One Step Forward, One Step Back Again
Wednesday April
16, 2003
Raid Qusti During a meeting last night with some Saudi friends on the outskirts
of Riyadh, one of the topics raised was the high dowries fathers demand,
which are causing many women to remain unmarried. We moved on to a general discussion on how some traditions that
prevail in Saudi society are an exaggeration of what our religion calls
for, but nevertheless people hold on to them and pass them down from one
generation to another. An example given was that we slaughter a camel or
sheep to prepare a feast in honor of a guest. Though our religion
stresses the importance of hospitality, it never said that the guest’s
status is measured by the amount or type of food put in front of him. Yet, despite that, as we discussed, a majority of Saudis still
believe that offering a home-made meal, or any meal that cannot be
described as a feast, would be an insult to the guest. That was just one example. The general point was that if we realize
that some of these traditions exaggerate the principle of our religion,
what is the duty of a new generation? Should we adjust these traditions in our way of life? If so, what
would be said of us? Can society accept behavior that is contrary to
what the older generation believe to be right? How are we going to
convey to another generation the message that, in principle, hospitality
is wonderful and demanded by our religion, but not when it involves
excessive spending. Good intentions, we agreed, not the amount or type
of food, are what matters most. Another important question that arose was: Should our government take
a role in making people aware that some traditions — which have
prevailed in this land for centuries — need to be reconsidered? And
how would people react to that? The government cannot change people’s mindsets, we all agreed. The
people themselves can only do that. Change would have to come from the
grass roots first, then from above. And performing that balancing act is
what the government is doing. But do people want to change even if they
were not necessarily following the right path? That was the question
none of us could answer. One of our friends told us a story that shocked us all. He had gone
to a court here in Riyadh with a female relative about a matter that
required her presence. Though his relative had her new photo ID issued
by the Civil Status Department with her, the judge told him he did not
believe in such IDs and did not accept them. And because women who
appear before judges in courts here are told to cover their faces, our
friend was instructed to bring two male relatives to testify that the
woman under the veil was indeed the person she said she was. The official new government photo ID for women was created for their
own legal protection against veiled impersonators who appear in court to
get their hands on their money, for instance. The government took the
measure after this kind of embezzlement had cost Saudi women some SR300
million in losses, as was reported in the local press a few years ago.
Despite the importance of verifying the identity of a woman from seeing
her photo on an ID, this judge, with all his authority, thought it was
wrong to look at a woman’s photo, even for verification purposes. Issuing photo IDs was a big step forward for women in this country,
who had never been allowed to have their own independent photo ID before
and used to be only names on the family card. It was also a matter of
necessity as it involved protection against fraud. That our government issued such photo ID cards for the legal
protection of women’s identity was a major step forward. That a judge
in a Saudi court would not accept the ID as a document of legal validity
because it contained a picture of a woman is a step back again. Arab News Opinion 16 April 2003 |
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org