Well, that didn’t take long! After the genius professor at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University offered up the inane suggestion that special floors be built in the Grand Mosque in Mecca to ‘protect’ female worshipers—two days ago, that was—he’s smacked down by a judge today. Arab News reports that Dr. Isa Al-Ghaith, a judge at the Riyadh Summary Court says that the irresponsible comments by the professor go even beyond worst fears of extremism.
The judge is calling for immediate steps to be taken to thwart this new and dangerous attempt to foist and extremist interpretation of Islam on the country.
Judge rejects calls for women-only floors in Grand Mosque
JEDDAH: A judge at Riyadh Summary Court has ridiculed calls for the construction of extra floors just for women at the Grand Mosque in Makkah in order to prevent them from mingling with men during tawaf (circling of the Holy Kaaba) and prayers.“Such opinions must be totally rejected. The issuers of such fatwas must be stopped and re-educated,” said Dr. Isa Al-Ghaith, a judge at Riyadh Summary Court.
Al-Ghaith said this while commenting on the remarks of Yousuf Al-Ahmed, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Al-Watan newspaper reported.
Al-Ahmed told a TV channel that mixing between men and women during Tawaf around the Kaaba was against Islam, and that the expansions carried out during the Ottoman era and the rule of King Saud should be demolished, adding that it would create more room for the increasing number of pilgrims who come for Haj and Umrah.
“I could not believe this when I was told about it. I did not expect matters to reach this level. This means that we have reached a dangerous stage that has not even been anticipated by the majority of pessimists,” said Al-Ghaith, while calling for urgent steps to protect the religion and the Kingdom from this dangerous thought.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
March:20:2010 - 02:25
Smack Down!
Jesus versus Satan…sure to get some sensitities and panties in an uproar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0VrKeXQzL0
March:20:2010 - 04:04
For once a Saudi judge has spoken well.
March:20:2010 - 10:58
This is just an update of a 2006 proposal to limit access to the sahn area (patio around the kaaba). Please check out this link.
http://www.muslimahwritersalliance.com/MWA-GMEA4W/Press-Release2.html
I could never quite figure out (Not enough time to do research) how and where the women pray now, or even if they do the circumambulation. To do so would require mixing, and that is not even safe for women if you have seen some of the comments that I have seen. I thought that women had about 15% of the sahn area reserved for them, and even that was going to be taken away in 2006.
Of course, now as in 2006, the idea is presented as “expanding” the area for women, even if it means expanding it to further away even out of sight.
I was also not aware that the “expansions carried out during the Ottoman era” were still present after the big changes in the 1950s and 1970s.
Can anybody tell me if women have a reserved area, how big it is and if they do the circumambulation?
March:20:2010 - 11:14
We do circumambulation with everyone else. There is no other way. Also if you are doing Umrah or Hajj you do everything together- though for certain things you can send a proxy and women sometimes do. As for praying in the designated areas…for the 2 rakah that follow the circumambulation I just don’t and many women do not. I do try to find a spot with a cluster of women, or I just pray next to my husband.
The formal prayers however, there are areas off the center floor where you go- you can’t get away with praying with the men.
March:20:2010 - 11:22
By formal, I really mean communal- the 5 that everyone does together. The others are also formal but not performed as a group.
March:20:2010 - 11:22
I have prayed near women during ummah and wish i hadn’t. Women brought their thermoses of tea. When the prayer started, there was a woman who had the nerve to put her thermos right in front of the tiny space I had to make sujood. I was fuming with the flames of hell during my prayer. I have circumvented the kabaa and got my poking from the big African men. I think the religious or spiritual experience if you will should not and must not be segregated as it was never intended to be that way.
March:20:2010 - 11:53
If you look at the Internet photographs, it does appear that while men and women may come in contact with each other while circumambulating, in most places people of the same sex tend to stick together, or women stay with their family or their own group. It doesn’t seem to be that much of an intermingling of sexes as it is made out to be at least in the photographs. But of course I may be wrong.
March:20:2010 - 12:16
Good responses, and informative. Then why the heck does the 2006 campaign seem to indicate that women use only a small designated area, as in the picture (which they were going to lose)?
March:20:2010 - 12:25
I don’t know why exactly- because it isn’t something I followed. But the segregationalists are always trying. And for the formal 5 times prayer- it would be difficult for a woman to be on the open floor out of those areas because it fills with men and they direct you away. Also- inside there is LOTS more room and LOTS more people.
On the open floor there is continuous circumambulation and the short two rakah prayer- unless it’s a designated prayer time- and even then there is some. There are visiters from all over the world- many of them who have no clue about gender segregation, don’t speak Arabic and stay with their tour or family group. It would be impossible to manage to get all the women into their coups, as it is on going and continious and the prayer can take place anywhere they find a spot on the floor.
Basically, they built the coups- but lots of women just don’t follow the rules.
March:20:2010 - 13:16
Because there’s a theological/sociological civil war going on in Saudi Arabia. The conservative (or is that ‘reactionary’) forces are fighting against change; the moderates or liberals are fighting for it. Outside of the extreme extremists–the AQ bunch–this war does not reach the level of physical violence. Verbal violence, OTOH, is rampant.
That the war is going on at all, I think, strongly argues that there are positive signs of changes toward moderation. The trick is to support the reformers without compromising them with too much support (leading to complaints that this is all due to external pressure) AND without denigrating the reformers as doing too little, too slowly (leading to their giving up in the face of a ‘hopeless’ cause).
March:21:2010 - 03:18
Well said Mr. Burgess. Were you channeling that info?
I liked it
March:21:2010 - 11:09
Saudi Jeans gives this an extra spin:
Quote: Al-Ahmad argues that in the past nobody had the means to achieve that but now it can easily be done. The Grand Mosque can be completely demolished, he said, and then rebuilt all over again. Al-Ahmad suggests the Grand Mosque can have 10, 20, or even 30 floors, dedicating some of them exclusively to women.
So, not just modify and add on, but demolish and rebuild. I have seen some “projects” of a futuristic-looking Grand Mosque, but that is all.
Anyway, what is wrong with women having the 29th floor all to themselves? If there is no room at the window, they can still watch the rituals down and around the kaaba on the 27-inch screen on the wall. This will give them privacy and ample prayer space so not to have to worry about the crowded spaces in the sahn. They can even have refreshment stands and an area dedicated to koranic literature for spiritual edification as well as souvenirs of the hajj. For safety reasons, the room occupancy will be limited to 200 women at a time, with 10 minutes allowed for all rituals — more than enough for even the most dedicated muslimah. Even so, I am sure that some women will find fault with this, no matter how much you do to make them happy, women are always complaining!
March:21:2010 - 11:23
The Grand Mosque is a historical structure, having gone through several renovations and reconstructions, sometimes involving deliberate destruction.
The present structure was built in 1950s; it took 20 years and $18 Billion to build it. Incidentally, Osama Bin Laden’s father’s company was involved in building this structure.
It seems the Saudi State has no respect for history or the billions of dollars and work that goes waste every time this structure is destroyed and renovated for some petty reason like secluding the women. A more sensitive and sensible State should be spending its resources and energy elsewhere.
March:21:2010 - 12:22
When did the Saudi State ever waste the work and construction in order to renovated for petty reasons? Example please?
Also, incidentally, the Bin Laden construction company has been involved with pretty much every building project of note in the country. To the point that it’s participation is really no point at all.
Kactuz,
I think her tongue-in -cheek version of what could be, is also a bit of a jab at the difficulty women have at the mosque in Medina, specifically the Rowdah section. They get very short time slots, otherwise they are kept away.
March:21:2010 - 15:25
Sandy–true the Binladin Group have been the Royal builders, and the official restorers of the Grand Mosque since the days of the founder Mohammed BinLadin’s friendship with the founder of the 3rd Saudi State, the current KSA, King AbdulAziz, ie from 1931-32. When the Mosque was invaded and occupied in 1979, the Binladin Group provided the plans to the Mosque, which they had because of their restoration and building work, to the Saudi government officials and aided in the routing.
Their logo is freely displayed on announcements of building projects etc. I saw one recently but I cannot remember where.They have formally rejected Osama, just as he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship, so that their status seems to be fully maintained within the Kingdom.
You are probably a lot more aware of the banality of their presence on a construction announcement than I, but I find the history interesting, and no doubt as things stand currently they would continue to be the official construction company associated with any Grand Mosque building or restoration.
Saudi has a vested interest in preserving the two Mosques and their two cities both for religious and geo-political reasons. This probably figures into the rejection of building additional floors with the express purpose of altering a central tenet of the hajj, that all, including both genders, circumambulate as one and in a state of spirituality, purification, and prayer that would preclude the issue of segregation.
I doubt Muslim scholars from outside Saudi, let alone inside would authorize something like this. Hard enough to make the modifications so necessary for pilgrims in the stoning of the devil part of the ritual.
March:21:2010 - 18:39
While the Binladin Group might have a head start on any such contract, the Saudi government has switched to a process of competitive bidding for major contracts. They might still win it, but it wouldn’t just be given to them.
March:21:2010 - 20:18
Ah, an ethical improvement then
March:22:2010 - 00:04
Well, in the right direction, anyway.
March:22:2010 - 02:01
Sandy,
Bin Laden information was just an additional one – I have nothing against that company. There is no evidence that Osama is running that company, so there is no reason to be opposed to it just for the sake of being opposed.
What I meant was that if the mosque is completely dismantled then all this work of 20 years and billions of dollars involved would be wasted and more money would be spent in rebuilding the mosque than was spent earlier. Saudi government definitely has more serious problems to attend to if it wants to do so.
March:22:2010 - 03:42
If that’s what you meant perhaps you shouldn’t have said
“It seems the Saudi State has no respect for history or the billions of dollars and work that goes waste every time this structure is destroyed and renovated for some petty reason like secluding the women.”
Which makes sweeping claims of various kinds including that it’s been destroyed and renovated several times for petty reasons.
I have seen no evidence whatsever that the above is true- or as you most recent note mentions that the Saudi gov’t has any intention whatsoever that they are thinking of demolishing and rebuilding for any reason.
March:22:2010 - 06:09
That’s what Jay said. I was responding to his statement.
March:22:2010 - 06:24
You said it in post 13. I directly quoted it.
Please give examples of the Saudi gov’t doing these things- which is what YOU said. Or the exact quote where Jay said it.
March:22:2010 - 06:35
Please read his post # 12.
March:22:2010 - 09:32
I see him quoting Saudi Jeans, commenting on what Al Ahmad said.
I am still waiting for any example of frivolous demolitions of, and waste of money, that occurs “every time” the Saudi gov’t rebuilds the mosque for petty reasons. An example that clearly shows the Saudi gov’t has “no respect for history”.
This is what YOU claimed and post #12 doesn’t support any of that.
March:22:2010 - 12:34
John–yes an ethical improvement in the right direction especially if it is a substantive one.
All–NB Saudi Jeans is Ahmed Al-Omran, a young student blogger of reknown; the Al-Ahmed quoted in Jay’s comment #12 is Yousef Al-Ahmed, “a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh” quoted in the article John excerpts and links in his post above, and reprised in a post on the same article and topic by Ahmed Al-Omran on his blog Saudi Jeans (with the sheikh’s video on that topic and much more!): Demolish?!
Otherwise, I agreed with Sandy’s comments above.
March:22:2010 - 15:14
“Progress” should not mean bigger and more hideous, or more concrete. Unfortunately, that has been the case in all remodels of the al-Masjid al-Haram since the 1950s. It is getting worse – consider these existing and planed projects:
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/haj_12_12/h02_17294155.jpg
http://pruned.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-mecca.html
http://www.islamicpluralism.eu/images/1%20Proposed%20Residential%20Development%20At%20the%20Grand%20Mosque%20of%20Mecca.jpg
Let me say that Muslims in general (note the qualification) and arabs in particular and Saudis most of all have little interest in archeology. Of course there are exceptions, but most of the serious work done in the Middle East (except for the evil Zionist state) is done by Westerners. This may have a lot to do with the fact that most artifacts and sites are pre-islamic and Muslims care little for non-Muslim things – and there is there is the danger that some Muslim could be tempted to bow down and worship some old amphora (jar) that was dug up (that was a joke, kind of).
The House of Saud is the worse offender. With their friends, the Wahhabis, they have basically eradicated all signs of ancient civilizations from their land (with a few exceptions). They also care little about important Muslim historical sites, which have been turned into toilets, apartment buildings, markets and even parking lots. This is cultural genocide.
As bad as the destruction of history has been, this is matched by the new monstrosities they are building around the Grand Mosque, including the Abraj Al Bait Towers and Mall and the Jabal Omar project. What they have done and are doing in Mecca is a crime. These would be great for Las Vegas, but are entirely out of place in an old historic city that lives by its traditions. The Mosque is now being surrounded by sterile, semi-modern, ugly skyscrapers dedicated to the gods of commercialism, with apartments, hotels, glowing lights, big-screen monitors with advertisements, shops, an amusement park, fast-food restaurants and a even lingerie store with pink underwear. Please look at the links to see what they have done to what used to be an interesting, traditional environment. These new developments tower over even a building as large as the Grand Mosque. I guess now it is entirely possible to fornicate in a hotel room by a window with full view of the al-Masjid al-Haram and kaaba below. I hope the Saudis are happy!
Letting the Saudis do construction and design is like letting hillbillies decorate the Louve, and I mean no disrespect to the Clampetts.
Why am I always the one to defend islam and its traditions!
March:22:2010 - 17:25
Jay, I think you mistaken about archeology in the ME. Now in the past, you most certainly would have been correct. Even up to the 1960s, with some big exceptions like Egypt and Tunisia, Arab governments weren’t terribly interested. But then, up until the mid-1800s, western government’s weren’t either. Archeology was for the rich cranks that populated private clubs like the Travellers’ Club in London. Napoleon, notably, was an exception.
Since the 1960s, though, every Arab country has had departments of Archeology in its universities. Those countries have also taken over the leadership of archeology conducted in-country. Some of that has been for defensive reasons, i.e., to protect their heritage from foreign exploitation. In some instances, it been to extract fees. But most of it has been for the same purposes as Archeology in the West.
In fact, it was the 1960s when most developing countries, Arab, Muslims, whatever, started paying attention to preserving the marks of their past. Saudi Arabia, as has been discussed here before, has been a singular examle of a country that seemed afraid of what its past might uncover. But even that attitude has changed over the past 10 years, largely through the efforts of both academics and the ‘Astronaut Prince’.
March:22:2010 - 20:20
John,
That attitude has changed after many important archaeological sites in Saudi Arabia have been destroyed. This includes the graves of many important personalities from early Islam. These graves have been levelled, bombs, set alight and public lavatories have been built over them.
The culprits have been not only the clerics but the royal family has supported such moves.
Contrary to the belief, the destructions have continued well into the 21st century.
There is no point in saying now the royal family wants to have an archaeological interest – who is going to bring back all the sites that have been destroyed? Who is going to rebuild the history that has been wiped out? How is the royal family going to atone for it?
Those who are under the wrong impression that the royal family has any regard for the history and archaeology of Saudi Arabia may see this link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_sites_associated_with_early_Islam
March:22:2010 - 21:29
John, I agree there has been a growing interest in MENA archeology, particularly in the last two decades, among Arabs and Muslims. Still, at the same time, this gain has been offset by a growing fundamentalism that devalues all things pre-Islamic (not to mention Islam’s own history), considering it all part of the “Age of Ignorance” and therefore of no interest, or worse yet, evil.
Unfortunately this attitude is not confined to Arabia. Note the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan or the Swat Buddha in Pakistan. I once read an article by an Egyptian radical saying that when they (the brotherhood?) come to power, they are going to take care of the Sphinx. Would they do that? Don’t know.
There are some really crazy people in this world.
March:22:2010 - 21:38
Daisy, I think your timetable is off a bit. It was during the First Saudi State–18th C.–that the tombs were destroyed.
Certainly, some locations that were revered by some Muslims have been destroyed in the name of religious orthodoxy (as described by Saudis). Others were destroyed in the name of development and expansion. Now, one can surely argue whether this was wise or not, but that’s also a question that the Saudi gov’t needed to answer. Is it more important to have an 18th C Turkish fort in Mecca or a new set of apartment blocks and hotels and new roads? The Grand Mosque (and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medinah) are living entities, not precious bijou in a glass case. They either continue to grow–hopefully, smartly–or they cease to function. That’s a trade-off, but not necessarily a nefarious one. Of course, some will see it as nefarious, forever and always.
Historical preservation is nice, but it can also kill progress. I’ve an acquaintance who’s a civil engineer in the city of Rome. Sometimes, during the construction of a project, his workers will come across ruins. If he went according to the book, he’d have to call in the official antiquities people, stop construction for perhaps five or more years, and cost his workers their jobs. Instead, he calls ‘friendly archeologists’ who will tell him whether what’s been uncovered is truly important. If not, then work continues, the antiquities are either destroyed or sold, and projects like sewerage pipelines get built.
I consider this a price of progress. Others, I’m sure, consider it blasphemy of a secular sort, if not out-and-out criminal behavior. Trading off two valuable things isn’t easy.
March:22:2010 - 21:50
Well, in the context of Saudi Arabia, it’s all moving forward. Back in the 80s, Saudi archeologists would simply re-bury their discoveries to protect them. That’s no longer entirely necessary, though it might be in particular regions of the country.
Something that really shocked me when I saw it was the National Museum in Riyadh. The first exhibits are on the pre-Islamic periods. They are professionally done with no scurrilous annotation, no religious ‘message’ attached.
Iconoclasty is not restricted to Arabs or Muslims; you’re absolutely right. The word itself comes from the Greek and Greek experiences, but it’s thrown its weight around in Europe and Russia as well. Out of ignorance, I don’t know whether it has in Asia. I suspect, too, that one could include the Conquistadores who demolished ‘pagan’ imagery because it didn’t fit in well with the Catholicism they were pushing in Latin America.
In re: Crazy People. Yes, and no culture, religion, or country has a corner on the market. There’s a saying from northern England: “There’s nowt so strange as folk”. That, too, is simply part of what humanity includes.
March:22:2010 - 22:02
John,
The link I provided above gives dates in the 21st century when sites were destroyed in Saudi Arabia.
Well, at least in Europe they don’t have space. Countries are quite small in size – some countries are smaller than the big cities in India. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have any problem of space. In India, heritage archaeological sites protected by the Archaeological Survey of India are preserved by all means, no matter what the cost. Still, it is unfortunate that we are not able to preserve many other sites. But it is certainly not the Indian government’s policy to go all out and desecrate and destroy the monuments.
In Saudi Arabia it is a conscious, vicious Sate policy and it shows the kind of society the Saudi society is.
There can be no excuse for building public toilets over the graves of early and respected figures of Islam. This is not progress, this shows a diseased society going decadent. Public toilets can be built elsewhere and there is no need to destroy these graves in the name of progress.
Yes, whether from 18th century CE, 8th century CE or 8000 BCE – all archaeological monuments are precious and they must be preserved by all sensitive societies. Progress need not be at the cost of archaeological sites.
Please John, for heaven’s sake don’t defend the indefensible.
Jay,
Yes the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas is deplorable. So is the destruction of the archaeological sites in Iraq.
March:22:2010 - 22:11
John–good to read about the progress in Archeology as a formal discipline in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, from what I have read here and elsewhere, in recent decades much has been discovered and known to professionals and the government, yet deliberately kept from public knowledge to protect exploration of the site, as was the case with the recent revelation that was discussed here on an earlier one of your posts.
Sadly for Saudi Arabia, the early part of the 19th century, when Archeology was becoming an interest for Europeans, was characterized by tribal warfare between the Al-Wahhab and tribes of the Hijaz. As you point out, like other warriors and conquerors, the religious symbols of the conquered were destroyed by the Al Wahhab during the First Saudi State. Meanwhile, the British were, in their colonies, sharing their new found love of archeology, and establishing institutions, learned journals, etc.
In the later part of the 19th century one Dr James Burgess was both president of one such institute and founder of one such journal:
The founding of the journal Indian Antiquary in 1872 by James Burgess enabled publication of important inscriptions and their decipherment by scholars like Buhler and Fleet, Eggeling and Rice, Bhandarkar and Indraji. from the History of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI founded by the British in 1784).
A great-great (etc) someone of yours?
March:22:2010 - 23:41
Sorry, we’ll have to disagree on that. I’ve owned a house that was on a historic register and I’ll never do it again. You can’t upgrade windows to thermal panes because that ‘wouldn’t be authentic’. You can only use certain colors to paint the house. You can’t put in solar panels on the roof because some body wants to have the house be a perfect little gem box of the 18th C.
Trying to manage a city is even worse. Do I preserve this 2nd C. BCE house or do I put in a water line to serve 300K people?
Even more complex, just which historical period should be preserved? In many parts of the world, historic structures are found layer upon layer. Schliemann is criticized for plowing through six layers of historic Troy to get to what he considered ‘the Troy’ of the Iliad. Turned out he overshot and destroyed much of what he was actually looking for.
Which do you preserve? You’ve got a 19th C. site on top of an 18th C. site on top of a 17th C. site. You can exhibit only one, after all, as physics gets in the way of two objects occupying the same space.
Speaking of space, while Saudi Arabia may be big, the area around the Haram is not. It’s quite finite. That’s at least in part why it’s surrounded by high-rises–which, incidentally, replaced single-story structures.
I do stand corrected about 20th C. destruction of tombs. Again, one may not agree (as I don’t) that buildings and other historic sites provide a ‘breeding ground’ for heresy, but it’s not an irrational argument, just not a good one.
March:22:2010 - 23:42
No, I can positively say there’s no relation, except perhaps in deep antiquity–and at that level, we’re all related!
March:22:2010 - 23:52
OK, Daisy. It would seem you have absolutely nothing to support your below quote:
“It seems the Saudi State has no respect for history or the billions of dollars and work that goes waste every time this structure is destroyed and renovated for some petty reason like secluding the women.”
Which dealt specifically with the Kaaba in Mecca. Not even one example of the “every time” it is destroyed or renovated for a “petty” reason.
It would seem another of your negative sweeping statements, where denigrating Saudi is more important than anything real. Which is quite funny really. There is actually quite alot one could reasonably critisize- but you always stray into things you make up.
March:23:2010 - 07:10
John–Pity!
Sandy–Agreed.