On July 15, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the condition of Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. The revelation that "Guest Workers" are systematically abused in Saudi Arabia should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with that region's history. What a shame that it took Sarah Whitson, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, to finally speak the unpalatable truth. "We found men and women in conditions resembling slavery," said Whitson in the press conference announcing their findings. The report described "the pervasive abuses foreign workers endure...the abysmal and exploitative labor conditions many workers face, and the utter failure of the justice system to provide redress." The real question is this - why did the Islamic world not uncover these human rights abuses, so close to the holy city of Mecca?

Based on interviews taken in Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, HRW found abysmal and exploitative labor practices, wanton rape of women workers, and beheading of guest workers accused of crimes without proper legal process. Anyone who has visited Saudi Arabia knows the racism with which many ordinary Saudis treats the brown and black-skinned masses that come for Hajj. Like hundreds of Bangladeshis every year, my parents endured these indignities during their recent pilgrimage. When he returned from Mecca, my father told me, "To them, we will always be miskeen (beggar). Doesn't matter what we do, or where we come from. They see our skin and don't need to see more." If this is how pilgrims are treated, imagine how much worse is the plight of the "Guest Worker". Yet, we Muslims remain silent on these abuses - after all the Saudis are the keepers of Islam's holiest site, so they cannot possibly be racist!

How appropriate as well that HRW used the phrase "slavery" to describe conditions inside the desert kingdom. Saudi Arabia was in fact one of the last nation-states to abolish slavery. Along with Yemen, the Saudis only abolished slavery in 1962. Prior to that, the Islamic world's experience with slavery was extremely problematic. Muslims once led the rest of the world in science, culture and human emancipation. The positive examples are numerous and often-repeated. However, the advances brought about in the early days of the Islamic Caliphate ossified, with very little innovation or re-interpretation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although slavery and the taking of concubines was legal in the Islamic world, in practice it was far milder than that practiced in nineteenth century North and South America. Henri Dunant, the Swiss founder of the Red Cross, visited North Africa in 1860 and commented on the "relative mildness" of the slavery practiced there. As compared to ancient Rome and modern colonial systems, Islam gave the slave a certain legal status and the slave-owner also had obligations (as well as rights).

The Islamic world started off by giving more rights to slaves than in the European colonies, but as with many other areas, these progressive positions did not keep up with changing times. By the early nineteenth century, Britain, under pressure from domestic abolitionists, had abolished slavery in its colonies. Slave-trading was declared an "international crime" and traders were to be punished wherever they were encountered. With this newly liberal outlook, the British Empire soon came into conflict with the Ottoman Empire's practice of slavery.

The Persians initially rejected the British push for emancipation of slaves in 1846, but eventually a compromise agreement was reached. Over in the Ottoman Empire, an 1830 ferman freed all Christian slaves who had not converted. Oddly, slaves who had converted to Islam were not freed (perhaps due to the British focus on Christian slaves). Finally, in 1857, again under British pressure, a second ferman was issued banning trafficking in black slaves throughout the Empire, with special exception for the Hijaz.

There was also, by now, internal pressure to reform slavery in the Islamic world. The Bey of Tunis announced in 1846 that every black slave who asked for it would receive a "deed of enfranchisement." In his announcement, he also noted that Muslim jurists were divided about the legal basis for slavery. One noted anti-slavery advocate was Moroccan writer Ahmad Khalid al-Nasiri, who accepted the legality of slavery under Muslim law, but vigorously protested its application. He wrote in the 1800's, condemning "the unlimited enslavement of the blacks and the importation of many droves of them every year, for sale in the town and country markets of the Maghrib, where men traffic in them like beasts, or worse." (Bernard Lewis, quoting Kitab al-Istiqsa, Casablanca, 1955)

The unpalatable truth is that, the Ottoman and Persian empires were one of the last to abolish slavery, falling far behind their European counterparts in matters of human emancipation. Full abolition of slavery did not come until the twentieth century, with Saudi Arabia holding out until 1962. Given that desert kingdom's shameful record on this basic human right, it was no surprise to read Human Rights Watch's report and find that today's migrant workers are kept in conditions of "near-slavery."

The Muslim world is sliding backwards into medievalism, and it is time for reformers to speak openly and bravely. There is a cancer that is eating away at our soul - a disease marked by paranoia, double standards and virulent racism. While we are in full-throated cry against abuses in Iraq and Palestine, we stay completely silent when it is Muslims who are the abusers (of both non-Muslims and Muslims). How else to explain our outpouring of sympathy for the Bosnian genocide, but our complete silence on the ongoing genocide in Sudan? In that country's civil war between the Arab Muslim North, and the Black Christian and Animist South, 2 million people have been killed to date.

In a BBC profile (June 10, '04) of the hundreds of Black Africans who have been raped by pro-government Janjaweed Arab militia, one victim described the attackers: "They called me Abeid (slave in Arabic)." A UN resolution on the Sudan crisis was blocked by China and the two Muslim nations with Security Council seats - Pakistan and Algeria.

Saudi Arabia, Sudan - the list goes on. Shame on the Muslim world for staying silent!

DriveByShooting writes:
>Citing a rape to base your opinion on the entire country shows your own twisted logic and irrationality

No, I didn't base my opinion on this one incident. I based it on the full, 134 page report, which is available at this link below:

Download PDF of HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Report on Saudi Arabia

People has been arguing and fighting for centuries because of ideology and beliefs, and they will probably continue to do so for many more centuries. Just because one believes in one way doesn't make him or her any better (or worse) than someone else. One can also quote 1/2 a million phrases from many sources to support one's faith and beliefs; but those phrases do not prove or disprove anything. It's a matter of faith. Sometimes we are so blinded by our faiths that we tend to forget to respect another individual as well as his or her beliefs.

It is a cause for concern when one cannot express his or her beliefs just because someone else thinks otherwise. The rise of fundamentalism in countries like ours (Bangladesh) is worrisome.

naeem_bengali, I haven't seen your documentary yet; but keep up the good work.

Ahsan wrote:
>naeem_bengali, I haven't seen your documentary yet; but keep up the good work.

Thanks Ahsan.

You can get information on my documentaries at our website:

Muslims Or Heretics?
[Ordering Info coming Soon]

Rumble In Mumbai

Ah yes, my dear Bengali friend has not bothered to specifically reply to my points.....instead he simply regurjitates the same old material he's pasted before without acknowledging my answers. The poor fellow seems to like using terms like "humanist," "neocon" without even having any real idea what they're about.....clearly he's aiming at an ignorant audience.
Apparently in our bengali baboo's mind watching a 29 minute ahmedi propaganda flick is all thats needed to be done instead of closely looking at a british inspired cult which rejects the seal of Prophethood (saw) among many other falsehoods such as deceitful translations of the Holy Quran to the multiple burial spots of Prophet Isa (saw) who according to their literature isn't coming back, which even to the lay Muslim reveal them to be frauds.
For more information on this cult go to
http://alhafeez.org/rashid/#Questions%20for%20Ahmadis

DriveByShooting wrote:
>Apparently in our bengali baboo's mind watching a 29 minute ahmedi propaganda flick is all thats needed

You say "all that's needed", thus imputing that I haven't read anything else. But as I pointed out, I have read a lot of their material (as much as you I dare say, as have been researching this for a few years). After reading it, I concluded that I don't agree with their beliefs, but I defend their right to have these beliefs.

On the other hand, you have not seen my documentary, nor have you responded to my offer to send you a copy of the film.

So who is regurgitating (note spelling)?

DriveByShooting wrote:
>my dear Bengali friend has not bothered to specifically reply to my points

Oh really? Well, let's see if I have indeed failed to reply to your "points". Here are some examples.

DriveBy wrote:
>author of this piece is attempting to blur the clear cut distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims by supporting the Ahmedi cult

I replied:
I defend the Ahmadi sect's right to free expression, and freedom from persecution. I don't "support" their views, I support their rights to express them.

Drive By wrote:
>Kuwait is far far worse, but the media will not focus on them because they're an American protectorate.

I replied:
Saudi Arabia is not an American protectorate? Suggest you check the following book:
House of Bush, House of Saud

Drive By wrote:
>The Saudis have actually gotten better

I replied:
Here is an example of "getting better"...After these rejections, Ïhe held a knife to my neck and threatened to kill me if I told the madame [his wife].ÓÜ Fatima provided details about the last and most traumatic incident, on a day...Then he took off his thobe and said to me, ÏTake this.ÓÜ It was his penis.Ü

DriveBy wrote:
>I dont need to see it

I replied:
If Muslims now feel that they don't need to read anything to debate it, or they can condemn things sight unseen, we are in the dark ages of jahiliya.

DrDriveBy wrote:
>I noticed theres no report by HRW on Qatar and Kuwait

I replied:
Type Kuwait or Qatar in the Search Box of HRW.Org and you get many pages of results

DrDriveBy wrote:
>Have you ever read a shred of ahmedi literature ?

I replied:
Yes, I have. I've read lots of it actually (in Bengali).

DriveByShooting writes:
>Citing a rape to base your opinion on the entire country shows your own twisted logic and irrationality

I replied:
No, I didn't base my opinion on this one incident. I based it on the full, 134 page report

DriveBy wrote:
>many other falsehoods such as deceitful translations of the Holy Quran to the multiple burial spots of Prophet Isa (saw) who according to their literature isn't coming back

The point is NOT whether they believe in such falsehoods or not. The point is whether any human being, or govt, has right to persecute them for these beliefs. If their beliefs are wrong, God will punish them, not Pakistan govt, not Bangladesh govt, and certainly not DrDriveByShooting.

DriveByShooting,

Please focus!

The article is about Saudi & Sudan. Ahmadiya topic was only mentioned in my Bio, in one sentence. You should focus on Saudi & Sudan.

Let me say it again:
Saudi
&
Sudan

Slavery
&
Genocide

Racism
&
Racism

Double Standards
&
Hypocrisy

I'm happy to debate Ahmadiya topic in a separate article.

>The point is NOT whether they believe in such falsehoods or not. The point is whether any human being, or govt, has right to persecute them for these beliefs. If their beliefs are wrong, God will punish them, not Pakistan govt, not Bangladesh govt, and certainly not<

Wrong as usual bud, THATS EXACTLY THE POINT. Its called FRAUD. If Ahmedis referred to themselves as just Ahmedis we'd have no problem.....but the fact that they claim to be Muslims and contradict the most basic tenets of Islam clearly establishes them as otherwise.

>Type Kuwait or Qatar in the Search Box of HRW.Org and you get many pages of results<

You can do a search on any country through the HRW search engine....I'm talking about a full fedged report. Neither do I believe that you have any interest in anything besides promoting ahmedi propaganda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan notwithstanding.


From Burkhari :
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah.

DriveByShooting wrote:
>I noticed theres no report by HRW on Qatar and Kuwait

I replied:
>>Type Kuwait or Qatar in the Search Box of HRW.Org

DriveBy replied (again):
>>>I'm talking about a full fedged report.

Two responses:

1. These look fairly "full-fledged" to me-->
Kuwait 2001
Kuwait 2000

2. Your exact phrase was "I noticed theres no report by HRW on Qatar and Kuwait"

So, you are wrong. There are reports, and they are pretty full-fledged.

DriveBy wrote:
>Its called FRAUD. If Ahmedis referred to themselves as just Ahmedis we'd have no problem.....but the fact that they claim to be Muslims and contradict the most basic tenets of Islam clearly establishes them as otherwise.

This reply doesn't contradict what I said earlier, so I will repeat myself

"The point is whether any human being, or govt, has right to persecute them for these beliefs. If their beliefs are wrong (or fraudulent), God will punish them, not Pakistan govt, not Bangladesh govt, and certainly not DrDriveByShooting."

>So, you are wrong. There are reports, and they are pretty full-fledged.<

No they are not full fledged, atleast not as the one the Saudis, so why didnt you cite those reports ?
Lets analyze a few statements from the Mirza Ghulam Ahmed....

"God has revealed to me that anyone to whom my message has reached and he has not accepted me , he is not a muslim."

(Letter of Mirza to Dr. Abdul Hakeem Khan Patialvi)

"It is our obligation that we do not consider non-ahmadis as muslims and do not pray behind them, because for us they have rejected one prophet (Mirza Ghulam) of God. This is a religious matter and no one has any right to do anything in it."

(Anwar-e-Khilafat, by Mirza Mahmood, Khalifa 2, p.90)

"All Prophets became alive with my advent
Every Prophet is hidden in my garment."
(Durre Sameen, Persian, P.163)

Oh yes, definetly a "prophet ".....

From Burkhari :
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah.

DriveBy wrote:
>And not ONE of these wonderful quotes from the Ahmadi "prophet" will be in Bengali baboo's 29 minute propaganda flick

Not true.

Two of the people interviewed in the documentary oppose Ahmadiya beliefs. Syed Ali of Islamic Academy summarizes: "Ahmadiyas believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet...this is where the conflict comes..."

We all know why Muslims oppose the Ahmedi cult, bud. I'm talking specific quotes from their sources, not what Syed Ali of the Islamic academy says.
This is the reason I urge all Muslims to study this "prophet" of the Ahmedis who died of cholera.
Go to http://alhafeez.org/rashid/#Questions%20for%20Ahmadis