The MEMRI Daily: September 3, 2020
Special Dispatch No. 8918
Saudi Columnist’s Call For Separation Of State And Religion Sparks Public Debate
In the recent months, several articles were published in the Saudi press dealing with issues of secularity and the civil state. Prominent among them were two columns by liberal journalist Wafa Al-Rashid in the daily ‘Okaz, in which she called to adapt religious perceptions to the spirit of the times and not be afraid of concepts such as secularism, civil state or the separation of religion and state. In the first of these columns, from January 26, 2020, Al-Rashid wrote that the discourse on secularism in the Muslim world is characterized by hypocrisy, because Muslims ban secularism in their own countries and accuse its proponents of heresy, but at the same time welcome the secularism of the West, which is the basis of its tolerance towards members of all faiths, including Muslims. Al-Rashid emphasized that separating religion from the state does not mean abolishing religion or fighting it, and that this notion in fact conforms to certain ideas in the Quran. She urged Muslims to read the religious sources with an enlightened eye and reform their perceptions and interpretations of religious texts.
In her second column, from June 14, 2020 Al-Rashid came out against the conservative circles that oppose the separation of religion and state and insist on burying their heads in the sand and ignoring any reality that contradicts their views. She called to embrace change, religious enlightenment and the application of reasoning in religious interpretation, in order to bring the young generation closer to Islam.
Al-Rashid’s articles sparked reactions from Saudis on Twitter, with some users supporting her but most of them attacking her articles and condemning ‘Okaz for allowing her to publish them. These users accused Al-Rashid of spreading deviant and radical ideas that undermine the foundations of the Saudi kingdom and jeopardize its national security, and even called to punish her and the daily.
Among those who wrote against secularism was also Saudi journalist ‘Ali Batih Al-‘Omary. In a June 14 column in the daily Al-Yawm he came out against writers in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who advocate secularism, which he said is a notion alien to Islam that emerged in Europe in response to circumstances that do not exist in Arab societies. Al-‘Omari also cast doubt on the motivations of these writers, wondering if their ideas do not stem from hostility to Islam or from a desire for attention.
This is not the first time the issue of secularism has been at the center of a public debate in Saudi Arabia. In 2016, many in the kingdom came out against the Education Ministry’s plan to launch a project called Immunity, meant to “inoculate” schoolchildren against radical ideas, including Islamist extremism but also liberalism, secularism, atheism and Westernization.
Saudi Journalist Wafa Al-Rashid: The Separation Of Religion And State Conforms To Ideas In The Quran; Islam Must Be Adapted To The Spirit Of The Age
In her January 26, 2020 column, headed “Is the Secularist an Infidel?”, Wafa Al-Rahsid wrote: “Will you exclude me from the fold of the [Islamic] faith if I ask whether a secular person is an infidel? Will I be slandered tomorrow, because I stuck my hand into a hornets’ nest? Does the very question constitute a terrible afront to your principles? Do I have to describe secularism in negative terms when I speak of it and refer to its proponents as infidels, to avoid being excluded from the fold of the faith?
Wafa Al-Rashid (source: ‘Okaz, Saudi Arabia)“[Opponents of secularism,] do you not benefit from the values of secularism in your daily lives? These values, which compel [non-Muslim] countries to treat [all] religions equally, turn you into the first proponents of Muslim rights in the West… You are the first to support secularism when it benefits Muslims, and the first to curse it and call it heresy when it benefits their opponents, or if it treats them equally to the minorities that live with them in their Muslim countries. Imagine that some non-Muslim state forbade Muslims to perform their religious rituals. Do you know what would happen? Hundreds of thousands of Muslims would take to the streets and rise up, demanding to enforce secularism in that country and to receive the same rights as the members of other religions…
“Is that hypocrisy? Is it a contradiction? And are these principles or interests? [These people are effectively saying], ‘Don’t apply [secularism] in our countries, [but] we demand to apply it in yours.’ Is it true that Islam cannot coexist with secularism? Does the separation of religion and state mean a war on religion? The separation of religion and state does not mean abolishing or fighting religion, for religion exists, and people follow it, [even] in secular countries. In a secular [country] a person is entitled to worship his God however he chooses, but he is not entitled to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of society.”
MEMRI TV Clip No. 8255
Dubai’s Deputy Chief Of Police Dhahi Khalfan Tamim: Iran And Turkey, Not Israel, Threaten Gulf States; Iran Must Choose Between Economic Death, Collapse Of Mullah Regime, And Peace With Israel; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Should Resign
Lieutenant-General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai’s deputy chief of police and general security, was interviewed on Diwan Al-Mullah Online TV (Kuwait) on September 1, 2020. In the interview Tamim said that unlike Turkey and Iran, Israel has never threatened the Gulf states. He added that the agreement between the UAE and Israel serves the security and stability of the Gulf region in particular. Tamim asked why any ruler should pin their decision-making on PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s approval. He elaborated that Abbas is incapable of making a decision to resolve the Palestinian cause and said that if he were a “worthy leader” he would have resolved the Palestinian problem or resigned if unsuccessful. Tamim asked how the public opinion in the Gulf states can be expected to favor Palestinians if they pray for the destruction of these countries in their mosques. He then then referred to Iran, saying it has three choices, either it can die an economic death, sign a peace agreement with Israel and “coexist with the region,” or allow the Mullah regime to collapse.
Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV
Lieutenant-General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim: “We seek help from whoever can help us achieve security and stability in the region. Israel has never threatened us. Erdogan did. Iran is threatening us.
[…]
“So nobody should say that such agreements do not serve stability in the region. The first thing the agreement does is to serve the security and stability of the Gulf region in particular.
[…]
“Erdogan is the biggest peddler in the Palestinian cause. He is peddling in the Palestinian cause, nothing more, nothing less.
[…]
“It is conceivable that the decision of heads of state to sign or not to sign an agreement with a certain country would depend on the approval of Mahmoud Abbas? Is it conceivable that a president or a prime minister would pin their [decisions] on Mahmoud Abbas? Abbas himself is incapable of making a decision to resolve the [Palestinian] cause, or to negotiate on whether to move forward or backward. If Abbas were a worthy leader, he would have resolved the Palestinian problem or resigned. I am telling you. It was his historic responsibility to achieve what should have been achieved in a certain time period, or resign from his post as president.
[…]
“During Friday prayers in [Palestinian] mosques, they pray for Allah to destroy the Gulf states, the UAE, Saudi Arabi, and so on. How can you expect the public opinion in the Gulf – even before the opinion of the governments – not to be against them?
[…]
“[Ismail] Haniyeh, when you are being hostile to Saudi Arabia and open your arms to Iran… Who do you think you are? Go to Iran and let them help you. Go to Hell!”
Interviewer: “Great.”
[…]
Tamim: “Iran has to choose one of three roads all of which lead to Tel Aviv. It can die economically, or it can sign a peace agreement with Israel and coexist with the region. The third option is the fall of the regime of the Mullahs.”
he very fact that the King and the Crown Prince permit these opinions to be openly expressed, in a country that has press censorship, suggest to me that they agree with these views. True, they also permit the religious conservatives to attack them. That is because the reigious establihment still has great power and many brainwashed supporters in Saudi Arabia. So they must proceed cautiously and step by step to gather support for a change of Saudi society in the direction of Western values and morality. The articles by journalists and academics who advocate peace with Israel and the separation of mosque and state are trial baloons for MBS and King Salman.
When the liberal journalist interviewed on Saudi TV advocates the Tehran make peace with Israel, and says that this is the only way to save Iran and the entire Middle East from the destruction, he is obviously also talking about Saudi Arabia’s need for peace with Israel.