Video: Saudi Princess Pushes For Women’s Rights
Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel explains what Saudi women want:
Source Note: If you’re using an ad blocker, you need to disable it for this page or the video won’t play.
Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel explains what Saudi women want:
Source Note: If you’re using an ad blocker, you need to disable it for this page or the video won’t play.
13 comments
1 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 10:51:57am |
Heh. The royalty explains what the people want. Typical aristocratic hubris. The wife of News Corp. co-owner Al-Waleed bin Talal is another one of the many members of the House of Saud trying to feather their own nest before the coming revolution. They know it will eventually come and topple their little theocratic monstrosity and figure it might be better to sell snake-oil than to run scared. But when and how it's all going to go down for real nobody knows, so they are all hedging their bets.
2 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 10:54:57am |
Clearly, assigning a lower status to women is more political than religious (women in other Muslim countries are far more empowered). The question is how to effect change? Also, in the Middle East, the conflict between the religious parties versus the more secular parties has become sharper. This is also true of Muslim societies outside the region, albeit more slowly (Indonesia and Malaysia come to mind).
I would venture to say the politics are the primary reason. If you don't have a say in determining the quality of your life, turning to a religion (any religion) that offers the sense of hope and dignity becomes almost irresistible.
The problem is that after a while, it becomes easier to rely on ever escalating religious demands in exchange for promises of ever escalating rewards than it is to work and struggle for change in the quality of life 'down here'.
American Muslims can and should strive to be more influential.
Freedom and religious faith are not mutually exclusive in a free society.
3 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 10:58:15am |
re: #1 000G
Heh. The royalty explains what the people want. Typical aristocratic hubris. The wife of News Corp. co-owner Al-Waleed bin Talal is another one of the many members of the House of Saud trying to feather their own nest before the coming revolution. They know it will eventually come and topple their little theocratic monstrosity and figure it might be better to sell snake-oil than to run scared. But when and how it's all going to go down for real nobody knows, so they are all hedging their bets.
Your points are well taken. Clearly, the mucku mucks are in it only because it serves their interests.
That said, you can't put genie back inb the bottle. Average women with access to to information and the outside world are not repudiating Islam (as some men might say). They just want equal rights.
When the average woman in any society says, 'This is worth fighting for', change is inevitable.
4 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 10:59:05am |
re: #2 researchok
Freedom and religious faith are not mutually exclusive in a free society.
But religious faith and tyranny are mutually dependend in a theocracy, such as Saudi Arabia. This will be a tough lesson to learn for the ummah and especially the ulema once the inevitable revolution comes.
5 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:04:27am |
re: #3 researchok
Your points are well taken. Clearly, the mucku mucks are in it only because it serves their interests.
That said, you can't put genie back inb the bottle. Average women with access to to information and the outside world are not repudiating Islam (as some men might say). They just want equal rights.
When the average woman in any society says, 'This is worth fighting for', change is inevitable.
This is true. But one has to acknowledge that the House of Saud tries to ride this wave, control it and steer it. And that is probably the worst way that the fight could play out. Activists need to take hold of the change. Rights cannot be "granted" by the King – anything the King grants is a privilege, to be taken away at his whim, too. Lots of smokescreens, too. Symbols, supposedly meaningful in 2015 or whenever, but in the mean time the women still get beaten for exercising their human right to move freely. Human rights cannot be granted. They have to be asserted, bottom-up.
The revolution, and that always means: the uprising of the people against an injust government, is inevitable. The Arab leaders have known this for decades now. All the House of Saud can and will do is to impede the process while securing their assets.
6 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:06:25am |
re: #4 000G
But religious faith and tyranny are mutually dependend in a theocracy, such as Saudi Arabia. This will be a tough lesson to learn for the ummah and especially the ulema once the inevitable revolution comes.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
That's why I have high hopes for American Muslims will assert themselves with great determination.
In a way, they are in the same position Jews were after the Second World War. American Jews, to a very large degree, created and shaped the next generation of Jews who participated in and helped define their culture and society.
7 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:09:26am |
By the way, Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel kind of reminds me of Queen Rania of Jordan. Same pretentious pseudo-liberal talking points uttered from a position of anti-democratic power.
8 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:09:42am |
re: #5 000G
This is true. But one has to acknowledge that the House of Saud tries to ride this wave, control it and steer it. And that is probably the worst way that the fight could play out. Activists need to take hold of the change. Rights cannot be "granted" by the King – anything the King grants is a privilege, to be taken away at his whim, too. Lots of smokescreens, too. Symbols, supposedly meaningful in 2015 or whenever, but in the mean time the women still get beaten for exercising their human right to move freely. Human rights cannot be granted. They have to be asserted, bottom-up.
The revolution, and that always means: the uprising of the people against an injust government, is inevitable. The Arab leaders have known this for decades now. All the House of Saud can and will do is to impede the process while securing their assets.
Every word you have written is true- and that is why change frim the bottom up will eventually take hold.
Like I said, when a mother tells her daughters and sons, 'This is worth fighting for', change is inevitable.
The change may not come easily or quickly, groups may take advantage of the instability (think Egypt, Libya, etc) but change will come eventually.
9 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:10:11am |
re: #7 000G
By the way, Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel kind of reminds me of Queen Rania of Jordan. Same pretentious pseudo-liberal talking points uttered from a position of anti-democratic power.
OK, that made me laugh!
10 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:11:10am |
re: #9 researchok
OK, that made me laugh!
Heh. I guess in the case of Jordan it is not as bad and hypocritical as with Saudi Arabia, but still...
11 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:17:01am |
re: #10 000G
Heh. I guess in the case of Jordan it is not as bad and hypocritical as with Saudi Arabia, but still...
You know, it is as bad. They just wear western clothes and are more telegenic.
Any regime, any where, of any religion or culture that fears the will of her population and thus represses them, is a broken regime.
No exceptions, in my opinion.
12 | (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:27:50am |
re: #11 researchok
You know, it is as bad. They just wear western clothes and are more telegenic.
Any regime, any where, of any religion or culture that fears the will of her population and thus represses them, is a broken regime.
No exceptions, in my opinion.
I dunno, I think Jordan is on its way. It's a monarchy, alright, but it's also parliamentary and constitutional monarchy and not a theocratic and absolute one. So in some ways it resembles the UK more than Saudi Arabia.
Also, I have to admit that I was a little impressed by this early support of the Arab Spring movement:
That was on March 1; Egyptian revolution started on January 25. IIRC, Saudi Arabia was much, much more reserved back then. But again, gestures and symbols.
We'll see.
13 | researchok Wed, Sep 28, 2011 11:46:46am |
re: #12 000G
I dunno, I think Jordan is on its way. It's a monarchy, alright, but it's also parliamentary and constitutional monarchy and not a theocratic and absolute one. So in some ways it resembles the UK more than Saudi Arabia.
Also, I have to admit that I was a little impressed by this early support of the Arab Spring movement:
[Link: www.thedailyshow.com...]That was on March 1; Egyptian revolution started on January 25. IIRC, Saudi Arabia was much, much more reserved back then. But again, gestures and symbols.
We'll see.
I'd love to be wrong.
Truly.
I've often said the biggest victims of Arab despots are the Arabs themselves. Generation have been lost to tyrannies masquerading as pious defenders of the faith.