Liberal ideology and a free market economy are such a pervasive part of our life it is hard to imagine life without them. In our advanced technological society, different media are constantly competing for our attention causing us to lose sight of where these ideas come from and the origins of the political theory. Ideology and political theory are not to be conflated with each other. Ideology seeks to promote a specific agenda, differing from political theory that is the science of ideas that welcomes new information and describes different political outcomes. Liberalism is described by Ronald Beiner as a nervousness about religion and a desire to contain it. Through looking at two sovereigntist political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza, as well as reflections of their work from Ronald Beiner in his book Civil Religion we can distinguish ideology from political theory and see where these ideas that have so influenced our society were born.

 

Liberalism and the economic pursuits of a free market are not without their flaws. But if liberal ideology didn’t exist, what would our lives look like instead? Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651 claiming that man’s state of nature was a State of War in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” It would not be hard to find evidence to support this claim as our history as a people has been steeped in violence and war. We need only look at countries like Yemen, Syria or Somalia to see that without a strong sovereign in place to maintain order, many citizens of these countries become casualties of violence and famine.

According to Hobbes, our state of nature is how we would exist if there were no rules or government and people were absolutely free.  If our state of nature is a state of war then collectively, we must decide how to prevent war and bring order and security to society by exchanging some of our freedom and agreeing to a contract of governance. Hobbes had lived through the execution of the monarchy during the civil war in England and the violence that followed. This led him to believe that a flawed ruler of the commonwealth was better than no ruler at all. Following Hobbes work, another sovereigntist, Baruch Spinoza, wrote Theological-Political Treatise in 1670 to offer his own approach to sovereignty. He suggests that peace and piety are quite compatible with each other leading him to believe that order and security could be gained through a co-sovereignty between religion and politics. Spinoza departs from Hobbes though in his account of what follows a state of nature which he describes as a democracy. Hobbes is not opposed to the possibility of a monarch as sovereign where Spinoza denies that God has appointed individuals as Kings. Spinoza states:

“the most natural form of state, approaching most closely to that freedom which nature grants to every man. For in a democratic state nobody transfers his natural right to another so completely that thereafter he is not to be consulted; he transfers it to the majority of the entire community of which he is part. In this way all men remain equal, as they were before in a state of nature.”

 

Spinoza is trying to imagine a society that embodies both liberty and obedience. He also recognizes as Hobbes did that the person with a monopoly on interpreting scripture will be able to use this to gain political power. A sovereign must be careful because interpretations of scripture can be authoritative, and clerics might demand absolute obedience to serve their own interests over those of the commonwealth even if they oppose the authority of the sovereign. To prevent this power struggle, he proposes a co-sovereignty of politics and civil religion. Comparatively, Hobbes sees a single sovereign whether that be a person or a body of people as the defense against a state of war and like Spinoza recognizes that unchecked religious authority could threaten the sovereignty of political leadership. He states, “Governments are the guardians and interpreters of religious law as well as civil law as they alone have the right to decide what is just and unjust, what is pious and impious.” For Hobbes, there must be clear division between religion and politics to protect the sovereignty and preserve order and security for the people of the commonwealth. With this as a starting point to understanding Hobbes and Spinoza’s political theory, let us look at Ronald Beiner, author of Civil Religion, and his reflections on politics and religion in the two sovereigntist’s work.

 

Beiner’s Reflections on Civil Religion, Liberalism and Baruch Spinoza

 

Through their individual theories Spinoza and Hobbes upheld the liberal ideals of individual freedom, however Spinoza was not liberal in his distinctions between religion and state. But both Hobbes and Spinoza saw a distinct difference in people’s outer conduct and inner belief and did not wish to police people’s hearts and minds although they recognized the usefulness of civil religion in gaining political support. Ronald Beiner describes civil religion as traditions put in place that seek to domesticate religion by putting it solidly in the service of politics. Meaning that civil religion is what exists when ideology puts political restraints on religion favoring individual freedom over authoritarian theocratic rule.

 

Beiner points out that although Spinoza advocates for co-sovereignty between politics and religion in a form of theocratic rule, this does not mean that the high priest holds more power than the political regime. He describes Spinoza’s theory of “joint-sovereignty” as dividing the labour: one part of the sovereignty interprets the word of God and the other part enacts laws based on the religious interpretations. This division of labour creates a situation where politics and religion are dependent on and restrained by each other. Beiner states that although the division of politics and religion is not clear, it is still a form of civil religion. Spinoza wants to protect politics from religion by insuring that clerics cannot infringe on “state business” and their right to decide who to excommunicate and who to punish. This dynamic of power favors the political leadership over the high priest causing Spinoza’s theories of theocracy to be closer to a form of civil religion and liberalism than a true theocratic regime.

This goes back to the separation between outer conduct and inner belief. If the goal of creating a social contract and giving some of your freedom to a sovereign leader is to gain security, the security a person lacks in a state of nature, then any attempt by the state to terrorize people based on their beliefs would undermine its purpose of creating security. It is in this distinction that Spinoza can be clearly seen to embody the ideals of liberalism.

 

Beiner summarized Spinoza’s theory very concisely by describing it as the 4 Stages of Theocracy as follows:

Stage 1 (first covenant) consists in the rule of God, which corresponds to authentic theocracy, de facto democracy.

Stage 2 (second covenant) consists in the rule of Moses, which is a theocratic monarchy, which one can encapsulate as formal theocracy, de facto absolute monarchy.

Stage 3 consists in the joint-sovereignty regime shared between Joshua and Aaron-Eleazar.

Stage 4 consists in the confederation of tribes, with power dispersed among distinct captains, none of whom retain anything approaching absolute sovereignty.

 

According to Beiner, what Spinoza is saying here is that the creation of a political community originates from free individuals joining in a free covenant and therefore should not become the absolute authority of a monarchy. In other words, before Moses became the theocratic ruler people were naturally free. The rule of Moses was a theocratic monarchy and following his rule came the joint sovereignty of Joshua and Aaron-Eleazar. As leadership is passed down power should be dispersed among the tribes in a democratic fashion allow people more of the freedom that was experienced in the first covenant with God as the sovereign. It seems that Spinoza wants to combine not just politics and religion but also religion and philosophy. According to Beiner, Spinoza saw religion as a tool for people who lacked the capacity to reason for themselves and needed moral guidance. He associated philosophy with freedom but believed that not all citizens were capable of philosophical reasoning. For this reason, while religion is useful in helping people who lack the ability to understand philosophy to live a virtuous life, the interpretation of religion should be left up to those with the capacity to reason and understand life philosophically to ensure that the church authority is not corrupted by power.

 

Beiner’s Reflections on Civil Religion, Liberalism and Thomas Hobbes

 

Beiner in his book, Civil Religion saw Hobbes’ political theories fall under the category of liberal traditions that seek to “domesticate religion” by putting it in the service of politics. One of the ways that Hobbes discussed was through separating a person’s outer conduct from their inner belief. Fellow philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes the Hobbesian principle as follows: “it is the duty of each private individual to follow the religion approved in his homeland by the public authorities, if not adopting it in his heart, at least in professing it and submitting to it obediently.” In other words, while a citizen must follow the laws and practices of their sovereign, they are free to believe whatever they want. This was a major tenant in Protestant ideology that wanted to ensure they did not experience oppression under theocratic rule. This separation of outer conduct and inner belief is a significant point in liberal ideology as well.

 

Hobbes like Spinoza tried to deal with the problem of power between politics and religion and who should the power favour? To Hobbes the rule of priests as in a theocracy is unstable because the priests do not have the authority to decide who is a true prophet or not. He gives the example of the Hebrews prior to King Saul who were priestly and in practice a theocracy, but it was short lived because of the chaos created by the various prophets. Where Spinoza objects to the monarchy, Hobbes sees it as a solution to the problem of theocracy. A king would be able to stabilize the political community through deciding which prophets are true or false. This sovereign would have what Beiner describes as “undivided temporal authority” over decisions of religion and politics a philosophical appropriation of the truth that already resides within the Old Testament.

 

Hobbes stated that the Hebrews had good cause to overthrow their theocratic rule in order to quell the chaos but simply removing the theocratic rulers does not solve the issue of who holds political authority. Hobbes proposes reintroducing theocracy through the sovereign who will rule as arbiter on what constitutes a religious truth to quell the chaos and put religion in a place to serve politics rather than the reverse. As Beiner puts it, Hobbes position states that “only through (nominally Christian) theocratic politics can the sovereign claim sufficient authority to strip Christianity of the otherworldly teachings that threaten temporal authority.” In other words, because religion presents itself as representing the will of God and politics is just the will of the people within the commonwealth, there is a bias toward religious rule as being the highest authority. If religion was domesticated and subjugated to serve the sovereignty it would present less of a threat to political order than simply removing theocratic rule altogether.

 

Thoughts on Beiner, Liberalism and Civil Religion

 

In Beiner’s text, Civil Religion, he seeks to establish the origins of ideas and the trajectory they took that lead us to modern day liberalism and the civil religion of today. Political philosophers like Hobbes and Spinoza seek to domesticate religion to serve politics rather than have politics serve religion. Later, the liberal tradition changes tactics from seeking domestication to putting distance between politics and religion. Along with the liberal tradition comes the theocratic response to its ideology. The strongest responses coming from the undomesticated forms of religion that do not distinguish between outer conduct and inward belief at all. We need only look at Saudi Arabia to see what that looks like. Beiner gives us a trajectory of the philosophical thought that contributed to the liberal tradition, but without familiarity with these primary sources themselves, his overview can seem overwhelming.  It is written with a specific audience in mind, the academics and students of political philosophy who are familiar with the primary sources he has provided.

 

The liberal tradition is built upon ideas borrowed from philosophers like Hobbes and Spinoza. We need to see the origins of these ideas to see the difference between political theory and ideology and how liberalism is propagated today. Hobbes had seen how ideology could result in violent ends with the execution of the monarchy during the English civil war. He did not want society to deconstruct itself again to such violent ends. He saw us all as having this in common: we want peace and fear death. It is because of this that we seek to leave a state of war through entering a social contract with a sovereign to create order in our lives. To Hobbes, even a poor sovereign was better than no sovereign at all, but he did more than just try to ideologically propagate his theories, he questioned what other political positions were possible and the consequences of taking those positions whether it was to bring about a theocracy, a monarchy or no sovereign at all. For an overview on Hobbes see the following video below.

Spinoza like Hobbes took a scientific approach to understanding the relationship of power between politics and religion in society. Through removing some of the superstition from religion and elevating the philosophical conclusions embedded in the scripture, he sought to put religion in the service of politics with what he saw as a theocratic co-sovereignty between religion and politics. Although it could be argued that it is not a true theocracy if religion is dominated by political figures. Spinoza upheld the ideal of freedom of thought believing that laws could only applied to our conduct and not our thoughts an ideal of importance in the liberal tradition. He deviated from this liberal ideology in his thoughts on the combined authority of politics and religion rather than keeping the two separate as they are in liberal secular society. The following video will give you an overview of Spinoza.

It can be confusing trying to distinguish civil religion from authentic religion. Although the goal in creating civil religion was to prevent political upheaval, the implementation of civil religion meant to distort religion into something that could be controlled by the state. The prosaic ideology of liberalism today may seek to meet the needs of people in society needs like health care, education and security, but is this enough? The pursuit of happiness, security and a free market economy may only take people so far. There is a desire to find deeper meaning than just meeting the necessities of life and it is in this realm of thought that religion gains its appeal. Liberalism as an ideology espouses the need for freedom and equality in our society. However, there are times when this ideology clearly fails to provide these ideals at all. After all, in a society where there exists such disparities in wealth, it would seem that some people’s futures are much more secure than others. Although our system is flawed, what alternative do we have if our natural state is a state of war? Through untangling political theory from liberal ideology perhaps we could put forth a better, more attainable goal. Equality may not be attainable despite the pervasive liberal ideology that permeates our society. Instead, the goal of improving the quality of lives of the people in our society could be a new, more attainable goal.

 

References

Beiner, R. (2011). Civil Religion. Toronto: Cambridge University Press.

Hobbes, T., & Mapherson, C. (1651). Leviathan. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

 

 

 

As Canadians, it is easy to take for granted the amount of freedom we have to express religious and political opinions. We can publicly declare and document our political and religious expression without fear of punishment by autocratic leaders of religious or political authority. Through this safe environment that we have, a marketplace of ideas can flourish, hopefully for the betterment of society. As a Canadian, I have enjoyed this privilege to speak my mind and to ask critical questions about those with social or political power. As a student of Journalism and Political Science I have exercised this privilege quite frequently. Taking for granted the freedom of expression I experience in Canada during my travels has fortunately only led to warnings from my foreign friends who don’t experience the same amount of privilege as me. Those warnings have led me to re-evaluate the importance of freedom of speech in our society and the impact of oppressing this freedom in other countries around the world. While I have only experienced the potential threat to my security while residing in other countries, others have fought and died for the right to express their opinions, the privilege which I have simply by virtue of where I was born.

 

Speaking of people getting killed for expressing their opinions, I can think of no better example of political and religious oppression than those occurring under the leadership of Saudi Arabia. On October 2, 2018 a Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, was murdered in a Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul while applying for the documentation and papers required to marry his fiancée. Khashoggi understood the dangers of living in Saudi Arabia under such an oppressive regime and sought to bring about political and social change as a journalist in America living in a self-imposed exile. I had never thought that Saudi Arabia would be so bold as to send a kill squad to another country to assassinate Khashoggi, but as I learned more about Saudi Arabia and the violent oppression of their people resulting from the spread of religious fundamentalism, I realized that the leadership had been getting away with tyrannical behaviour for decades.

 

Along with the Khashoggi example, there are other instances where the impact of the autocratic regime of Saudi Arabia can extend beyond their own borders. In August, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a tweet expressing concern over the detainment of human rights activists Samar Badawi and Raif Badawi and Saudi Arabia was swift to respond. The Canadian ambassador was given 24 hours to leave the country, all trade was frozen, and Saudi students and medical patients were told to make arrangements to leave the country in the near future. In another example, a young Saudi woman fleeing abuse escaped to Thailand and barricaded herself into a hotel room as Saudi Arabian officials and Thai police tried to negotiate her return to Saudi Arabia. Eventually, through broadcasting her plight across social media, she caught the attention of UN officials who implored other countries to grant her refugee status on an emergency basis. Rahaf Mohammed had renounced Islam during her escape, a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Canada fast tracked her application and arrangements were made for her to travel to Toronto where she was greeted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland herself.

 

Although the new crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman has tried to present Saudi Arabia as a country that is reforming health, education, tourism, and infrastructure; these examples: the Khashoggi killing, the imprisonment of women’s rights activists Samar Badawi and Raif Badawi, and the escape of Rahaf Mohammad who could be put to death for renouncing Islam, demonstrate that whatever reforms that have been made may not be enough and the consequences of this oppression can extend beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia spilling into Turkey, Thailand, or Canada. To understand how tyrannical forces oppress freedom of speech, women’s rights and freedom of religion, we need to look at the history of how religion manifests under Wahhabism and the political rule under the House of Saud.

 

Religion: Salafi Islam and Wahhabi Oppression

 

 

Islam was born in the Arabian Peninsula so you could consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the birthplace of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad lived in both Mecca and Medina, the two most holy cities for Muslims around the world. Islam isn’t just the dominant religion in Saudi Arabia, it is the only religion that’s practice is tolerated. All other religious minorities were driven out of the country or forced to practice in secret. Religious minorities are not the only one driven out of public spaces. More specifically, only the strict form of Sunni/Salafi Islam is taught and practiced in the holy cities. Although many different Muslim traditions would like to pray and pay respects at there, only the Salafi tradition also known as Wahhabism may be practiced at these holy sites (Schwartz, 2005, p. 28). Salafi translates closely to “followers of the ancients” and seeks to bring about the form of Islam that existed in its first three generations.

 

The Salafi are extremists who believe that Islam has been corrupted and the only way to correct this is to restore the religion to a past form, before this corruption occurred. The Salafi are fundamentalists in every sense of the word as they practice a strict and literal understanding of the Quran. Western and outside influences are rejected as morally corrupt. The idea that the majority of people could vote to change Sharia law is repulsive to Salafi who see the religious law as the will of God, the ultimate authority.

 

The Wahhabis consider themselves the champions of bringing about the “Unity of God” or Tawhid as its known in Arabic. Tawhid concerns itself with the strict enforcement of monotheism through prohibiting any association with god by something that is not god. All idols are forbidden as they are symbols of god and paying respect at a grave site is strictly forbidden as it is seen as another form of worship through something that is not god.

 

This philosophy manifested itself with the fundamentalist Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), a Kurd and a religious scholar who called for a return to the early Sunni Islam practices and denounced all Sufi and Shi’i Muslims. He harshly condemned any sort of prayer or reverence given to grave sites or to religious mentors, a practice that held importance to many Shi’i Muslims, as profane as it leads to idolatry. Other critics of the time saw this narrow understanding as extreme. In a debate with Ibn Taymiyyah, Sufi and Maliki jurist Ibn Ata Allah al-Iskandari argued that if you were to ban prayer through saints and other mentors “then we ought also to prohibit grapes because they are the means to making wine, and to emasculate unmarried men because not to do so leaves in the world a means to commit fornication and adultery” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 24). In other words, just because an act could lead to idolatry or sin does not mean it will lead that way and should be banned. Taymiyyah’s held radical views such as calling for death to all heretical Muslims and this inevitably led to his persecution, imprisonment and death but his ideas live on as he was declared a mentor to the Wahhabi Muslims that carried his beliefs on into the present day.

 

The name Wahhabi comes from the teacher Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, born in Arabia in 1703. His biggest influence was the fundamentalist beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah. Like Taymiyyah, he took issue with the veneration of grave sites that was practiced and went as far as to level one of the grave sites for Muhammad’s companion. His commitment to Tawhid was extremely strict as even some forms of Muslim prayer were considered suspect. This critique was often directed at the Shi’i Muslims and from the time of Taymiyyah to present day their shrines and communities were periodically attacked by the Sunni Salafi-Wahhabi clerics and their associates.

 

Although the Shi’i Muslims have been a target for the Wahhabi, they did not turn a blind eye to their Sunni followers. To the Wahhabi clerics, they see no difference in belief and practice. For example, if a Muslim does not make time to pray or give adequate donations to charity, then he is not a true Muslim, he is a “disbeliever and must be killed and his possessions must be distributed among the Wahhabis” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 22). To the Salafi, it is not enough to believe in Islam, you must strictly follow their interpretations of the religious laws. This belief is not widely held by Muslims around the world. Mainstream Islam sees the intentions of Muslims as more important than their actions as people should be judged on their belief and not be judged exclusively on their conduct. The following passage of the Quran expresses this sentiment: “Lord do not be angry with us if we forget or lapse into error…Pardon us, forgive us our sins, and have mercy on us” (Quran 2:286) (p. 22). It seems the two ideas conflict with each other. The Wahhabi belief that those that do not practice are disbelievers and disbelievers must be killed cannot embody the forgiveness and mercy called for in the Quran.

 

Another example of al-Wahhab’s extreme religious interpretations involves the public execution of a woman accused of adultery. To punish the woman, he tied her down and had the public participate in stoning her to death. Many Muslims were horrified by this violent act as well as the other acts of violence and murder committed by the Wahhabi followers. Unfortunately, the political alliance between the Wahhab family and the Saud family secured the Wahhabi Muslims as the dominant religious power in the country and all became subject to their rule.

 

Politics: The House of Saud, The House of Shaykh, Oil and the United States

 

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is given its name from the Saud family, a family that has gained political power three times in Saudi Arabia’s history. The first rise to power was in the 1700s when Muhhammad ibn Saud took political control of the city of Diriyah. Ibn Saud met with Ibn al-Wahhab and an alliance was made, bound by the marriage of Ibn Saud’s son to al-Wahhab’s daughter. Al-Wahhab is respectfully referred to in the future as the Al al-Shaykh, and Al Saud and Al al-Shaykh form the political and religious supremacy. Although this partnership managed to conquer most of Arabia, they were not powerful enough to resist an external attack and in 1818, under direction from the Ottoman Empire, Egypt attacked Arabia ending Saudi rule.

The second reign of power for the House of Saud was from 1824-1891, a product of the same alliance between House of Saud and House of Shaykh. It was eventually overthrown through a civil war. The third rule came when Ibn Saud conquered the city of Rashid taking control from a rival family and from there conducting raids to conquer the rest of Arabia. The House of Saud and the House of Shaykh remain the political and religious leadership today.

 

The alliance between the House of Saud and the House of Shaykh is an old one and it has existed for centuries, like two sides of the same coin. The House of Shaykh seeks to spread the Wahhabi form of Islam and does so through their control of education and judicial proceedings teaching a radicalized and violent form of Islam and enforcing strict moral compliance through Shariah law. In exchange for religious authority, the House of Shaykh support the political authority of the King and his family. The King also acts as the Prime Minister with other members of his large family occupying all the other positions of importance within the government.

 

The House of Shaykh was not the only important political alliance. Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s allowing the House of Saud to accumulate enormous wealth. The United States was allowed to do some oil exploration within Saudi Arabia and when they were successful in discovering oil in 1938 the California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC), later known as the Arab American Company (ARAMCO), split the profits with Saudi Arabia. The discovery of oil resulted in enormous wealth for the Saud family and they distributed the oil wealth among the thousands of members of their family.

The US and Saudi Arabia relationship grew stronger following World War II as Saudi Arabians became concerned about the Soviet Union’s presence in Afghanistan and the spread of communism. The US was allowed to have a military presence within Saudi Arabia, training the Islamic fighters and supplying them with weapons. Some of these trained Islamic militia went on to become members of Al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden said to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. However, bin Laden was no friend to the House of Saud and had been forced to live in exile until his death at the hands of the Americans in 2011. The connection between the Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia remains controversial even today as it was reported that US arms bought by Saudi Arabia were used by members of Al-Qaeda.

 

The Saud Family in the 21^st Century

 

After King Abd-al-Aziz established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, he was succeeded by several of his sons. King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud ascended the throne in 2015 follow the death of his half-brother, King Abdullah; and his son Mohammad bin Salman was made defense minister the same year. In 2017, King Salman named his son Mohammad bin Salman as the crown prince next in line for the throne. It was rumored that the former crown prince was subjected to excruciating pain until he abdicated the throne. Mohammad bin Salman’s ascent to power has been controversial at best and murderous at worst.

 

The detainment of royal princes, business men, and other political opponents at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel was certainly controversial and appeared to be a purge of the opposition rather than the crackdown on corruption that the Saudi officials explained it to be. The excessive bombing of civilian targets in Yemen overseen by Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince himself, can be described as nothing less than murderous. After international criticism of Saudi bombing in Yemen started to obstruct the crown prince’s efforts to promote his economic plan, Vision 2030, he wrote a cheque for $930 million to the United Nations for aid in Yemen. It seems that an easier and cheaper solution to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen would be to not bomb Yemen, but it continues to exist as one of the worst human rights crises in the Middle East with over a million on the brink of starvation.

The Vision 2030 plan is a set of economic reforms put forward by the crown prince to diversify the Saudi Arabian economy and reduce their reliance on oil. Mohammad bin Salman was presented as a reformer working to bring change to the Muslim world with the newly lifted ban on woman drivers as an example of the kinds of reforms to come. In reality, he is not as progressive as he appears. The detainment of prominent women’s rights activists occurred just months before the driving ban was lifted. Activists like Samar Badawi and her brother Raif Badawi remain imprisoned as the leadership makes clear their message that any form of dissent will not be tolerated.

 

The bombing in Yemen and the detainment of activists may have tarnished Mohammad bin Salman’s reputation, but the murder of Saudi Arabia’s most famous journalist, Washington Post’s Jamal Khashoggi, shredded that reputation with a bone saw. The autocratic actions that the crown prince had been getting away with for years were resulting in some serious criticisms of the regime.

 

Freedom of Speech, Women’s Rights, and Freedom of Religion
By virtue of being born in Canada, I enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and women’s rights that protect my right to work, drive, and vote. These freedoms contribute to a marketplace of ideas or a free trade of ideas within society. Ideally, through this exchange of thoughts, opinions and knowledge, we can continue to improve ourselves and our country. Although we may differ in how much latitude we give on the freedoms we enjoy, the very least we should expect is that our leadership will not arbitrarily detain us, torture us or send people to kill us with a bone saw. Although the distance between Canada and Saudi Arabia is vast, their position on human rights, or lack thereof, continues to be troubling to many Canadians. Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post journalist was murdered, human rights activists like Samar Badawi and Raif Badawi are detained and punished for asking for change, and Saudi citizens, like Rahaf Mohammad who risked her life to escape as a refugee knowing that if she was ever caught, she might never be seen again. Through looking at these three examples we can demonstrate how Saudi Arabian political and religious oppression intersects with the interests of Canadian citizens. After all, if the Saudi crown prince can send a kill squad and a bone saw to assassinate a journalist in another country, are any of us really that safe?

 

Samar Badawi and Raif Badawi

In a place like Saudi Arabia where critics of the regime are killed, standing up for human rights is an act of courage. Samar Badawi had the courage to face danger, uncertainty, and potentially death in her criticisms of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In 2012, Samar drove a car when it was illegal for a woman to do so calling for political reforms to allow women more rights. When her father would not allow her to marry the man of her choosing, she took him to court to challenge his decision based on the male guardianship system. In Saudi Arabia, a woman’s husband, son, father or brother has authority to make critical decisions for her. To get a passport, travel outside the country, study abroad, leave prison or get married a Saudi woman must have a male guardian’s approval. In response to Samar’s court case, her father filed his own court case accusing her of disobedience and as a result she was detained. In 2014 officials banned Samar from leaving the country and in 2016 she was briefly arrested and then released. On July 30^th, 2018 Samar was arrested again along with fellow activist Nassima al-Sadah. Enter Canada.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Chrystia Freeland, sent the following tweet, “Canada is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in #SaudiArabia, including Samar Badawi. We urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release them and all other peaceful #humanrights activists.” I don’t think Freeland or other Canadian officials expected the disproportionate response that followed the tweet, but Saudi Arabia was extremely displeased.

Saudi Arabia responded by immediately pulling their ambassador from Canada and giving the Canadian ambassador 24 hours to leave the country, threatened to pull all Saudi students out of Canada and suspending all scholarships to Canadian universities, and gave the following response,  “Using the phrase [immediately release] in the Canadian statement is very unfortunate, reprehensible, and unacceptable in relations between States.” A pro-Saudi twitter account tweeted an image of an airplane flying toward the CN tower in Canada. This was seen as a reference to 9/11 terrorists attack and a veiled threat. The image was deleted, and an apology was issued that this was a reference to the Canadian ambassador flying home, but many people saw this as just an excuse to cover up Saudi Arabia’s thinly veiled threat. It seems ridiculous that a simple tweet from Chrystia Freeland could illicit such a dramatic response from Saudi Arabia but perhaps their message was not just directed at Canada. It could be a message to all would be critics of Saudi Arabia or a thinly veiled threat. If you criticize Saudi Arabia there will be consequences.

Samar Badawi isn’t the only person from the Badawi family imprisoned for their activist work. Her brother, Raif Badawi had maintained a website called “Free Saudi Liberals” that advocated for secularism in government, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. In 2012, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for “insulting Islam through electronic channels.” Canada accepted his wife Ensaf Haidar and their three children as refugees as their safety was a concern and granted them citizenship in 2018. Ensaf Haidar has expressed her concern that her husband is in poor health and may not survive future lashings and has met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to express her concerns. Although Saudi Arabia would like to silence critics like the Canadian officials that have called for the release of Samar Badawi and her brother Raif Badawi, the interests of their family, some of who are now Canadian citizens should not be ignored.

 

Jamal Khashoggi

Jamal Khashoggi understood the oppressive nature of the Saudi Arabian political and religious powers. He lived there after all, until his self-imposed exile in 2017. After that he took up a job working for the Washington Post in the United States. Despite knowing the dangers, he could not remain silent about Saudi Arabia’s airstrikes on Yemen and the horrific loss of life that resulted from the bombings. He noted that these attacks were overseen directly by the defense minister and crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman.

 

Khashoggi also wrote an article titled “Saudi Arabia cannot afford to pick fights with Canada” in which he stated that countries should stand up for human rights and freedom of expression. In his article, he asks, “Instead of lashing out at Canada, shouldn’t we ask why peace-loving Canada has turned against us? We, Saudi citizens, need to see the bigger picture.” Khashoggi suggested that instead of lashing out at Canada for expressing their concerns, simply release the detained women’s rights activists to stop criticisms of their arrest and detainment. Their detainment seemed arbitrary with the government lifting the ban of women driving in Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi wrote about how Canada’s call for the release of detained activists brings hope to all the Arabs detained for advocating for freedom of expression that they are not alone.

 

On October 2, 2018 Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to pick up some marriage documents for his upcoming wedding to his Turkish fiancée. His fiancée waited for him for 20 hours outside the consulate. He never left the building. Eight days later Turkish authorities released a picture of 15 men said to be the kill squad that murdered and dismembered Khashoggi with a bone saw. The Turkish authorities claimed to have an audio recording as evidence of the murder. Many people were horrified by their brazen actions to kill a journalist, in a foreign country and inside their official consulate. It was no back-alley disappearance in Istanbul. Surveillance camera’s documented Khashoggi entering but never leaving the consulate.

Initially, President Trump called for “severe punishment” of Saudi Arabia if they were found to be responsible for Jamal Khashoggi’s death but rejected the idea of putting sanctions on any of the weapons deals made between the US and Saudi Arabia. A recent report disclosed that Al-Qaeda possesses Saudi purchased US weapons creating further controversy around the weapons deals between the US and Saudi Arabia. On October 16 Trump spoke to crown prince Mohammad bin Salman on the phone and he denied any knowledge of what happened to Khashoggi. Then on October 21 an official source from Saudi Arabia claimed that Khashoggi was accidentally killed in a fist fight within the embassy. They gave no information regarding the whereabouts of Khashoggi’s body or of why someone brought a bone saw to a fist fight.

 

Two days later, Turkish President Erdogan stated that Khashoggi’s killing was premeditated and that the orders came from the “highest levels” of Saudi government, however he stopped short of implicating the crown prince directly. Two days later the Saudi Arabian deputy public prosecutor acknowledged that the killing was premeditated and not accidental as they had originally claimed. To divorce themselves of any responsibility for the killing, Saudi officials claimed that the killing was unknown to the King or crown prince and was carried out by rogue operators.

 

After Canada’s spy chief listened to the audio recording of Khashoggi’s murder, Canada issued sanctions against 17 Saudi nationals connected with the murder. Notably, Mohammad bin Salman was not named as one of the 17 sanctioned although he was undoubtedly associated with the killing. Recently, US intelligence reports have revealed that they intercepted a conversation over a year ago in which Mohammad bin Salman told a top aid that he would use “a bullet” on Khashoggi as he was too influential and could tarnish the prince’s image as a reformer.

 

Currently, Khashoggi’s adult children have been barred from leaving the country; two of them are US citizens. The US had set a deadline to decide on whether they would proceed with economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the Khashoggi murder and allowed this deadline to pass without taking any action. Although the US and Saudi alliance has remained firm throughout the years, reports of Saudi purchased weapons from the US finding their way into the hands of Al-Qaeda has certainly caused a shift in public opinion on the value of that alliance.

 

Rahaf Mohammed

Another event that has compromised the crown prince’s newly cultivated image as a reformer, was the escape of Rahaf Mohammed from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait to Thailand and then eventually to Canada. Ms. Mohammad feared for her life after refusing a forced marriage and endured physical and psychological abuse from her family including forced detainment for more than 6 months. She planned to escape when she was old enough to be recognized internationally as an adult.

 

While vacationing with her family in Kuwait, 18-year-old Ms. Mohammed bought tickets to fly to Thailand and then Australia where she would seek asylum. When she arrived in Bangkok, a man approached her and told her he was there to assist her in receiving a Thai visa and took her passport and left. As Ms. Mohammed was in transit to Australia where she had already been granted a tourist visa, she was not required to get a visa for Thailand. The man that met her and took her visa was assumed to be an official from the Saudi Arabian embassy. She barricaded herself in the Miracle Transit Hotel connected to the Bangkok airport.

At that time, Thai officials intended to send Ms. Mohammed back to Kuwait where she could be repatriated back to Saudi Arabia. Ms. Mohammed opened a new twitter account and renounced Islam, a capital offence in Saudi Arabia, and claimed that she would be murdered by her family in an “honour killing” if she was forced to return. She demanded to meet with officials from the United Nations and tweeted out requests for help to many Western embassies to assist her in gaining asylum. Support for her pleas for help were overwhelming with half a million tweets being sent with the “#SaveRahaf” hashtag. An Australian journalist barricaded herself in the hotel room alongside Ms. Mohammed to assist and protect her.

 

Although efforts were made by Thai officials to deport Ms. Mohammed after admittedly receiving pressure from Saudi Arabia, they reversed this decision abruptly with the mounting international concern for Ms. Mohammed’s safety. General Surachate Hakparn, the Thai official responsible for this immigration case state that, “We will not send anyone to die. We will not do that. We will adhere to human rights under the rule of law.” And thus, arrangements were made for Ms. Mohammed’s case to be overseen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and efforts were made to find Ms. Mohammed asylum as a refugee. Although her original intention was to seek asylum in Australia, the process was slow, and her case was referred to Canada who fast tracked her application on an emergency basis. A move that was sure to put strain on Saudi Arabia and Canada’s relations.

 

Rahaf Mohammed arrived in Toronto on 12 January 2019 and was met personally by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland. After her arrival her family issued the following statement: “We are the family of [Rahaf] Mohammed al-Qunun in Saudi Arabia. We disavow the so-called ‘Rahaf al-Qunun’ the mentally unstable daughter who has displayed insulting and disgraceful behavior.” After finding out that her family had disowned her, Rahaf Mohammed dropped her last name “al-Qunun” and asked to be known as just Rahaf Mohammed. Online several threatening messages were directed at Ms. Mohammed resulting in Canadian officials providing her with a 24-hour security.

Ms. Mohammed continues to document her experiences online. On her way to Canada she enjoyed a glass of red wine and later reported trying bacon for breakfast. Her intentions are to continue her studies through university in Canada and continue to advocate for human rights in Saudi Arabia whether that be through the freedom to practice a religion of your choosing or an end to the male guardianship that greatly impacts women’s rights.

 

Conclusions

 

It would be difficult to understand the oppression of human rights that occurs inside and at times outside of Saudi Arabia without understanding the historical alliance between the House of Saud and the House of Shaykh. This alliance has supported the royal regime as the political authority in exchange for support for the House of Shaykh possessing the religious authority to promote the spread of Salafi/Wahhabi Islam as the only pure form of Islam throughout the country.

 

Wahhabism is a violent fundamentalist understanding of Islam that has led to oppression of many of the country’s more moderate Muslims. A dramatic example of this occurred on 11 March 2002 when the mutawa or religious police ruled that sharia dress code was absolute and pushed 15 school girls back into a burning building to their death when they tried to escape without their veils on (Schwartz, 2005, p. 199). Religious police patrol Saudi society strictly enforcing a Wahhabi interpretation of religious law often carrying out judgement, punishment or execution on the spot. In the case of the 15 school girls that were murdered by the religious police for not wearing their veils, the state made sure to exonerate those involved. The oppression of human rights is the result of fundamentalist religious doctrine and an old alliance between two powerful houses, the House of Saud and the House of Shaykh.

Rahaf Mohammad posted the following quote on her twitter, “When injustice becomes a law, resistance becomes a duty” a quote that has been misattributed to both Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx. The origins of this quote remain a mystery, but the sentiment is still stirring. The injustice has not remained isolated to inside the borders of Saudi Arabia. In the case of Jamal Khashoggi, his murder occurred in Turkey clearly outside the boundaries of the country’s authority. Canadian family members of Badawi family continue to suffer in fear of what will become of their loved ones.

 

Addressing this is problematic, as acknowledging the human agency in creating these oppressive laws has been seen as a threat to political rule and as such can be punished as treason. As well, defying sharia law is seen as apostacy and blasphemy and can be punished by death. Human rights activists have called for Saudi Arabia to restore a more pluralistic practice of Islam especially in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Wahhabism is opposed to such political freedom by their fundamentalist beliefs that believe that those who practice other forms of Islam are not true Muslims and are therefore are a threat to be defeated. The crown prince Mohammad bin Salman has tried to present himself as a reformer with his Vision 2030 plan for Saudi Arabia, but whatever reforms have been made did not prevent Saudi officials from murdering a journalist and dismembering him with a bone saw. As situations like this arise, Saudi Arabia may be hindered by the shift in public opinion and Western countries willingness to address the concerns of their citizens, many of Saudi Arabian origin.

 

 

Bibliography

Amore, R. C. (2016). Religion and Politics in the World’s Hot Spots. Windsor: Sloan Publishing.

Schwartz, S. (2005). Sharia in Saudi Arabia, Today and Tomorrow. In P. Marshall, Radical Islam’s Rules: The Worldwide Spread of Extreme Sharia Law (pp. 19-39). Oxford: Freedom House.