Following up on my last post, here is a link to a “shortened” version of that so-called study, again I apologize no non-arabic speakers. But for those of you who can read Arabic, you will be able to see how, contrary to his claims of objectivity and “field research”, his “studies” are not only biased, merely a summary of some interviews with people complaining about the infestation of immoral crimes, but also contained what I can only call brown-nosing.
From the beginning of the report, you can see warning signs. He might advocate “respectful debate”, but it looks to me like that’s just an excuse to say as many outrageous things as possible, then demanding “respectful, calm debate” in return. F**** that. I’d rather go for the jugular. Lucky for me I have no claim to objectivity, which I learned recently was fine when doing social research, as long as the researcher admits to being biased and has no problem keeping that in mind. Our dear “Dr” Subhi’s problem seems to start here. He did not admit to being nonobjective, therefore losing credibility at once.
His second mistake is his seriously flawed logic. Let me give a clear example from the very beginning. He start by attempting to categorize the different opinions towards women driving in Saudi in groups, the first being the Pro.
القسم الأول: قسم مؤيد لقيادة المرأة للسيارة – مع استخدام وسائل الإعلام وإحداث ضوضاء حول الموضوع ورغبة في دفع الأمور بأي وسيلة ومهما كانت النتائج – بناءا على أنها تقود السيارة في كل دول العالم فلماذا لا تقودها لدينا؟!
He states the Pro-driving group’s logic as following:(this is a rough translation)
The first category: The group that is pro women driving, using media and noise-making about the topic and wanting to drive the issue no matter what the outcome. Their logic is: Women drive everywhere around the world so why not here?!
Now, I’ll save my comment on his ill-interpreted and over-simplified reasoning for later. And focus on his quick & instant “reply” to this group, blatantly contradicting his claim to objectivity before he even stated his so called “research”.
The next paragraph:
وبطبيعة الحال، فإن هذا المعيار يمكن دحضه من باب أن العديد من بقية دول العالم تسمح بأمور كثيرة غير مسموح بها لدينا مثل الدعارة وبيع الخمور وزواج المثليين، فهل مطلوب من دولة تقول أنها تطبق الإسلام – مثل السعودية – أن تطبق كل ما تطبقه كل دول العالم؟
Naturally, this logic can be refuted by simply saying that many of the world’s countries allow many things that Saudi doesn’t allow like prostitution and selling alcohol and gay marriage. Does that mean that a country that applies Islamic law like Saudi Arabia should allow what all the countries in the world allow?!
Oh-kayy.Wow. I don’t know where to start, so I’ll organize this in bullet points.
1- How on earth can driving be compared to prostitution, gar marriage and alchohol consumption?! He is comparing three things that are high on the nono-list of not only Islam, but Christianity and Judaism too (excluding alcohol in some cases) with a perfectly legal, human right that Islam has not banned in any way shape or form. The right to freedom of movement is both a Human rights aspect and a religious one. The idea that a woman must be accompanied at all times for not only her protection from others but also from herself is a ludicrous new addition to “Islam” that is simply tribal thinking filtered through and disguising itself as religious. The only religious use of a “mahram” or male guardian, as far as I know, is when a woman travels in the desert for over three days. End of story. No need to get excited and generalize the three days to three hours. I’m sure if any conservatives read this they’d do the Islamic version of crossing themselves, by fervently muttering astaghfirullah! repeatedly as if I’ve uttered blasphemy. Sorry ’bout that, but I’d love to have you prove me wrong. Check your sources and let me know. Remember, Only sources from the Quraan or Hadith, with a solid trace for the latter deeming it “sahih” (true) and nothing less.
Back to original tpoic… where was I… oh yes!
2- So All the world’s countries allow alcohol, prostitution, and gay marriage? lovely. You might want to check your sources on that.
In retaliation to other points he mentioned in his “report”
3- Having some “researcher” tel you that there are studies in the UNESCO that find that the percentage of adultery, premarital sex, prostitution and whatever are higher in countries that allow women to drive DOES NOT constitute as research!!! You could have tried googling that info yourself, but I’m willing to bet that since Saudi is the only country IN THE WORLD that doesn’t allow women to drive, many countries will have higher rates of whatever, and many others will have lower rates, but they will all have women driving. Women driving isn’t exactly the variable here. If he said that a study shows that Saudi has the lowest rate in the world of prostitution, porn, sex crimes… etc, then he might be able to try to link that to the reason being we are the only country that doesn’t allow women to drive. But if he DID do that I’d probably yell BULLSH**!! If anything, our sexual harassment crimes are nowhere near low.
4- Why didn’t he compare numbers and statistics? In this whole “study” you don’t see a single statistic. He has vague references to a survey that he did. He does not say how many people were included in that survey, or what the results were in a percentage point of view. He only states the questions he asked them and then quotes the few that he found fitting with his own ideas. Objective? ha!
5- He mentions doing some of his research in “a country in north africa”. Why didn’t he just say Morocco? Perhaps because just saying that name is the Saudi equivalent of saying “red light district in Amsterdam” to a westerner. (No offense intended dear Moroccans, I can’t control how people think). And if its not Morocco, why keep it vaugue? Does the name of the country he conducted his research in affect his credibility? I just don’t understand his lack of clarity. If he were objective he could have said “I went to Morocco because such and such, to check one extreme for example, then I went to Qatar because such and such”. But this lack of clarity can only be called “Dodgy”.
6- One thing he mentioned that he observed from their media and newspapers is that women have the right to give birth in a hospital even if the baby was conceived out of wedlock. And that this is considered progressive…. Need I comment here even? I’m baffled. So he would prefer unwed mother to be criminalized and be forced to risk death and give birth in an alley with a butcher or a poor doctor that is risking his career to save a life instead of her getting proper medical treatment?! wow. He probably thinks that convicts in jail have no right to a doctor either, or is that okay for men only?
I think I’m going to stop here for now… I might update this in the future, but honestly, this is just a sampling of some of the most outrageous points he makes in his paper. I don’t have the time or patience to go through everything point-by-point because then I’d have to translate and analyze his whole essay which would give me high-blood pressure or something. I find that even his tone of writing is arrogant and nerve-grating. I can hear this obnoxious self-satisfied, self-righteous nasal voice playing in my head as I read the text. It actually gave me a headache. I have no idea if his voice is actually like that or not, but that’s how it carried on. Oh, and did I mention the load of brown-nosing generously peppered throughout the essay? *rolling eyes*
In closing, I’ll leave you with the embarrassing realization that this man’s wanna-be research has made a mockery of us in the whole world… on Saturday Night Live, no less!! (oh the shame)
On a lighter note, I can’t wait to see what 3al6ayer and LaYekthar youtube shows will have to say about this. I’ll let you you know if they post anything!
For those of you who can read arabic, check out the link. Let me know which point jumped out at you as most angering or illogical.