Much Ado About Niqab

“As far as I’m concerned not every woman should work but every woman who wants to work should be able to work.” -Saudi Princess Ameerah

Michelle Obama showing "head cleavage"

Lately, posts and articles have been circulating about First Lady Michelle Obama and her visit to Saudi Arabia following the late King Abdullah's death.  Some reports say that she has sparked "outrage" by not wearing an Islamic headcovering while in the country.  The reason this has supposedly sparked controversy is because of a national dress code in the country (which both men and women are required to adhere to).  Though Western women and visitors are often exempted from this law, some people were apparently upset at her decision not to wear a veil.  Others, on the other hand, say this is a bold political move to protest the Kingdom's treatment of women. 

Now I'm as much of a feminist as the next guy, but articles like this are just poor, sensationalist journalism.  Not many people in Saudi Arabia are upset and most probably don't care.  It is also just as unlikely that Michelle is making a political statement (most female American political figures have refrained from wearing a headscarf).  Unfortunately, Mrs. Obama was probably in a no-win situation to begin with.  By not wearing a headcovering, some people have gotten upset about cultural sensitivity.  By wearing one, others would say she is bowing to the sexist demands of an authoritarian state. So why is the headscarf such a big deal?

First, let's quickly discuss the different types of Islamic coverings.  The hijab is probably the most popular covering in the Middle East and covers only the hair and neck while leaving the face completely visible.  The niqab is commonly found in the Gulf States (particularly Saudi Arabia) and covers everything except for the eyes.  The burqa, on the other hand, covers everything including the eyes and is rarely found except in some areas of Central Asia.  Some men also wear headcoverings, the Taqiyah (probably known best as the skull cap thing) and the keffiyeh (worn by Saudis in the picture above and more of a cultural garment) are the most popular of these.

Turns out not everyone wears a burqa...

The basis for wearing a headcovering comes from culture as well as religion (as stated before, most people outside the Gulf States commonly wear just the hijab).  The earliest religious justifications typically come from Qur'anic surah (chapter) 24 which emphasizes modest dress among men and women.  A later verse in surah 33 mentions the need for women to cover themselves when they go out so as not to be harassed.  Like all religious texts, some people have adapted this belief to fit modern times, while others continue to adhere strictly to the literal text.  This phenomenon is also not unique to Islam.  Some Orthodox Christians cover their hair, while Jewish women will sometimes wear a Sheitl and a wig to hide their real hair.  

In places throughout the region that do not have mandatory covering laws (as seen below, the vast majority, while Turkey actually banned the hijab among government workers for awhile), wearing a scarf or covering is not always a decree from the father, brother, or husband.  Women often cover themselves because they wish to be modest (as they interpret it).  To women who wish to wear a veil, not wearing one may feel like going outside in a skimpy bikini or even being naked.  One of the most important points which is often left out when discussing Islamic modest dress (particularly in Saudi Arabia) is that it is also enforced among men.  In Saudi Arabia, both men and women are required to cover everything except for the hands, feet, and face (the niqab is just the most visible of these coverings).  This does not excuse the restrictive nature of the law, but it is incorrect to think that only women are being forced to dress a certain way.  There are plenty of cases throughout the world where men force women to cover themselves who do not wish to be covered, and that is unfair.  Ultimately, it ought to be up to the individual to decide how to dress.

Nations with hijab regulations

Another controversy from this trip sprung up around the actions of several Saudi Arabian guards who greeted the Obamas as the departed their plane in Riyadh.  Some of the all male guard shook hands with Mrs. Obama, but others only nodded and refused to shake her hand.  Again, this goes back to some (though not all) Islamic interpretations of modesty.  Unrelated men and women typically do not shake hands or touch each other (it would be like kissing a stranger, kinda awkward and just feels weird).  To put it simply, some of those men likely felt very uncomfortable at the idea of shaking the hand of a woman they had never met.  Many women, in return, would not feel comfortable with a man walking up to shake her hand.  Instead, Muslim men and women often nod in acknowledgement of each other (as many of the guards did). 

The bigger issue at hand here is the general discussion of women's rights in the Kingdom.  We should remember that this country has a very long cultural and religious tradition for doing what they are doing.  This doesn't make it right, but we can't expect things to change overnight.  Furthermore, we can't assume that just because something is done in the U.S. (not wearing a hijab) that it is automatically the right thing to do and that all other countries should follow suit. Viewing Muslims as barbaric and strange for their choice in clothing is exactly the type of Orientalist thinking which should be avoided (and is the inspiration for the namesake of this blog).

Above: Protesting?

That being said, there are some serious inequality concerns which ought to be addressed in the Kingdom.  Women have been protesting for more rights and freedoms for quite awhile.  Cases such as the protest against Saudi Arabia's ban on female drivers are one such example.  Even larger inequalities (banning women from holding certain jobs or prohibiting women from traveling without a chaperone) will require large changes in Saudi society.  A bunch of foreign Americans telling Saudis how to treat women in their country is only going to cause resentment.  As outsiders who wish to see change, we can encourage women to agitate for more rights, but we can't give them equality outright.  In the meantime, the United States can do what it does best: lead by example.  Showing the world how a country ought to treat minorities and women is the best way to get others to follow suit (not that we are perfect on that by any means). 


In the end, the decision to wear a scarf is Mrs. Obama's alone.  It isn't a bad thing to want to respect the cultural traditions of a place that you visit, but we also shouldn't be surprised when some people are offended that she did not wear a headcovering. There are many different worldviews, and that is not always a bad thing.  Ultimately, this should not be a distraction from the much more important discussion about basic human rights and discrimination in the heart of the Middle East. 

TL;DR: Many women choose to cover their hair out of modesty, others out of coercion.  Either way, there are much bigger equality issues in the Kingdom than a few naked heads.

Why (Almost) Everyone in the U.S. Government Visited Saudi Arabia this Week

"Sometimes we have to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns that we have in terms of countering terrorism or dealing with regional stability" -Obama on his visit to Saudi Arabia

King Salman of Saudi Arabia (NOT Obama!)

On Tuesday, some of America's most high-level government officials traveled to Saudi Arabia's capital Riyadh to pay their respects to the late King Abdullah.  Among these officials were the current Secretary of State John Kerry, previous Secretaries James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, three former national security advisers, the head of the U.S. Central Command (which oversees operations in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia), and the current CIA director John Brennan.  That's a lot of high ranking diplomatic and security officials.  President Obama himself cut short a visit to India to travel to Riyadh and meet with the new King Salman.  Clearly, this is a big deal.

Why is Saudi Arabia so important to the United States?  It all comes from a relationship which began in 1945 on a tiny ship floating along the Suez Canal in Egypt.  On board the USS Quincy, the King of Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Aziz Al-Saud, and U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met to discuss the future of their two nations following the inevitable end of the Second World War.  What emerged from that meeting was a permanent agreement for the United States to provide regime security to the Saudis in exchange for significant favor in the Kingdom's petroleum markets. 

FDR and Abd al-Aziz Al-Saud on the USS Quincy

Despite setbacks such as the 1973 oil embargo,  the U.S. Saudi relationship has held strong throughout the decades ever since 1945.  Its strength was reaffirmed by the sale of F-15 fighter jets in the late 1970s and the joint support effort for the Afghan mujaheddin, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s (the U.S. support was mostly through money and weapons, while the Saudis sent fighters and exported their particular brand of Islamic ideology).  All of this is explained in painstaking detail in my Master's thesis (the first chapter is boring, I know).

This relationship was met with another critical challenge following the 9/11 attacks.  Most of the hijackers were of Saudi origin and Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi citizen.  Even though Saudi Arabia has pledged to help stop radical Islamist groups in the region, they continue to provide military hardware and ideological support to organizations such as the Syrian rebel forces (some of whom are joining groups like ISIS).  The two nations are still working on how to navigate their relationship in this new century. 

So the foundation of this relationship is oil: duh.  But not in the way you might think.  The United States only gets about 15% of its daily petroleum imports from Saudi Arabia (most comes from Canada eh!).  The United States highly values Saudi Arabia's power in the global oil market (as outlined in this post).  It is their power in the world oil market to influence oil prices and the increasing dependence of Asian markets on Saudi oil that is most appealing to American officials.  As evidenced by Russia's worsening recession (they are super-dependent on oil for money and oil is cheap right now) this power is priceless and well-known (so well-known that any good conspiracy theory in the Middle East includes at least some involvement from the Saudis).

Oh, Canada!

Regional stability also plays a key aspect in this relationship.  Despite being less-than-ideal at stopping violent ideologies (and sometimes encouraging them), Saudi Arabia still serves as a key ally in the fight against some terrorist groups (mainly the ones who want to see the Saudis gone too).  They are also the strongest military power in the region, with the possible exception of Israel or Iran.  While Saudi Arabia acts as though it doesn't like Israel and vice versa, the two nations know better than to start fighting among themselves.  The Kingdom's real value to the United States is as a check on the influence of Iran.  Their self-proclaimed status as the champion of Sunni Islam (though most don't recognize it) and their dominant role among the other Gulf Arab states are also nice bonuses.

Despite needing to pretend they aren't friends sometimes (some Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Christians in the U.S. equally dislike the relationship), the two countries are obviously close allies.  This is why, when a leader like Abdullah dies, so many diplomatic and security officials drop by for a visit.  King Salman will likely continue most of the same policies as his predecessor, so for now the U.S.-Saudi relationship remains strong.  But in a world where democracy and human rights equality are quickly becoming mainstream, Saudi Arabia will have to adapt to survive.  When the Kingdom which practically enslaves migrant workers can no longer turn to its vast petroleum reserves for support, how long will the United States continue to exchange stability for oil in the Middle East?


TL;DR: Oil and regional stability make Saudi Arabia a popular vacation destination for American policymakers.

Up Next: Michelle Obama doesn't wear a headscarf in Saudi Arabia, people get mad?

Fishing for a President in the Yemen

"The US has not imposed democracy in Yemen, its people have." - Ali Abdullah Saleh 

(No Longer) President Hadi of Yemen

Late Thursday night, reports began filtering in from Riyadh (the capital of Saudi Arabia) that Saudi King Abdullah had died after several weeks of hospitalization there.  Naturally, world leaders began an outpouring of sympathy and condolences to the Saudi royal family, as well as congratulations to the new King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (Abdullah's half-brother).  I join these leaders in remembering the life and legacy of the late King Abdullah, who saw significant growth in the country during his reign (though not without controversy of course).

However, this post isn't about the Saudi succession (I've already covered its minimal effects on the oil market in another post).  King Salman will almost certainly continue the policies of his predecessor.  This is about something far more serious and with the potential to cause much larger problems.  The same day King Abdullah died, Houthi rebels, who had stormed the presidential palace in Yemen's capital Sana'a the day before, announced the forced resignation of Yemen's president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.  They now control key areas of the city and the action has plunged an already fractured and divided nation into extreme instability. 

Yemen has never been much of a unified country.  As one of the poorest and most malnourished countries in the Middle East (excluding areas of Syria and Iraq), its rampant poverty, political inequality, and religious tensions have made the country a breeding ground for extremists. The country only managed to cobble together a unified government in the early 90s, and this union has been tenuous at best.  In 2012, the Arab Spring protests saw the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his replacement with Hadi, considered a weak and ineffectual ruler (for a more detailed history, see this Yemen country profile from TeachMideast).

Protests Against Former President Saleh in 2011

Northern Yemen is home to a significant Shia Muslim population known as the Zaidis.  Like nearly all Shia factions, they believe that the religious office of Caliphate should have passed among the family of Muhammad (specifically his son-in-law Ali) and venerate a series of (usually 12) prominent Imams (Ali being the first).  Put simply, the Zaidis venerate the first five of these spiritual leaders.

Formed in 1992 and named for their former commander Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, the Houthis follow Zaidi Islam.  The Zaidis have long felt underrepresented in the Yemen's predominantly Sunni government, and officials have long suspected the Houthis of intending to take over the country.  A coup in Yemen is all but certain now, and it is possible the Houthis will try to claim power for themselves.  The country is fiercely split along religious lines as it is, this new move makes an impending civil war all the more likely.

Yemen has (understandably) been less than ideal in its reliability as a United States ally in the fight against global terror.  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is based out of Yemen and the country has been fighting against rebels and terrorists among its own ranks for years.  Though the Houthis are in no way supporters of the Sunni extremist AQAP, the further destabilization of Yemen increases the abilities of such extremist groups to recruit followers.  

Above: Yemen

Naturally, Saudi Arabia is very worried about the situation in Yemen.  Yemen's poorly-guarded border along the southwestern edge of the Kingdom allows militants easy access into the country.  The Houthis are also loosely tied to Iran, increasing the likelihood of a proxy war developing between the two powers.  Furthermore, the overthrow of Hadi calls into question the status of the U.S.-Yemen relationship (including the ever unpopular program of drone strikes). 

All this means that things are probably going to get a lot worse in Yemen before they get better.  At best, the Houthis will call for democratic elections and demand only minor political concessions or greater autonomy.  At worst, they will proclaim themselves as the rightful rulers of Yemen and marginalize the Sunni population.  The world (not just the United States) needs to start taking Yemen more seriously.  Armed intervention by any nation certainly isn't the answer, but neither is indifference.  Yemen is at a very serious turning point.  Its time to start acting like it.


TL;DR: Saudi Arabia will be fine, Yemen is about to get complicated. 


Links

Article on King Salman

Who Are The Houthis?

Middle East Policy Council on Yemen

Negotiating the Best Course of Action in Iran

"When I go to Iran, I see... that there are all different shades and colors in Iran, from atheist to religious zealot. So Iran is no different than any other country." -Mohamed El Baradei, Former Director General of the IAEA

On Tuesday night, President Obama mentioned the ongoing status of negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear policy in his State of the Union address. Negotiations have been going on for years to limit Iran's capability to enrich uranium (one of the most important and difficult aspects of making a nuclear weapon), and talks have recently been extended once again.

Congressional Republicans have been adamant about their proposal to increase sanctions on Iran, while Obama threatened in his speech to veto any such action.  To complicate matters even more, the very next day, House speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress on this issue, circumventing the traditional diplomatic channels of the president and the State Department.  What is really at stake with regards to these negotiations?

First, let's quickly break down what Iran is doing and why it matters.  Iran has been attempting to enrich uranium for over a decade.  Enriched uranium is typically used either for nuclear energy (when enriched to 20% of its ability) or as material to make a nuclear weapon (at least 90% enriched and much harder to do).  While Iran is allowed to enrich to 20%, many fear that the country is getting ready to enrich to 90%.  With that, they could, in theory, build a nuclear weapon within a matter of weeks (this is known as breakout capacity). 

What would a nuclear Iran do to the stability of the Middle East? Well, the concept of mutually assured destruction (where nobody nukes each other because they would get nuked themselves) comes in to play here.  If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it is highly likely that countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey will want one as well.  Though some argue nuclear weapons actually make the world more stable, it is probably best to keep the number of nuclear armed states as low as possible.  Israel (despite their insistence to the contrary) already has nuclear weapons, but most Arab nations do not actually view Israel as an existential threat.

Assuming Iran actually wants a weapon and isn't just pretending to gain political concessions, why does Iran want a nuclear weapon?  Not because they are evil or crazy or because they want to destroy Israel (such an action would result in their immediate destruction, not to mention it would harm millions of Muslims in the process).  Their motivation for pursuing a nuclear weapon is the same as every other nation of the world: regime security.  Like with North Korea, a regime seeking to stay in power has a much better chance with a nuclear weapon in its arsenal. 

It isn't hard to imagine why most of the world doesn't want this to happen.  There are several options on the table for preventing this.  Probably the most extreme (and in my opinion short-sighted) action is to bomb Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.  However, I believe this would cause several serious problems.  First, the facilities are spread across a large area and this could cause a serious military confrontation.  Some facilities, like Natanz and Fordow, are located next to Iranian towns and cities, so a strike would likely cause thousands of civilian casualties (see "nuclear gamble").  Finally, this action would only set their program back rather than actually end their desire for regime security.

Increasing sanctions has been the rallying cry of Congressional Republicans for years.  Economic sanctions (measures designed to prevent other nations from trading with Iran) were implemented years ago as a means to bring Iran to the negotiating table.  Negotiations are at a tentative place right now as it is, and imposing more sanctions would probably end the talks altogether. 

Finally, there is the option to continue negotiations.  There are many options which can be worked out such as allowing other nations to enrich uranium for Iran or bringing International Atomic Energy Agency officials into Iranian facilities for regular inspections.  Negotiations have been slowly progressing, but no lasting deal has yet been reached.

Ultimately, I believe it is best to continue negotiations with Iran.  With the amount of attention organizations like the CIA are probably giving to this issue, it is unlikely that Iran will suddenly produce a weapon without anyone's knowledge.  Furthermore, talking with Iran's leaders allows the United States to prevent something unacceptable (a nuclear Iran) by exchanging it with something more acceptable (Iranian regime security).  Israel (somewhat understandably) has serious objections to both a nuclear Iran and Iranian regime security.  Boehner's invitation to the Israeli Prime Minister is clearly a shot at Obama's negotiation efforts.  If Netanyahu accepts this, he will almost certainly advocate for sanctions on Iran, if not full armed intervention. 

America's foreign policy cannot reduce the world into good and evil nations.  We shouldn't treat Iran like an enemy and then be surprised when it acts just like an enemy.  Just like the events preceding  the war in Iraq, we have started interpreting every Iranian move in a negative light, assuming the worst of every action or statement they make.  Only when we address the fundamental reason for a nuclear weapons program (regime security), will we have any chance of creating a lasting agreement.

TL;DR: If Iran wants a nuclear weapon, it is only to ensure their own survival.  Maybe there is another way to guarantee security without nuclear weapons.

Links

Bloomberg Article on Iranian Nuclear Program

Boehner invites Israeli PM to Congress

Iranian Nuclear Facilities

Semnani, Khosrow B. The Ayatollah's Nuclear Gamble: The Human Cost of Military Strikes Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities. Hinckley Institute of Politics, University of Utah, 2012.

Should Muslims Apologize?

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” -Issac Asimov

An interesting debate often surfaces following religiously motivated terrorist attacks.  Though details are still emerging on the Charlie Hebdo attack and related hostage situation at a Paris kosher market, it is becoming very clear that there attacks had ties to terrorist organizations.  Yesterday, media Sith Rupert Murdoch sent several controversial tweets stating that all "Moslems" are in some way responsible for these attacks.  The response by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling (also linked below) and the general movement known as #MuslimApologies are very poignant.  The unfortunate debate we often have after terror attacks supposedly done in the name of Islam is this: Should Muslims Apologize? 

Perhaps a less sensationalist way to pose this question is: Should Muslims be expected to condemn acts of terrorism or violence conducted in the name of their religion?  Before addressing this questions directly, it is important to point out that the structure of the Islamic religion does not lend itself to such public expressions as easily as other religions.

For example, in Christianity (or Catholicism at least) the figurehead and voice of the church is the Pope.  The entire institution of the church acknowledges that he can speak on behalf of the church (even though many might disagree with what he says).  No such structure or figurehead exists within Islam.  Though the religious tradition says there was once a Caliph who was able to speak in much the same way, the office of Caliphate has not been widely recognized since 1924, and its legitimacy has been in question for over a thousand years.  There are individual Imams (the spiritual leader of a Mosque), religious scholars, and influential individuals or families in Islam (e.g. the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia), but no single recognized authority exists.

Instead, the very structure of Islam is community-based.  Imams are often looked at as community leaders as much as spiritual leaders, and different Mosques may not have much connection or association with each other.  There are, of course, larger groups and organizations of Muslims, but it is often said that, while Catholicism is structured from the top-down, Islam is structured from the bottom-up.  All this means that there is no "Islamic Pope" who hands down decrees and judgement.

Yet, communities, prominent Imams, and influential scholars can have widespread reach in the digital age.  So what obligation to Muslims have to denounce terrorism done in the name of Islam?  Well, it looks like many of these leaders have already spoken out against Islamic extremist violence (see article from Washington Post).  Organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America regularly denounce these acts, but their statements rarely receive meaningful press attention. 

Furthermore, most Muslims would say they do not identify in any way to terrorists.  They would argue that anyone committing acts like this are not true Muslims at all.  For example, should Christians everywhere publicly denounce the Ku Klux Klan? Should atheists all over the world loudly proclaim their disapproval for Stalin, Napoleon, and other violent atheist leaders?  I believe this speaks to a larger question, should anyone with a particular identity have to apologize for the worst among that identity?  

Finally, let's look at the vast majority of victims of attacks carried out in the name of Islam: Muslims themselves.  According to information from West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, Al Qaeda has killed nearly eight times as many Muslims as they have people of other religious backgrounds.  One story which has been circulating from the this attack is that of Lassana Bathily, a Muslim clerk from the kosher market hostage situation who risked her life to save several customers.  Additionally, Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim police officer, was killed outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo.  Every day, millions of Muslims throughout the world are terrorized by extremists in places like Mosul, Nigeria, and Peshawar.  Life goes on as usual for most of us, but they live in constant fear of terror attacks.

In the end, it seems like statements condemning terror attacks are more about convincing non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace than reminding Muslims that their faith doesn't condone terrorism.  Rather demanding that they apologize, perhaps we ought to encourage Muslim communities to help rehabilitate those who begin turning towards violence.  It isn't that Muslims have the obligation to denounce terrorism (again, they are already doing that), but Muslim communities may be the most prepared and best equipped to help prevent some among their ranks from becoming radicalized.  Only when we stop blaming each other and start working towards solutions can meaningful change occur.

TL;DR: Even though they shouldn't have to, Muslims already are condemning attacks.  You just probably weren't paying attention.

Links

Washington Post on Muslim Reactions to Terrorism

NPR on #MuslimApologies
 
J.K. Rowling Reacts to Murdoch Tweets

CTC Study on Victims of Terrorism

Muslim Police Officer Killed in Paris

What's So Bad About A Picture of Muhammad?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  -Voltaire

As I am sure you've all heard by now, a pair of armed men opened fire Wednesday morning on the office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French publication based in Paris.  Though details are still emerging, it is becoming very clear that this attack was religiously motivated against several articles the magazine published which criticized Islam. Charlie Hebdo was also the victim of a firebombing attack in 2011 after it published a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad.  While this post is in no way looking to justify the actions of terrorists, it is important to explain why a simple drawing of a person can cause so much anger.

In Islam, there is a strong tradition of preventing behaviors or actions which could distract someone from the worship of God.  Many Muslims believe that graven images can lead to the practice of idolatry (the worship of things other than God).  While most traditions agree in their disapproval of images of Muhammad, some extend this general prohibition to other prophets recognized by Islam including Moses and Jesus.  Still others take this even further to prohibit images of the human body, since it can be considered an extension of God and God's creation.

This practice is not unique to Islam.  One of the greatest religious debates of the early Catholic church was also centered on this idea.   In middle and late 700s (AD), the iconoclasm movement gained traction within the Catholic church.  Like the prohibition of images of Muhammad, the iconoclasm movement stood against the veneration of inanimate objects.  During these centuries, the church was still holding many religious councils to solidify its beliefs and define and eliminate "heresies."  Ultimately, iconoclasm was declared heretical at the Second Council of Nicea in 787 in favor of the inconodule movement (the belief that images are fine so long as you don't actually worship them).

So many (though certainly not all) Muslims would prefer not to see images of Muhammad or other prophets. This is part of the reason theaters in Egypt are not showing the movie Exodus: Gods and Kings since it shows the prophet Moses.  Still, most people understand the difference between disapproval of something and the violent murder of those with differing opinions.

The completely unrestricted freedom of speech and expression in "Western" culture occasionally finds itself at odds with this religious belief.  This is why it may not seem like a big deal when the same publication printed images and criticism of religious figures like the Pope.  So how should newspapers handle these topics, especially when directly confronted by this clash between religious belief and unrestricted free speech?  Of course, people and organizations have every right to print or say what they will.  But just because you can print something doesn't mean you should. 

When considering displaying images of Muhammad or other prophets, I think intent is critically important.  For instance, drawing or showing images of Muhammad with the intent to merely exercise your right is perfectly understandable.  Many moderate Muslims, though they would prefer not to see such an image, can respect that use of free speech.

However, displaying vulgar images of Muhammad just to upset terrorists misses the point.  Antagonizing for the sake of antagonizing can turn off a lot of moderate people who still don't want to see offensive images of Muhammad.  We certainly don't have to censor ourselves, but it is possible to show cultural or religious respect while still being critical of some aspects of Islam.  This is where I find movements like Everybody Draw Muhammad Day can sometimes lose sight of their message.

Still, the attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo is reprehensible.  There is a world of difference between satire and disrespect. Though I have the highest respect for their work and for the practice of questioning certain religious beliefs, I personally will never post an image of Muhammad on this blog.  This is not because I fear terrorist reprisal, but because I want to recognize the beliefs of everyday Muslims who would rather not see these images displayed. 

TL,DR: The practice of prohibiting religious images is not unique to Islam.  We can't give in to terrorists, but retaliating by posting pictures of Muhammad isn't the answer either.

Reaction Drawings To Charlie Hebdo

Wiki Article on Iconoclasm

Oil in Saudi Arabia and Royal Succession

"Wow!  Gas is really cheap these days." -Everyone

On Friday, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was admitted to a hospital in Riyadh, the capital of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  Several days later, his condition appears stable, but concerns about the future of the world's largest oil producer remain.  At the respectable age of ninety, questions about the royal succession are being raised.  But first, let's get into Saudi Arabia's unique status in the world petroleum market. 

Saudi Arabia has used its substantial oil production capacity to great effect.  Saudi's current oil production usually hovers around 10-12 million barrels per day, and the Kingdom has the infrastructure already in place to produce upwards of 15 million barrels per day (maybe even more, the exact production capacity is a closely-held secret).  Rather than produce at their maximum capacity right away, Saudi Arabia changes how much it produces to help raise or lower the price of oil.  This is why many consider Saudi Arabia to be the "swing producer" of the oil market: they can increase or decrease production as needed to influence the global oil market.

This "oil weapon" has been used several times by the Kingdom.  The 1973 oil embargo, a retaliation for America's resupply of Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, is the most well-known example.  However, Saudi Arabia also spiked production in the late 1970s to put pressure on Iran (which Andrew Scott Cooper argues in The Oil Kings helped trigger the 1979 Iranian Revolution).  On the positive end, Saudi Arabia vastly increased its production during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s as a means to stabilize the market and prevent another oil crisis.

So what's up with Saudi Arabia's (and OPEC's) decision to allow oil prices to keep dropping?  Keep in mind, Saudi Arabia could bring prices right back up at any time by cutting its production.  There is plenty of (in my opinion justifiable) speculation that the decision to let prices fall is a move designed to hurt Saudi's rivals.  Both Iran and Russia are under U.S. sanctions and rely heavily on petroleum exports to make money.  The combination of these two factors is already pushing Russia into a recession and has continued Iran's economic woes.

Others (see Middle East Policy Council link below) suggest this move has more to do with cutting off the development of shale oil, which is much more expensive to produce.  Personally, I do not think that an industry as potentially profitable as shale oil is going to be stopped or substantially slowed just because the price of oil is low for awhile.  Still, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy petroleum nations can afford to keep prices low for quite awhile, and are free to start bringing the price back up when needed.

Will the eventual succession of King Abdullah throw a wrench in this process?  Probably not.  The Kingdom already has a solid plan in place for royal succession and has been preparing for a possible transition for years.  At most, it would likely only stall the price decrease or slightly increase prices for a few days.  Heir apparent Prince Salman is likely going to continue the current high production, and any slight increase would come out of instability fears which always occur during transfers of power.

For now at least, it looks like we can enjoy these low gas prices for a while longer.  At least until OPEC meets up again later this Spring.  Let's not forget, however, that continuing to rely heavily on such a volatile resource causes economic and environmental problems in itself.  Eventually, prices will rise again, and the only way to end our dependency on oil is to develop cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

TL;DR: Whether Saudi Arabia is trying to cause economic damage to its political adversaries or its energy competitors, it looks like oil prices will continue to stay low regardless of who is leading the country.

Links:

Andrew Scott Cooper: The Oil Kings

Middle East Policy Council on Oil

Article on Abdullah in Riyadh Hospital