40° 24' N , 3° 42' E

I have been curiously following op-ed articles from Kuwaiti and Spanish newspaper journals to get a greater understanding of the debate on the wearing of the veil in Europe. My time abroad in the Middle East has led me to believe more in "live and let live" than to strict credence of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" but render to Ceasar...

At an opportune time when civilized nations are seeking to spread the concept of peace and peaceful coexistence with each other, we find some of our own MPs are indulging in projecting a negative image in their dealings with each other. The Ummah Tenets Party''s Secretary General MP Mohammed Hayef had earlier announced a move concerning the stance of the GCC, Arab and Islamic parliaments in initiating action against France. One of the initiatives called for not signing any agreements with France simply because that country went ahead with its ban on the veil. The honorable MP has forgotten an important issue which is that the French measures were taken and applied to enable French citizens to enjoy their religious freedom which the Arabs cannot even dream of guaranteeing in their own countries of origin.

MPs belonging to the political Islamic school of thought know very well that it is better for a man to be a Muslim living in Paris, London and Washington than to be a Christian living in Kuwait, Riyadh or Sudan. Kuwaiti MPs always seem to be the last of the lot where speaking about religious or personal freedoms is concerned. MP Khalid AlـSultan, slammed the French position over wearing veils, and considered it as a downright restriction of personal freedoms while his comrades in Parliament enacted a law in 1980 that bans granting the Kuwaiti citizenship for our fellow Christians. Isn''t such a law a stain on the face of Kuwaiti democracy?

French measures have been initiated for several national and security reasons, mainly involving religion in the daily lives of citizens. France is generally a secular nation which rejects any kind of religious insignia in its schools and official institutions, and this resolution is applied to one and all ـ not just Muslims. The decision was taken purely for security reasons that are in no way related to religion.

Islam in France and other Western countries including the United States spreads rapidly due to the migration of Muslims to these countries in huge numbers. If Muslims, at any given point of time, harbored this feeling that they would be persecuted and unable to practice their religion freely in those counties, why would they leave their countries of origin to live in those countries in the first place?

Frankly, the interference of MPs in the internal issues of France and defending wearing the niqab is not surprising to us at all. It is not surprising despite the fact that niqab has nothing to do with religion as it is a dress code that has spread among the Muslim communities in the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula and has even moved further to some Arab countries. The Grand Sheikh of AlـAzhar has banned wearing the niqab in AlـAzhar universities while the Egyptian education minister banned it in universities after which Tunisia also followed suit. It is only natural then, that our representatives are required to take action against some of our own Arab countries before going a step further and boycotting France.

A number of Kuwaiti religious scholars have severely condemned a statement made by the Saudi Arabian director of the Committee for Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Mecca, Dr. Ahmad AlـGhamidi, who said that the hijab (head scarf) was only meant for the wives of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and is not applicable to other women.

"The responsibility of protecting any religion lies on the shoulders of the State and not on certain individuals. The UNESCO has identified and promulgated religious tolerance since it does not call for indifference or blindly following what others believe. But what is happening today is that we are blindly following what others are practicing under the pretext of religious tolerance.

The Christmas tree is not just an ordinary tree but a lifestyle; and imitating the West and adopting its concepts without judging what suits our societies; weakens our loyalty and compliance to Islamic issues. I think that the best solution is to raise new generations that will be able to maintain their thoughts and beliefs and strengthen the Islamic identity armed with culture."

To the disappointment of Kuwait's liberal front, the Ministry of Interior has banned Egyptian liberal Islamist thinker Nasr Abu Zaid from entering Kuwait. As soon as he arrived at Kuwait International Airport on Tuesday evening, Abu Zaid was told that his visa was invalid and informed that he would be sent back to Egypt on a return flight the same night.

Abu Zaid had been invited by the Women's Cultural Social Society to give two lectures on Islam and democracy. Abu Zaid, who is known for his radical theories on Islam, has previously been accused of abandoning the Islamic faith, leaving in the mid 1990s for Europe, where he now lives.

The Ministry of Interior's decision to ban Abu Zaid from entering Kuwait appears to have been influenced by pressure from Islamist MPs, most of whom had adopted a negative stance against Interior Minister Sheikh Jaber Al-Khaled Al-Sabah, whose no-confidence vote session in the parliament is due to be held today.

Talking to the press, Islamist MP Walid Al-Tabtabae said that it is surprising that a person like Abu Zaid was invited to Kuwait in the first place, questioning the intentions of whoever organized this event. "Kuwait does not need to import issues; these radical views on religion are alien to our society and are not welcome," he said.

MP Ali Al-Omair asserted that Kuwait is a land of faith, where religion figures hugely and thanked the Ministry of Interior (MoI) for its efforts, saying, "Such radical ideology has no place here in Kuwait.

Tribal MP Mohammad Al-Mutair said that a "blasphemous irreligious person like Abu Zaid is not welcome to enter Kuwait with his beliefs because it is damaging to our society," adding that religion is a red line that cannot be crossed in the name of freedom. (for full article click here)

"Saudi beauty queen Aya Ali Al-Mullah trounced 274 rivals to win a crown, jewelry, cash and a trip to Malaysia, and all without showing her face, Saudi media reported yesterday. With her face and body completely covered by the black head-to-toe abaya mandatory in the conservative Muslim kingdom, 18-year-old Mullah was named "Queen of Beautiful Morals" late on Thursday, newspapers said.

There was none of the swimsuit and evening gown competitions and heavy media coverage of beauty pageants elsewhere when the contest was decided in the eastern city of Safwa. Instead, the winner and the two runner-up princesses had to undergo a three-month test of their dutifulness to their parents and family, and their service to society. This included a battery of personal, cultural, social and psychological tests, Al-Watan reported. It was unclear exactly what Mullah did to pip her rivals in the huge field, but Al-Watan reported that the high school graduate had good grades and hopes to go into medicine.

She raked in a 5,000-riyal (1,333-dollar) prize, a pearl necklace, diamond watch, diamond necklace, and a free ticket to Malaysia with her win. The 20-year-old first runner-up, one of triplets, had already won an education ministry-sponsored "I love you, my country" competition. The second runner-up, a high school student aged 15, was cited for taking care of her home and family during the week because her mother works far from home and can only return on weekends.

Beauty contests focused on physical beauty are non-existent in segregated Saudi Arabia, where women cannot mix with unrelated men, and must appear in public completely covered-even in photographs. Miss Moral Beauty pageant organiser Khadra Al-Mubarak kept the focus on inner beauty, as defined by Islamic standards of Saudi Arabia. "The real winner in this competition is the society. The winners represent the culture of the society and its high Islamic morals," Mubarak said, according to Al-Watan." (for full link click here)

The niqab is a face covering that leaves the eyes in view but leaves hidden below the nose. It is worn with the abaya and can vary in intensity. Some leave only slits for the eyes and are tied around the back (seen on many tourism refugees coming from KSA to KW), but most that I see here in Kuwait leave the forehead, eyebrows and eyes free.

This proves there is a market for just about everything. From The Telegraph. On a related note, Sarkozy´s comments about the burka last week stirred quite a bit of controversy. France and the United States at this point seem to be pulling at opposite ends of the abaya in their efforts to reach out to Muslim cultures.

Sarkozy was quoted at Versailles as stating that the burqa would not be welcome in France and that the clothing converts women into prisoners behind a screen-a subservient condition that is incompatible with France´s values of equality of the sexes. Unfortunately, the truth behind these statements is that religious freedom of expression seems to be at dogmatic odds with France´s historical precondition of cultural assimulation for immigrants. In France, Muslim acceptance is strongly linked with the immigration debate and has philosophically backed France against the wall.

While France is stuck trying to draw a logical flowchart between is founding principles of ¨liberté, égalité, fraternité¨ and policies dealing with the veil, US President Obama took a turn in a different PR direction in his Cairo Speech when he stated that he would not interfere with a woman´s right to wear the veil in the United States. The United States, although based on some of the same secular principles as the France, has never hidden its light embrace of faith in the public sphere, feeling less internal conflict than its transatlantic neighbor-albeit normally reserved for the exercise of Christianity. However, with Obama´s speech, he ensured that Islam would and should receive similiar treatment.

Perhaps the most fascinating detail in these two dramatic policy statements/outbursts by these traditional Western ¨frenemies¨ is the CHOICE of garment for Muslim women that was evoked in said presidents´ speeches. While Sarkozy evoked the burqa (the most extreme level of conservatism in Muslim covered dress for women), Obama used the hijaab (with a pronunciation glib) as his frame of reference for a Muslim woman´s right to exercise her religion through her dress. A chance that the choice of images they summon in clothing might be symbolic of their insecurities and respective levels of threat? Perhaps. In any case, abaya blinging out is certainly keeping French designers happy and in business in the meantime.

¨A horsewoman in a flowing, made-to-measure Islamic gown atop a snorting steed opened the fashion show on Thursday at the George V Hotel in Paris.

Abayas are the body-covering black robes some Muslim women don over their clothing in public, usually accompanied by a head scarf or niqab, the face veil that covers all but the eyes.

Designers who tried their hand at making over the abaya, which is required in Saudi Arabia, included Christian Dior's artistic director John Galliano, French luxury labels Nina Ricci and Jean Claude Jitrois and Italian houses Blumarine and Alberta Feretti.

The show began with a bang, as the carrot-topped cavaliere - decked out in a Galliano-designed abaya exploding with firework of coloured sequins and dangling fringe - rode her mount into the hotel's subterranean salon.

Twenty models followed on foot, wearing abayas heavy with rhinestones or airy in gauzy fabrics.

"I realised that most of the Saudi clients are wearing designer brands, but they're covered by a black abaya," said Dania Tarhini, the show's organiser and a general manager of Saks Fifth Avenue in Saudi Arabia. "It is an obligation to wear the abaya there, but let them feel good about it."

The timing of the Paris show was propitious: four days earlier, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, struck a nerve in the Muslim world by declaring that full-body veils such as the burka are "not welcome" in France, saying they make women prisoners. A top Muslim group in Britain called Mr Sarkozy "patronising and offensive." Lebanon's most influential Shia cleric called on Mr Sarkozy to reconsider his comments....¨ (click here for full article)

As global awareness of Dubai’s notorious “dark side” come to the fore through in-depth reports focused on the post-crisis, most particularly Johann Hari of the Independent’s recent article, attention on other countries in the Gulf has been detracted.  When things in Dubai were going well for foreign investors and Western expats, Dubai seemed like the next world city—a veritable desert pearl, that from grains of sand built up a glossy, escapist urbanity. 

With the economic downturn however, the mucky underworkings of this dream became dramatically exposed, turning the city into the ultimate macabre mirage, somewhat reminiscent of Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island.  While the problems highlighted in Dubai’s model of urban development may not be so embellished and internationalized in the other GCC countries, they cannot afford to go under the radar vis-à-vis their more famous cousin. 

The main points of contention in the Dubai Model as delineated by the foreign press community focus on environmental sustainability, city design of scale and migrant labor rights.  Coupled with the recent exposure of torture tapes implicating Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the United Arab Emirates is facing its first real PR crisis, or as its government media spokespersons have labeled it, the “growing pains” of an emerging international economy. 

This is indeed adequate, as when countries want to enter the ballpark as major global players, they have to grow up, step up to the plate and commit to the bundle of new responsibilities that come with this new territory, burdens that cannot be selectively chosen.  However, this is indeed the same conundrum of many GCC countries rapidly globalizing but failing on many human rights and democracy indicators.  As their economies grow and their presence emerges in the spotlight—they seem to have become too big for their own space—tripping over their limbs in readjustment to their new circumstances.  To use another Disney metaphor, an incredibly growing Alice enclosed in a house suddenly too small.  Their domestic patterns of conducting business no longer fit with their international image.

Critics of the emerging Dubai-bashing genre argue that the Western media has chosen to examine Dubai’s underbelly only once it suited them for a good story.  When the business environment in Dubai for expats was doing well, they described the city through rose-colored glasses.  Furthermore, according to the backlashers of the Dubai backlash, no city is without its sordid details and “dark side”—including many European and American urban areas.

Are these defenders of Dubai correct in their pointed criticism of the international media’s sensationalist journalism exploitation of Dubai’s cheap oil and labor exploitations? No, I believe they are not.  In the end, this is not the end of the growing pangs, only the beginning of adjustments.  As Dubai further develops, UAE leaders will find that it will become increasingly difficult for Dubai to have its cake and eat it too—ignoring the rules of the international game that do not suit its interest while embracing the benefits of globalization that do.

While sometimes these countries can hide behind the curtain of religious and cultural differences (particularly with the gender question, freedom of other religions to practice freely, and greater democracy), there is no such deus ex machina escape chute for issues of environmental sustainability and labor rights for example.

However, the exorbitant and myopic media coverage on Dubai has translated to the eclipsing of the other GCC countries by this United Arab Emirates’ destination.  Is this city an accurate representation of the other Gulf countries?   Do Dubai’s woes serve as a symbol of the larger region’s adjustment problems into the global community?  I have asked this question to myself many times and am curious to know readers’ opinions. 

This little gem of a piece had me recollecting the fear v. love scene in Donnie Darko.  The way religious fear and democracy promotion are tied together in this article is the most bizarre marriage of ideas.  I will make bold the highlights.  Is fearing God the only way to motivate people?  How very Jonathan Edwards!

The ever-unfolding drama of the women's police force really fascinates me.  I will continue following up and posting for as long as articles are written about the matter.  Congratulations to the brave female officers unafraid to defend their merits.  As I had criticized in my earlier post on the policewomen controversy, I am happy to finally see that female officers were interviewed for this piece.