Saudi Arabia’s new king, Salman, has made his first speech, pledging to follow the path of his predecessors. He also called for unity within the ranks of Islam, Asharq Alawsat reports.
The first changes in government have also been announced. The Royal Court sees several big changes, including the replacement of the Chief and Deputy Chief, and appoint his son, Mohammed, as Chief. He also named Mohammed as the new Minister of Defense. The new Chief will make further nominations for changes.
Mohammed Bin Naif has been named Deputy Crown Prince and Second Deputy Prime Minister. This is the first appointment of a grandson of the country’s founder to a position that put him in line for the throne.
Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—New Saudi King Salman Bin Abdulaziz has called for national unity and solidarity following the death of King Abdullah, moving quickly to appoint a new Crown Prince and Deputy Crown Prince. He pledged no change in the Kingdom’s direction, stressing that he will follow the “true approach” of his predecessors.
In his first speech as King, the new Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques said: “I am, God-willing, to carry out this great trust. We will continue, with God’s grace and strength, committed to the true approach which was followed by this state since its inception at the hands of the founder, King Abdulaziz, God’s mercy upon him, and at the hands of his sons after him, God’s mercy upon them.”
“The Arab and Islamic nation is in dire need today of unity and the maintenance of solidarity. We will continue in this country, that God has honored by choosing it as a platform for His message and as the direction Muslims must pray. Our march is to undertake everything possible to keep the unity of our ranks and the unity of word and in defense of our nation’s issues, guided by the teachings of our true Islamic religion which was favored by the Lord to us, the religion of peace, mercy and moderation,” he added.
The article reports that pledges of allegiance to the new king and his successors will take place tonight, following evening prayers in Riyadh.
All Saudi media are reporting the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and the ascension to the throne of Salman. Prince Muqrin has been named Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister.
King Abdullah is due to be buried later today.
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has passed away, the Royal Court said in a statement early on Friday. Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz became king and Prince Muqrin was declared Crown Prince, another Royal Court statement said.
“With great sorrow and grief His Highness Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and all members of the family and the nation mourn the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who passed away at exactly 1 a.m. this morning,” the Saudi Royal court statement said.
Funeral prayers will be held later in the day following afternoon prayers at Imam Turki Bin Abdullah Grand Mosque in the capital Riyadh.
Another statement said that Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud received the pledge of allegiance as the country’s king from members of the royal family. After that, Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz received the pledge of allegiance as Crown Prince.
Both King Salman and Crown Prince Muqrin will receive pledges of allegiance from citizens on Friday evening.
Saudi Gazette reports that young Saudi women are not content to lead the kind of lives their mothers led. As a result, many are choosing to remain single into their 20s and 30s instead of being married and becoming mothers themselves in their teens. Not everyone is pleased.
JEDDAH — Amna Fatani knows she wants a brilliant career and a life different from that of Saudi women of her mother’s generation who married early, usually to a husband not of their own choosing.
The 27-year-old, studying for her master’s degree at Georgetown University in Washington and hoping to someday realize her ambitions, is part of a growing number of Saudi women choosing to remain single through their 20s and into their 30s as they pursue other ambitions.
The trend has ruffled conservatives who see it as an affront to the very foundations of the Kingdom, where rigid tribal codes have long dictated the terms of marriage.
“My friends and I have reached a point (where) we’re very specific about what we want,” she said. “I need someone who trusts that if I need to do something, I can make the decision to ask for help or choose to do it alone.”
Saudi women stand at the center of a societal pivot between the Kingdom’s push for greater women’s education and rights to work, and laws that give men final say over their lives.
In an op-ed for Asharq Alawsat (here reprinted by Al Arabiya TV), Abdulrahman Al-Rashed points to Saudi Arabia’s long struggle with religious extremism (for certain values of “extreme”). He notes that just 17 years after the founding of the country, Saudi leaders had to resort to violence to put down a revolt by the Ikhwan, the tribal group that had militarily supported the cause of the Al-Saud, but which had now become a problem when it challenged the government over its policies.
From the Brotherhood of Sabilla to ISIS
The Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS), al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda and similar groups are not really states the sense we understand. They are an idea of extremism that unites those who subscribe to it and those who support it in different forms, either with bullets, dollars, words or emotions. There are extremists who may be against taking up weapons, but they agree with violent groups on the ultimate idea and goal, even if they differ on the means to use.
Unlike what’s common in political analysis, extremism and extremists have always represented a threat to the Saudi Arabia. But this truth gets lost in a sea of accusations and the whole image is blurred even to the most well-informed people on the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular. This false historical understanding of the friend and the foe is no longer limited to foreigners and Arab propagandists. This false understanding has entered Saudi Arabia itself where some believe it and other extremists promote it. I think extremism is the biggest enemy and is the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia. This is why it’s in our interest to systematically, institutionally and continuously fight it.
Al Arabiya TV runs a Reuters story about a report from the International Monetary Fund on the results of the crash in oil prices. Not only will oil-exporting states like Saudi Arabia be forced to run a deficit, it says, but gains by countries that might benefit from low energy prices will be limited by reduced global activity.
Losses from lower oil exports should sap up to $300 billion from economies in the Middle East and Central Asia this year, as countries in the region adjust to falling crude prices, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday.
Economies that are particularly dependent on oil exports, including Qatar, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia, will be hit hardest by the more than 50 percent decline in petroleum prices, the IMF said in an update to its outlook for the Middle East and Central Asia.
Oil prices are now hovering near six-year lows amid expectations of an abundance of supply tied to unexpectedly high production of U.S. shale crude.
The IMF said, however, that falling crude prices will not translate immediately into major gains for oil importers in the Middle East and Central Asia, which have been hurt by the slowing growth prospects of key trading partners in the euro zone and Russia.
In an op-ed for Asharq Alawsat, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed muses on the strange state of the world in which Arab audiences cheer Israeli actions against a target that both find repulsive. Israel’s recent attack that killed some of the Hezbollah leadership — and an Iranian general — shows that international politics need not be black and white, on and off. He notes that both Israel and the Arab states are politicking Washington over Iranian nuclear arms and could find themselves allied if Iran does produce atomic weapons. Strange world indeed.
How did we end up cheering for Israel?
Many have welcomed with cheers the sudden Israeli strike on Sunday that killed six Hezbollah members and a general in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who, for some reason, were secretly present in Syria’s Quneitra region.
The cheering for this act on social networking platforms is an expression of anger and indignation, and we’ve even sensed these feelings expressed by sympathizers with Islamist groups.
This represents a huge change of feelings about Hezbollah, due to its heinous actions in targeting its rivals in Lebanon and its involvement in the killing of thousands in Syria. Many of those who have shifted from admiring Hezbollah to hating the group did so in less than a decade.
These people used to support Hezbollah in Lebanon in the past and they used to adopt the Shi’ite group’s political and military agenda. Anger began to surface when Hezbollah’s militias occupied west Beirut during the events of May 7, 2008, three years after the party’s involvement in the assassination of Sunni leader Rafik Hariri.
Hezbollah, and also Iran, have lost the respect and status they’ve always enjoyed in the name of Islam, Lebanon and Palestine. Hezbollah’s biggest fall came after its clear sectarian bias in Syria emerged when its members joined the terrible war there, which has killed more than 250,000 people in what is surely the most shameful crime in the history of the region. Iranian involvement in Syria will also have further repercussions.
In my opinion there’s no doubt that if a confrontation occurs between Israel and Hezbollah, or between Israel and Iran, many Arabs will pray for the defeat of Hezbollah’s militias and the generals of its Iranian ally. This strange feeling, even if temporary, reflects the change in the region’s alliances and political stances.
Following the deaths of several Saudi border guards, including a general officer, Saudi Arabi has decided to play hardball. New orders have gone out to the Border Guards directing them that they are not to engage in negotiations, but to shoot intruders. Saudi Gazette reports:
Border Guard given orders to shoot intruders
Mishal Al-Otaibi | Saudi Gazette
RIYADH — Border Guard officers have been ordered to shoot intruders without engaging in any negotiations, said spokesman Maj. Gen. Muhammad Al-Ghamdi.
Iraqi Border officials have been informed of these instructions, which are considered a legitimate right of the Kingdom.
Al-Ghamdi said border officers will implement the instruction to protect Saudi territory and people.
“The instructions were made as a result of regional situation and the latest attacks on Arar borders,” Al-Ghamdi said. The officers are ready for any emergency and will not hesitate to implement the orders given to them.
Earlier this month, militants killed two Saudi Border Guards and their commanding officer in an attack near the city of Arar.
The British newspaper The Telegraph runs an article — complete with infographic — on the 600-mile-long fence Saudi Arabia is constructing along its border with Iraq. The article notes that the fence will serve to keep ISIS militants out of the Kingdom. It will also make it more difficult for adventurous young Saudis to go north for purposes of jihad.
Revealed: Saudi Arabia’s ‘Great Wall’ to keep out Isil
When a raiding party from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant attacked a Saudi border post last week, it was no mere hit on a desert outpost.
The jihadists were launching an assault on the new, highest profile effort by Saudi Arabia to insulate itself from the chaos engulfing its neighbours.
The Saudis are building a 600-mile-long “Great Wall” – a combined fence and ditch – to separates the country from Iraq to the north.
Much of the area on the Iraqi side is now controlled by Isil, which regards the ultimate capture of Saudi Arabia, home to the “Two Holy Mosques” of Mecca and Medina, as a key goal.
The proposal had been discussed since 2006, at the height of the Iraqi civil war, but work began in September last year after Isil’s charge through much of the west and north of the country gave it a substantial land border with the Kingdom to the south.
In a thoughtful piece for Asharq Alawsat, Amir Taheri talks about how analyses of the Charlie-Hebdo incident that fall back on the “Clash of Civilizations” fail. He talks, too, about how democracy, while providing an apparent “soft target” for terrorism, is also the way to end it. It is not the democracy that is practiced in the West that will provide the cure, however. It is the democracy that must develop in Islamic nations that will end “terrorism in the name of Islam.”
Democracy is the answer to terrorism
By now you might feel that you have read all you need to about the events in Paris last week that triggered worldwide sympathy for a France absorbing the shock of terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, to discuss ways of fighting back against this latest form of terrorism we may still need to put the event in some context.
Looking for a shorthand analysis, some commentators branded the event as the latest example of the “clash of civilizations” foreseen by Samuel Huntington two decades ago. We are told that the assassination of cartoonists and the murder of Jewish shoppers showed Islam, as a civilization, challenging the Christian civilization, its rival for more than 15 centuries. There are at least two problems with that analysis.
The first is that Islam and Christianity, in their many varieties, are religions and can hardly be regarded as “civilizations.” There is a European civilization which has, in the name of the Enlightenment, progress, human rights, and more recently democracy, helped reshape the whole world. However, that civilization traces back its origins to ancient Greece and Rome. If anything, Christianity, once it had become the state religion under Emperor Constantine, tried to de-Europeanize the European civilization but ended up becoming one of its many ingredients.
On the Islamic side, one could speak of Arab, Iranian and Turkish civilizations, among many others, of which Islam is a major component. However, in every case, none could be understood with exclusive reference to Islam. The Arabs had developed several civilizations of their own, long before Islam appeared, as had the various Iranic and Turkic peoples. In the same way that reducing Chinese civilization to Buddhism or the Indian to Hinduism is reductive, suggesting that all 57 Muslim-majority nations belong to a single bloc at war against a Christian bloc is misleading.
The second problem with the “clash of civilizations” analysis is that even the various groups and countries that use Islam as a political ideology rather than a religion cannot be regarded as a monolithic bloc with a common strategy. We are already witnessing an inflation of pretensions towards Caliph-hood. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has its caliph just as the Taliban have their own Amir Al-Mu’mineen (Commander of the Faithful). Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have also named their respective caliphs. Iran has a “Supreme Guide” who claims to be the religious leader of all Muslims, while branches of Al-Qaeda have retained their own fatwa-issuing “sheikhs.”
In an article written for The Jordan Times, and here reprinted by Al Arabiya TV, Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab notes that certain world leaders are all for free speech, at least while they’re abroad. At home, though, not so much. Speech is still censored in much of the Arab world, if not directly by government, then indirectly (through, for example, the withhold of subsidies or government subscriptions), or by the drawing of ‘red lines’ beyond which journalists self-censor.
Social media activists have filled cyberspace with comments and arguments justifying the presence of this or that leader at the gathering held in Paris in support of the people of France after the brutal killing, in two separate attacks on journalists, cartoonists, policemen and everyday shoppers in a Jewish supermarket.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was attacked for going to Paris while avoiding Gaza. Arab leaders were criticized for attending the French demonstration while not working to protect freedom of expression in their countries.
Arab leaders have many considerations, of course, when they make decisions such as last week’s. When a superpower like France calls for worldwide support, it is incumbent on world leaders to show solidarity by participating.
While all the major Islamic organizations condemned the attack on Charlie-Hebdo magazine, they seem to all be also condemning the magazine and its penchant to insult things many hold dear. Arab News reports on the backlash to the magazine’s most recent cover.
They’re missing the point.
Free speech is free: that is, it is not limited by government; it is not properly the target of vigilantes, no matter how righteous they think themselves. Further, there is no right to being free from insult, abuse, or hurt feelings.
Assume there is such a right. Who, then, draws the lines?
I am sure that Jews and Christians who are abused by sermons in mosques might take exception to the freedom given those imams. Are the imams to be shut down and jailed? In some countries, they would indeed face punishment at the hands of government, but those countries do not adhere to principles of free speech. Citing laws — bad laws — against “hate speech” or “blasphemy,” some countries do punish speech that hurts feelings. What they mean by “free speech” is “positive speech about things we all agree with.” That might work in a homogenous society where everyone thinks the same, or in bee hives and ant nests, but it’s both impossible and impractical to try and impose such a regime on human beings.
RIYADH/CAIRO: Iyad Madani, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, has denounced the publication of sacrilegious cartoons by French magazine Charlie Hebdo Wednesday, calling the move “insolence, ignorance and foolishness.”
He said: “Freedom of speech must not become a hate-speech and it must not offend others. No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed.”
Prominent Saudi scholar Sheikh Ahmed Al-Ghamdi said that publication of the latest image was a mistake. “It’s not a good way to make the people understand us. Jesus or Moses, all messengers (of God) we should respect,” and should not be made fun of in pictures or words, Ghamdi said. “I believe it will make more problems.”
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestinian lands, Mohammed Hussein, said such cartoons “fuel feelings of hatred and resentment among people” and publishing them “shows contempt” for Muslim feelings.
Let me be clear. I’m not picking on Muslims here. Even France, even after the slaughter at Charlie-Hebdo, doesn’t get what free speech means.
Following a snowstorm in northern Saudi Arabia, Saudis started posting pictures on the Internet. Among the pictures were those of snowmen and snowwomen they’d built. This led to a fatwa from a Saudi cleric who cautioned against the creation of images of living beings, something forbidden in Islam according to various hadith.
Well, that created its own storm, one where users of Twitter and other social media inquired whether snowmen were a pressing issue within Islam, whether clerics didn’t have more important work to do.
The sheikh backed off a bit, acknowledging that it might be okay for kids to play in the snow and, anyway, the snow will melt.
Scholar sparks controversy with edict on snowmen
Saudi Gazette report
DAMMAM — A controversial sheikh has issued an edict stating that building snowmen with clear facial features is a depiction of Allah’s creations and is forbidden in Islam, Al-Hayat reported.
With the Huda snowstorm hitting north of the Kingdom, many Saudis made the most of the rare weather and posted various videos and photos.
They include a video featuring a man giving directions to another to Berlin as if it was only an hour away.
The phenomenon also brought out the artistic skills of Saudis as many posted Photoshopped pictures of themselves among polar bears and penguins to give the illusion that Saudi Arabia was completely coated with snow.