Saudi female journalist becomes LBC's scapegoat

Something got lost in all the outrage last week over the conviction and lashing sentence of the 22-year-old Saudi woman journalist who worked for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp (LBC). What exactly is the LBC doing to support their journalist?

The answer is absolutely nothing.

According to a Reuters report this week, the young woman had nothing to do with the Bold Red Line broadcast segment in which a Saudi man bragged about his sexual conquests. The man was sentenced to five years in jail and lashings, but the woman journalist only worked as a "fixer," someone who arranges interviews for foreign media. She apparently had nothing to do with the segment involving the braggart. Her crime apparently is that she worked for the LBC, which was not licensed to operate in Saudi Arabia.

Let's set aside the idiocy that the Saudi government did not know that the LBC was not licensed. Let's focus on the conduct of the LBC. The Lebanese were kicked out of the country, so they suffered a bit for their actions. But they also couldn't get out of Saudi Arabia fast enough, leaving behind a vulnerable employee who proved to be the LBC's scapegoat for their poor behavior. King Abdullah this week pardoned the woman, but she still must face a tribunal before the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.

A year ago the LBC approached me and offered a job that eventually went to this young Saudi journalist. I spoke over the phone with their producers and a presenter. It quickly became clear that the LBC was not interested in Saudi news, but creating tabloid headlines.

Among the topics the LBC was eager to cover were strange sexual practices, voodoo and black magic, especially black magic practiced on wayward husbands. Runaway girls, marriages of convenience and spinsterhood were other topics the LBC wanted to present. The LBC was clearly interested in the sensational aspects of Saudi culture, taboo subjects that are not topics of conversation. Yet the LBC seemed unmoved that these stories would perpetuate Saudi stereotypes in a period in which Saudis are under attack for their cultural and religious differences.

Part of my responsibility as a Saudi journalist is that if wrongdoing is exposed or taboo subjects are addressed, solutions must be provided in these stories. Perhaps more important is the safety and well-being of the people we interview. It's likely that Saudis who participate in media interviews on sensitive subjects will face consequences for their actions.

It's one thing to interview a Saudi woman who chooses to remain unmarried to pursue a career. It's another for a young woman forced into spinsterhood by her father who wants her income. If such a woman gave an interview, she would have to answer to her family. What kind of support would the LBC provide for the girl if she was thrown out of the house? I think none. No two better examples of abandonment can be found than the sex braggart and the Saudi journalist.

During our discussion about my role in their Bold Red Line series, the LBC producers were cavalier, if not dismissive, about my concerns over the consequences of these kinds of interviews. When the discussion turned to me being hired as a producer, I thought that I could control editorial content. But the answer was no. Editorial control came from Beirut.

It became apparent that if I were to arrange the interviews, it would become my responsibility to see that the interviewees did not suffer any consequences for their frank talk. But that is an extremely risky task without the support of the employer.

I recognized the LBC was not prepared to offer any support after a broadcast to its Saudi employees or the interview subjects. Their desire to present sensitive Saudi issues as tabloid fodder was not much different than Western media parachuting into Riyadh for two days to do a story on how the abaya and niqab are oppressive to women. It makes for interesting television and boosts ratings, but it leaves a lot of pain and humiliation in its wake.

I rejected the LBC's offer. Their attitude toward Saudi Arabia was insincere and cynical. I could not see how the Bold Red Line series would benefit or shed any light on Saudi culture other than presenting Saudis as parodies of themselves.

It didn't occur to me until this young Saudi female journalist stood trial for the LBC's negligence that the LBC's producers would prey on someone who is young, perhaps naïve, and eager to advance her journalism career.

Now this young woman is suffering for the sins of the LBC, which has stood by mute. They offered no lawyer and no statement of condemnation for her treatment by the Saudi courts. LBC should be an embarrassment to Middle East journalists. At a time when Arab journalists are seeking to be taken seriously as professionals and attempt to adhere to an ethical standard, the LBC's cowardice illustrates just how little progress we have made.

Opening gunshops in Saudi Arabia is not the answer to curbing illegal weapons

The Saudi Ministry of Interior’s decision to issue licenses to entrepreneurs to open private gun shops is full of good intentions, but until more information is disclosed I must wonder: Do we really need easy access to guns?

The ministry announced recently that any person 25 years or older with no criminal record and a bank guarantee of SR500,000 can open a gun shop. The best part of these requirements is the bank guarantee, which pares down the pool of potential applications to open businesses.

The idea behind this is to curb illegal ownership of firearms and have a better tracking system of where guns originate. About five years ago, the Saudi government asked gun owners to register their weapons at the regional Emir office's security department. The response from Saudi citizens was overwhelmingly positive. Many -- if not the majority -- Saudis participated in the registration drive.

Gun ownership is long ingrained in Saudi society. Boys are taught to hunt and as men usually keep firearms in the house. Truck drivers, and even some women drivers in rural areas, as I mentioned last week, carry handguns for protection.

As a society we have demonstrated responsible gun ownership. Our crime rate is extremely low. About half of the crimes committed in Saudi Arabia are non-violent thefts, and the murder rate is barely 1 person per 100,000 population. The U.S. State Department, however, has issued a warning to its citizens that the instances of carjackings in Riyadh have risen. Yet violence involving firearms is low.

Although I have no doubt that illegal gun ownership remains a problem in Saudi Arabia, the logic of opening gun shops eludes me. This move by the Ministry of Interior reminds me of the occasional news article I read from the United States in which a municipal police chief decides to issue concealed weapons permits to all gun owners who ask for one to ensure they can legally carry a weapon. The thinking is that the permit will reduce the number of people walking around with illegal
guns in their pockets or purses. But all it does is simply put more weapons on the street and increase the chances that someone will get hurt.

The ministry’s logic is similar to the U.S. police chief. The ministry’s ruling will put more legal guns on the street, but it’s still more guns.

It’s likely that the ministry has thought of such things, but has not released the requirements that will be imposed to buy and sell guns. Issues to be addressed are whether a waiting period between purchase and actually receiving the weapon will be imposed and if criminal background checks will be conducted. Presumably the ministry will establish checks and balances to maximize the safety of people.

We only have to look at the U.S. as an object lesson. According to a 2009 Centers for Disease Control report, 30,896 U.S. gun deaths were reported in 2006. Forty-one percent were the result of homicides and 55 percent were suicides. The remaining fatalities were unintentional or undetermined intent deaths.

In addition, a gun in the house increases the risk of a homicide by three times and the risk of suicide five times compared to no gun present. People are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shooting a robber or attacker.

We shouldn’t believe for a second that more legal guns in Saudi Arabia are going to protect us from criminals. Rather, think about the next Saudi National Day. We already have a problem with people who don’t understand that shooting a gun into the air means a bullet must come down somewhere. If more guns are available the odds of more bullets falling on someone’s head on National Day increases. The same goes for
tribal weddings and celebrations in which guns are shot in the air.

Perhaps the most obvious argument is that we still have extremists operating in Saudi Arabia, as was the case with the recent attack on security officers near the Yemen border. Although the Ministry of Interior has done an incredible job of curbing attacks and our country is stabilized, the threat remains. During the height of the 2003-2006 militant attacks in Saudi Arabia there were Al Qaeda supporters,
perhaps better described as wannabes, trolling Riyadh and Jeddah streets using handguns to shoot Westerners.

Presumably Saudis with no criminal record can walk into a gun shop and purchase any weapon he desires. Militants with a phony identity or a well concealed background should have no problem purchasing over-the-counter weapons. Do we really need to make it easier for them?

Saudi rural women's freedom to drive cars and trucks under renewed threat

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of Saudi society in the non-Arab world is the myth that all Saudi women are banned from driving cars. Read any English-language news periodical and the message is absolute: It’s illegal for Saudi women to drive.

Well, that’s kinda-sorta-usually-but-not-always true.

For decades, Saudi women have been driving on highways and streets outside of urban areas. They must drive because their families’ survival depends on it. While men are working, wives are tasked with taking the kids to school, transporting livestock to market, and managing the house. They also drive big tankers to bring drinking water to their villages. Many of these women are also Bedouins who travel from village to village earning a living by transporting goods.

This is not a case of heading down to the local Danube supermarket for a box of corn flakes. This is a long drive, sometimes hundreds of miles, over a harsh desert environment usually in a 2-ton Mercedes truck or a Hilux pickup. These moms, some who arm themselves with a handgun for protection while driving alone, are a hardworking, tough lot that can handle a truck better than most men.

I remember as a child my uncle in one of the Yanbu villages going to work at 4 each morning, leaving the management of the house, the family and the harvesting of their crops to my aunt. She drove all over the region to make sure not only her kids but the extended family were cared for.

As a practical issue, the police and Hiy’a (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, commonly referred to as the religious police) can’t effectively patrol these remote areas. For the most part, women have had free reign in driving vehicles where they please.

Common sense, which is not always a prime ingredient when journalists address perceived wrongs with Saudi Arabia, tells us that it’s impractical and dangerous to ban all Saudi women from driving. Of course, Saudi conservatives, and that includes some members of the Commission, share the same problem.


Although rural women have had it pretty easy on the roads, apparently there can be too much of a good thing. Last week, the Hiy’a filed a complaint with the administrative ruler of the Hail region in which they asked him to ban 15 village women from driving their cars and trucks. Now, women who make sure the family’s chickens and goats get to market and keep the village supplied with water, are without transportation.

These women can’t hire a driver because their primary means of transportation is a pickup truck, which forces them into a state of khalwa -- or seclusion with a non-relative male -- as they sit beside the driver.

Consider what is more dangerous: a woman driving a truck or a woman alone with a male stranger in the middle of nowhere. The female breadwinner is faced with the double whammy of being denied the right to use a vehicle to contribute to the household income and the
right to hire a driver as a solution to her economic problem.

Many Saudis support the idea of enforcement of our moral and religious obligations. Indeed, it’s addressed in the Qur’an. But it’s quite another thing to mess with hardworking families who depend on the motor vehicle to make ends meet. For decades Saudi law authorities recognized that ranch and farm families were an exception to the driving ban edict because a family’s livelihood depended on a vehicle. They understandably turned a blind eye. That right apparently has been taken from them for no reason other than the conservatives feel threatened by it.

Saudi Arabia is in a period of great transition, and there is an expectation of movement forward, not backward. Naturally there are many people who prefer the comfort of the past. Perhaps forcing working rural women to return to camels and donkeys as transportation makes some people feel more comfortable. But their comfort comes at the expense of the working family.

Saudis in denial over violence against women and children

It came as something of a shock when I learned the other day that the number of domestic violence cases in Saudi Arabia does not exceed 650.

What a relief to live in a country where violence against women and children is virtually non-existent. This good news comes from none other than the man who should know: Ali Al-Hinaki, the general manager of Social Affairs Department in the Makkah province.

Al-Hinaki told a Jeddah reporter that there are no statistics on the number of abuse cases, but he estimated that there were no more than 650. Yet the Social Affairs Department does not explain that if there are so few domestic violence cases in Saudi Arabia, why is there the need to sponsor this week a three-day awareness forum in Jeddah? Or why establish 17 committees to deal with family protection? By Social Affairs Department’s logic that amounts to 38 abuse victims per committee. Now that is what I call great response to such a minor issue.

But all kidding aside, this ridiculously low statistic is an insult to every Saudi woman and child whether or not they have been the victim of abuse. There are more than 27 million people – 22 million of which are Saudis – living in Saudi Arabia. Just how did the law of averages
elude the Social Affairs Department?

Earlier this year Abdul Aziz Al-Dakhil, an attorney and a leading expert on domestic violence, said, “If we are informed that there are 10 cases of abuse, there are for sure 1,000 more suffering in silence and not spoken about.” Al-Dakhil has a better grasp of reality, but the numbers don’t adequately convey the urgency of establishing codified laws protecting abuse victims.

Al-Dakhil points out that there is no established definition in Saudi Arabia of what constitutes domestic violence. Family members who perpetrate violence against their victims confuse guardianship and Islam with discipline. Even victims are often confused about whether
their misery is a product of abuse or a form of discipline under Islam.


There are grassroots efforts to provide services to prevent domestic abuse. Saudi writer Rima Ibrahim is campaigning to establish a facility that can provide care and protection for women abused or abandoned by their husbands. We’ve also seen the growth of women’s shelters throughout the Kingdom.

Saudis, however, have a tendency to minimize their faults. We claim the moral high ground by asserting we are good Muslims not capable of committing unspeakable violence towards our loved ones.

Government officials undermine their own awareness projects by dismissing the seriousness of domestic violence with unsubstantiated low statistics. People in a position of authority charged with making life-altering decisions affecting a girl’s future have no business holding the job. I recall visiting a shelter a couple years ago in which the director told me that many runaway girls seeking protection from abuse were simply disobedient brats who should mind their parents.

It’s incredulous that Saudis still dance around the issue of domestic abuse. It’s not a question of whether Saudi Arabia has a domestic violence problem, but how do we as a nation solve it. Our failing is that we think our moral authority makes us separate, if not above, the rest of the world in terms of crimes against our own family members. We are no different than the rest of the international community. I imagine that the number of abuse cases in Saudi Arabia is proportionate to the rest of the world.


It’s fine that judicial reform is underway to codify laws. It’s good that Saudi authorities are moving towards legal transparency. And it’s satisfying to see progress made – although at a snail’s pace – in the establishment of shelters and women’s rights services.

But none of it means much if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and claim the violence in the home is limited to just a few hundred cases. These kinds of pronouncements instill little confidence that we will ever effectively combat domestic abuse.

KAUST may test Saudi higher education system

A few weeks ago I was taken to task by a reader who complained about my enthusiasm for the academic potential of the King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST), which had its inauguration this week.

The reader implied that I was naïve to believe that KAUST will benefit any Saudis, noting that KAUST is nothing more than a “$10 billion write-off.”

The reader writes: “KAUST barely brings any benefit to the local population. It has been created as a gated microcosm whereby foreign intellectuals and scholars from around the world come, live in their own little worlds whereby they need not have any interaction with the local population, and enlighten each other at the expense of King Abdullah's $10 billion endowment … and will then conveniently leave after benefiting from years of tax-free income.”

I think the observer fails to grasp simple economics. But I will get to that in a moment.

The reader continues with a more valid point: “What … actually (will) be a landmark project would be a complete overhaul of the education system, which is failing spectacularly at nurturing homegrown Saudi talent.”

The fact is that KAUST is likely to be a boon for local job market if the global economy recovers from the disasters of 2008. As for the quality of the Saudi lower educational system, I couldn’t agree more.

But KAUST is the test case as to whether its successes can be applied to entire the Saudi education system in the future. But let’s address the economic impact first.

KAUST is situated on a 24-acre campus in Thuwal, about 50 miles north of Jeddah. Three residential districts for men and women include more than 3,000 housing units for faculty, students and their families numbering upwards of 5,000 and more. Yes, the campus will be self-contained with markets, theater, a bowling alley, bank and other support services.

There is a danger that KAUST faculty and students will live in their own little bubble. There are plenty of examples in Saudi Arabia with self-contained residential compounds where many Westerners remain behind compound walls. But I think it’s unlikely since Jeddah is only a short distance away from the campus.

But more importantly is that that the campus’ residential and commercial project is expected to create 500,000 jobs by the time it’s completed in 2016, according to KAUST officials. The nearby Knowledge Economic City is expected to create 20,000 jobs in the Madinah providence by 2014. And this does not include the benefits the region will reap with the completion of the proposed railway that will link the Red Seat with the Arabian Gulf.

It’s a mistake to believe that KAUST’s success or failure is not linked to the current Saudi education system. Certainly on an international level, Saudi Arabia’s lower education system has failed its students with too much emphasis placed on non-academic curriculum.
The standards of higher Saudi education are less of an issue, although. Western universities continue to accept Saudi university degree holders in great numbers for postgraduate work, so we can’t call the system a failure.

The role I hope KAUST will play in developing better higher academic standards is the international makeup of its faculty and students. According to KAUST, the current faculty of 71 professors is 14 percent American, 7 percent German, 6 percent Canadian and 6 percent Chinese.

The university provost is Dr. Brian Moran, an American who served as chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Northwestern University. KAUST’s president is Choon Fong Shih, who was president and vice-chancellor of National University of Singapore.

The student population, which numbers only about 400 now, is 15 percent Saudi, 14 percent Chinese, 11 percent Mexican and 8 percent American. The rest of the students come form nearly 60 other countries. Students, particularly Saudis, thrive in an international environment and their exposure to non-Saudi students will go a long
way to breaking down barriers between the Arab world, the West and developing countries.

While I sound like an optimist I am not kidding myself of the obstacles ahead. A mixed-gender student population is going to be difficult for many Saudis to accept. I suspect the university will be under tremendous pressure from law authorities because the campus is not accessible to routine inspection like other Saudi universities. Further, Western academics teaching Saudis opens the university to
criticism from conservatives that the West is corrupting Saudi youth.

I suppose we can sit back and hope that KAUST fails; that its impact on Saudis will be minimal and the grand experiment will be an object lesson that Saudis have no need for foreign meddlers in our education system. But if my critic is correct that the Saudi education system is a failure, then KAUST is indeed a bold experiment that deserves our support to ensure that it succeeds, and the lessons we learn there
will be passed on to the rest of the Kingdom.

It’s easy to dismiss KAUST as a $10 billion debacle that further lines the pockets of expatriate academics. It’s more courageous to take $10 billion risks to ensure Saudi Arabia future in the international

Muslim day of prayer may bring unwanted attention

A New Jersey mosque is planning a national day of prayer on Sept. 25 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that expects to draw as many as 50,000 Muslims from across the United States.

This appears to be the first such event held by Muslims on such a large scale in the U.S. It represents a huge step forward for Muslims who for the most part prefer to stay out of the spotlight following 9/11.

Hassen Abdellah, president of Dar-ul-Islam in Elizabeth, N.J., told the Star-Ledger newspaper that, "Most of the time, when Muslims go to Washington, D.C., they go there to protest some type of event ... This is not a protest. Never has the Islamic community prayed on Capitol Hill for the soul of America. We're Americans. We need to change the face of Islam so people don't feel every Muslim believes America is
'the great Satan,' because we love America."

The event will be held from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m., but the main prayer will occur at 1 p.m.

It’s a wonderful thing to see Muslims wear their patriotism on their sleeve and demonstrate the deep love for their country. Abdellah hopes that people of other faiths will join Muslims as well.

But, alas, the event also is turning into a religious war spurred by fringe groups who see an opportunity to stage confrontational anti-Islamic protests. One pastor is urging his congregation to fast from midnight on Sept. 25 to 7 p.m., not for spiritual meditation or to bring his people closer to God but to wrestle the “soul of the nation” away from Muslims. He’s mistaken. Muslims don’t claim ownership of America’s soul and he shouldn’t either.

The argument that has originated on anti-Muslim websites and appears to be spreading among conservative religious groups is that some sort of cultural or stealth jihad is being played out in the West while non-Muslims go about their business blissfully ignorant of the dangers. Meanwhile, mainstream media conspires to keep it all
hush-hush.

For those who may not care to read the blathering of such websites, stealth jihad supposedly when Muslims seek prayer breaks at work or Muslim women request private time to swim at public pools. Even wearing in public the so-called burqini, modest swimwear for women, is somehow Islamifying the local community. Who would have thought that a loose-fitting single-piece swimsuit would become a political hot potato that required government intervention, as we have discovered to be the case in France and Italy?

Now, the image of 50,000 Muslims -- most of who are American citizens – praying in public has raised the hackles of some people who see prayer as not worshipping God but as a threat to the soul of America. The whole thought seems, well, so un-Christian and un-democratic.

This past year or so a disturbing trend has emerged as small groups of people have staged anti-Muslim protests. On the eighth anniversary of 9/11 a small church group held an anti-Islamic demonstration at a Gainesville, Fla., mall to memorialize those who lost their lives on that day and those serving in the U.S. military.

About 30 protesters waved confrontational signs and shouted anti-Muslim rants. In London a nastier and more violent confrontation occurred between the English Defence League and Muslim youths at a Harrow mosque under construction.

If taken as isolated events, the rallies don’t amount to much. But it’s curious that for the first time we are seeing organized anti-Islam protests. I can’t help but think we are witnessing early signs of future, better organized rallies targeting the Muslim community.

Certainly Muslims have staged anti-Western rallies and often these demonstrations are violent. But these protests are not so much as anti-Christian but sparked by specific events, such as the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The incidents at Harrow and Gainesville are a different animal all together. The protesters’ target is faith, as in my faith threatens your faith.

The implication is that we pray to a different God because we call Him Allah. And that’s the irony. We all share the same God. By denying, interfering or ridiculing anyone’s right to worship demonstrates a complete lack of respect to the deity we all pray to.

Political hooliganism is now part of the democractic process

In case anybody hasn't noticed, hooliganism is now part of the fabric of democracy.

An incident occurred last week in Birmingham, England, that gained little notice outside the UK but sent shockwaves through some British communities. Dozens of people were arrested last weekend following a protest by followers of the English Defence League against the implementation against Sharia in the United Kingdom.

The reality is the protest against Sharia was nothing more than an anti-Islamic grievance beer party that started at a neighborhood pub and ended violently when a group of Muslims confronted the protesters. Rocks, sticks and punches were thrown with the police blaming both the EDL and Muslims youths for the ruckus.

Lost in all the haze is the fact that most Muslims, British-born or not, have given little thought about whether Sharia belongs in the UK. The tiff in Birmingham was a result of the young Muslims recognizing the protest for what it was: a movement against the Muslim community, and not because Sharia was supplanting British law.

How is this political hooliganism?

While British MPs are dithering over expense accounts, the fringe elements outside the political process have become mainstream. Last June, the British National Party garnered more than 6 percent of the vote in European elections, including two seats in the Brussels parliament. Not only does the BNP have a voice in government, but it has its militia in the streets.

While the Liberal Democrats and Tories think it's fine to engage the BNP in debate, they are making the mistake in believing that logic and common sense will prevail in the political arena. They are faced with such organizations as the Stop Islamification of Europe (SIOE) that argues that "Islamophobia is the height of common sense." Just how do the Liberal Democrats and Tories think they are going to win the war of words with that kind of rationale?

I must admit, though, the Labour Party's policy of ignoring the BNP is probably more ridiculous. Doing nothing in the face of seething unrest among some British citizens who see merit in the BNP and EDL is a recipe for disaster.

The problem lies in the unchecked behavior of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and their followers. Political debate legitimizes fringe groups. It allows these groups to obscure racism and xenophobia with phony arguments of UK border security while the real work is performed in the street. Few people are going to pay attention to Liberal Democrats arguing border security with the BNP when hooligans know the best arguments are made with BBC footage of Britons "defending" the streets of Birmingham with their fists.

This Friday, the anniversary of 9/11, anti-Islamic protests are scheduled to be held by the SIOE at the new Harrow central mosque in London. Muslim supporters, calling themselves Unite Against Fascism, also plan to be there. The mosque is not finished, but Friday prayers will be conducted next door in the middle of Ramadan, Islam's holiest month. Imagine, if you will, the specter of a massive demonstration with the threat of violence outside a London church during Christmas Day services. Same thing. In this case, Muslims are faced with the threat of violence during a period of fasting and prayer.

Ghulam Rabbani, the general secretary of the Harrow mosque, told The Times of London last week that he doesn't know why protesters picked his mosque.

"We don't know why they are singling us out. They say we are planning a Sharia court but we have never had such a plan. This community is mixed with Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. We have had very good relations for 25 years."

Members of the BNP, SIOE and EDL have the right to freely express their views in a peaceful manner. But let's not forget that by embracing their legitimacy in the political process, we are also legitimizing their followers in the street. It's not about Sharia because its implementation in the UK doesn't exist. The Sharia argument is a smokescreen for the true anti-immigrant agenda.

The irony is that this Friday's scheduled protest is planned by extremists: SIOE and the Unite Against Fascism group. In the middle are the Harrow Muslims who just want everybody to go away.

Saudis struggle with whether to display pre-Islamic artifacts

Last year a Saudi/French archeological team made a major discovery at Madain Saleh. Pottery and metal and wooden tools were unearthed at Al Diwan and at Ethlib mountain.

The discoveries at Madain Saleh pose something of a dilemma for Saudis. We Saudis are not particularly eager to look for pre-Islamic artifacts. There’s a prevailing opinion among the conservatives that items not Islamic belong in the ground because displaying them risks a tacit endorsement of the culture or religion the artifacts represent.

We have a habit sealing off ancient sites from public view whether they are Islamic or non-Islamic. We have been known to neglect or destroy them. Saudis don’t want to run the risk of turning a site into a place of idolatry. As a rule we minimize the publicity of such discoveries.

But as with most things, Saudis can’t stop progress. And today there is a significant and successful campaign to develop an economically viable tourism industry that will create jobs and stimulate the economy, particularly in rural areas.

Add to that is the fact that Madain Saleh was named in 2008 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Madain Saleh is now open to visitors. The Saudi Commission on Tourism and Antiquities, under Secretary General Sultan Bin Salman, and the National French Research Center are continuing excavation efforts. An American team also is participating.

The teams are restoring what has been found and electronic software is being used to record the excavation and restoration efforts. The work is continuing and it’s certain that more items will be unearthed.

Once the Saudi government finds its footing in establishing a consistent tourism program and becomes more flexible in granting visas to Muslims and non-Muslims to visit the Kingdom, Madain Saleh should become a key component in developing a thriving tourism sector.

But offering Madain Saleh as a tourism stop is not a problem. It was first inhabited by the people of Thamud who are mentioned prominently in the Qur’an. But what of the non-Muslim sites? Like most Saudis, I know little of pre-Islamic sites, although occasionally amateur archeologists come across such places. Frankly, it’s gross negligence to destroy or hide these discoveries. The government in recent years has taken positive steps to recover and catalog artifacts, but there’s a disagreement with what to do with them once they are found.

It’s right that churches are not permitted in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques. But what’s less certain is whether crucifixes, if found, should be destroyed or hidden. More precisely is the issue of whether Christian or Jewish artifacts can be displayed in the proper context in a Saudi museum as an acknowledgment of a people who called pre-Islamic Arabia their home.

My guess is that most Saudis will say no. Many Saudis believe there is no place in the Kingdom for such relics.

The Associated Press the other day reported that Sheikh Mohammed Al Nujaimi said non-Muslim artifacts “should be left in the ground.” He said that Muslims would not tolerate the display of non-Muslim religious symbols. "How can crosses be displayed when Islam doesn't recognize that Christ was crucified?" he said. "If we display them, it's as if we recognize the crucifixion."

Most Saudis probably agree, although the argument can be made that displaying an ancient cross doesn’t necessarily recognize that Christ was crucified but only acknowledges a previous non-Muslim civilization.

Religious symbols aside, there is a precedent in showcasing pre-Islamic items. The museum in Riyadh has a number of pre-Islamic statues. And Riyadh’s King Saudi University has similar items.

This is a sensitive time for Saudi Arabia. We have made tentative steps with the international community by promoting inter-faith dialogue. We have been diligent in sending young university students to other countries where they learn of other cultures. We are throwing open the doors of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology to the world’s best researchers and scientists. Developing a policy to deal with non-Muslim antiquities is a logical step towards continuing to bridge cultural gaps.

Perhaps displays of such artifacts are not the solution, but it’s not unthinkable.

Tribal customs, not Islam, is responsible for male guardianship abuses

A battle is brewing among Saudi women over the touchy issue of male guardianship. Pressure from outside Saudi Arabia has been building to abolish guardianship laws, and a number of women who fashion themselves as activists have led the charge.

Perhaps the most visible is Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a Saudi who does a little showboating by being driven in a taxi to the border checkpoint to enter Bahrain without permission from a male guardian. She's always turned away by Saudi authorities and told to go home. She is the darling of Western conservatives who think this public demonstration will further the cause of Saudi women.

It's silly. Public acts of defiance are unseemly in Saudi society and few women want to give up their dignity when letter-writing and petition campaigns are more effective.

Additionally, advocating to completely abolish guardianship rules is not a productive means to deal with abuses in the system. The problem with some Saudi activists is that they want to make wholesale changes that are contrary to Islam, which requires a mahram for traveling women. If one wonders why great numbers of Saudi women don't join Al-Huwaider it's because they are asked to defy Islam. Al-Huwaider's all or nothing position undercuts her credibility.

Of course, there are a great many women who are abused and they are seeking to change the guardianship system. And these efforts have sparked a counter-campaign by women who want the system to remain the same.

Recently a campaign called "My Guardian Knows the Best for Me" was initiated in direct response to the anti-guardianship movement. I have mixed feelings about both movements, but I must say the guardianship supporters have me more worried.

The system currently in place is seriously flawed. Saudi authorities have abdicated their responsibility to see that laws are enforced in a fair and equitable manner. It has ceased being a religious issue and is more about patriarchal control.

Many families treat their wives, daughters and sisters with great respect and don't follow their every move. Permission to travel or to conduct business abroad is often granted carte blanche with a signed piece of paper from a mahram. Many women travel freely with this document and consult little with the men in their families about their movements.

But since there are no codified laws, most Saudi women traveling alone don't know from one day to the next whether their documents will pass scrutiny at the airport. And for every family that follows guardianship rules, there is another family that wields the law like a club. It's not a system ripe for abuse. It's already a system abused with regularity.

Guardianship opponents are waging a losing battle if they believe that Saudi authorities will abolish the law. The reality is that there is little incentive for the government to consider anything but maintaining the status quo.

More worrisome is the women's pro-guardianship camp that is perfectly happy for men to control their lives. That's fine for them. They undoubtedly live in households of unquestioned male authority and are pleased with the arrangement. But what about the women abused by the guardian system?

It was reported recently that a Saudi woman protested that her father rejected several potential husbands because they did not belong to the family's tribe. The father confined her to the house as punishment and denied her outside employment. He even sent her to a mental institution when she continued her protests. She sued her father in court, but found herself at the wrong end of a tongue-lashing from the judge who said she did not respect her father. She now lives in a women's shelter.

Here is a clear instance of the Saudi judicial system failing to protect the woman and tacitly endorsing abuse of the guardianship system.

If men follow the spirit of guardianship as outlined in the Qur'an and recognize at the same time there is no place for tribal customs within the system, then a happy medium can be found. But if the Saudi courts fail to implement checks and balances to punish guardianship abusers and to protect the victims, then the laws are pointless.

Tribal customs should not usurp Sharia. Yet, to listen to the pro-guardianship camp, Saudi customs and traditions should indeed be a central part of the system. In effect, they are placing customs and traditions above Islam.

By waging a campaign fully supporting existing guardianship rules dooms thousands of Saudi women to being housebound servants to male family members.

A campaign to encourage guardianship, but also to demand that codified laws protect the abused, makes more sense. Such a system respects an independent woman's right to move about, attend university and marry whomever she pleases. It allows the family to determine a comfort level, but also imposes consequences on guardians who manipulate the laws to their own advantage.

The argument that women are not competent to handle their own affairs is not valid and never has been. More Saudi women than men attend universities in Saudi Arabia and abroad. Most of the money held in banks belongs to women.

How guardianship laws are followed must be a joint decision involving the family. But Saudi judges also need to summon the courage to cast aside customs and traditions when faced with abuse cases and make the right call to protect victims.