One Woman Team: Saudi Evades Olympic Ban. But Only Just.
Saudi Arabia in a bid to avoid being barred from the 2012 London Olympics has agreed to send a token female equestrian to the tournament to represent the conservative kingdom that effectively discourages women’s sports.
The decision followed a warning last year by Anita DeFrantz, the chair of the International Olympic Committee’s Women and Sports Commission, that Saudi Arabia alongside Qatar and Brunei could be barred if they did not send for the first time at least one female athlete to the London Olympics.
An earlier agreement by Qatar, the only other country whose indigenous population are largely Wahhabis, adherents of a puritan interpretation of Islam predominant in Saudi Arabia, to field a women’s team in London increased the pressure on the kingdom to follow suit.
The decision however is likely to prove less controversial in Qatar than Saudi Arabia. Qatar has far fewer of Saudi Arabia’s sharper edges such as a ban on women’s driving, strict gender segregation and a culture that enshrines male dominance.
Saudi Arabia’s most likely female athlete is 18-year old equestrienne Dalma Rushdi Malhas who won a bronze medal in the 2010 Singapore Youth Olympics. At the time, Ms. Malhas was not officially delegated to compete in Singapore on behalf of the kingdom.
“I didn’t know whether I was allowed but when I got invited of course I didn’t think twice and went at my own expense, I didn’t care much about me being there as a representative of Saudi Arabia, because anyone could probably do that. But getting a medal was the key, and that’s not easy for anyone, and I wanted that — and only that gives recognition to my country,” she told the Arab News.
Despite official discouragement women have increasingly been pushing the envelope at times with the support of more liberal members of the ruling Al Saud family, The kingdom’s toothless Shura or Advisory Council has issued regulations for women’s sports clubs, but conservative religious forces often have the final say.
Nonetheless the mandate granted to a Spanish consultancy earlier this year to develop the kingdom’s first national sports plan is exclusively for men’s sports.
The pushing of the envelope comes as women are proving to be the most visible in challenging the kingdom’s gender apartheid against the backdrop of simmering discontent. Manal al-Sharif was detained in May for nine days after she videotaped herself flouting the rules by getting behind a steering wheel and driving. She was released only after signing a statement promising a that she would stop agitating for women’s rights.
Discrepancy about women’s sports is reinforced by the fact that physical education classes are banned in state-run Saudi girl’s schools Women’s games and marathons are often cancelled when more conservative members of the clergy gets wind of them.
The issue of women’s sport has at time sparked sharp debate with clerics condemning it as corrupting and satanic and charging that it spreads decadence. Clerics warned that running and jumping can damage a woman’s hymen and ruin her chances of getting married. In defiance, women have quietly been establishing soccer and other sports teams using extensions of hospitals and health clubs as their base.
Fielding a female equestrian at the London Olympics may take Saudi Arabia off the IOC’s hook, but changes little on the ground in the kingdom itself. That remains an uphill battle particularly with an ageing and ailing top leadership that this year has significantly increased the religious establishment’s funding as part of its bid to shield Saudi Arabia from the wave of anti-government protests sweeping the region.
Angela, this is where we agree to disagree. I do believe its an issue of Wahhabism and disagree with the comparison to fundamentalists in the US, who do not have the power to impose their will on society as a whole and who are a faction albeit a powerful one but not one in which power is vested as a pact that led to the foundation of the state. There never was a vote on these issues in Saudi Arabia as there was in Mississippi. I note that your response acknowledges the facts but fails to explain the imposition of a certain view as the law of the land.
Thanks, James, for asking for an answer. You’ll note in my reply to JCWS that fundamentalists use Islam as a weapon against women — a real tragedy in my country. This is not an ideology, but simply oppressive political pressure against women. Your article and our original discussion was about Islam and your Wahhabism label to define all Saudis. The fact that we have no physical education is a crime against all women, but Islam and “Wahhabism” doesn’t enter into it. Let me put it this way, religious conservatives in the United States are using religion as a weapon to shut down Planned Parenthood and take away the rights of what a woman can do with her body. Essentially old white men have taken it upon themselves to interpret what the Bible says about women’s rights and try to apply it to a 21st century society. The “personhood” ballot measure in Mississippi is a good example of religious extremists attempting to control the lives of all women. This is not religion but political thuggery to confine women to a specific role: Make babies and shut up about it. The religious extremists in Saudi Arabia are no different. That’s why there is no phys-ed in KSA. I admit that there often is no rhyme or reason why Saudi Arabia does what it does, but to selectively blame “Wahabbism” (your words) is intellectual dishonesty and lazy analysis. In your zeal to provide an brief explainer paragraph to give background, you disregard the complexity of the issue.
Just to be clear: Angela is right. There is nothing in the Quran or the hadith that bans women’s sports. This makes my questions about the policy in the kingdom all the more pertinent.
I suggest that Angela explain why there is no physical education for girls in Saudi Arabia, why there are no official women’s sports teams in the kingdom, why the Saudi government has appointed a Spanish consultancy to develop a national sports plan which by its own admission envisions only men’s and no women’s sports, why the kingdom with the exception of an equestrian has never fielded a woman’s team at an international tournament, why women’s sports can only be exercised in cooperative health clubs and with the approval of powerful liberal figures and can be called off at an any minute if a member of the ulema complains? This is just limiting this discussion to sports-related issues.
Thank you SO MUCH for clarifying all this Angela. This is so helpful and exactly what I hoped and thought. I wonder then if in fact we should not be talking about dominant ideologies at all therefor but referring to religious conservatives. Is your view James that religious conservatism is the dominant ideology? I do not know whether this religious conservatism does or does not dominate the ideological or cultural framework of the Kingdom; I can only say that I have never met one. All the Saudi people I have come into contact with abhor it. I have been warned of religious fanatics particularly in Riadh – but that is a very different thing from a dominant ideology. We have fanatics in the UK of all sorts as part of a free society, but the majority “”"”regret”"”" (probably a poor choice of word) them even if defending their freedom of speech to the last as long as it does not hurt others or invoke violence against people on grounds of race, sex etc. I suppose that is one diffference, that the religious conservatives do stray into actions that we would not tolerate. But are they really a majority whether instutionally or within the hearts or lens through which most Saudi people see the world?
JSWS: There is nothing un-Islamic about women engaging in sports. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged healthy living and physical activities for both sexes. The dominant ideology — that persistent and inaccurate label that Westerners are so fond of — cannot erase the fact that Islam encourages women to engage in sports. The Prophet even engaged in a foot race with his wife, Aisha. Having said that, Saudi religious conservatives choose to deny women these rights in Islam by politicizing their bodies. This is a patriarchal, political and cultural issue. And this is where Mr. Dorsey errs in confusing religion with culture. He argues that the puritanical form of Islam, that boogeyman called Wahhabism, prevents women from participating in sports. Yet if by puritanical he means the original concept of Islam in the teachings and sayings of the Prophet (pbub), then that so-called puritanical form permits women in sports. It’s a cultural issue, not religious, and a common, but damaging mistake, that so many Western journalists make.
I am surprised that Mr. Dorsey has not written about Ahmad Eid Al Harbi, the Saudi Arabia representative for FIFA who has tirelessly worked to form women’s football teams with the goal to have the teams join FIFA. Al Harbi is strong example of how Saudi men are ignoring the fundamentalists that politicize women’s bodies and are true champions of women in sports.
Bottom line: Religion has nothing to do with the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalists use religion as a club to beat women into submission. It doesn’t matter what the “predominate ideology” is.
This has been a diversion from the story. I am still unsure whether Angela is or is not saying whether the dominant “ideology” in the KSA is such that women should not be involved in sport and whether she agrees with this. These of course are the real issues. Is this ideology, if it exists, predominant because of politics and power – or because of the teachings of the Koran? On personal experience I can say categorically that my links within the Saudi leadership suggest a great wish that women should enjoy equality in all and every aspect of life, but equally an acceptance that this will take time because of the “ideological” framework within which the Kingdom has historically operated. I simply do not know the degree to which differentiating the rights and responsibilities of mena and women is or is not part of the Koran, or a non-disputed tenet of Wahhabis-ism. Personally, I cannot see how it can be justified that women are not treated equally and the moves of the KSA leadership in this regard should be welcomed. On that note, however, I hope too that lessons will be learned from the West, where emancipation also became an excuse to lower wages for all, so downgrading the standard of living (in survival terms not the availability of luxuries) by forcing men and women to both work, this resulting in many children losing out to the care of at least one parent as well as fragmentation of families through divorce and the like. This was ann efffect of emancipation not foreseen and now it is too late. It should not matter which sex works, but people should be able to work to live – and one wage should be sufficient, even if at a stretch, to allow one parent of whatever sex to nurture the future generation.
Angela, you are obviously welcome to your interpretation and version of Islam and it history. That is however as far as it goes. There are very diverging and equally legitimate views
JCWS, Thanks for your comment. I do not presume to speak on anyone’s behalf. I however will not submit to attempts to impose specific interpretations being presented as absolute truth. This debate is exactly why I have described it as ideological which means by definition that there are different perspectives.
Simone, the difference is that in Europe its not an issue because it doe not touch an ideological vein
RE: Interpretation of Islam.
So Islam is formed and the people of the Arabian Peninsula follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Then some centuries later some people stray from original precepts of Islam by engaging in such things as venerating graves, making inappropriate sacrifices and whatnot. Abdul Wahhab comes along and teaches these people to return to the original teachings of Islam. That’s the story at its most basic. So, it’s not a “Wahhabi” ideology, but simply the original teachings of Islam.
I hope at the very least you give pause to using the term next time you choose to write about Saudis.
It should be, but to be fair this is whether one wants to admit it or not an ideological issue. The Saudi objection to the term is ideological not that it is allegedly derogatory or wrong. Fact of the matter there is no other term to correctly describe this interpretation of Islam
There’s a vast difference between the term Wahhabi and derogatory terms like Paks. The debate about the term Wahhabi is ideological not racial. Yes, I do use the term Wahhabi irrespective of whom I speak to and where I am and that includes members of the most senior echelons of the Saudi government,
Isn’t the point that you would call the UK a Christian, Protestant country, despite the fact that a large number of UK subjects are not protestant. Nowadays they are not even Christian. It is the de facto religion of Great Britain. Equally Spain is a Christian Catholic country, although not all Spaniards will be Catholic.
Well, let me put it another way. If it’s inappropriate to call Puerto Rican “spics,” evangelical Christians “holy rollers” and Pakistanis “Pakis,” why call Saudis “Wahhabis.” If you know Saudis don’t like to be called Wahhabis like Pakistanis don’t like to be called Pakis, why do you give yourself a free pass on how you describe Saudis. You acknowledge there are minorities, but that is missing the point. There are no non-Wahhabis because the term is itself is inaccurate. If you had been to Saudi Arabia, I assume you have made friends. Do you call them Wahhabis to their face. No, I don’t think so. Why say it in print? If you know it insults them and their religion, why write it?
I thought this might be a helpful link:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_TermWahhabi
I cannot sadly add much to the debate. What I can say is that those human beings that I have met in the KSA and UK are some of the the kindest people I have met in my life anywhere. I supoose I would have difficulties if Christianity was referrred to as a dominant philosophy in the UK because whilst it may have truth it misses the shades of grey, of which there are countless. I write that I am a Christan on endless forms, but in my life, if that was broken down into what it meant, it would become a pretty meaningless description.
I cannot, however, answer whether the contituents of approach the mindset of this description seeeks to describe are accurate. That is a different issue to the genesis of a noun and its use, as a necessary ‘evil’, in debate.
I would like to know more about this. Angela has shown there are shades of grey. I would so love to learn from her and others about those shades, as would, I am guessing, James.
I do not like speaking for others, which is I beleive Angela’s point or part of it, but nor too I am sure is James (forgive me James if I have misunderstood this.)
I am sure all of us, at heart, want to understand those shades of gery, which means the humanity that makes our differences, hidden sadly deep betwen the weaknesses and pitfalls of the langauge that is, after all, but one of our tools to communicate with each other, albeit the most powerful in this medium.
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Dorsey, but your answer only confirms my previous statements. I am indeed Saudi and in grades K through 12, at least when I attended school, the teachings of Abdul Wahhab consisted of one history lesson. That hardly makes it a dominant philosophy. And who says it’s a dominate philosophy? The West? Seems so. Why pin a label on me that doesn’t describe me, my family and my colleagues in the least? Why insist on generalizing an entire population of people? Are we a monolithic society that comes under a single description? Is it really necessary to paint all Saudis with a broad brush regardless of their devotion or lack of devotion to Islam? Perhaps generalizations serve your audience, but at the end of the day it’s simply lazy reporting.
Angela, its always is dangerous to make assumptions. My audience is global and happens to include a significant number in the Middle East and North Africa. I agree with your implicit assertion that all generalizations hink. Fact of the matter is that I have been visiting and following the kingdom since the mid-1970s and have been based there. While there are many in the kingdom that either belong to minorities or do not adhere to or identify themselves as Wahhabis (and I know that Saudis do not like the term), fact of the matter is that it is part of the foundation of the state, influences policies until today even if some of that really is based on custom rather than religion, and informs a majority of the ulema who play a key role. I understand if you feel affronted by the way I formulated things. Obviously, that is not my purpose. However, it does not take away from the key and dominant role that philosphy plays.
You like many Saudis — I am assuming you are from Saudi Arabia – may dislike the connotation Wahhabi, but that does not change the fact. Fact of the matter is Abdul Wahhab’s philosophy is the dominant philosophy. My suggestion is you read Saudi history and talk to a lot of people and revert back then.
“An earlier agreement by Qatar, the only other country whose indigenous population are largely Wahhabis, adherents of a puritan interpretation of Islam predominant in Saudi Arabia … ”
“Iindigenous population are largely Wahhabis?” Really? Are Qatari and Saudi Wahhabis like the Australian Aborigines or North American Indians? Are we a race of Wahhabi people, a culture that belongs to exclusively to Wahhabis? Just think, all this time I just thought I was Saudi and a Muslim, but Mr. Dorsey set me straight and says I’m a Wahhabi. Mr. Dorsey purports to be an expert on the Middle East. His expertise is essentially a colonial Western view of Arabs. He demonizes them by calling them Wahhabis, a pure Western invention. It is a description that no Saudi that I know recognizes as legitimate Not a single Saudi calls himself Wahhabi, just the Western journalists who apply their Western standard to the very way I practice my religion.
Mr. Dorsey describes Wahhabis as “adherents of a puritan interpretation of Islam predominant in Saudi Arabia.” I wonder if he even knows what a puritan interpretation of Islam is beyond the boiler-plate language he copies and pastes from other Westerners’ articles. I wonder if he even understands or read the teachings of Abdul Wahhab, who is a footnote in Saudi history, not the major influence he so readily embraces as truth.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of Western journalists painting Muslims something they are not to fit their narrow stereotyping narrative.