Role Of Saudia In Islamic World

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

DEAR READERS,

ASSALAM-ELE-KUM, I think as follows, and you can give your opinion if you really know about saudia by visiting that place a number of times.

The main key to problems for muslims is saudi government. To keep their kingdom they are playing these dramas for more than 50 years. They are and were the one, who fool innocent muslims and intelligent and stupid types of non muslims all over the world.

Did you read the book. Aalley saoud. I did. Their forefathers have their photographs in that book signing the friendship agreement with Israel.

They are the one who have given suggestions to europe and americans and also to some extend to Pakistan, that we would send our mujahadine, and provide money and you give them arms to fight against USSR.

Pakistan had proplem from afghanistan by not having proper government in afghanistan.

Firstly they(pakistan) lost lots of business which many pakistani had with afghanistan. My father also had lost is very flourishing business.

Secondly the problem of refugees from Afghanistan.

Thirdly because Afghanistan was without government so all Asian (Tan countries) which had interest of becoming large oil producing and exporting countries to Europe and America were stuck up, and were trying to fix any sort of government in Afghanistan, using Pakistan. ofcourse it was in the interest of Pakistan much more than any other country; to build a pipe line via Afghanistan to be able to let oil export from our port. And the probable rent which was verbally set was half a billion per year for Pakistan apart from jobs at port.

Saudia government new it from the time when there was kingdom in Afghan. that Pakistan and other Asian as well as european and America is looking towards this side of oil. This change had happened due to the fact that Arabs had used oil as weapon against Europeans and America in 1967 war with Israel and All arab countries; which they all lost within just 7 days.Arabs were scared if oil wealth is shifting towards ASIA.

So these arabic contries first created opposition, hatred against kingdom in Afghan. As it was very easy king Zahir shah was shia; and we muslims can be played by any one using our DIN KO KHATRA HAY. And specially if Saudia wants it; then it is very easy. I remember our family used to admire Arabs when ever they used to see any one in Pakistan. Pakistani used to think what ever saudian say is dirrect HADEEZ and they can not be wrong. Saudia used this very fact of pakistani believing Saudian as coming religion giving Fatwas from our Prophets holy land as KALMA AY AAKHIR. This is they way they started ruling our hearts and dictating our ignorant people.

Anyway Saudia had send all his unwanted saudi people, who were pain in their neck in Saudia, petting them, to go to Afghanistan; get jannat straight away, go on Jehad. Some of them came to Afghan for Drug business and have become multimillioniar rich.

Also Saudia called people from other Arabic countries such as Algeria, libya, Tunis etc, gave them training in saudia, gave them stipen ( small amount 500 to 600 dollars per month)and after training which was also a way to brain wash them and make them work as slaves of their masters in Afghanistan, to join Jehad in Afghanistan against USSR.

America could not follow their tricks nor euoropean countries. It was a wonderful idea to keep oil business in Arabic countries. Slowly and gradually they (arabs) were too many in Afghan. And they started thinking as if it is an Arab coloney in Asia. Every one who used to come to afghan for jehad was first asked to study PASHTOO and urdu. For example in Tunis in university they teach Pashtoo, language, you can confirm it.

Pakistan was favouring saudia because of americans atitude against us in leo of Kashmir issue. HAM LOGOON KO BHE CHONA LAGA GHAEAY i.e they could use us also for their benefit.

They started, Wahabism in pakistan also, Killing shia a way to reach jannat, killing european, killing american or any other was a shortest way to reach jannat. So all people started thinking like them.Definitely we all need to end up in jannat.

Also they used to buy our small children so kidnapping of children became a routine way of life of many illeterate pakistanis.

Perhaps as I have heard from one Arab that those 100 or more Pakistani children who were kidnapped by one pakistani and when he was caught, he said I used to dissove the kids in sulphuric acid.
were puchased by Arabs to use them for their benefits.That man said we grew some of them alone under ground and some of them were given to some rich parents to adopt. And that man who had kidnapped and claimed that he has dissolved the children in acid was also brain washed that it is service to islam, you take all the blame on you. You would end up in Jannat. That man family is still taken care by arabs indirectly. So that men took the blame on him to dissolve the children in sulphuric acid and was sentence to death in Pakistan.

Those children are now young boys and girls and in need, sometimes are used as succidal persons.

So we should try to fix saudia first, all the world would be peaceful then.

Now they are shouting terorists have entered in their country also. Arms , ammunition has entered in their country. It is next to impossible.

They dust the ladies bags also when some foreigner enters at their soil at airport. Even on haj the do the same. They do not let you take any book to read. They take it at their customs. This is again a drama. so it would be known. Perhaps they are killing opposition or shia or those to whom they had giving training of a terrorist. OH it is too boring for readers it has become so long. thanks and Best regards to you all.

Sokoon

2

SO Wrong ! ^

Saudi Arabia has done more good for the Muslim world than any other country. True pure Islamic monotheism exists in Saudi Arabia. It has always aided Muslim causes. It has set an example of Shariah in the country which no other Muslim country has. Although it is not perfect but something is better than nothing.

I would simply say, had there not been jihaad in afghanistan which you are condemning, today Pakistan would have been a republic of USSR.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
Saudi Arabia has done more good for the Muslim world than any other country. True pure Islamic monotheism exists in Saudi Arabia. It has always aided Muslim causes. It has set an example of Shariah in the country which no other Muslim country has. Although it is not perfect but something is better than nothing.
[/QUOTE]
saudi arabia is a country named after a family. it is ruled by a bloody and brutal dictator family, with little regard for islam and more concern for how to use the national wealth of their country for their own personal luxurious life-style. very little, if any, of the national wealth of the country is shared by the common people.

the version of islam that they follow is one of the most brutal and inhumane. the history of al-saud family is rife with cold-blooded murder of thousands of muslims. the family and the version of islam they follow insists on violence and that has single-handedly done more harm to islam around the world, then all the foes combined.

the terrorism they are now experiencing in their own backyard, is a very natural extention of the policies of exporting terror that they have followed for many years. it is neither unexpected nor surprising.

4

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Prism Man: *the version of islam that they follow is one of the most brutal and inhumane.*

[/QUOTE]

Let's see what's brutal in your sense...
Bush is brutal too,isn't he?Banning whoopi off slim-fast...isn't that cruel....?:)

5

[QUOTE]
*Saudi Arabia has done more good for the Muslim world than any other country. True pure Islamic monotheism exists in Saudi Arabia. It has always aided Muslim causes. *
[/QUOTE]

"True pure Islamic monotheism" ---> how does 'pure Islamic monotheism' fit in with having a dynastic kingdom where the 'subjects' have to pay their allegiance to the "king"? How does the concept of dynastic monarchies fit in with Islam? Where in the Shariah is this type of undemocratic governance permitted ?

They give almost no rights to non Muslims. This is against Islam. They give very little rights to women. This is against Islam. They do not allow for a genuine participatory political process for its citizens. This is against Islam. They discriminate, severely, against people they are supposed to be protecting (according to Islam). This is against Islam. The govt. does not always ensure that construction workers' wages are paid on time, fairly, and honestly. This is against Islam. Non-Arabs and non-Caucasians are discriminated against; the rule is, the darker you are, the less rights you have. This is against Islam. The Saudi royal elites have had a long relationship of sucking upto the US admin. Bearing in mind how the US govt. has treated Muslims in its various foreign policy spheres, again - i am amazed at the close Saudi-US relationship. Why does a supposedly great Muslim govt. maintain such close relations with the US if they are not using that relationship for the betterment of Muslim causes? There was a genocide in Rwanda. Islam ordains us to stand up against injustice, no matter where we see it committed. Saudis chose to turn a complete blind eye to that. That is against Islam.

i could go on and on and on, sadly enough. Everything they do is against Islam.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Prism Man: *
saudi arabia is a country named after a family. it is ruled by a bloody and brutal dictator family, with little regard for islam and more concern for how to use the national wealth of their country for their own personal luxurious life-style. very little, if any, of the national wealth of the country is shared by the common people.

the version of islam that they follow is one of the most brutal and inhumane. the history of al-saud family is rife with cold-blooded murder of thousands of muslims. the family and the version of islam they follow insists on violence and that has single-handedly done more harm to islam around the world, then all the foes combined.

the terrorism they are now experiencing in their own backyard, is a very natural extention of the policies of exporting terror that they have followed for many years. it is neither unexpected nor surprising.
[/QUOTE]

fantastic yaar..great reply...u have said exactly the same tht i was going to post...great post..

7

All that talk about Saudis financing extremism in Afghanistan and not a MENTION of the ISI? Come on now. The ISI was the paid right hand of the Saudis, and probably still is. Also a bastion of extremism. Neither the Saudis nor the Americans could have done anything in Afghanstan to throw out the Soviets without the ISI approving every little move. The Saudis bankrolled the operation matching the US dollar for dollar, but it was the ISI who had the contacts, and physically moved men money and guns into Afghanistan.

How do you think the AQ Kahn network operated worldwide? Do you think he did all that trading in Nuclear products without the help and approval of the ISI?

8

Saudi is a bankrupt thoughtless monarchy which the amerikkans love to support because they have nice supply of oil and contracts there.

No mention of human rights all of a sudden but this is normal for a capitalist greedy country such as the US which uses human rights as an exuse when in its intrests.

When Saudi is no longer in the US intrests they will be labelled terrorist number 1 and probably bombed or occupied.

As for the Saudi role in the Muslim world in terms of political leverage it is no where on the map be it palestine, chechnya, bosnia, iraq what have they done have they sent troops to protect muslims in these countries answer is big fat NO, in case of iraq they actually help amerikka bomb iraq.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
All that talk about Saudis financing extremism in Afghanistan and not a MENTION of the ISI?
[/quote]

yep.. intelligence agencies will jump on any chance to create problems only they can handle.. that way they indirectly prove the purpose of their existence.. ISI was just the funnel.. the real fuel came from CIA..

10

Wrong. ISI was the puppet master. CIA and GID (Saudi Intelligence) provided the money - that's all.

ISI and other Pak Army decided which bearded dude got how much etc. How do you think Akhtar Abdul Rehman, Faze Haq and others made their millions? ;)

11

I think there are a couple ways to describe Saudi's role in Islamic world - the government's role which is described by Nadia, and the extremist version of Islam that Saudi clerics and financiers are exporting. From the financing of hate spewing madrassahs to airliners slamming into WTC, to bombs going off Israel, Kenya, Indonesia, and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia is the main source of money and inspiration. SA is the nerve center of ideological indoctrination, incitement, and terrorist financing. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist movements would not exist without Saudi money and membership. What makes this especially sad is that this is the area where Islam began and its holy places are. Not exactly a role model for the rest of the Islamic world.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Saudi is a bankrupt thoughtless monarchy which the amerikkans love to support because they have nice supply of oil and contracts there.

No mention of human rights all of a sudden but this is normal for a capitalist greedy country such as the US which uses human rights as an exuse when in its intrests.

[/QUOTE]

Can you describe the state of humn rights in S.A. pre oil days or in which direction it would go in the absence of oil or Western interest?

I'm thinking it would have been worse. In fact it was the U.S. that began to pressure the Kingdom to reform politically in the 50s/60s. Nothing to win a Nobel prize over, but I'm pretty sure no one in the theocratic infrastructure or the region has done much in the area of human rights or democracy for S.A.

Presumably Iran is the best example of that innate wellspring of democracy and human rights that bursts forth after the shackles of Western control are thrown off.
How are they doin?

13

I thing we have to look at it from two different aspects which are somewhat different in nature. The contribution of Saudi government to Islam and to Islamic world and its role as a government. We have to look at what they have done right and where they have gone wrong.

In the first part as service to Islam, the Saudi government has done a tremendous job when it comes to the practice of the Islamic concept of Tawheed. I think Nadia read it too closely, what Islamabad meant by his remark was for Muslims to practice no Shirk and worship only Allah, especially in Saudi Arabia. The concept of stopping Mushrikeen from entering the two holy places is well established by all Islamic school of thoughts. Yet the practice of other religions in other parts of Saudi kingdom is still a political issue, which I will discuss later. The protection, maintenance and improvements to the to holy places, and the facilities provided to Hujjaj in the season of Hajj and through out the year have been tremendous and have been improving. Looking at the jump in Muslim population with in the last 50 years the Saudi government has put some restriction but those are prerequisites to provide safety and protection to the Hujjaj. The effort spent for publishing Quran, establishing Islamic universities and schools all over the world and the amount spent on mosques are very positive contributions to Islam. Now these are just few major contributions, and there are lots of other but lets look on the other side.

Many people take the Saudi kingdom as an Islamic government, yet it’s an Islamic government just because they are Muslims, but as a government its far from any Islamic principle. The biggest conflict, which comes upfront, is that it’s a kingdom, which has no basis especially in Malki and Hanbli maslak. The people in Hijaz and Najad (two largest population area) follow the Hanbli School of Islamic jurisprudence, which is by far the more puritan Islamic school of thought. So the Saudi royal family to circumvent this has created an political alliance with the Al Shaikh family (desentends of Abdul Wahab,) who are given all the authority to run the courts and judicial system and hence providing protection to the Al Saud. This has been the case for the last fifty years. Now to protect their dynasty they have done all any dictatorial government would do in this world. For starters I would suggest reading the fate of Akhwan Al Muslimin in Saudi Arabia. The fate of Palestinians in the time of King Faisel. The Saudi royal family always plays the “wahabi” religion card through the Al Shaikh family whenever it sees a threat to its rule. The 1981 Juhaiman incident was originally a call to puritan form, which was crushed by allowing “French” troops in the holy mosque, later duped as Pakistani troops. The cruelty of the Saudi Royal family is always muted in the western media to reason well known to all of us. But in the last three years all the resistance to the Royal family has been thrown in the basket of Al Kayda. During this time the Saudi Mukhabarat (intelligence) has twice tried to kill the Saudi opposition leader in London. Dr. Saad Al Faqih, was just recently injured last year by an attack, but you will never hear about this in any news outlet. Now recently, where as the whole world has been attributing the incidents in the kingdom to Al Kayda, the Saudi press has been blaming Dr. Saad. The list of Saudi atrocities is long and not widely reported in US media. Just an example, last year in a peace full protest against the royal family (first of its kind) the Saudi royal guards baton charged an elderly women, she was protesting for his two sons in Saudi jails held for publishing political reform pamphlets.

People in and out of the Islamic circles are still debating the role of the “Islamic” institutions and its contribution to the so-called war on “Terrorism”. In my opinion the effect has been both positive and negative. Negative in places where the governments failed to provide even the basic education to its masses and positive where people need to look at Islam as a religion.

As per the argument that why the Saudi government doesn’t allow any other religious practice in the kingdom. This has been a political issue ever since the Saudi royal family came into power. As Nadia said, the policies of the Saudi royal family are totally un-Islamic in this regard.

I think people are doing a great injustice when they put the legitimate opposition to the royal family into extremist’s fold.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
I thing we have to look at it from two different aspects which are somewhat different in nature. The contribution of Saudi government to Islam and to Islamic world and its role as a government. We have to look at what they have done right and where they have gone wrong.

In the first part as service to Islam, the Saudi government has done a tremendous job when it comes to the practice of the Islamic concept of Tawheed. I think Nadia read it too closely, what Islamabad meant by his remark was for Muslims to practice no Shirk and worship only Allah, especially in Saudi Arabia. The concept of stopping Mushrikeen from entering the two holy places is well established by all Islamic school of thoughts. Yet the practice of other religions in other parts of Saudi kingdom is still a political issue, which I will discuss later. The protection, maintenance and improvements to the to holy places, and the facilities provided to Hujjaj in the season of Hajj and through out the year have been tremendous and have been improving. Looking at the jump in Muslim population with in the last 50 years the Saudi government has put some restriction but those are prerequisites to provide safety and protection to the Hujjaj. The effort spent for publishing Quran, establishing Islamic universities and schools all over the world and the amount spent on mosques are very positive contributions to Islam. Now these are just few major contributions, and there are lots of other but lets look on the other side.

Many people take the Saudi kingdom as an Islamic government, yet it’s an Islamic government just because they are Muslims, but as a government its far from any Islamic principle. The biggest conflict, which comes upfront, is that it’s a kingdom, which has no basis especially in Malki and Hanbli maslak. The people in Hijaz and Najad (two largest population area) follow the Hanbli School of Islamic jurisprudence, which is by far the more puritan Islamic school of thought. So the Saudi royal family to circumvent this has created an political alliance with the Al Shaikh family (desentends of Abdul Wahab,) who are given all the authority to run the courts and judicial system and hence providing protection to the Al Saud. This has been the case for the last fifty years. Now to protect their dynasty they have done all any dictatorial government would do in this world. For starters I would suggest reading the fate of Akhwan Al Muslimin in Saudi Arabia. The fate of Palestinians in the time of King Faisel. The Saudi royal family always plays the “wahabi” religion card through the Al Shaikh family whenever it sees a threat to its rule. The 1981 Juhaiman incident was originally a call to puritan form, which was crushed by allowing “French” troops in the holy mosque, later duped as Pakistani troops. The cruelty of the Saudi Royal family is always muted in the western media to reason well known to all of us. But in the last three years all the resistance to the Royal family has been thrown in the basket of Al Kayda. During this time the Saudi Mukhabarat (intelligence) has twice tried to kill the Saudi opposition leader in London. Dr. Saad Al Faqih, was just recently injured last year by an attack, but you will never hear about this in any news outlet. Now recently, where as the whole world has been attributing the incidents in the kingdom to Al Kayda, the Saudi press has been blaming Dr. Saad. The list of Saudi atrocities is long and not widely reported in US media. Just an example, last year in a peace full protest against the royal family (first of its kind) the Saudi royal guards baton charged an elderly women, she was protesting for his two sons in Saudi jails held for publishing political reform pamphlets.

People in and out of the Islamic circles are still debating the role of the “Islamic” institutions and its contribution to the so-called war on “Terrorism”. In my opinion the effect has been both positive and negative. Negative in places where the governments failed to provide even the basic education to its masses and positive where people need to look at Islam as a religion.

As per the argument that why the Saudi government doesn’t allow any other religious practice in the kingdom. This has been a political issue ever since the Saudi royal family came into power. As Nadia said, the policies of the Saudi royal family are totally un-Islamic in this regard.

I think people are doing a great injustice when they put the legitimate opposition to the royal family into extremist’s fold.
[/QUOTE]

very well-written post and well-balanced too..good job....to me the key issue was:

"I thing we have to look at it from two different aspects which are somewhat different in nature. The contribution of Saudi government to Islam and to Islamic world and its role as a government. We have to look at what they have done right and where they have gone wrong"

15

bs bs bs..long live the mujahideens.

16

Great reply by MiniMe :k:

17

published in the arab news..

positive thing is that such articles are finding a voice in the arab press too.

Portrait of a Saudi Lady
Mody Al-Khalaf, [email protected]

For some time now, there has been a lot of talk, nationally and even
internationally, about women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Being a person
who has broached the topic in more than one article, it is not
unusual for me to be asked: "What are the rights you think women
should have?" Westerners often make the assumption that we are
totally deprived of all rights. Saudis, mostly conservatives
terrified of any change, think that Saudi women enjoy all the rights
they are entitled to by Islamic law. Both groups, of course, are
wrong.

My article today is not comprehensive on the situation from all
angles. Rather, it is a glimpse into the life of one Saudi woman.
Hopefully, by the end of the article, my readers will have some idea
about the kind of rights women are deprived of on a daily basis in
Saudi Arabia. Before I begin, I would like to clarify that this story
only sheds light on the problem from one perspective: That of a
divorced woman, raising children alone in Saudi Arabia.

Mona is a divorcee in her late 30s with three children: Two daughters
and a son. Her ex-husband, being resentful of her decision to leave
him, decided to make Mona's life miserable in every way possible. For
the first two years after their divorce, true to his words, he took
away her children and deprived her of visitation rights. Under
Islamic law, the mother is entitled to keep the children until they
are seven. After that, a girl must go to live with her father and a
boy is asked where he would like to live. Mona's children were all
taken from her, regardless.

After months of Mona's family pleading with the ex-husband with no
result, Mona reluctantly decided to see a lawyer. The lawyer
explained that since all the parties involved were living in the same
city, then by law Mona was entitled to see her children every
weekend. Her lawyer contacted the ex-husband, who promised he would
comply, but he did not. After weeks with no result, Mona's lawyer
advised her that the only way to force compliance was to send
policemen to bring the children out from the ex-husband's residence.
The lawyer explained that even if her ex-husband was depriving her of
visitation rights, she still did not have a claim to custody. All she
can do was send the police in every weekend.

Being an educated and affectionate woman, Mona decided not to put her
children through that sort of psychological trauma and helplessly
watch as her ex-husband tore down all that she had been building in
the children. First, he took the children out of their private
schools and placed them in public schools. Being a single man, the
responsibility of three children weighed heavily on him so he hired a
housemaid to stay with them. The children were practically being
raised by a maid, but Mona could do nothing about it. When her ex-
husband traveled, which he frequently did, he left the children with
his aged parents or with any of their willing aunts. Mona's heart
broke to see the children being shifted from one house to another,
not unlike orphans, while she was there, just dying to see them. She
spoke to other lawyers, explained the situation, and every one of
them said the same thing: Custody is his right despite all that he is
doing.

After two years, Mona's ex-husband decided to remarry. Fortunately
for her, the children became a burden he no longer wanted to bear so
he decided that they should live with their mother. Mona was
ecstatic, but she soon realized that her ex-husband would always hold
some power over all of them. First, he refused to pay any child
support. The lawyers told Mona that there was nothing any judge would
do except verbally reprimand her ex-husband. No law allows money to
be cut from his salary without his consent for child support and no
law can imprison him for child abandonment.

As a single mother, in a country where women's salaries are usually
between SR1,500-SR7,000, it has been very difficult for Mona to raise
her children the way she wants, but she has done her best. She has
scraped and saved to provide them with a good education. Of course,
every school she has enrolled the children in has asked for their
legal guardian's original family card, which her husband has
carelessly refused to give. In the end Mona has bribed private school
officials to accept them.

Having three children, it became difficult for her to stay at her
family's already full house so she decided to rent a tiny apartment
nearby for her children. No landlord would accept them without a male
sponsor. With her father deceased, Nora pleaded with her brother to
use his name and paid one year in advance to make all parties feel
safer.

Unable to drive, she had to hire a driver. The cab she used to take
to work every day, would no longer suffice for three different
locations every morning and noon. As a woman, however, she could not
finish her papers alone. All government institutions are run by men.
So she was forced to hire a man and give him legal authorization to
represent her; i.e. more expenses on an already stretched budget.
Then there was the ironic request to prove her need for — and ability
to pay — a driver. She had to provide papers proving employment and
the salary she earned. I say ironic because, in a country where no
woman can drive, it is like asking half the population why they need
to get out of the house. More humiliating, then, was the fact that
she was forced to send a copy of her divorce papers to complete
strangers to decide if she was entitled to a driver.

Years have passed. Mona has been promoted several times and her
salary has increased. Her children are growing up and life is looking
better. Mona finally had the financial ability to take the children
for a short trip outside the country. They were all excited by the
idea of traveling abroad for the first time. There was just one
problem; they all needed permission to leave the country. Mona needed
permission from her legal guardian, her brother; and the children
from their father. Mona's brother reluctantly agreed. The children's
father refused. The vacation was canceled.

In an attempt to cheer the children up, Mona decided that they would
have fun anyway by traveling inside the Kingdom. They had never been
to the South and Mona had heard how beautiful the mountainous area
was, so she convinced the children that this would be an
unforgettable vacation. And it was, but not for the reasons she
intended.

When they arrived in Abha, no hotel or any other place would take
them in without an adult male companion. Mona had her brother's
original family card with her name on it. She even offered her
passport as proof of her identity, but the hotels wouldn't accept
either document. The only compromise they could make, they said was
if she had written permission from her legal guardian, stamped from
the police station nearest their house to prove its authenticity.
Mona begged and pleaded as there was nowhere to go. Finally, one man
decided to let her stay one night just until she could make
reservations for a flight back home — an unforgettable vacation,
indeed!

Mona continues to be constantly pained by the things she cannot do
for her children. Hospitals are always a problem as none of her
children can undergo surgery, no matter how minor, without their
father's consent. Mona cannot even open bank accounts in her
children's names as she is not their legal guardian. Mona, however,
has kept her chin up and concentrated on those little things she can
do for her children.

Mona's eldest daughter recently finished high school. She graduated
with an excellent GPA and every college would be more than happy to
accept her — if she could get a written statement from her father
granting her permission to complete her education. However, her
father, when approached on the topic, voiced other plans for her. He
told her she did not need college, as he had found her a husband.
Mona and her daughter both refused adamantly. Mona insisted on
refusing as she knew that no judge would marry a girl without her
consent, or will they? Many fathers are able to force their daughters
into marriage by having any woman sign for the judge on the day he
comes to legalize the marriage.

In a fit of anger, Mona's ex-husband decided to take his daughters
back, claiming that he did not want them to continue living with a
single woman. Everyone is on his side. The law and even Mona's family
thinks that a girl's place is with her father. Mona's spirit is
broken again and she awaits for the unknown.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that rights come with
responsibilities. Why does Mona get all the responsibility with no
rights? A more valid question is, why does her ex-husband get to keep
all his legal rights over her children when he is not forced to carry
any of the responsibility? That cannot be correct under any law.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is not a true story. At
the same time, any resemblance between this story and a real person
is not coincidental. The Mona mentioned in the article may not really
exist, yet she is everywhere. We all know one Mona or another. Every
Saudi woman is a potential Mona if fate decides to make her one. Now,
you tell me, what rights are Saudi women deprived of?

  • (Mody Al-Khalaf is a Saudi writer. She is based in Riyadh.)
18

Good reply, MiniMe. Thanks. I think I was misunderstood.

19

THANK YOU ALL

DEAR READERS, THANKS FOR COMMENTING . I FOUND MOST OF THE READERS ARE SPEAKING WHAT THEY READ IN NEWS PAPERS AND LISTEN OTHERS(sunni sunaie baat) I WANTED PERSONAL THOUGHTFUL OPINION, YOU CAN RE-VIEW AND TRY TO GIVE YOUR PERSONAL OPINION PLEASE.
THANKS SOKOON

20

Sokoon,

I agree with you whole-heratedly that gupies should express their own thoughts relating it to the morality that their parents may have taught them.

On the whole, I find the contributions of various guppies in this thread interesting. WA does seem to be going in the direction of enlightened discusssions and not blind name-calling.

Bravo.