Part One,  which has a brief Introduction; Part Two; Part Three; Part Four 

Soliman al—Buthe (or al—Buthi) wrote an Open Letter to Congress in 2005. Then he initiated a dialogue with me, so we decided on this sequence.

1. In 2005, I commented and asked questions about the Open Letter (in blue).

2. In that same year, months later, Mr. al—Buthe answered my questions and challenged me on various issues (in green). He sought the advice of Saudi scholars, as well.

3. Finally, in 2006, I reply to his challenges and questions (in black). Sometimes I embed this in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.

2005 Open Letter to Congress (continued):

Fundamentalism Defined

Religious fundamentalism is not unique to Saudi Arabia—region>; it is a worldwide phenomenon. Just as many Christians are turning to their religion for guidance in the modern world, likewise so do many Muslims. Although the distinction has been lost, Islamic fundamentalism no more equates with extremism or violence than does Christian or Jewish fundamentalism. The fundamentalist lives his life within the strictures of his religious laws, whereas the extremist transgresses them. If Christian fundamentalism is tolerated at the highest echelons of the US—region> government, then it is hypocritical to attack that the fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia—region>. Unlike some of the fundamentalist movements in the Christian world, Saudi fundamentalism is not based on a dispensationalist theology that seeks Armageddon, nor does it involve attacks on Jesus or Moses — both of whom Muslims revere and love.

Today, millions of non—Muslims reside in the Kingdom where they live unmolested and are rewarded handsomely for the many services they provide. In stark contrast to the frequent claim that 'Wahhabis' deny 'non—Wahhabis' equality and justice, the government of Saudi Arabia—region> affords all citizens their rights under the law.

JA (2005): I have seven questions or concerns:

1. One of the hallmarks of modernity is religious freedom. Does the Saudi government permit the Shi'ite minority in your country to publicly and openly commemorate Ashura, by which they honor the martyrdom of Hussein, Muhammad's grandson?

2. Mosques flourish openly and publicly here in America—region>. Why are not Christian churches allowed to flourish openly and publicly in Saudi Arabia—region>?

SaB (2005):

First, There is no, and there can be no absolute freedom of anything anywhere in the world. We all set limits to human freedom; the only difference is about the extent and nature of the limits. This depends on the nature of the political system. A secular political system does not allow religion to encroach upon what it deems to be the prerogative of secularism. Here are a few examples:

a.      'From military psychological—operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself.' (Please see Hearts, Minds and Dollars, David E Kaplan).

b.      '[Former Alabama Chief Justice] Moore was suspended for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments monument after a federal court mandated him to have it taken down. He faces several judicial ethics violation charges in a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on November 12.' (please see Justices won't hear 10 Commandments appeals)  [He was subsequently removed from office and is now threatening to run for governor of his state.]

c.      'When France—region>'s 577—member National Assembly approved the head—scarf ban last month, only 36 legislators voted against it. The margin was just as one—sided when the Senate gave it final approval Wednesday, 276—20. Top French officials, including President Jacques Chirac, have said the ban will help preserve France—region>'s secular national character. Even Germany—region>'s Green Party, for 20 years the best line of defense for immigrant communities there, is backing a head—scarf ban.'(please see Matthew Schofield, Europe Battles Islam's Rise, Via Headscarves).

d.      A day after a special meeting between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Muslim leaders, Muslims who do not respect secularism and law were told Wednesday, August 24, to leave the country. (please see Anti—Secularism Muslims Told to Leave Australia—region>)

JA (2006):

You write in your Open Letter that 'in stark contrast to the frequent claim that 'Wahhabis' deny 'non—Wahhabis' equality and justice, the government of Saudi Arabia—region> affords all citizens their rights under the law.' These words prompted my question about the religious freedom of the Shi'ites and their ritual of honoring Hussein's death. Though you do not answer my question directly and specifically about their rights, you refer to the vague concept of 'absolute freedom' and its limitations. Then you cite four examples (a—d) where freedom does not exist absolutely in the West.

To begin my comment on your four examples measured against 'absolute freedom,' one reporter, John R. Bradbury, describes the repression of the Shi'ites from 1916—1928. Twenty—six anti—Saud tribes rebelled. Each 'was brutally suppressed by the Wahhabi forces backing Ibn Saud. It was an orgy of mass killing of mostly innocent victims, women and children. A staggering 7,000 people in Najran alone may have been put to the sword.' Then in April 2000 'government—backed religious police stormed a major Ismaeli [a sect of Shia Islam] mosque, seized many of its religious texts, and arrested three clerics.' Bradbury goes on to describe a secret meeting in the Eastern Province in which both Saudi and foreign Shi'ites met to mourn Hussein's death. 'In the past, hundreds were 'caught' observing such religious rites . . . They were arrested, and the foreigners among them were deported while Saudi Shiites faced jail terms and torture' (Source: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside of Kingdom in Crisis; see Bradbury's chapter 'Shia Fear,' pp. 73—85).

In light of these examples of violent repression of Shia Muslims who may not agree with your hyper—strict interpretation of Islam (whether you label it Wahhabi or fill—in—the—blank), we are now ready to contrast the examples with freedom in the West, even if it does not attain an 'absolute freedom' (whatever that means).

In your first example (a), you cite a report that says the CIA tries 'to influence not only Muslim societies, but Islam itself.' These reports about the gargantuan CIA circulate around the domestic and world media. Millions in the Arab world believe that the CIA and Mossad (Israel—region>'s secret service) planned the attack on September 11. If 'Islam itself' is influenced by this agency, then how strong is this religion?

Further, Islamic lobbying organizations try to influence policy in the USA—region>, the European Community, the United Nations, and elsewhere. The lobbies are given that freedom. So why should not non—Islamic organizations try to influence Islamic institutions and governments? One mark of freedom is that people of different convictions are allowed to (try to) influence people of other convictions. That is the competition of ideas.

In fact, your very letter to Congress is an attempt to influence the American perception of Wahhabism (or you choose the label).

All of this is, however, a completely different issue from suppressing and oppressing people from celebrating their religious festivals, as Saudi Arabia—region> does to its Shiite minority. If Saudi Arabia—region> would seek to convince the Shi'ites by verbal persuasion that they are wrong and that 'Wahhabi' Islam is true, nobody would object. What is reprehensible is that they are oppressed and threatened, even killed, when they try to celebrate their religious festivals.

Your second example (b) is about Judge Moore who wanted to place the Ten Commandments on government property. His opponents argued (right or wrong) that this placement favored one religion over all the others, so this denied the equality of all religions. Moore's actions, so his opponents argue, also violated the First Amendment's 'Establishment' clause (see below). It says that Congress (extended to include all levels of government, according to a broad interpretation) shall not establish any religion. Thus, Moore's opponents wanted to protect all religions. The government should not favor one religion over another. Whether Moore or his opponents are right or wrong about their interpretation of the Constitution is open to debate. But how does any of this compare with the denial—brutal repression—of a simple Shi'ite ritual, which the Wahhabis interpret as shirk (associating anyone or anything with Allah) and therefore un—Islamic? If Moore were to hold a public ritual honoring a Christian martyr, then he would not have been attacked or arrested.

Any religious ritual that someone does in this nation is legally protected, provided the ritual does not harm anyone else physically or materially. Even Satanists may march down the street peaceably or open a 'church' or shop peddling their beliefs and practices. Christians may pray and preach the gospel, but these concerned Christians should not harass or threaten them with violence, nor, especially, should the government do this.

In your example c, you cite France—region>'s ban on the Muslim head—scarf worn in public schools. Germany—region>'s Green Party supports the ban, as well. The French government also banned open displays of large religious symbols, such as the cross. Though I do not like the ban (because the scarf or other symbols harm no one materially or physically), the students are minors. No student is allowed to wear whatever he or she wants at school. But if a Muslim girl willingly wears a scarf out in the open public and off school property, then she is free to do this. However, viewing France's policy from a distance, I believe it is misguided, unless the government concluded that other students felt threatened by Muslim youth, as seen later in the 2005 riots, which were surprisingly organized. But the policy of denying mere symbols is quite different from the Saudi government's violent suppression of a harmless ritual honoring a Muslim 'saint,' done in public by adults in a minority sect.

In your fourth example (d), you link to a news article that reports that the Administration of Australia's Prime Minister John Howard says that there will not be two sets of law, a free one and shariah. The article shows that the context of these remarks came shortly after the London bombings in July 2005. The Administration was defending freedom, even religious freedom, so that Muslims may worship as they want, peaceably. Shariah denies complete religious freedom. For example, hard—line Muslims in Australia—region> were seeking to suppress freedom of speech that criticizes Islam. But the Administration wants to preserve free speech, and the way to do this is to deny shariah.

You bring up 'absolute freedom' and the limits on it. Then you cite four examples of western limits. But the differences between these limitations do not rise (or sink) to the level of the violent suppression of a Shi'ite ritual. The West starts any discussion about freedom from a long history of tolerance, learned from earlier centuries of bitter intolerance. Does Saudi Arabia—region> have the same starting place? Does any other Islamic nation? Personally, I hope that Afghanistan—region> and Iraq—region> will enjoy such freedom.

SaB (2005): Second, When the West allows mosques and other places of worship to be built and give Muslims and adherents of other religions some freedom, Westerners do not do this as a favor to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country; rather, they do it because it is something that the Western political system demands. Westerners believe that this is good for the country.

Third, Saudi Arabia—region>, and all the rest of the Arabian Peninsular constitute a special case according to the Islamic religion. There are relatively more churches in some Islamic countries like the Sudan—region> than there are in some Western countries.

Fourth, This question is as valid as asking why the Vatican does not open its city to allow the propagation of Satanism, Atheism, or any other idea that is anathema to the ideas of the people of that community. 

Fifth, remember that our society and culture is not secular, it is religious.  It therefore takes religious matters very seriously.

JA (2006): In your second major point in this section, you assert that western political systems 'demand' that mosques be built. I do not speak for all western political systems, but this word does not fit an American context (and I am confident that it does not fit in other western nations). The First Amendment to the American Constitution reads in its entirety, as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Source)

Thus, nothing in this Amendment comes close to a 'demand.' Modernity must allow freedom of religion, including the right of 'the people peaceably to assemble,' even if they are Shi'ites celebrating Ashura.

In your third major point you seem to say that Saudi Arabia—region> is a special religious case or exception. Then you cite Sudan—region> as an example of allowing more churches there than in some western countries, relatively speaking. 

In reply, the sacred exceptionalism of Arabia presumably comes from the prophet of Islam himself. This hadith from Sahih Muslim says:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al—Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. (Muslim 4366 ; see a hadith in Bukhari that says Umar expelled the Jews and Christians from the Hijaz or western Arabia.)

However, Jews and Christians lived in the Peninsula for centuries before Muhammad came, but his military power forced them out. This happened in the seventh century, but now this violence and intolerance is no longer compatible with modernity. What would happen if Israel—region> today were to claim that the Temple Mount is a sacred exception and precinct in the way that Saudi Arabia—region> does? Could not the government correctly argue that the al—Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple of the Jews are the ultimate symbols of Islamic imperialism? Let us imagine that Israel—region> asked Muslim governments willingly to dismantle the al—Aqsa mosque and the Dome and move them near the Mount, not on it. Or maybe Israel—region> would inform Muslim governments that it would move them unilaterally, as Umar, following his prophet's words, expelled Jews and Christians unilaterally. But back to reality. The Israeli government does not demand this, because among other reasons it is not compatible with modernity.

What if Saudi Arabia—region> allowed Christianity and Judaism to return to their historic home in the Peninsula (perhaps excluding the Hijaz)? If Judaism is unacceptable, then what about Christianity? At the very least, the Saudi authorities should permit visiting Christians to carry Bibles and wear crosses and attend specially located churches without fear of arrest. What is the physical harm in all of this, if it is done outside of mosques, Mecca, and Medina? Most important, the authorities should no longer block the internet from non—Muslim religious sites, like answeringislam.org. Are certain parts of the worldwide web sacred exceptions?

Now what about Sudan—region>? This summary from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies says that violence erupted in 1983 because radical Muslims pressured the government to impose Islamic law on the entire nation. The summary says:

Jihadist government is waging [genocide] against non—Muslim blacks.