Although the founders of Saudi Arabia were themselves men who came from deep-rooted tribal traditions, the Kingdom was founded as an advanced state with allegiance solely to the country and not to any particular tribe.
The new state needed a constitution that would be both neutral and in sync with people’s culture and convictions. It was not feasible to use translated British or French laws as was the case in some Arab countries. This only left Islamic Shariah, which is a comprehensive constitution. Shariah has been, and still is, the strongest bond among members of Saudi society. Its rulings are the most acceptable to people here. This is not only because Islam is their religion but also because they trust its fairness as it considers all human beings equal.
Therefore, when a ruling that goes against this ethos is made, the ruling becomes a matter that needs attention — not only from a Shariah perspective but also from a national one. Even if these rulings (which are contrary to Shariah) have a basis in people’s customs and culture, they still do not suit our society because they are man-made and do not consider all people equal. They give superiority to blood ties and kinship over the values of justice and equality, and they view gender, color and race in a biased fashion.
Needless to say, not all tribes accept the same norms; nor does civil society that considers the concept of tribalism as strange and unacceptable in our age.
As an example, let us take the concept of marriage in which the tribal norm has the upper hand. While some married couples have been forced to separate because of “inequality in lineage” (though they may have met all other requirements for legal matrimony, including their own consent and that of their guardians and even have had children), other marriages were made legal regardless of the fact that all other requirements had not been met, including the mutual consent of the couples themselves — as in the case of marriages involving minors.
Furthermore, some marriages have been approved despite falling short of meeting Shariah objectives for a marriage. Marriages that fall into this category include misyar or marrying women to men who are serving long prison terms or facing the death penalty.
I was certain that I would never read anything more horrible than the incidence of old men marrying minor girls until I came across a recent news item which said six Saudi women had agreed to marry their cousins who were infected with AIDS. How can we accept the fact that the government, represented by the Ministry of Health, and the concerned marriage officials were aware of this fact? Why were such marriages approved in the first place?
These women were either forced into these marriages and are, hence, in need of official help to save them from this forced suicide or were brainwashed. Either way, this necessitates an immediate awareness campaign to enlighten women. Rules should also be issued to prevent such marriages.
Before we are accused of meddling in the affairs of others, it is important to point out that the bad effects of such marriages are not only limited to the married couples but will extend to wider society.
While the entire world is fighting AIDS, we are helping to spread it by legalizing sex between a healthy woman and an AIDS carrier. Will the government in this case not be responsible for providing treatment to two people instead of one? What about the children who will be born from such marriages? Are we permitting the development of a generation of AIDS-carrying children?
To say that the women involved have themselves agreed to marry their sick cousins is not an excuse because we are a society that meddles in and controls everything concerning women. We dictate what they should wear and learn, and where they can walk and pray.
Marriage is only one example of the hegemony that tribal customs have over our society. Some people go even further and entertain suspicions that our civilized society might relapse into tribalism. Some people contest this by claiming that people in other nations are exaggerating these issues because they want to annihilate the tribal influence in our society. For such people I have a simple question: How can marriage to an AIDS carrier from a tribal background be legal while marriage to a healthy foreigner who is not of a tribal background be illegal?
