Just when I thought American victim
politics could metastasize no further, Pat Roush appears on the scene.
Talk about making the personal political. Roush is an advocate for women
whose personal errors she turns into international political incidents.
She is asking President Bush to intensify the pressure on Saudi Arabia to
rectify the marital mistakes these women have made. In her particular
case, Roush expects the president, who doesn't intervene in intra-national
custody disputes, to intercede in her custody wrangle simply because it
traverses our borders (and involves Muslims). Roush describes her
constituents as women who
"…have married Saudi
nationals who were sent to the United States to study in our colleges and
universities. Once they accompanied their Saudi husbands back to
Saudi Arabia, they soon found
out that they lost all civil rights and became prisoners. Their children
fall into that same category of slavery and are denied even the basic
human rights."
Say what?
Despite the use of a highly charged word
like "slavery," these women were not coerced into wedlock. The women,
whose personal misjudgment Roush has turned into a cause celebre, were not
gulled into romantic entanglements with Saudi men; they entered into the
relationships willingly. Like most self-indulgent American females, they
were probably just following their highest calling—their hormones.
Saudi Arabians are adherents of the
strictest form of Islam, Wahhabism, which is as austere as the religion
the Taliban practiced. When a woman takes up with a man, especially a
Wahhabi Muslim, does she not investigate the type of belief system he
espouses? What did these gals think he was doing each time he took out the
prayer mat and faced Mecca? Yoga? Did these women not give a dried camel's
hump when the men let loose with the odd hint about helping Christians,
Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims on their journey to hell?
Want to tell me that until they had
successfully 'lured' the women to Saudi Arabia, the Land of the Moderates,
these Saudi men never revealed any of their founding beliefs? Or did their
women simply choose to believe that they'd housetrain their pet Muslim
extremist in no time? In the tradition of American insularity, the women
Roush speaks for were probably convinced they would turn their Wahhabi
paramours into sensitive Westerners, who share the housework, carry the
newborn in a papoose, and dutifully grind away at the wife's G-spot at
night, just like Cosmo Magazine instructs.
Put it this way, back in the days when
these women were experimenting with an Arabian lifestyle, they'd have been
far better off taking up with a Ba'athist moderate and emigrating to the
secular, pro-woman, and booze-friendly Iraq than to Saudi Arabia. It
doesn't get much worse than Saudi Arabia, where uttering a loud Hail Mary
can get you in trouble with the authorities.
Prior to my own immigration odyssey, I
informed myself somewhat about my new destination. Before they slunk off
to live there, didn't the women now entombed in Saudi Arabia case the
country? A trip to the library is all it takes to find out about the
dismal status of women in Saudi society. Admittedly, I underestimated the
degree of socialism in Canada, my first escape route from South
Africa. And I certainly missed the mark in assessing the general
anti-intellectualism and baseness of U.S. society, my second and last
sanctuary. These, however, are small oversights when you consider that,
sadly, and when all is said and done, there aren't any freer nation-states
than these two.
I certainly think I would have noticed if
the country I was headed to enforced a State religion, and had in tow an
energetic religious police, or Mutawaa'in. In one incident, the Saudi
Mutawaa'in caused the death by fire of a number of schoolgirls. The devout
coppers refused to allow the girls to escape because their heads were
immodestly uncovered (the fire, presumably, had incinerated their
headgear).
A responsible woman doesn't tether the
future of her tykes to such a place.
My now grown-up girl only just survived the
perils of the public school system in Canada. Energetic parental vigilance
and awareness were key. To detect the corrosive elements of the public
school curriculum in North America, a mother has to take pains to educate
herself. That's not necessary in Saudi Arabia. Plain for all to see in a
Saudi ninth grader's readings is a tract entitled "The Victory of Muslims
Over Jews." It's a hadif—a statement by the Prophet Mohammed—and it reads
as follows:
"The last hour won't
come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill
them so Jews would hide behind rocks and trees. Then the rocks and trees
would call: oh Muslim, oh servant of God! There is a Jew behind me, come
and kill him…"
The very 'pabulum' that nourished Bin Laden
and other extremists before him is compulsory for all Saudi students. At
least 35 percent of school studies there are devoted to this kind
of religious education, something I sure would have noticed in my kid's
curriculum.
Some things are facts of life: Saudi Arabia
is a ruthless "medieval theocracy." It has been for a very long time. The
U.S. government will rarely protect its citizens. There is no such thing
as the Right Wahhabi Guy.
As sad and as hard for a mother to live
with as it is, the truth is that wannabe Wahhabi western women who bind
the future of their children to Wahhabi men are first and foremost
responsible for what becomes of their children.
© 2003 By Ilana Mercer. Ilana is a
columnist for WorldNetDaily.