Men in black terrorise Iraq's women

On a related topic, The Religious Policeman is hanging up his truncheon. He's going to write a book, it seems, and won't be able to keep up his very funny and informative blog. He will be missed.

The “emir”, identified as Abu Houzeifa, announced new rules: “Women cannot drive; women cannot go out after midday; women and men are not allowed to go out and walk together, they must walk separately.”

Apply this throughout the ummah, and in 70 years, the Jihad should be over.

At the next "inter-faith" dialogue that anyone from JW attends in the West, I hope that the following statement and questions could be asked to a Muslim in attendance. "New demands are being made in Iraq. Muslim women must be in the house before midday, not walk with men, and be covered. Not following these rules can result in physical punishment. How can a person truthfully adhere to Islam if these rules are not self-imposed? Can a manifestation of piety, such as wearing a hajib, be forced upon a person from a outside threatening source and still be considered an act of true faith?

Here is how The Religious Policeman began his last missive into the ether:

"A number of commentors and emailers have also, over that time, very kindly suggested that I should write a book. I have been persuaded. That's what I am going to do. But unfortunately, I don't have the time to do both, so there will be no more blog entries.

What about Saudi Arabia? In those 400 posts, you will find the full spectrum of institutionalized insanity that the House of Saud and their friends with long beards have created."

Institutionalized insanity. That sums it up. That sums up his subject -- Saudi Arabia, our "staunch ally" in everything, ever since FDR met the Saudi King on that ship. Our "staunch ally" that would take care of OPEC pricing so we didn't have to start taxing gasoline or other uses of oil, so as to encourage a move to other sources of energy. Our "staunch ally" in Afghanistan, so we didn't have to worry about the Taliban, or about sending thousands of Stinger missiles to Afghanistan, because wasn't Islam, wasn't Saudi Arabia, weren't those brave mujahedin all exemplars of the fact that "Islam is a bulwark against Communism" and wasn't the most important thing in Afghanistan to defeat the Red Army? (Oh no it wasn't).

He is writing a novel. For how else, he has come to feel, can he do justice to the "institutionalized insanity" of Saudi Arabia. One hopes he, and it, will succeed.

And one also hopes that the American government will, long before that novel comes out, have learned to have looked behind the facade built by ARAMCO, and a cast of thousands -- from James Akins and Raymond Close, to other diplomats, politicians, journalists, subsidized academics, businessmen, all working for the Saudis directly or indirectly, and striving to suppress the full truth about Saudi Arabia -- and to recognize the truths that non-Saudis (especially J. B. Kelly), and now at least one articulate Saudi citizen, Western-educated and endowed with unusual intelligence and humor, have been expresssing for some time. The Religious Policeman presented 400 postings about the country seized by, and named after, a family, the Al-Saud, at his eponymous website. For now, those postings, embalmed on the Internet, will have to do.

Boy, it sure is a good thing that Iraq was "liberated." Now they can all be "free."

I suggest we call these cultural terrorists THE BUSHIBAN in honor of their unintentional creator.

(Only to be retired when he uncreates them. Hellfire missiles and RPG's allowed.)

Ain't the law of Unintended Consequences a bitch?

(Maybe I shoulda read that consarned Ole Ko-ran, after all...

"NOOR and her boyfriend used to go out a lot and listen to dance in their favourite restaurant in Baghdad..."

That was back when Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, Tarik Aziz and the secularist Ba'ath dictatorship. They kept Islam restrained and despite the deprivation of the UN embargo, brought a modicum of freedom and normality to the Iraqi people, especially its women.

Watching what has happened to Iraq since Bush and Blair's occupation, I have more and more positive feelings toward Saddam Hussein and am becoming definitely pro-Ba'ath for Iraq. If the only alternative to a secular dictatorship is Islamic democracy ruled by these Talibanis, give us the dictator every time. Free Saddam now and give him back his army.

Hugh,

These was a chance of destroying the Islamist Saudi family enterprise in Arabia. Back in 1991, after Saddam took Kuwait (a British creation taken from Iraq to begin with), the US and UN could have stayed out and left Saddam free to take Arabia from the al-Sauds.

He would have taken Al-Hasa and the Najd while returning the Hejaz to the Hashemites. Wahhabism would have lost its base and secularist Baathism would have become the dominant force in the Arab world. Then Saddam may have been strong enough to destroy Islamic Iran.

Not being religious, Saddam would have been far more likely to reach an understanding with Israel or at a minimum, we would not have the Hamas style situation we have today. Also, there would not be all the Wahhabi funding for the Taliban, Al-Qaida, and the Chechens. If Saudi Arabia had been destroyed in the early '90s, then 9-11 might not have happened either.

I realize that I'm speculating in fictional alternative history, but it is something to think about.

Slow down, Pravo. There never was an Iraqi nation. The British put together three Ottoman provinces [vilayets], Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul and called them Iraq. As far as I know, only the first two were part of the old Arab geographic notion of Iraq [we could check the Encyc of Islam on this]. Again, Iraq was never a nation, nor does it continue pre-Islamic political traditions. Kuwait was not part of Iraq, as far as I know. The shaykhs of Kuwait long had autonomy under loose Ottoman suzerainty. The British first made a treaty with Kuwait before 1800. Indeed, if either state can claim the other, it ought to be Kuwait, since one of the Shaykhs of Kuwait was appointed governor of the Basra vilayet. By Arab moral logic, that ought to be enough to justify Kuwaiti incorporation of the Basra province at least.

Now, saddam hussein was speaking very much in Islamic terms in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait, tarik aziz notwithstanding. To call the Ba`ath "secular" is simply silly. Holding on to power was their priority. If they had to be Islamic or seem to be Islamic in order to hold power, then they would do it and in fact that's what they did.

Eliyahu,
There's no doubt your points are correct but almost every modern Arab country is a colonial construction. It was Islam that destroyed the independence of the real pre-Arab nations such as Assyria, Coptic Egypt etc.

As for Saddam, he was a typical Middle Eastern tyrant who believed in nothing other than power. If this meant playing the Islam card, so be it, if it meant calling himself a socialist, so be it. It didn't matter as long as it kept himself and his fellow Takriti tribesmen in power.

Precisely, because of this, a dictator like Saddam could be restrained on pragmatic grounds. The Islamic true believers now in Iraq lack any such pragmatism. That means the situation is becoming untenable for non-Muslims and secular Iraqis and far more dangerous for Israel and the West. My deepest fear right now, is that when the dictatorship of that half-baked Ba'ath idiot, Bashar Assad, falls in Syria, it will be replaced by a regime tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and then... Well you get my point.

Dear Provoslavni
Yes it is something to think about. And I agree with your sentiments and most of what you say. But: on the radio somebody (Ollie North?) stated that in the 80s they asked Tariq Aziz (then foreign minister of Iraq) if he would just suggest a peace treaty with Israel to Saddam. Aziz (part of Saddam's cabinet) said he would be shot on the spot if he even mentioned it.

Not being religious, Saddam would have been far more likely to reach an understanding with Israel