Blog Closed

I have been back in Blighty for over a year now so I don't think I can continue to post on Saudi Arabia on a regular basis. I should have posted this closing post a long time ago but I was busy, first with moving back to the UK, and then with some Open University studying in my spare time.

I may start another blog where I can rant about things that get me worked up. Thanks to anyone who read this blog.

AbuTrevor

Saudi Blogger Arrested

The Saudi Ministry of the Interior has detained a well known Saudi blogger, called Fouad al-Farhan. He was arrested on December 10th, but news about it was only released on January 1st.

This arrest has received considerable attention world-wide in both the MSM and the blogshpere. Online articles about this case can be found e.g. here, here, here, and here. Related Arab News articles can found here and here.

The reason Fouad's detention can be found in this article:-

Even so, Farhan told The Washington Post and others in early December that an Interior Ministry official had warned him that he would be detained because of his online support for a group of men arrested in February and held without charge or trial.

At the time of their arrest, the government accused the Jiddah-based group, made up of a former judge, academics and businessmen, of supporting terrorism. The men's attorney, Bassim Alim, had said they were arrested for their political activism and their plans to form a civil rights group.

This is not very hopeful for the supposed increase in official tolerance for dissent and criticism since King Abdullah's ascent to the throne.

Fouad's blog can be found here. Fouad blogged mainly in Arabic, however, it is now being maintained by friends of his who write in both English and Arabic. The blog Saudi Jeans (in English) has a lot on the campaign to free Fouad.

Having outlined the facts I now come to the point of this post which is, I have to admit, some concern for my personal safety. The following are my thoughts on this issue.

1) Now you know why I blog anonymously. Even so, if they were determined to do so, I'm sure the Saudi authorities could find out who I am.

2) While Fouad blogged in Arabic and was one of the most popular Saudi bloggers, I blog in English and few people read what I say. For this reason I doubt that the Saudi authorities will be concerned about me.

3) On the other hand I have made some criticisms which some Saudi authorities might not take too kindly to.

Family members, however, have heard about the case of Fouad and have begged me to stop blogging. While I do not intend to stop blogging completely, out of respect for their wishes, posting may be light for a while.

Christmas Trees

(Image for illustration only - this is not our Christmas tree.)

My friend over in the Eastern Province told me a story recently which implies that Saudi customs guards are still confiscating Christmas trees.

Apparently, this family which he knows went over the causeway to Bahrain for the day and while there they bought a Christmas tree. The particular tree was selected by the four-year old son of the family.

When they tried to return to Saudi, the customs officer refused to allow the tree into the kingdom and was about to confiscate it. This caused the little boy to burst into tears. The father went to the chief customs officer and pleaded with him to allow them to keep the tree on behalf of his still weeping little boy. Finally, the senior customs officer relented and allowed them to keep the tree.

We were aware that the customs guards on the Bahrain causeway used to confiscate Christmas trees because of some friends of ours who moved to our vicinity from Khobar. Several years ago they had tried three times to bring a Christmas tree over the causeway into Saudi and had the trees confiscated each time.

We bought our seven-foot Christmas tree "under the counter" from a shop in a local shopping mall many years ago. However, for our first Christmas here, I recall making a Christmas tree out of cardboard. We also made a cardboard star which was then covered in tin-foil. The same star is still proudly attached to the top of our Christmas tree over ten years later.

The (Wahabi-inspired) attitude of the Saudis contrasts strongly with that of the Bahrainis. My friend also tells me that the Christmas decorations in Bahrain airport are significantly better those at Heathrow!

Lightbulbs!

File under "What a Country!"

Light bulbs is the subject which is currently exercising my indignation.

Let me start the story from the beginning. Our compound has been bought by a new owner. The new, penny-pinching, management have decided to terminate the supply of replacement light bulbs to tenants.

Not a big problem, you might think, after all light bulbs are not very expensive and can be easily obtained at the nearest hardware store (yes, we do have hardware stores here).

Wrong!

All the lights in my house are 110V, screw fitting (similar to the one in the picture). This is the US standard and is used by most lights in the kingdom. Matching bulbs should be easily available - but they are not.

I went to the hardware store yesterday and bought some 110V bulbs only to find, when I got home, that they were bayonet fitting not screw fitting. When I took them back to exchange them I found that the shop did not have a single bulb of the type I need.

You can get a 110V bayonet fitting bulb, or a 220V screw fitting bulb, but you cannot get a 100V screw fitting bulb! Why?

Well, I went and asked the Saudi behind the Customer Services desk about it (hah! - they don't know the meaning of "Customer Services") . He was very polite but at first claimed ignorance.

When I pressed him for an explanation he told me that when they do put light bulbs of the type I wanted on the shelves, they all go the same day. According to him, people buy these bulbs for 1.50 riyals in the shop and then sell them for 2.00 riyals in the market!

He then shrugged his shoulders as if to say "what can one do?"

Well, let me suggest to them what they can do. If they are making a profit at 1.50 riyals per light bulb, why don't they order more light bulbs and keep putting them on the shelves until they stop selling them all the same day? Then, someone who comes into their shop might actually be able to buy what he needs! The customer will be happy and they should be happy with the extra profit.

On reflection, I realise that I know what the problem is. Saudi owners and senior management do not like to delegate authority; they want to micro-manage the business. What the store (and most stores in the country) lack is a manager who has the authority to take independent action that can affect the performance of his shop and who is rewarded for its success.

The result is organisations which have very centralised management and which are unable to respond to local conditions or rapidly changing conditions..

Oh dear, my rant about light bulbs has become a lecture on business management!

The NIE Report

This cartoon from today's Arab News (originally from the Arabic Al-Watan newspaper) had me puzzled. Who is Abu Mussa and what are the Greater and Lesser Tunbs?

Well, it turns out that they are all islands in the Strait of Hormuz (see map below) which are claimed by both Iran an the UAE.

Anyway, the point is that the cartoonist appears to be unconvinced by the recently released NIE report which stated that:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program

Like many others, I have a certain scepticism when it comes to the US intelligence community. The media, however, seems to be completely ignoring the remainder of the document which says things like:-

... we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
. . .
We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
. . .
... the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.
. . .
... we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

The overall tone of the document contrasts somewhat with the first sentence on which the MSM have focused so much.

The reaction to this document (not least the gloating of the regime in Iran) is such that I have to suspect that something is going on. So far I have come up with two theories:

The first is quite simple: someone highly placed in the US intelligence community opposes President Bush's policies and is determined to stop any possible military action against Iran in the last year or so of Bush's presidency.

The other theory is a little bit more elaborate: it is possible that Iran has decided to "do a Libya". They have decided that they want UN sanctions removed and to enable this to happen, they have agreed to stop their nuclear weapons program and to allow IAEA inspectors to visit their civil nuclear plants.

Of course, they can't openly agree to this without a massive loss of face. It has to be done in such a way that they do not lose face - and how could that be achieved? If the US intelligence community announces that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program after all, then everything else falls into place.

Before long you should expect to see IAEA inspectors visiting Iran and then sanctions being lifted. Alternatively, the "quid pro quo" for this intelligence report is Iran stopping its support for the insurgents in Iraq.

Don't we humans love a good conspiracy theory!

Update: This article in the Telegraph shares my scepticism over the NIE report but has a different theory. Apparently, British spy chiefs think that Iran may have 'hoodwinked' the CIA.

These conspiracy theories are good fun, but I wonder if my amusement won't turn to radioactive ashes one day when a nuclear bomb explodes over Tel Aviv?

Misyar Brides

According to this article in today's Arab News a Saudi Man has duped three men who wanted a misyar marriage with his daughter:-

RIYADH, 6 December 2007 — A Saudi man took advantage of the high demand for misyar brides and duped three men out of more than SR75,000, the daily Al-Riyadh reported yesterday.

In Saudi Arabia, misyar works like this: A woman basically agrees in a binding Islamic marriage contract to be set up with certain material provisions (an apartment, a car, etc.) in exchange for living with a married man. She may also forgo any pre-nuptial demands, but since she doesn’t get a dowry or access to other material support she usually asks for something. Usually the more attractive and younger the woman, the more leverage she has in getting material positions.

In this case, three different men asked the man for his daughter’s hand in marriage. But instead of approving one prospective groom, the man accepted all three proposals and also collected a total of SR75,000 in dowry from the wannabe husbands. After he had the money, the man fled to an unknown location and conveniently changed all of his contact numbers.

Some points to note: the suitors thought the father could decide who his daughter would marry, so she presumably had no choice in the matter? The father also pocketed the money; surely it's the woman who should receive the dowry?

Tell me this isn't the same as selling your daughter into prostitution?

I have written previously about misyar marriages here.

Unnecessary Hostility

It is often worthwhile to check the "Islam" section of the Arab News. It often contains some edifying piece like, for example, a Saudi sheikh explaining the correct way to beat your wife.

In today's on-line version, I found an article entitled "Unnecessary Hostility". I found the title quite ironic: the hostility referred to is that of the Jews of Medina to the prophet Mohammed. The term "Unnecessary Hostility" could also, however, be used to describe the Arabic attitude to modern day Jews.

They might argue the "unnecessary" part, but the "hostility" is certainly true.

One of the interesting facts about this article is that it was written by Sayyid Qutb, chief ideologue of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and author of extremely influential book "Milestones". Let me quote a little from the Wikipedia article on Sayyid Qutb:-

... has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah. In the West he sometimes described as "the man whose ideas would shape Al Qaeda.

and from the Wikipedia article on his work "Milestones":-

Commentators have both praised Milestones as a ground-breaking, inspirational work by a hero and a martyr, and reviled it as a prime example of unreasoning entitlement, self-pity, paranoia, and hatred that has been a major influence on Islamist terrorism.

Interesting choice of author for their section on Islam!

The article itself describes the "hostility" of the three Jewish tribes of Medina to the Prophet Mohammed. It also describes the expulsion of two of these tribes: the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir.

It omits, however, the fate of the third Jewish tribe: the Banu Qurayza. When they surrendered to the tender mercies of the early Muslims, all the adult male members of the tribe were executed (some 600 or 700 men) and the women and children enslaved. Unnecessary hostility indeed!

Muttawa Cleared of Murder

In a post on the "Qatif Girl" case I mentioned the case of two members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (i.e. the Muttawa) who were accused of causing the death of a man who died in their custody.

(I have written a post dedicated to the Muttawa here. They are particularly infamous for causing the deaths of fifteen schoolgirls during a fire at their school. The Muttawa stopped the girls from getting out because their hair wasn't properly covered.)

Returning to the case of the two Muttawa, who allegedly killed a Saudi man by beating him to a pulp: according to this article, the case against them has been dropped:-

The judges in the case of two members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice who were accused of causing the death of Salman Al-Huraisi following a raid of his house in May dismissed the charges yesterday in the Riyadh High Court.

The court in Riyadh “acquitted the two members of the Commission of the charge of being directly responsible for the death of Al-Huraisi, for lack of sufficient evidence,” the commission’s lawyer Yussef Al-Nuqaidan said.

. . .

A copy of the ruling, which was sent to Arab News, mentioned five reasons in which the three judges have stated to dismiss the case:

• That the testimonies of the eyewitnesses cannot be accepted because they said Commission members cannot testify against their colleagues;

• That the two defendants later retracted their confessions;

• That the testimonies of other Commission members in the case cannot be presented as evidence by the attorney representing the family;

• That family members have testified that the two defendants had beaten the deceased; and

• That the testimonies from the two defendants in their earlier confession did not mention that they had beaten the deceased in his head, which is considered the fatal blow which caused the death.

Compare the judge's eagerness to acquit in this case with the judge's attitude in the "Qatif Girl" case. It seems to be one law for the Muttawa and another for a female member of a religious minority!

Qatif Girl Interview

The online version of the Daily Telegraph has an interview with the Qatif Girl. Apparently, whe was attacked by her brother:-

A Saudi woman sentenced to 200 lashes after she was gang-raped claims her brother tried to kill her when he learned of the attack.

The woman, known only as Qatif Girl after the area where the crime occurred, also described how she tried to commit suicide after the assault. The interview was recorded by Human Rights Watch in December 2006 and released recently.

"Everyone looks at me as if I'm wrong. I couldn't even continue my studies. I wanted to die. I tried to commit suicide twice," the woman said of the aftermath of the attack in which she was raped at knifepoint by seven men as a former boyfriend was driving her home.

Unlike other Arab countries, we hear little about honour killings in Saudi Arabia. This is probably because of police complicity in hushing them up. In today's Arab News there is an article about violence against women which discusses local reaction to this case:-

We note a shift in public discourse concerning this case; it has effectively turned from a gang rape — in which the rapists were the perpetrators — to a case of seduction in which the girl is the seducer and guilty party. Some scholars have expressed their belief that the girl and her “partners” deserve the death penalty. Notice please the use of the word “partners.” The word “partner” usually suggests a voluntary link or association.
. . .
It has been interesting to follow the online comments from readers and members of the public about the case. A shift in perspective has become very clear; now there are voices asking for stoning and some are asking for death — for the girl of course.

Why am I not surprised?

Over 1,500 Extremists Freed After Repenting

According to an article in today'a Arab News:-

Saudi authorities have released more than 1,500 reformed extremists, who were detained on charges of embracing and spreading takfeer (the ideology that brands other Muslims who disagree with them as infidels).

The extremists, under the guidance of the Ministry of Interior, had undergone lengthy counseling, according to Muhammad Al-Nujaimi, a member of the Counseling Committee and professor of comparative jurisprudence at the King Fahd Security College.

I am sceptical about the efficacy of these counselling programs that are supposed to convince jihadis that violence and terrorism are inconsistent with Islam.

Many suspected Saudi terrorists were rounded up in recent in response to the campaign of terrorism waged in Saudi Arabia between 2001 and 2005. This, eventually, resulted in the attacks diminishing in frequency and then stopping altogether.

What I suspect happened was that many of those rounded up along with the were either completely uninvolved or not strongly motivated jihadis. These people probably constitute most of those who have forsworn the use of violence.

I'm pretty sure that the hard-core of jihadis can not be persuaded that violence is wrong. I only hope that none of them have been able to fool the committee with a pretence of repentance.

Note: there is no mention of violence or terrorism in the article; most of it talks about takfeer (or takfir), however, the following paragraph is revealing:-

The suspects were largely confused about the meaning of jihad, which led to their believing in committing blind violence. They also viewed that the present Muslim rulers, scholars and public were infidels, and therefore demanded the establishment of a single Islamic state, said Al-Nujaimi.

This almost needs line-by-line analysis. Firstly, while many modern Muslims say that the primary "meaning of jihad" is an inner spiritual struggle, Islamic scholars over the centuries have held that it is warfare against the unbelievers.

The remainder of the paragraph is pure Al Qa'ida. Osama bin Laden calls the rulers of Saudi Arabia infidels because they don't properly enforce Shari'a (which seems very strange to those of us living here). This is the give-away: although it's not stated, these people are, or are suspected of being, members of Al Qa'ida.

Ministry of Justice Smears "Qatif Girl"

According to an Arab News report, the Saudi Ministry of Justice has issued a new statement on the "Qatif Girl" case:-

The statement, which the ministry says is a response to media scrutiny of the ruling, said that the rape victim confessed to having an illegal affair with the man who was caught with her.

“She went out with him without a mahram, a legal guardian, and exchanged forbidden affairs through the illegal khalwa,” the statement said. “They both confessed to doing what God forbids.”

This case has caused as much outrage inside Saudi as it has outside. This is an attempt to address local criticisms of the case. The statement continues:-

"They are the main cause of what happened, the woman and her companion, as they exposed themselves to this horrible crime and violated the rule of Shariah,” the statement said. “That’s why the sentences were increased for everyone due to the dangerous nature of the crime.”

By "crime" they seem to be referring to the crime of the girl and her male companion being alone together. Let me put the ministry's point of view in another way: "she asked for it".

Whether this statement will affect Saudi public opinion, I don't know, but it sure won't cut any ice with Western critics of Saudi justice.

The following are the key issues that I think the Ministry should understand:-

1. An unrelated man and woman being alone together is not a crime, regardless of whether intercourse takes place.
2. In any civilized court, the woman's ordeal would be regarded as sufficient punishment for any crime she had committed (but see 1. above).
   
3. The victim(s), especially of rape, should not be held responsible for causing the crime.
   

I know that I am, in some ways, a guest here and should respect their culture, but this isn't an issue of manners. It's not like refraining from eating or drinking in front of people who are fasting during Ramadan. It's a basic question of what constitutes a crime and what does not.

This could, in fact, be regarded as an example of the "Clash of Civilizations" as proposed by Samuel P. Huntington.

BBC World: Jihad and the Saudi Petrodollar

I have just finished listening to the second part of the BBC World documentary "Jihad and the Saudi Petrodollar". Programme one, "Wahhabism" can be listened to or downloaded from here; programme two "The Money Trail" can be found here.

It comes as no surprise to a Westerner living in Saudi that money from Saudi is funding Jihad around the world. Much of what goes on occurs in Arabic but once in a while you hear something in English.

For example, my suspicions were aroused a year or two ago by an appeal for money for "Palestinian Children's Hospitals". Given that the UK has, to my knowledge, only one dedicated paediatric hospital (Guy's Hospital, London) I find it remarkable that the Palestinian territories have a multitude of them. But, perhaps I am wrong.

That wealthy Saudi individuals and Saudi charities contribute to what we would call "terrorism" is undeniable (except they do deny it). What is not clear is the extent of Saudi government involvement.

Saudi Media Prepares for Anapolis Peace Conference

The above cartoon was published in Arab News two or three days ago. This is not a good indicator for the success of the forthcoming Israel-Palestinian Peace Conference at Anapolis.

The common belief amongst ex-pats is that the Arab News journalists or editors know what they are doing and understand how Western readers of their paper will react to items such as this. The cartoon was, I believe, first published in an Arabic language newspaper.

Anyone publishing something like this in the Western world would find themselves in court quicker than you can say "holcaust denial". However, this sort of thing is, I understand, common in the Arab world. For examples of more dreadful anti-semitic cartoons see here.

In the same vein, Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, I understand, extremely popular in Middle Eastern countries.

The Saudi Legal System

Reading a post about the "Qatif Girl" at Saudi Jeans, I came across a reference to the Royal decree which has ordered an overhaul of the Saudi legal system.

Until now, Saudi judges have had wide discretion to issue rulings according to their own interpretation of Islamic Sharia law.

Codification of the law and a reduction of the Saudi judges discretion would, one would expect, remove injustices such as the increase in the Qatif girl's sentence for publicising the injustice of the case.

What it would not do is remove the basic assumption that a man and a woman who are not related and are not married commit a crime by being alone together. Improvements can be made in the administration of justice in Saudi, however, Saudi law is based on Shari'a. While that is the case it will continue to regard zina (extramarital sex) and khwala (being alone with a male who is not a close relative) as crimes.

"Qatif Girl" Makes Headlines around the World

There seems to be a wave of worldwide disgust and outrage (and quite rightly so) about the case of the "Qatif Girl". As I commented here, a 19-year old woman was kidnapped and raped 14 times by a gang of seven men.

The men were sentenced to between one and five years imprisonment but the girl and her male companion were also sentenced to 90 lashes. At the appeal hearing the sentences of the rapists were increased to between two and nine year, but the girl and her companion's sentences were also increased to 200 lashes and six months in prison.

According to an Arab News report:-

The Ministry of Justice made its first public statement regarding the second verdict in the so-called “Qatif Girl” rape trial, justifying the decision to punish the victims with lashes and jail time on the basis of “some proved charges.”
. . .
The ministry also said yesterday in its statement that anyone has a right to appeal verdicts, but also warned of “stirring up agitation through the media that may not be objective and cannot grant anyone any right as much as it can negatively affect the other parties involved in the case.”

In other words they fully support the judge's decision to increase the sentences of the girl and her male companion!

They may be able to tell the Saudi public that "we're right and you're wrong" but the rest of the world may not be impressed. I've found this story at the BBC, CNN, the New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, here, here, and here and here and here.

I think I've made my point: the entire Western world is pretty disgusted at this case. The King would be well advised to intervene in this case and issue a pardon for this girl. That would at least take the heat out of this issue, even if it would do nothing about the underlying problem with the Saudi justice system.

(Update: In neither of the two blog entries I've made on this case, have I mentioned one crucial fact: this girl is a Shi'a. The judge is almost certainly a Sunni religious scholar and so was almost certainly biased against her from the start.)

This is not the only controversial case that's caused criticism of the Saudi legal system. I have already commented on the case of Fatima and Mansour.

These cases are not isolated incidences; reading today's onlive version of Arab News, I came accross this report. It deals with the case of two members of the Muttawa (the religious police) who (gasp!) are actually being tried for murder after a man died in their custody. According to this report:-

Al-Huraisi said: “Everyone in the house, including my elderly father, was arrested and taken to the Oraija commission center,” he said.

The father of the deceased said that commission members continued to beat his handcuffed son, even though he was already covered in blood, until he died at the center.

However, according to today's report, the Saudi Judiciary are keeping to their policy of punishing both the criminal and the victim:-

Meanwhile, a lower court in Riyadh handed sentences to five members of Al-Huraisi’s family for resisting arrest by commission members. Al-Huraisi’s father, Muhammad, 73, was sentenced to two years in jail and 50 lashes; Faisal, a brother of the deceased, who is also blind, was handed a three-month jail sentence; Ismail, another brother, was handed a two-year and eight-month sentence for resisting arrest and possessing alcohol and narcotics; and Ahmed, a nephew of the deceased, was handed a one-year jail sentence.

So a 73 year-old man, who's son was beaten to death in front of his eyes is sentenced to two years in prison and 50 lashes, while a blind brother of the murdered man gets three months in prison!

Motorist Caught for DWW

The good old Arab News has something worth a chuckle or a sigh most days. Today it's a report about a motorist who was caught for DWW: Driving While Woman:-

According to yesterday’s Al-Madinah daily, Saudi Highway Patrol officers pulled over a car on the Madinah-Jeddah highway because they noticed a woman driving.

When the officers approached the car, both the woman and the man seated next to her rolled down the windows and asked if there was a problem. When questioned, the two explained that they were brother and sister and were driving from Kuwait to Jeddah. The brother, who got tired of driving, gave his sister the wheel so he could take a nap.

After officers pointed out that women were not allowed to drive in the Kingdom, the brother and sister pleaded ignorance.

The officers issued a warning to the siblings and let them go about their journey on the condition that the brother drives the rest of the way. (Because, after all, it’s much better for a tired, travel-weary man to drive a car than any woman!)

Reading the last paragraph you can tell that the writer does not approve of the current law regarding women drivers in Saudi. Although the media in Saudi Arabia is heavily censored, the English language newspapers are sometimes able to get away with indirect criticisms of the government because they are mainly read only by the ex-pat community.

The article continues:-

The Saudi press consistently reports instances of women getting caught behind the wheel. Usually these “offenders” sneak the family car out of the house — without the knowledge of their male guardians — for a joy ride but what made this situation unique was the fact that the woman was accompanied by a man.

In 2006 women were even forbidden from driving golf carts at a cultural festival. Apparently, there is a "League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia" and on the Saudi National day (23 September) this year, they submitted a petition to King Abdullah requesting that women be allowed to drive.

Best of luck to them; they can't be any more dangerous than their male compatriots!

Final Death Toll in Pipeline Explosion

According to a report in today's Arab News, the final death toll in Sunday's gas pipline explosion is 40 dead. Strangely enough, the number of injured has fallen from "at least 60" yesterday to nine of which six have already been discharged from hospital. The larger total seems more likely to me; today's figures may only refer to Aramco employees.

The nationalities of the dead are reported as follows:-

Among the 40 workers who lost their lives were 18 Pakistanis, seven Indians, seven Bangladeshis, six Saudis, one South African and one Nepalese, it said.

Only one Westerner (the South African) amongst the dead and only five Saudi Aramco employees; all the others worked for a contractor company. The lack of Western engineers involved confirms my suspicion that human error was the cause of the accident.

This is not to denigrate the abilities of Asian workers and technicians; many work long hours in dreadful conditions for little pay. They have, however, a different outlook on safety and the value of human life.

A friend of mine told me the following story (forgive me if I've told it before): he came into his office one morning and found an Indian electrician, precariously balanced on a chair, trying to repair a light fitting. My friend told the electrician to be careful. "Don't worry, sir", replied the electrician, "I have a brother"!

Death Toll from Gas Explosion Increased to 38

According to a report in today's Arab News the death toll from yesterday's gas explosion has increased to 38. This is not surprising, on consideration, as yesterday's report mentioned that twelve workers were missing.

Nevertheless, this must have been a huge explosion to have killed so many. The report also states that at least 60 people were injured.

The explosion occurred on the Haradh-Othmaniya gas pipeline which is in the region of the huge Al-Ghawar (map, also see above) oil field - the largest oil field in the world.

As a subscriber to the Jim Hacker school of political cynicism, the official denial of any terrorist involvement means that I have to consider it a possibility. The coincidence of the OPEC conference in Riyadh also makes me think that a terrorist link should be looked at.


However, there are many oil and gas pipelines running across the Saudi desert. It would be much easier for Iranian agents or Al Qaeda supporters to sabotage a pipeline out in the desert away from prying eyes. The fact that so many workers were caught up in the blast indicates to me that this explosion can be easily explained as a case of human error.

Massive Gas Explosion

In recent years the Saudi government has ordered a massive "dash for gas" by the government owned oil company Aramco. The amount of oil that Saudi Arabia can extract is governed by OPEC agreements.

The Saudi government has decided to expolt its massive gas reserves for internal use (e.g. electricity generation) so that it can export more of the oil it produces.

Earlier today a massive explosion occurred, apparently, while engineers were connecting a new pipe to the main pipeline. Reports here and here.

Twenty eight people are reported killed and twelve people are still missing; there is no estimate given of the number injured. There is no indication that this is terrorist related, however there is no indication given of the cause of the blast. Five of the dead are Saudi Aramco employees, the rest were contractors.

The fire occurred about 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Aramco's Hawiyah gas plant.

In recent years, western managers have been replaced by Saudi and Arabic managers. These people are far from being incompetent and Aramco has a extremely safety-concious ethic. However, the Arab mindset is not one that will challenge authority or risk one's own career to highlight a safety issue.

An alternative explanation can be found in the fact that only five out of the 28 dead are Saudi Aramco employees. The remainder are Asian workers employed by contractors. Aramco uses it's bargaining power to force contractors to lower their fees to rock bottom levels. The contractors can then only make a profit if they cut corners e.g. on employee wages, training etc.

This is, of course, only my opinion based on a lot of guesswork and taking the news reports on face value.

The Story of Fatmia and Mansour

Having described the dreadful events resulting from the gang-rape of the "Qatif girl" in my last post, I decided that I should also write about the case of "Fatima and Mansour". This case also caused a lot of comment, even outrage, amongst the Saudi public.

To understand this case, you must understand that tribal loyalties and affiliations are still very strong in the modern Saudi Arabia. A Lebanese friend says that Saudis classify themselves as being either "110" or "220". This is a reference to the electricity supply; the ordinary mains is 110 volts, but some buildings are wired with a 220 volt supply.

If a Saudi can trace his lineage back to one of the Bedouin tribes of the desert, then he is said to be tribal and looks down on the ordinary Saudis who are descended from the Arabs of the towns and cities.

There is a third option; everybody looks down on the resident of Jizan (a province in the South West of the country). The dialing cope for Jizan is "07", so if you are a Saudi, you are either 220 (i.e. tribal), 110 (i.e. non-tribal) or 07 (from Jizan).

Leaving that aside, I will return to Fatima and Mansour. They were a happily married couple with a young family. Unfortunately, Fatima's half-brothers didn't like Mansour and accused him of lying about his tribal background. (Even if you are tribal, some tribes have more status than others.)

According to this report from Arab News:-

Mansour has repeatedly denied that he lied about his tribal background. “They (Fatima’s male relatives) asked about me and even came to visit me at my work in Al-Jouf where I lived at the time,” he said in a previous interview with Arab News.

While Fatima's father was still alive her half-brothers could do nothing. Unfortunately, he became terminally ill and gave his sons the power of attorney.

The half-brothers used their new authority to apply to a court to have Fatima and Mansour's wedding annulled. Fatima and Mansour were not informed of the proceedings and the brother's application was granted in their absence!

When the couple learnt about the ruling they initially went on the run. They were eventually captured by the police and imprisoned in Dammam for living together while not married to each other.

Eventually, the authorities decided to release them but Fatima refused to return to her family:-

In an interview with Arab News in November, Fatima said she was remaining in prison by her own choice; she refused to return to the custody of her family. (Women of any age in Saudi Arabia require a legal male guardian, or mahram, who could be either their husbands or other male relatives.) “I’m leaving this place on one condition only: That I go back to my husband,” she told Arab News.

She also said that she feared her brothers would mistreat her children who they regarded as being inferior. As of now, Fatima remains in Dammam prison with her youngest child, while Mansour has custody of their older child. More information on this case can be found here.

It appears that women in Saudi law occupy a place somewhere inbetween children and adults. On the one hand they cannot be responsible for themselves but must be in the care of an adult male relative. On the other hand they are regarded as being responsible for their actions and are punished for them up to and including the death penalty.