by Anisa Abd el Fattah

Not since Steven Emerson wrote the book, The House of Saud during the oil crisis of the 70s has the U.S./Saudi relationship received as much negative attention as it has since the attacks of 9/11. It seems that following the publication of the Emerson book, and his charges that Saudi money was unfairly titling the Arab/Israeli conflict in favor of the Arabs, there was a bevy of anti-Arab imagery broadcast by the media. At that time, according to U.S./ Saudi watchers, Emerson was not a neo-conservative, but rather a liberal Democrat who worked for George McGovern. Emerson may have begun his campaign against Saudi Arabia, because the United States had considered selling AWACS to our long time friend and ally. Some suspect that Emerson and his supporters were opposed to the deal, since Saudi Arabia with AWACS might offset the power of Israel in the Middle East, at least militarily. Some have also suggested that not only was the sell of weapons to Saudi A! rabia objectionable to the pro-Israel faction in the U.S., but that even the friendship between the two countries was unacceptable. At that time and some would argue that this is still the case, a significant part of Israel’s argument for continued existence was based on its role as the United State’s sole friend and ally in the region. Many have written that they suspect Israel was settled in Palestine as a Western outpost needed to protect the Western world from the tribal and heathen Arab who practices strange religions, namely Christianity and Islam, two of the world’s largest. The associated portrayal of Arabs as animals, and backward women haters, etc mostly stemmed from this campaign. The apparent objective of the media campaign seemingly initiated by Emerson simply put, was to demonize and vilify Saudi Arabia in the hearts of the American people. As a consequence, were to insist that our government have absolutely nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, Arabs, and now Musli! ms.

The Kingdom was slammed from almost every angle. Not long after the Emerson book was published, there were other anti-Saudi books published, and at least one of these books was about an abused Saudi Princess who had escaped the Kingdom and sought and received asylum in Canada. This book was published at the height of feminist power in the United States, and received quiet a bit of media attention. Needless to say, it helped to make Saudi’s and Arabs, who had been blamed for the 70s oil crisis, and also for preventing Palestinian peace with Israel, some of the world’s most hated and negatively stereotyped people. The women were portrayed as ignorant, spoiled and helpless, greedy and conniving, while the men were portrayed as rich and spoiled heathen brutes that hated and abused women upon every given opportunity. There were no children. If you think back, you will not remember, even with all of our curiosity and perhaps equal disdain for the Saudis, we have n! ever been exposed to the concept that there are Saudi children. Arab civilization is rooted in the children of Arabia. There are school systems, hospitals, courts, etc., all the trappings of civilization in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, yet we seldom if ever hear or read anything positive or humanizing about these people.

The Saudi’s and other Gulf Arabs, reportedly represent the most homogeneous groups of ancient peoples in the world. This might mean that contrary to what some have suggested, Arabs have not been much involved in either Arab or Islamic conquest, military expansion, or the expansion of their culture and ideas, even though much of the foundation for modern scientific reasoning was laid by Arab scientists. This racial homogeneity might also be due to the fact that unlike some other Arab, or Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia was never colonized by any of the European powers. Saudi Arabia is also unique in that it is the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad, and home of the sacred city Mecca, and the Holy Kaba. It is without question, one of the most important places in the world both characteristically and factually. European scholars once took pride in having visited and studied at Arabian institutions, as well as mastering the Arab language. Among such scholars acco! rding to the book, Muslim Conduct of State, an examination of the Muslim intellectual contribution to the development of international law, written by the Pakistani Professor Muhammad Hamidullah more than 20 years ago, was Luther.

It might be pure coincidence that during the previous anti-Saudi and anti-Arab campaign as now, our country was in the midst of an economic crisis. American politicians were taking cover, and running scared from a citizenry who had began to question and heap curses upon the oil crunch and the economic toll it was taking. The oil crisis drove the price of oil to previously unheard of prices, at least unheard of here in the United States, and the effect of the high prices brought about due to the crisis was devastating the middle class. The Saudi’s were blamed, and as a result, Arabs became the targets of our ever growing anger, frustrations and angst over now two very familiar and most stubborn issues, oil and Israel. The price that Arab and Muslim Americans paid for the oil crisis and the now neo-conservative, formerly liberal opposition to U.S. support or friendship with other allies in the region was high. The media and public relations campaigns subsequen! tly launched against Saudi Arabia in the late 60’s and throughout the 70s and 80s led to some of our nations most embarrassing and prejudiced behaviors.

It also possibly set into motion a sort of cause and effect that may have created bin Laden, and led unintentionally to the attacks of 9/11. Writer Robert Trice, having conducted an analysis of newspaper editorials on the topic from 1966 through 1974, wrote that Arab issues "were almost always connected to the issue of Israel, and that this connection was usually vilified." Liberal journalist Nicholas Von Hoffman wrote, "No religious, national or cultural group has been so massively and consistently vilified," and noted Jewish scholar Alfred Lilienthal wrote in 1978 that " the media are liberal and pro-Israeli and they tend to promote Israel over Arabs. In so doing," he asserts, "they vilify Arabs and Islam, often portraying Arabs as terrorists."

There was also a certain amount of what might be called plain bad luck that seemed to haunt the Arab and Muslim image in the West. It was almost as though a spell had been cast that took Murphy’s law (everything that can go wrong will go wrong) to new heights in respect to U.S. Arab and Muslim relations. Unfortunately, there was no respected Arab or Muslim constituency with sufficient influence, or financial clout in the United States, or even abroad who could break the spell, and things went from bad to unimaginably worse. In 1979 there was the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis, there was the ongoing Arab/Israeli crisis with its almost daily atrocities and mutual violence. There was the U.S. bombing of Libya in the 1980s, the Gulf War and the backlash against Muslims and Islam following the Oklahoma City bombing.

There was also a heated and growing hotter media war between East and West, one side demonizing and vilifying Arab and Muslim people, and the other damning and demonizing the United States, Israel and Jewish people. No one took the time to assess the psychological damage being done to two peoples, Jewish and Arab, trapped by circumstance geographically, politically, economically and spiritually. Perhaps if we had paid closer attention, or attempted to escape our own self-interest for just a moment, and looked closely at these people and their situation, things would be different. Imagine if we had better understood how a uniquely powerful United States came to represent the voice of providence for two civilizations, one Jewish the other Arab, then we might understand what we have done and what is happening. Had we perhaps been more sensitive to how our past policies affected not one but two civilizations of people, we would perhaps better understand, and kno! w how to tackle challenges that rolled over into the new century. Challenges like a violent and brutal clash between Palestinians and Israelis known as the initifada. Nor would we be shocked at the amount of ideological vitriol that has come to characterize the neo-conservative discourse on U.S. foreign and domestic policies and everything Arab, or Islamic. We might not be so shocked that Egyptian TV aired a television mini-series that resurrected the Protocols of Zion, just as our U.S. media, almost daily insulted and demonized the prophet Muhammad, Islam and Arabs.

Hoping perhaps to encourage a new spirit of openness, and sharing of ideas, seeking understanding and mutual respect between East and West, and also possibly in an attempt to articulate his own vision of a new Arab world, that includes a new and reformed Saudi Arabia, HRH Prince Faisal ibn Mishal Al-Saud has written Islamic Political Development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dr. Faisal, as his colleagues refer him to, has served as a political advisor to the Ministry of Defense since 1982. He earned a BA in political science from King Saud University in Riyadh, an MA from Chicco University, and in 2000 he earned a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Durham in the United Kingdom.

The book is based upon more than a decade of study, observation and research on Islamic law and the Saudi political systems response to the dictates of the Qur’an and traditions of the prophet Muhammad in that respect. Dr. Al-Saud began his research with his 1998 Master’s thesis which sought to examine what was then called "the Open Meeting" and which has evolved into the Saudi Majlis Ash Shurah, or consultative council. His book on this topic, The Democratic Experience in the Saudi Open Meeting is presently being translated. UASR published the first of a series of monograms written by Dr. Faisal, "Islamic Political Development; A Conceptual Analysis" wherein he presents a very intelligent statement, and comparative analysis of the more popular Western political theories and Islamic political theory.

It should not be difficult for any serious student of political history or theory to understand the importance of this book. For years Saudi Arabia has been portrayed as a backward desert monarchy that demonstrated little knowledge of or interest in anything more than money, luxury and oil. The idea that Saudi Arabia has a somewhat advanced, though perhaps not Western political tradition would hit some of us as a novel idea. There are others among us who believe that those tribal systems, just as they served the ancient Western civilizations of Germanic tribes, Franks, Anglos and Saxons, etc., they also served other ancient peoples. Tribal pecking order perhaps represents our first attempts at human social cohesion and organization and distribution of power based upon a commonly perceived purpose, as well upon tribal or blood loyalties, etc. From these models modern man has possibly established traditions of authority, that later evolved into modern governme! nts, and societies organized to accommodate, to a reasonable extent, specific tribal, or traditional taste. Dr. Faisal addresses this issue of tribalism and Saudi Arabia’s social and political progress, saying " tribal feuds, raids, and wars instigated against the Turks, and in response to poverty, famine, and natural disasters all demanded a planned framework for social and political developments. In this regard Holden and Johns (1981) argue that Abd al Aziz ibn Abd al Rahman skillfully manipulated tribal conditions and launched a call for reform in order to weld the refractory Bedouins of Arabia into a modern state." The claim that Saudi Arabia is a country of backward Bedouins who have resisted modernization simply is not true. Dr. Faisal makes it clear here that almost from the Kingdom’s inception one of its primary goals was to become a modernized Islamic state.

In reading the book, one comes to understand that Saudi Arabia is indeed a kingdom in transition, yet not necessarily in response to recent criticisms or challenges to the monarchy’s legitimacy or authority as presented by its opposition. The book, which was written prior to September 11^th, presents monarchial governance as a logical and appropriate stage of Saudi social development and political progress. Dr Faisal says," In the settled areas known as emirates, Sheikhs could maintain their authority owing to the services they extended. The royal state began with an additional responsibility, which was to provide alternatives to the primitive social practices, which were prevalent. When the growth of the state began to lay excessive burdens on the Sheikh, it was he, (the Sheikh) who transferred the executive responsibility for political and financial administration to the King. The King continued to consult him on all matters. This relationship la! id the foundation for, and was perhaps the first example of Islamically established Shurah, (consultation) used as a method of government in the Arabian peninsula. Since that time, this religious-based principle of consultation has been firmly established as a method of administering the modern state."

The book is an evaluation and survey of the system of Majlis Ash Shurah as a modernizing mechanism used to accomplish two essential things, 1. Meet the religious requirement that orders communication and advice between the ruled, their representatives, and the ruler. 2. Institutionalize a method by which the rulers are informed of the needs, desires and aspirations of the general population without being dependent upon the opinions, and interpretations of a permanent body of professional politicians, or members of divisive and warring political parties. The book addresses these objectives. In respect to the obligatory adaptation of representative systems of governance in Muslim countries, Dr. Faisal writes," [Majlis Ash Shurah] is also considered to be the practical implementation of the principle of Shurah (Consultation) that is brought by Islam and stated in the Qur’an in more than one verse." In respect to the desire to achieve repres! entation without the adaptation of political parties and factions, hoping to avoid division and competition between political groups, he writes:

" Majlis Ash Shurah is characterized by the absence of parties, groups, regional coalitions or affiliations between members. Some members admire the absence of parties and stress the Saudi group spirit."

The book falls short in some areas that might be important. The book is void of any discussion of women. There is no indication given as to how political representation is achieved for women, which is an issue only because of the strict social practice in Saudi Arabia that prohibits co-mingling between members of opposite sexes. It’s not clear if there is an exception to this rule that would accommodate political discussions, consultation etc. Another area that receives almost no attention has to do with voting, as in elections. The reader is left in the dark on this issue, and in any book on politics that uses comparative arguments between East and West there must be at least one page dedicated to the issue of elections.

One of the most impressive presentations on Islamic politics that is offered by a Muslim statesman is presented in this book. Dr. Faisal who is unapologetic in his belief in the virtues of Islamic political theory in contrast to the Western political theories writes: "The Islamic perspective observes human phenomena as complex and multidimensional. The Islamic political concepts include social, economic, and cultural aspects, since politics is defined herewith as administrating issues toward reform, or rather reforming human beings by directing them to the proper way of life through which they obtain success, prosperity, and happiness. The Western concept of politics however, is limited to discussions of power, authority, class, and state. The Islamic perspective assumes that historical events neither end by vanishing, nor lose relevance in the face of modernity. History in Islam remains alive and relevant in life and memory. Thus history serves us by allowi! ng us to look back and garner wisdom and direction on the best way to do things, and aids us in our understanding of the relationship between cause, effect, and consequences."

In response to critics of Islamic political theory and thought, and those who charge that political Islam or the spiritual aspect of Islam is distinguished by extremism and moderation in thinking on such matters, the Prince writes:

Usually no sharp distinction is made between Islam and Islamic law, or Shariah. As a rule, both terms are used interchangeably. In accordance with the functional theory of government, Shariah is the cornerstone of an Islamic order. The government is merely the executor of God’s law. The current debate among Islamic polit8ical scholars focuses on how the Sharia should be defined, whether as a comprehensive set of norms and values regulating human life to the most minute detail, or as a set of strict and pre-established laws.

There is a general consensus that the Shariah is comprehensive but at the same time flexible, and therefore suited for all times, places and circumstances. This leads to the distinction between an untouchable and immutable core that has been decisively defined by God’s word and the Shariah’s flexible components. It’s modern interpretation being derived by human reason from an ancient presentation, thus rendering contemporary Islamic jurisprudence through the utilization of ijtihad (freethinking).

Perhaps what is most important about the book is that it is the first and the farthest-reaching examination of the politics of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ever published in English. Dr. Faisal deviates from what has come to be seen as a traditionally orthodox position on ideals associated with Islamic government and Shariah, and presents an authentic alternative to the strict understanding that is blamed for much of the controversy regarding Islam’s relevance in the 21^st century. Political scientists Dr. James Bill from the College of William and Mary said the book "represents by far the most detailed analysis of the Majlis Ash Shurah in Saudi Arabia." It is also perhaps one of the most objective and farsighted statements on Saudi political hopes, and possibilities. Those who oppose as well as those who support the right of Muslim states to adopt Islamic law as either theoretic guidance or law will possibly enjoy this very detailed and scie! ntific discussion of Islamic political theory and the Majlis Ash Shurah. It is likely the first attempt in English, by an Arab royal to defend and discuss the legitimacy of Islamic politics and theory, which makes it unique. The quality of the discussion and the detailed information and analysis presented on the Majlis as it exists and operates in the Kingdom is also very informative, and equally impressive.