrifice, polygamy, burning or burying of widows, slavery, child marriage and every abominable practice in different cultures.
This world needn’t have fought thousands of years of battles for equality if at the end of it everything has to be endorsed in the name of cultural difference.
I would like to give a few examples. Indian laws don’t require the women to have any dress code – women are free to wear any dress they like as far as the law is concerned. Even then, there are Muslim women in India who wear the veil because they think it is right for them to do this. That’s fair enough and no one has any problems with that. We understand our cultural differences in this matter. At the same time there are Muslim women who don’t veil and that’s also fair enough – it’s their choice. There is no religious police to tell them whether they shoul veil or should not veil.
Similarly, laws don’t prescribe whether the people should regularly pray or not. But there are very devout people in India – in all religions – who pray regularly and that’s fair enough. At the same time there are people who don’t pray and that’s also fair enough. There is no religious police to regulate this.
Traditional Hinduism had accumulate some undemocratic practices during its thousands of years of evolution – girls didn’t have any right to inherit, child marriage, expensive dowry, divorce was not recognised in Hinduism, caste hierarchy, inequality between men and women, polygamy and many more. But when the democratic constitution was drawn after independence, Indian constitution abolished all these practices as undemocratic, outdated and inhuman and made them illegal. Yes, some of them like dowry and caste are still practised but as far as the State’s position is concerned, they are illegal and anyone can go to court to challenge these practices.
This is despite the fact that Hinduism is the religion of the majority in India and yes, there were many Hindus at that time who thought these practices were “normal.” But they allowed the democratic constitution to prevail and with time, people’s perceptions have also changed. Today’s Hindus are the strongest advocates of monogamy. This was not so only 60 years ago.
When I talk about a need to denounce this practice in KSA, I’m talking about the coercive practice of having the religious police. There is no legitimate excuse for Saudi Arabia to have this system – this is a gross violation of human rights. If women veil on their own, don’t talk to men on their own, if people pray regularly on their own, no one has any problems with that. But to have a religious police to oversee such activities, to have inhuman punishments like whipping, chopping off of limbs and to have the women to enforce the women’s coercive laws is atrocious and must be condemned.
There has to be a line drawn between a reasonable cultural practice which may look different from our own, but which doesn’t violate the universal human rights and an abominal practice that is being endorsed in the name of cultural difference. And certainly the religious police should not be enforcing these laws on foreigners. This has to be opposed.
If KSA wants a sensitive approach from foreigners, it better be sensitive to the foreigners’ cultural differnces too.
It is precisely this kind of unconditional endorsement of every wrong done in the name of Shariah rule in West Asia that enables the Islamic countries to hold the world to ransom.
I think it’s high time the West stop endorsing these practices unconditionally – you have found oil in Russia and you can get your oil from Russia rather than from Saudi Arabia.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
The short answer is, ‘Both.’ While those whose families sent them tend to bring family values, and there’s clearly a disposition toward the more liberal side if you’re sending your daughter abroad, not all of them were at all liberal. They went to the US for an education, not a cultural experience.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
I don’t think I ever joined the Religious Police Fan Club! I think they’re a useless exercise in state power, no question about it.
I, however, am not Saudi. I do know that there are lots of Saudis whose only criticism of the Haya is that they’re not doing it hard enough!
Sometime when we’re talking, not on this blog, I’ll tell you a few stories about Saudis not getting the ‘When in Rome’ business…
December:17:2009 - 09:02
The way I see it, if lots of Saudis think the religious police is not doing it hard enough and that this system should exist at all, Saudis should be condemned and be banned from benefitting from any opportunities outside the KSA, unless the Saudi government reforms its laws. If they are not human, they need not get any humane treatment from the world.
As I said, you can buy your oil from Russia till KSA mends its ways.
I certainly hope we’ll be talking not on this blog as you say, if only that can be possible. But you may also write a post on “Saudis and when in Rome.” Unless you live in the KSA I don’t see how you can get into trouble.
Sparky is right, it’s very difficult to edit with this software – the text keeps on shifting all the time.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
Well, Saudi Arabia is, in fact, in process of reforming its laws. Among those reforms will be a codification of laws, excepting those crimes about which the Quran speaks specifically and directly, e.g. the hadd crimes like murder. If nothing else, this should put the Haya on a shorter leash.
At present, the Haya can make ones life miserable and complicated. As they lack law-enforcement powers, they are not among the worst possible offenders of civil rights. I certainly don’t want them in my neighborhood, but lots of Saudis think they help keep their neighborhoods better.
I won’t (can’t) speak for other countries, but oil is only third on the list of why the US wants good relations with the KSA. First comes the Saudi ability to speak to the Islamic world. If the Saudi buy into a US policy, it becomes much easier to sell in other countries. Second, the KSA is generous with overflight permissions. Without those, the US military would have very serious problems in addressing issues to the east.
I’ll look for a better solution for editing.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
OK, the Haya may not be delivering the punishments and the US has even greater inetersts in Saudi Arabia than just oil, but the end result is that the human rights conditions there are deplorable and no one is going to say anything about it – least of all the US because it will hurt its tripartite interests.
I really have to see their new legal code to see how much they have really improved or if it’s just an eyewash like having women to enforce draconian rules against women themselves.
So the Saudi citizens, the foreign visitors as well as the Third World workers have to keep on going through this vicious circle of abuses because it hurts everyone’s interests to speak against it.
Well, at least I know some Indians who have refused to take up a job in Saudi Arabia – they would rather be unemployed in India than get exploited there. I sincerely hope more Indians join their school of thought.
Why speak against human rights violations in other parts of the world then? Why not just let every country do whatever it wants to do? What’s the need to talk about democracy, equality, tolerance for others etc.?
December:17:2009 - 09:02
hullo!
just to clear things up, the ladies working at the Haram belong to a mosque committee thing, there is one in the Makkah Haram and one in the Madina Haram. they are given an official government job and have an office in the Haram inside the mosque, to which i have been to on a good number of occasions. since i keep my iPod in my bag and iPods and camera phones are not allowed into the mosque. they go through my bag every time as i enter the mosque.
i tried explaining once that having an iPod in my bag doesn’t mean i’ll listen to music in the mosque. but having my face uncovered is apparently a sure sign that i have a great devil worshiping potential and should never be given the benefit of her doubt.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
The US isn’t silent on the issue(s) of Saudi human rights violations. Note the annual reports on Human Trafficking, Religious Freedom, Women & Children, and plain old Human Rights.
I think a policy decision has been made, however, not to ignore these issues, but to pressure the Saudis without over-pressuring the Saudis. Harping at them is counterproductive and feeds those conservatives who jump up and say, “See, this reform is all due to foreign pressure!” That undercuts the reformers.
People will differ on just where the line between pressure and over-pressure is to be found, of course…
December:17:2009 - 09:02
Asmaa, thanks for clearing that up! I’m doubly unequipped to comment from first-hand experience.
I am sorry, though, to hear that such officiousness reigns in Mecca and Medina.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
Just to answer Daisy’s question about what Haya means;I think its meaning is “Organization, Body”; whoever knows Arabic more than me (and that’s not too difficult) is welcome to comment/correct my understanding.
December:17:2009 - 09:02
John,
Thanks for that clarification!
About Saudi Arabia being the leader of the Islamic world, perhaps on a conceptual level, that’s right. But if the US really wants to speak to the Islamc world, I feel it shouldn’t rely on Saudi Arabia too much as a spokesperson. For example, you of course know that the majority of Muslim population lives not in the Arab world but in South Asia and South-East Asia – the regions where Muslims follow completely different sets of norms and even widely different versions of Islam. It does seem that they tend to relate to their immediate non-Muslim population much more than to Saudi Arabia – not only because of cultural differences, but also because of the shabby way in which Saudi Arabia has been treating them. By relating to Arab Muslims, one would in fact be relating to only a small population of Muslims. Hence, it makes better sense to have a dialogue with these various populations directly through their governments or other agencies working with them, rather than making Saudi Arabia their spokesperson. Their ways are in fact very different from those of Saudi Arabia and they may not necessarily agree with Saudi Arabia on everything. Much of terrorism also comes from South Asia and West Asia, so there needs to be different dialogues for different regions.
I am sure American experts have considered all this and much more, but your remark just set me thinking.