The Saudi King’s “Unnamed Hands”

February 25, 2012

On Friday the Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud welcomed a delegation of female suffragists of the Wahhabi order. The king lauded their efforts to promote their modern dress code to their sisters in the Syria though he lightly scolded one of the women for appearing "practically naked".

bigger

In a televised address the King also said that “unnamed hands” targeting Islam and the Arabs are behind recent events in the region. The address followed an earlier appearance by the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal who said that arming the rebels fighting the brutal regime of President Bashar Assad is “an excellent idea.”

Posted by b on February 25, 2012 at 16:04 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Actually, as of my last visit to Saudi Arabia, all these women(?) in the picture may be considered naked. In Saudi Arabia the women also wear a black cover over their heads to cover their eyes. I guess the only part that is not provocative and doesn’t have to be covered is their hands. What a life.
Saudi al Faisal looks like the hunch back. Do you think all these princes and kings in this region are inflicted with one illness or another because of their “pious” lifestyle. Hopefully the Syrians are able to withstand the assault on their country by this group or we may see yet another arab country take a step backward into the bleak Islamist ideology.
I keep asking why the West seems so gung ho at supporting the Moslem Brotherhood while back in their own countries, Islamophobia is rampant. What would the US and EU do if the SNC wins this battle and Syria becomes yet another Moslem Brotherhood bastion.

Posted by: ana souri | Feb 25 2012 16:27 utc | 1

nothing ana souri, as long as the oil supply is reliable and Saudi Arabia does just that …

Posted by: somebody | Feb 25 2012 17:43 utc | 2

what pious lifestyle? all bets are off once their planes leave Saudi airspace.

Posted by: akak | Feb 25 2012 18:01 utc | 3

Saudi: women’s rights in a tribal patriarchy.
The state of affairs endures, in part, because:
a) While ? around 10-20% Saudi women work (incl. part-time), their massive arrival in the work place is NOT desired, as unemployment for young educated men is sky high and exceedingly painful. (As usual, U students are far more than 50% > women)
b) along the same lines, e.g. women not driving (or not anything..) provides employment for lower qualified men > drivers, cleaners who work outside, workers in the public view, retail, etc.
b) women fulfilling the traditional roles for ‘free’ contribute to the ‘economy’ invisibly (child care, home management, education, etc.) Duh.
c) women put up with poverty better than men, because their work roles be it in the home or elsewhere are more flexible and autonomous, easier (except in sharp poverty, of which there is a quite a lot in SA), so they rock the boat less, have no demands – the poor / women / lower sections, in any case have no voice.
d) rich, upper-upper class women do not suffer, they simply hire/buy what they need and therefore defend the status quo. (Our special culture, etc.) They can and do act like men, in every way, except for the visible symbols (dress, chauffeurs..) They aim to keep their position – being special and different with better privileges than men is hard to give up. Western mores are for the rich…that is a given.
e) lacking a women’s lib tradition, and in view of the fact that Saudi women die young, very young, due to health care issues (or perhaps are simply not counted), there are no older women carrying the torch, organizing.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 25 2012 18:03 utc | 4

what pious lifestyle? all bets are off once their planes leave Saudi airspace.

The bets are always off. A friend who had worked in SA said the biggest problem wasn’t smuggling booze into the kingdom but smuggling it out — so they could drink on the departing flights!

Posted by: Frank | Feb 25 2012 19:35 utc | 5

@1 “Do you think all these princes and kings in this region are inflicted with one illness or another because of their “pious” lifestyle.” My guess is inbreeding.

Posted by: yes_but | Feb 26 2012 0:16 utc | 6

Libya will be a similar embarrassment
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/02/13/libya-tells-un-rights-council-gays-threaten-continuation-of-human-race/

Posted by: somebody | Feb 26 2012 6:31 utc | 7

Libya was destroyed by NATO to serve France’s need for oil. As normal, NATO cared as much about Libyans as the so called friends of syria care about Syrians.
The other day loud mouth Newt Gingrich stated that he would put in place plans to stop reliance on Saudi oil so that “no future american president would have to kneel to a Saudi king”. John McCain made similar comments during the last election campaign. Easy, all you have to do is stop imports tomorrow and replace it with Canadian oil sands by the new pipeline proposed by Canada. One thing for sure, the rest of the arab world, who gets all the bad stuff from the US and none of the help would also be very happy. I wonder if Newt and the rest of the neocons realize by weakening the Saudis they would empower the rest of the arab world who currently also kneel in front of Saudi kings.

Posted by: ana souri | Feb 26 2012 12:16 utc | 8

actually ana souri, that would be the best solution, western countries finding different energy technologies for themselves.
and oil getting more expensive is helping. so the process is good, it is just a shame people are dying in the meantime. capitalism is both, a driver for progress and an enslaver.people do not need this crazy global mobility they are used to at present.
US foreign policy is so mad, because the country is so big and insulated. American people just do not know or care what is going on abroad (excepte recent immigrants with relatives abroad). they cared during the Vietnam war, when their conscripted sons got killed. they do not care now the poor are recruited.
in Germany the conscript citizens’ army got replaced recently under “international” pressure by a “professional” army. I met their recruits in the train recently. they are desperate.
no real cruel war could be sustained with them. they would opt out if given any chance.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 26 2012 13:30 utc | 9

Back to Main