High School’s Last Test

By J. B. SCHRAMM and E. KINNEY ZALESNE

Published: December 22, 2009

Washington

Enlarge This Image

Gracia Lam

THE federal government is about to make a huge investment in high school. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress has appropriated more than $100 billion to public schools, including a competitive “Race to the Top” fund that encourages innovation.

But the real revolution, tucked away in the Race to the Top guidelines released by the Department of Education last month, is that high school has a new mission. No longer is it enough just to graduate students, or even prepare them for college. Schools must now show how they increase both college enrollment and the number of students who complete at least a year of college. In other words, high schools must now focus on grade 13.

To be sure, this shift is long overdue. It has been a generation since a high school diploma was a ticket to success. Today, the difference in earning power between a high school graduate and someone who’s finished eighth grade has shrunk to nil. And students themselves know, better even than their parents or teachers, according to a recent poll conducted by Deloitte, that the main mission of high school is preparation for college.

Still, this shift will be seismic for our nation’s high schools, because it will require gathering a great deal of information, and using it. And at the moment, high school principals know virtually nothing about what becomes of their graduates. Most don’t even know whether their students make it to college at all.

What data they have is anecdotal. “Once a graduate happened to drop by and tell us she was struggling with college writing,” Linda Calvo, the principal of Arleta High School in Los Angeles, told us. “We changed our writing curriculum based on what she said. But her visit was a totally random occurrence.”

A smattering of states, school districts and nonprofit educational organizations have begun to gather data about how students fare in college during their first year after graduation, but their progress has been slow and haphazard. Florida has one of the best systems, but even it can’t account for a high school graduate who enrolls in college in another state. The nation is asking principals to deliver students who can succeed in college, without ensuring they know whether what they’re doing is working.

The Department of Education has begun to solve this problem by instructing states on how to keep good records of its graduates’ progress in college. This gives high schools the two pieces of information it most needs: its college enrollment rate and its “college proficiency” rate (the speed with which graduates complete a year of college-level coursework).

But what’s critical is that the Education Department also helps high school principals and teachers learn to use their data to improve student achievement — to find out which of their educational strategies actually result in student success after high school. If the department could do this, and also reward those schools that demonstrate increasing postsecondary success, we’d see high schools begin to truly meet their mission.

Race to the Top has finally established a realistic purpose for high school in the 21st century. If principals can now get the support they need to fulfill that purpose, high school can once again be a top-notch producer of American potential.

J. B. Schramm is the chief executive and E. Kinney Zalesne is the former president of College Summit, a nonprofit organization that helps school districts and states increase the number of high school graduates who succeed in college.

Kala Kola Klub

What is common between President Pervez Musharraf, Imran Khan, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry?” Even a schoolboy knows the answer: They are all members of the Kala Kola Klub.

So writes Khalid Hasan in a delightful column in Daily Times.

Khalid Hasan has a knack of coining interesting names - Kala Kola Klub - which are not only descriptive but also stick. (If you didn’t know, he also coined the name ‘Shortcut’ for you know who.)

Kala Kola, as most Pakistani would know, is not a beverage as the name might suggest but one of the oldest brands of black hair dyes in Pakistan.

In his column, Khalid Hasan also revealed that Imran Khan not only dyes his hair but also had a hair implant job done lately. No wonder, his hair looks a lot thicker than it did a few years ago. Well, if you thought it was only the Sharif brothers who made good use of their time and money while abroad, think again.

It so happens that most men nowadays, when they reach their 50s or even before, particularly those we see on TV talk shows - the guests as well as the hosts - have their hair dyed. Some have theirs done professionally while most of them do it themselves in the privacy of their homes using whatever in-house help is available.

Let me state upfront, though, that it is none of my business nor should it be anyone else’s if Pervez Musharraf, Imran Khan, Altaf Bhai, Asif Zardari or any other person dyes his hair in whatever color he chooses. It is their hair and their heads - and their money. (I believe hair implants can cost a lot.)

But, as someone said, it’s the idea of one’s leader sitting in a hairdressing salon, wearing one of those flowered waterproof smocks, their heads covered with that gooey stuff - that picture doesn’t quite tie in with the powerful statesman image.

I wonder if it is the proliferation of electronic media that has made these men with dyed hair more visible than they were in the past or is it a growing new trend? Or, is it a bad job of dyeing they generally do that makes them look so conspicuous?

Someone remarked the other day that in spite of faltering economy of the country Kala Kola (or its equivalents) seem to be doing a roaring business in Pakistan and so is the business of salons. This statement may have been made jokingly, but there must be some truth to it for even a serious newspaper like Los Angles Times took note of this “gooey” business in a recent report titled ‘Pakistani men sitting pretty’ filed by its staff reporter, Laura King, from Islamabad. The report talked about the growing number of prominent Pakistani men flocking to salons for dye jobs and other facial and hair treatments.

Pervez Musharraf, because of his high profile, is the most conspicuous member of the Kal Kola Klub. (He is not much seen on TV nowadays.) He dyes his hair very carefully, in two tones, white at the temples and black or brown at the top. Some say, he chooses the shade of his hair depending on the occasion and his mood. If he felt pleased and playful he would dye it a shade of brown, and blow-dry it to give it a tousled look. But when under stress, he would use a darker shade. The grimmer the mood the darker the shade.

A peculiar trait of men is that they are very sensitive about their hair. They would discuss everything among themselves - their clothes, their weight, their ailments, and even their affairs, but rarely their hair. “Unfortunately”, says an expert, “because men are so sensitive about their hair … they can’t ask for advice in the way women do quite openly. Thus, where gray hair is concerned, many men will be tempted to dye it at home, in secret, in a color that they think will work but rarely does. And because men don’t talk about hair, they don’t say anything when another man gets it wrong, and the circle of silence continues.”

Incidentally, this sensitivity about hair is not limited to any particular nationality. It is universal. In 2002 the then German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, otherwise reported to be quite a laid-back politician, sued a news agency for simply implying that he dyed his hair. A testament from his hairdresser was even read out in court to support him.

The other day, flipping through old magazines while waiting my turn at a barber’s shop here in New York (I had gone for a plain hair cut), I came across an interesting article by a woman writer, a fashion expert, that had some advice and tips that the existing and potential hair dyers may find useful. Here is what it said:

Men can look hotter as they age, and natural white streaks in black hair are very attractive on men. (So, why use a camouflage?)

If you must dye, just make sure it looks natural. Obvious dye jobs that resemble someone slathering their head with black shoe polish are a far bigger turnoff than gray hair. (Have you seen Chaudhry Pervez Elahi lately?). And, by the way, a bad toupee is a deal breaker!

Use a shade very similar to your natural color.

Rub Vaseline along your skin at the hairline and especially your ears and neck. This keeps the dye from staining your skin.

READ THE DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY, which come with the dye, and use the gloves!

Hayat (PVPV) al Badiah assualts a citizen after he dropped off his wife at a mall

A Saudi citizen, Al Qahtani, has requested that the authorities open an investigation with members of the PVPV, Badi’ah Branch, accusing them of assaulting him and tearing his clothes after he had dropped off his wife at a local mall.
Al Qahtani told the authorities that his wife had wanted to meet up with her family at a mall west of Riyadh and after he dropped her off he went to a nearby grocery shop where he was accosted by a group of men and pulled outside. They forced him into a car that had the PVPV logo on it.

Al Qahtani added that they then took him back to the mall where he had left his wife and during the trip they insulted him and called him names that he alleged should never come from a Muslim man’s mouth. At the mall, they forcefully pulled his wife outside amid her screams and a gathering crowd. They then interrogated us.

The PVPV members then took Al Qahtani to their Badiah offices and confiscated his car, mobile and wallet. They examined and searched the contents of each.
When the PVPV members finally figured out that they were wrong, the assailants warned Al Qahtani to not report the incident to the papers and one of the members even admitted that he had just finished a course in how to interact with the public.

Al Qahtani requests through this article that the General President of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ahumain investigate the matter and hold the assailants accountable for how they treated him and his wife. He added that his wife is now traumatized since the incident.

It should be noted that the citizen filed an official complaint at the Police Department against the individuals who assaulted him. And in turn, Riyadh Newspaper contacted PVPV Badi’ah Branch and could not get any response.

The comments on the newspaper website were 951. I glanced quickly through them and noticed a shift in that previously when such incidents are reported the majority of the comments were made by zealous fans of the PVPV who would go as far as blame those who write negatively about the PVPV for the bad weather because God is punishing us for criticizing the PVPV. And there are some who believe that the PVPV are the extension or at the same level as the Sahaba, the Prophet’s (PBUH) companions. These people did ot have the usual strong presence but there were a few who are in denial regarding the PVPV’s behaviour. They write that either the assailants were not PVPV but men posing as PVPV to dirty their reputation and others wrote that Al Qahtani has to have done something wrong, otherwise these men would not have done this. But I was happy to see that even those who seem like extreme fundamentals have started to write that we should hold PVPV individuals accountable.

I don’t know what really happened but I don’t think that Al Qahtani would take it this far if he had been lying or even exaggerating. I do know of a friend of mine who was out at a fast food restaurant with her brother for dinner and the PVPV refused to believe that they were brother and sister and took them to the PVPVheadquarters where their father had to come and get them. They were not physically harmed but it was distressing to have to prove that they were siblings just because they wanted a quick bite to eat. And a relative of mine has been interrogated several times at coffee shops whenever he takes his wife out. What my friend and my relative’s wife have in common is that both do like to dress in expensive and embroidered abayas and they both did not have young children with them. So maybe that was what caused the PVPV in Al Qahtani’s case to jump to conclusions.

Land of Contrasts & Contradictions

As a newcomer, I have observed that Saudi Arabia is a very interesting place - a land of stark contrasts and confusing contradictions.

For example, in an area of new and elegant walled villas in the city, the neighboring empty lot is, more often than not, filled with rubble and garbage. This doesn't seem to bother the residents because no one takes any steps to improve it. One can see sights like this all over Jeddah. My husband Adnan told me that when there is new construction, the debris is just hauled off the lot and dumped at the nearest empty lot. I wondered out loud about how unfair that is to the empty lot’s owner, but Adnan said that somehow, because everyone does this, it all evens out eventually. There are some of the most modern and amazing structures here that I have ever seen, and right next door might be a garbage and rubble-filled lot, or maybe a 500 year old crumbling and decaying building.

Or out in the country, there might a lavish walled villa in the middle of nowhere, and just a short walk away, people are living in tents in the desert. And even more interesting is that the tents may have TV antennas and cars parked outside. There is such an interesting - and sometimes odd - mix of the old and the new, the elegant and the decrepid, the haves and the have-nots.

There seems to be little in the way of planning and zoning or code enforcement. Parking lots - when you are lucky enough to go to a place that has them - have tight spaces, narrow lanes, and are very crowded. Parking here seems to be an after-thought. Cars are haphazardly parked wherever, and many times, cars are double or tripled parked, blocking traffic lanes. Every day I see cars driving the wrong way on one way streets or divided boulevards. The main reason for this happening is because there are so many one ways and divided streets with sometimes no way to make a u-turn or left turn for quite a distance, so everyone resorts to driving on the wrong side of the street.

The materials and designs used in construction are oftentimes obviously top of the line, elegant and intricately detailed, and rooms are decorated with gorgeous chandeliers and amazing ceilings that I have never seen the likes of anywhere. The outside walls of many buildings are completely tiled or are covered with beautiful stone or even marble. Even the sidewalks and entire courtyards are totally and beautifully tiled. However, the workmanship can be sloppy or unfinished. In our apartment, for example, I am still trying to get off splatters of paint, stain, grout, and "I-don’t-know-what-else" that are all over the floor tiles and baseboards. And there is this white paper that is glued all the way around a dark wood doorway molding that I am still trying to get off. Plus, I have had to take a razor to the wall tiles in the kitchen and all the bathrooms because the workmen didn’t clean off the grout properly as they were working.

Music is another subject that is really confusing in Arabia. But what makes it even more confusing is that music is a much disagreed upon subject here and this is because even Islamic scholars cannot agree among themselves. Consequently, some people in Arabia believe that music is “haram” or forbidden by Islam, and others feel that music is "halal" or allowed. There are confusing passages in the Koran that at one time seem to condemn music and then there are other passages that appear to condone it. Meanwhile, TV here has dozens of Middle Eastern music channels.

Even my husband confuses me about Islam's view of music. When we first met, Adnan absolutely loved music, collected many albums, could even name really obscure artists, and constantly listened to music. But now, he has made a 180 degree turnaround and even tries to discourage our 14 year old son's naturally inherited love of music, telling him that it is a waste of time. Adnan's mom and sister also both believe that music is haram (bad). One of our young adult neices even declined to attend a wedding because there was going to be music and dancing. It makes me wonder: why would there be music and dancing at a wedding anyway when it is supposed to be forbidden?

I have read that music is bad because certain types of music are sexy, alluring, or evil, among other things. Dancing is also considered inappropriate, yet the Middle East is where Belly Dancing originated. And still others believe that only certain musical instruments are acceptable. Many people here, like my husband, consider music as basically a waste of time. Yet verses from the Koran are always sung, and prayers are sung, and this is ok. To me, this is a form of music. To many Muslims, even beautiful classical music is bad. I can understand how they might consider rap music, heavy metal, or songs with vulgarity and wrong messages in them as bad...but beautiful classical music? I just cannot be convinced of this way of thinking. And I cannot help but feel badly for the people who have been convinced that all music is evil and wrong - because, being a lover of many kinds of music myself, I know what they are missing out on, and sadly, they don't.

Despite all of this, satellite TV here is loaded with dozens upon dozens of channels that are Middle Eastern music all the time. I am amused watching music videos of men singers dressed in their full traditional garb, swaying, winking, dancing, and moaning. And then, there's the heavily made up Middle Eastern women - who are supposed to be modest - making videos exposing their cleavage in snug fitting attire, batting their false eyelashes directly into the camera, tossing their hair and their hips around in very suggestive movements and overtones, wiggling and jiggling to the beat. Stores here are loaded with Middle Eastern music CDs and videos. If this type of stuff is plastered all over TV and in stores, then why do I and all the other women here have to wear the abaya out in public? I don't get this.

Here in Arabia, certain Western ideas have been readily embraced, while at the same time, they have fiercely held on to many traditional, and archaic, customs as well. They definitely pick and choose carefully what they wish to accept or reject. Technology and architecture are state of the art here. But Western influences, especially social and moral attitudes and behaviors, have been unquestionably rejected.

Another area of confusion for me is women wearing makeup. Women here are not supposed to attract the attention of other men, hence the abaya, the hair covering, etc. Yet out in public, many of the women, even those in veils, wear tons of eye makeup. Most women seen on TV here wear an obscene amount of makeup, so much so that many of them look plastic (think Tammy Faye!). I went to my first Saudi wedding (read all about it in a previous chapter) and most of the women wore lots of makeup. Adnan's mom Tata apparently told him to tell me to stop putting on makeup when we go out because I will attract too much attention from men and I should only wear makeup for other women, like at a wedding, or only for my husband. Proper women - good Muslim women - do not want to attract the attention of other men in public. I have noticed that men and women don’t really look at each other or make eye contact when they are out in public anyway. It is improper for a man to look at or speak to another man's wife. So, why then do so many women wear so much makeup if it is supposed to be unacceptable and other men aren't supposed to look at women anyway?

And, of course, there’s the clothing and hair covering thing that I also find contradictory. If the Koran says that both men and women should dress modestly, then why aren’t men required to cover up like the women? I even keep my hair covered whenever I am in the presence of any of my brothers-in-law, even though Adel saw my hair when he visited us in America, but now it’s not acceptable. I can remember seeing Moslem families at Disney World in Florida on a hot humid summer day, with the father comfortably dressed in a tank top and shorts, while the mother sweltered in her black abaya and headscarf. How is this even remotely fair or justifiable?

Most people here are extremely polite and courteous and mind their own business. But just get those men behind a wheel (remember women cannot drive here), and it is pure mayhem and aggression, constant horn honking, cutting other drivers off, and total disregard for normal driving rules. My husband tells me that women aren't allowed to drive here for several reasons. One reason is for their own safety. In the big cities here, driving is very stressful because of all the traffic, the lack of traffic enforcement (I haven't seen any tickets being given out, much less any drivers pulled over by the cops), and the fact that the drivers here do virtually anything they want with no regard for others. Another reason, Adnan says, is because the men drivers would find it too distracting to see women behind the wheel and it would cause more accidents. Another possible explanation is because women aren't really supposed to go places without their husbands, although this is not necessarily the way it really is here. In fact women aren't supposed to be in a vehicle without a male relative, yet taxi cabs do a flourishing business here because women aren't allowed to drive, and many families employ a full-time driver to take the lady of the house out wherever and whenever she wishes.

The people here in Arabia cherish their kids, but to date, I haven't ever seen one baby in a car seat (although I'm not saying that all parents here don't use them) or one child buckled up with a seat belt. Kids ride standing up, jumping around the car, hanging out the windows, or even driving on daddy's lap! Adnan says this is "freedom," even though it used to upset him if we saw something like that in the states. Of course adults don't buckle up here, hence they don't buckle up their kids. I feel like we may be the only people here who buckle up at all.

The Koran encourages Muslims to take care of and have respect for their bodies, and it forbids Muslims to indulge in things that are harmful to the body, like alcohol, illegal drugs, or smoking. But so many people smoke here, and from what I understand, there are people who do drugs here as well. To me, this is hypocritical by just picking and choosing what they want to follow from the Koran and discarding what they don't want to adhere to. Hmmm, I wonder how many of the religious police smoke?

And one last thing for now that I don't quite get: portraits of people (like family members) are not displayed at all around the home here. Soon after I got here, I was told by Tata not to hang any family portraits on the wall, and to not have them in frames on a table or displayed in any way. I could remember learning years ago from Adnan that Muslims do not wear likenesses of people or any creature that has eyes, like on a T-shirt or a hat. It is forbidden, partly having to do with idolotry and possibly having to do with "evil eyes" or such. Ok, I can understand that and accept it. But what I don't understand is: why is it ok then to have huge photos and likenesses of the King (and other high ranking members of the Royal Family) plastered everywhere, on buildings, inside buildings, on signs, on billboards, on advertisements, etc.? Isn't this some form of idolotry?

I could go on and on, but I think that's enough to ponder for now. It all just seems so confusing and contradictory. I just don't get it!

Preserving Virtue and Preventing Vice

I
usually try to avoid religious topics in my blog, mainly because I don't want to offend or appear insensitive. So I just want to start off by saying that the intent of this post is not to offend anyone or any religion. The opinions expressed here are solely my personal feelings and beliefs. I realize that some people may not agree with me. I am comfortable with how I feel about this whole religion thing. But I am no expert in Islam or any other religion, so I apologize if I may get something technically wrong.

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) is a government agency here in Saudi Arabia that employs religious police, called Muttawa, to make sure that the citizens adhere strictly to the teachings of Islam, especially those pertaining to dress, socialization, morality, and prayer. Within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), this Commission is comprised of approximately 10,000 Muttawa and has nearly 500 centers within the country.

There are just so many things that keep getting in my way in my attempt to embrace and learn about this religion of Islam. And just the thought of the necessity and power of religious police here in Saudi Arabia is one of them. I have always believed in freedom of religion and also in the separation of church and state - blame it on my American upbringing. My respect for the religion is seriously undermined here in a country that requires actual enforcement of religious doctrine, such as monitoring people’s behavior, dress, and morals, and harsh penalties, like extended detentions, physical beatings, and even death, for those who don’t abide by these codes. Sheesh! Do I really WANT this in a religion?

Of the many religious laws that the Muttawa are charged with enforcing, the ones regarding sex and the sexes are the most alarming to me. The Muttawa have the clout to apprehend anyone who engages in prostitution, homosexual acts, or individuals having sex outside of marriage. Taking it a step further, any unrelated man and woman who are caught simply socializing can also be detained. Absolutely no dating or social interaction between the sexes is allowed here. So I can’t help but wonder that since there is no contact at all with the opposite sex permitted, doesn’t this unintentionally breed and encourage homosexuality here in the Kingdom, in reality? Of course they won't admit to this, but from what I have heard, this is what happens.

The Muttawa randomly patrol the malls seeking out women and girls who are not dressed modestly enough. Only the face and the hands are allowed to be visible, although the vast majority of women here cover their faces when out in public and many also wear gloves! The Muttawa also enforce proper moral conduct and make sure that youth behave themselves. The Quran does not specifically, to my knowledge, say that women must wear black floor length abayas, and indeed in other countries, Muslim women manage to dress modestly without wearing long black cloaks. I would love to wear other colors than black here in this brutally hot climate, but ALL the women here wear black. Even though I could wear a different color, I don’t want to stick out like a sore thumb, so I wear black too.

In addition, the religious police make sure that prayer times are properly adhered to, can shut businesses down for not closing for prayers, and apparently can command people to attend prayers at mosques. I read an account recently of a man who claimed that he was beaten by the Muttawa as he was on his way to the mosque for prayers, but the religious police didn't give him a chance to explain where he was going. They just beat him because he was out and about during prayer time. To me, this is scary.

You might recall that I did a post back in February about how the religious police had banned all things red for Valentine’s Day, in an attempt to thwart Muslim couples from exchanging “haram” (forbidden) gifts or cards for this holiday, which is not recognized in the KSA. They even go so far as to conduct inspections in hotels, restaurants, florists, gift shops, malls, and coffee houses to make sure that these places are devoid of all immoral red contraband, such as red flowers, red boxes of candy, red clothing, red balloons, red stuffed animals, red cards, red hearts, and red bows and ribbons. Any prohibited red items are confiscated and the business owners and employees are subject to arrest.

Back in 2004, the Muttawa even tried to have the sale of cell phones with cameras banned in the Kingdom. See, camera phones make it too easy for men and women to take photos of each other. Unfortunately for the Muttawa, this ban was immediately quashed. I even read that there was talk that the Muttawa wanted to prohibit the sale of ice cream cones to women because a woman licking an ice cream cone was just too sexual! What's next? Bananas? Hot dogs? Give me a break!

Recently the Muttawa have issued a decree banning the sale of puppies and kittens - dogs and cats - in the KSA. Apparently these cute little creatures are now considered as lethal “babe magnets,” an enticement used by boys to lure girls to talk to them. So, this MUST be stopped! Not only has the sale of these animals been declared illegal, if you already have one, you are forbidden from taking it out for a walk. If you do, your pet will be confiscated and you will never see it again. I wonder what happens to the fuzzy creatures once the Muttawa get them into their clutches!

But I’ve got to hand it to them - the Muttawa have the vision to see beyond all the normal excuses/reasons that people purport to have pets in the first place, like companionship, pure joy, or teaching children responsibility, and are able to see pet ownership for what it really is: just another way to promote immoral behavior between the opposite sexes. The Muttawa keep flexing their muscles to control the animalistic behavior and urges of males and females within the Kingdom. Men and women here in this society obviously cannot be trusted to behave or control themselves or to conduct themselves properly and morally without having rules and enforcement like this to ensure that they do.

Another of the Muttawa’s duties is to make sure that no other religion is practiced or promoted here in the KSA. I understand that the Kingdom is an Islamic country, but it makes me wonder exactly how insecure can a religion be in itself that it so strictly prohibits those foreigners of other faiths from practicing their own religion within the country? The religious police also oversee the enforcement of the banned sale of other prohibited products, like pork, porno, and alcohol, and exercise strict censorship of all media including books, magazines, art, DVDs, TV programming, and music. The CVPVP fervently take black markers to objectionable images of women’s bare arms, necks, or any other exposed skin and have even been known to black out images of Piglet in the popular children’s books of Winnie the Pooh. It’s one thing to forbid pork products, but to deny the existence of pigs altogether is a bit much! Using modern technology to their advantage, the CVPVP has even launched their own website where people can report violations of others' un-Islamic behavior.

Not surprisingly, many actions taken by the at-times over zealous Muttawa have come under fire and intense criticism. For example, less than two months ago, a Muttawa murdered his own daughter by cutting out her tongue and then burning her to death. Why? Because she supposedly rejected Islam and became a Christian. Every Saudi citizen is automatically born a Muslim. There is absolutely no choice. For a long time now, religious scholars have taken jabs at the Internet and satellite TV stations where Muslims can read and learn about other religions. The murdered girl apparently used the Internet to learn about Christianity and was a known presence in online religious chat rooms and a commenter on various spiritual blogs.

In my own personal experience, almost every day I am blocked by the CVPVP from entering a particular website online. Generally when I am Googling for images on the web, many of the websites containing the images have been blocked. And NO, I am NOT looking for porn! The blocked websites can include, among others, some religious websites, of course anti-Islamic websites, violent gaming websites, those that feature gossip or women not Islamically dressed. Of course the CVPVP is not able to ban every single "unacceptable" website from access in the Kingdom, as hard as they may try.

Mohammed, the founder of Islam, actually said, “Whoever leaves his religion, kill him.” Which brings me to a question: There are so many converts to Islam from other religions. What about them? They have left their original religion, haven’t they? Maybe someone would care to explain. Mohammed’s quote does not specifically say “Whoever leaves Islam, kill him.” Then why is it okay for someone else to leave their religion and become a Muslim, but someone should be put to death if they leave Islam for another religion? Isn't this being hypocritical? I would love to understand this because this is one of those areas of Islam that really turns me off.

So, this quote from Mohammed essentially justifies in the eyes of Islam the right of this father to kill his own daughter for espousing another religion – so I ask, do all Muslims really agree with this and think this is right? Why does there seem to be this fear that Islam cannot endure on its own merits and intrinsic worth, and why support such drastic and barbaric measures to ensure that it does? Muslims promote Islam as the religion of peace, but actions like this seem to seriously contradict its message. And it’s very confusing to someone like me who is trying to understand. Do I really want to belong to a religion that would have me killed should I renounce it?

Another example of the religious police exercising their frightening power over people’s morals here happened in 2007 when they beat a man who was caught with alcohol to death. And earlier this year, a married American Muslim woman on business in Riyadh was detained, threatened, called immoral, and strip searched by the Muttawa for conducting a business meeting in the family section of a Starbucks with a male colleague, not her husband. Do I really want to be in a religion that threatens me with bodily harm, insults, or detention if I don't follow it to a "T?" Another troubling event I mentioned in a recent post was about the fifteen school girls who perished in a fire at their school because the Muttawa prevented them from escaping since the girls did not have their hair covered. If I were a parent of one of those girls, I would seriously question my faith.

What I would like to know is - who exactly is in charge of policing the Mutawwa here and how much are they getting away with beyond their authority? I know they are only human and they make mistakes, but many of their mistakes are HUGE and only serve to further tarnish the image that much of the rest of the world has that Islam is radical and dangerous to them. What happens to the Muttawa who make these mistakes? And if these Muttawa can and do make mistakes themselves, why are they allowed to kill someone else, like the man with alcohol, for making a mistake?

My husband told me that the Muttawa were wrong to act as they did in the girls’ school fire incident, and that the Quran even says there are exceptional times when the religious teachings should be set aside. Like for example, even though eating pork is haram, if there is only a pig available to eat, then Muslims should eat it if their lives depend on it. But in actuality, I wonder how many Muslims would be able to bring themselves to eat pork in this case, since all their lives they have been told how bad it is? I know my husband could, but could others? Would others? When my son was little, my husband told my son that if he ate pork, he would die. How deeply is this ingrained into Muslims?

When I discussed the incident regarding the girl who was killed by her father for leaving Islam for Christianity, my husband immediately said that the man's own tongue should be cut out and he should be executed. Whew! My spouse went on to say that the man was wrong to take matters into his own hands like he did – that the girl should have been brought before a court and tried. Huh? And then, if she was found guilty of forsaking Islam, he said, the government should have been the ones to put her to death. Yikes! Even this explanation still baffles me. Knowing that my husband actually agrees with killing someone who leaves Islam just because Mohammed said it, makes me wonder a little about the man I married and even more about the religion itself. As I said before, I believe in freedom of religion. I do not think it is right to kill someone for rejecting a religion, so therefore I disagree with Mohammed on this issue. I am of the notion that what a person believes and feels in her heart, including religion, cannot and should not be controlled or dictated by a government or anyone. To do so minimizes the innate goodness of the religion itself.

The Muttawa here seem to be against anything that might be fun to do. They seem to be against people having a good time or enjoying life. And they really seem to be obsessed with SEX ALL THE TIME! It seems that the only articles I have managed to find in my research about the Muttawa are all very negative. What good have they done? What exactly does it say about a society that cannot be trusted to believe in and practise its own religion so much so that it has to be forced upon them by religious police? If the religion and its principles are THAT good and perfect, then why the need for religious police at all? I would love to wholeheartedly embrace a religion because I truly WANT to, not because I am forced to. I just don't think I really want to belong to this club...
 
For more information on the Muttawa:
Wikipedia - Mutaween
Women24.com - Religious Police Terror
American Bedu - Muttawa Observations

99 Messages in a Bottle:

Aalia said...

Hmm... another interesting post... Let me start by saying I that I have many Saudi friends and they don't refer to the religious police in Saudi as "Mutawwa" but actually as "Hedaya" or something similar in spelling. And surprisingly enough, they actually don't mind them roaming the streets. (They aren't supposed to be wondering around in areas, they are just to be in a mosque and if somoene needs help on a religius matter then they come out and help.) Anyways... to my Saudi girlfriends, it's actually comforting to know that there are still groups of people who want to make sure the Islamic term "Forbid evil and enjoin good" is still followed.

Susie, you mentioned a number of topics that can be easily explained by anyone with a history of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Don't be afraid to step on toes when you have genuine questions. I had the same ones as you did before I became Muslim, but they were all explained to me and I realized that nothing is black or white. The Angel Jibreel (Gabriel)'s first words to Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him) was "READ". SO I read the books from scholars dating back to the Prophet's time and all of my questions were answered.

Let me briefly explain some of your worries insha'Allah (God willing).

NUMBER ONE: Even though Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Islam, let's not forget that there is no such thing as a Muslim country ANYWHERE in the world today. Not even Saudi Arabia's government is recognizable Islamically as a caliphate -- there is no such thing as "Kings" or "Royalty".

NUMBER TWO: With Number One in mind, we have to understand that Islam is perfect, MUSLIMS ARE NOT. Many people take the ideas of Islam and twist them to their own benefit or pass them off as genuine Islamic morals. Remember honour killings? Supposedly it comes from Islam but in fact Islam is strongly against this transgression. Numerous Quran verses and ahadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him) prove that honour killings gave no basis in Islam, but ignorant people (usually ones with minimal education or no knowledge of Shari`a) use Islam as a justification to commit crimes against humanity.

NUMBER THREE: Why do women in Saudi wear black anyways? After asking many of my Saudi girlfriends (born & raised citizens of KSA) they all agree that black is the most liked color to wear in public. BUT WHY BLACK? Back in the olden days, the normal color to wear in Arabia was black because that was the easiest dye to make for fabrics. In Islamic history, the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore colors like green and the Ansari women (the Helpers) also wore black. The ABAYA (cloak) is worn overtop the clothes, because it gives the best coverage. My friends prefer to wear head abayas, as opposed to shoulder abayas. They also cover their faces our of religious reasons but they also do not want their fair skin to be darkened by the harsh sun. It should be important to note that foreign women, especially non-Muslim women, do not have to cover their hair OR face, it is left to their preference. They do however, need to wear an abaya since they are on the homeland of the birth of Islam, the land that contains the two holiest cities; Makkah and Madinah.

NUMBER THREE: Why do Muslim shopkeepers shut down their stores during prayer time? Because there should be no business while God is being worshipped. He deserves our glorifying him and He only Asks us to do this 5x a day. The Hedeya (religious police) go around making sure store owners respect this. About the Brother who was beaten on his way to prayer... Hmm, sounds strange and I wish I knew the whole story before I make a judgement.

NUMBER FOUR: All things to do with Valetines day are banned, and rightly so. Well, considering this holiday has pagan origins, I can see why *LOL* Muslims dont celebrate Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day, Halloween or any other holiday (except for the two `Eids, one being at the end of the fasting month and one to remember God's forgivness on Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and not allowing him to sacrifice his son Ismail (peace be upon him). As I stated before, Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Islam and nothing celebrating paganism or having ties/history with acts of paganism are allowed.

NUMBER FIVE: Banning camera phones is not going to solve anything, though it may limit the fitnah (corruption) for a while. People have to change themselves, and those who are caught taking advantage of innocents by taking pictures of unsuspecting women and posting them for all to see should be punished. This is another reason why women cover their faces in KSA-- many Saudi women are exceptionally beautiful (masha'Allah) and men with no `ayb (shame) try to get their pictures with bad intentions. As for not letting women buy ice-cream cones, uhhhhmmmmm... *okay*

NUMBER SIX: Banning on selling cats or dogs. I do know that in Islam we are not allowed to sell dogs. There isn't any negative reason for this, but dogs are unclean and their saliva has very bad bacteria. Strangely enough, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) declared that the only way to get rid of this bacteria if it gets on the skin or other item is to wash it 7 times with water and then once with earth. Scientists only now have proven this to be true. Why are Muslims not allowed to eat pork? In their fat there is another set of bacteria that is very harmful to humans -- again, scientists only now have come to this conclusion. Muslims dont hate dogs or pigs, and we are not taught to kill them or treat them badly. The only reason a Muslim can have a dog is for the purposes of sheparding, protection of property or if a person has a seeing-eye-dog (and other health related issues and the use of a dog is beneficial to them). My toddler son has a stuffed toy of Piglet, and we see no harm in this cute little toy.

NUMBER SEVEN: Policing inter-mingling men and women. Inter-mingling for social purposes is forbidden in Islam. We do not go to parties where there are men, and we are never alone with a man who is not our husband, father, son or other close male relative. I have yet to meet a Muslim woman who is willing to "hang out" with a strange man, and they keep their conversation purely work/school related. My Saudi girlfriends were shocked when male students at University came close to them and started asking questions -- they described it as "rude" and "uncomfortable". On another note, people are responsible for their own actions but if they spread their corruption to society and are responsible for breaking up homes, then they will be held to their account.

NUMBER EIGHT: A man murdering his daugher by cutting out her tongue and then burning her to death, because she became a Christian. La howla wa la quwwata illah billah (there is no higher power than God.) This phrase is commonly used when we hear something disturbing. A) Torture is strictly forbidden in Islam. B) There is no compulsion in religion, as stated in the Quran. C) This man had no right to carry a Hadd punishment on his daugther, he should've brought her to a Sharia court and been given the procedure handed down on an apostate. Maybe she was suffering from insanity or was deeply confused. Only God knows but unfortunately her father took away her life unjustly. As for the saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), "Whoever leaves his religion, kill him." The Prophet was referring to Islam, as this narration is found in Sahih Bukhari #2794. Do we just kill people who turn from Islam just like that? The answer to that is NO. One of the reasons apostates were killed was back in the Prophet's day, there were people who claimed to have become Muslim, found out the Muslims' secrets 9such as safe spots, since the first Muslims were being persecuted) and renounced Islam and betrayed hundreds of people under protection. These people were consequently torured by the enemies of Islam, murdered and any survivors were forced to leave their homes. Let's not forget that currently the penalty for treason in the U.S. is death. If you wanna convert to Islam, you better think about it very carefully. Muslims take their faith seriously, and honestly if I woke up one day and said, "I reject Islam, instead I will start worshipping a man besides God" then honestly I would want someone to question me for three days to see if I am alright. I would also like to add that I have yet to hear an ex-Muslim being executed by in a actual Shari`a court. No, I'm not talking about the Mickey Mouse wannabe Shari`a courts they have in the middle of nowhere, I am talking about courts ruled by men who have studied and aquired all the knowledge needed to make such sentences. The regular lay-man Muslim is not allowed to carry out the Hadd punishment on his own thought or interpretation.

NUMBER NINE: Fear of being threatened with bodily harm or death for not following Islam to a "T". We are not given more than we can handle, and Allah t`ala mentioned numerous times that He is Most Merciful & Forgiving. As long as we establish the Five Pillars of Islam (Susie, I assume you are aware of what these are), and try our best to be good people while doing acts of worship to our God, this is all He asks of us! That picture you have of those people carrying signs to massacre people who insulted Islam clearly contradict what it says in the Quran : "And when they say things of insult to you, reply with a peaceful saying." The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had animal feces thrown on his head during prayer -- and what were his actions? -- nothing. No shoutin or going after the person with a sword. When all the villagers from Ta`if threw stones at him and drove him out, did he return with an army and murder them? No, he raised his hands and asked for their future generations to be Muslims. Learned men and women will not storm the streets chanting "DEATH TO INFIDELS" or "KILL ANYONE WHO INSULTS ALLAH OR HIS MESSENGER", just because so-and-so did something to insult them. Allah t`ala cannot be harmed, He is Lord of the Worlds! His Messenger cannot be insulted, he is in Paradise with all of the other Messengers such as Jesus, Ibrahim, John, Jonah, Lot, Job and various others. People can say whatever that wanna say, it will only come back to them when they are questioned on the Day of Judgement. We are hurt by their words and actions, since we love our Lord and Prophets more than anything!

Susie, if you have questions and wanna read for yourself on various issues such as women's right in Islam, non-Muslims, jihad, please go to www.islamtoday.com because Shaikh Salman Al-Oadah is a terrific scholar. He is Saudi, too! Read more about him here to see his background http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=26&sub_cat_id=452

Okay, I hope I did an okay job of briefly explaining things to you, Susie! If you have any more questions please stop by my Blog. Dont be shy, because I believe you are only asking sincere questions. However, I wont talk to someone who is knowingly attacking my religion, or by intentionally asking questions in a way that do insult OR just try to confuse the issue with other irrelevent questions.

Islam and Women in Niger

Dec 21st, 2009

by Lisa.

Even though 98% of its population practices Islam, the Western African country of Niger is a secular state, protected by laws mostly inherited from the French. In recent years, the government has adopted some woman-friendly policies but rejected a few as well. What’s behind those rejections? What role does Islam play in the politics of women’s rights laws? Alice Kang, a PhD candidate in the UW-Madison Department of Political Science and a former SKJ Fellow through Global Studies, spent a year in Niger to look for answers. She sat down with Inside Islam to share her findings.

As you can hear from the first part of the interview, Kang’s interest in Islam and women’s rights started in Burkina Faso where she was a Peace Corps volunteer right after college. When it comes to debates on women’s rights issues such as abortion and family planning, she saw a parallel between what’s going on there and what’s going on in local communities in the United States.

Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths

Eastern, New Age Beliefs Widespread

Dec. 9, 2009

In this report:

• Attendance at Multiple Types of Religious Services
• Worship Venues
• Eastern or New Age Beliefs, "Evil Eye"
• Ghosts, Fortunetellers, and Communicating With the Dead
• Diverse Supernatural Beliefs and Experiences
• Religious and Mystical Experiences
• About the Survey

• Full report PDF (22 pages)
• Topline questionnaire (6 pages)

The religious beliefs and practices of Americans do not fit neatly into conventional categories. A new poll by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that large numbers of Americans engage in multiple religious practices, mixing elements of diverse traditions. Many say they attend worship services of more than one faith or denomination -- even when they are not traveling or going to special events like weddings and funerals. Many also blend Christianity with Eastern or New Age beliefs such as reincarnation, astrology and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects. And sizeable minorities of all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

One-third of Americans (35%) say they regularly (9%) or occasionally (26%) attend religious services at more than one place, and most of these (24% of the public overall) indicate that they sometimes attend religious services of a faith different from their own. Aside from when they are traveling and special events like weddings and funerals, three-in-ten Protestants attend services outside their own denomination, and one-fifth of Catholics say they sometimes attend non-Catholic services.

Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, nearly four-in-ten (39%) say they attend at multiple places and nearly three-in-ten (28%) go to services outside their own faith, according to the Pew Forum survey, which was conducted Aug. 11-27 among 4,013 adults reached on both landlines and cell phones. Attending services at more than one place and across multiple religious traditions is even more common among those who go to religious services on a monthly or yearly basis, with nearly six-in-ten (59%) saying they attend at multiple places and four-in-ten attending services from outside their own faith at least sometimes.

Religiously mixed marriages are common in the United States, and the survey finds that the link between being in a religiously mixed union and attendance at multiple types of services is a complex one. Overall, people in religiously mixed marriages attend worship services less often than people married to someone of the same faith. But among those who attend religious services at least yearly, those in religiously mixed marriages attend multiple types of services at a higher rate than people married to someone of the same religion.

Though the U.S. is an overwhelmingly Christian country, significant minorities profess belief in a variety of Eastern or New Age beliefs. For instance, 24% of the public overall and 22% of Christians say they believe in reincarnation -- that people will be reborn in this world again and again. And similar numbers (25% of the public overall, 23% of Christians) believe in astrology. Nearly three-in-ten Americans say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died, almost one-in-five say they have seen or been in the presence of ghosts, and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or a psychic.

Nearly half of the public (49%) says they have had a religious or mystical experience, defined as a "moment of sudden religious insight or awakening." This is similar to a survey conducted in 2006 but much higher than in surveys conducted in 1976 and 1994 and more than twice as high as a 1962 Gallup survey (22%). In fact, this year's survey finds that religious and mystical experiences are more common today among those who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (30%) than they were in the 1960s among the public as whole (22%).

Attendance at Multiple Types of Religious Services

Nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) say they attend religious services at least a few times a year, including 38% who say they attend at least once a week and 34% who attend once or twice a month or a few times a year. Roughly one-quarter says they seldom or never attend religious services (27%). These figures are roughly consistent with findings from recent years.

Of those who attend at least yearly, roughly half (37% of the public overall) say they always attend services at the same place, while nearly as many (35%) say they regularly or occasionally attend religious services at different places, aside from when they are traveling and going to special events such as weddings and funerals. To estimate the number of Americans who attend multiple types of religious services, the survey followed up by asking people who attend religious services at different places about the types of services (e.g., Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc.) they attend. Overall, about one-in-four adults (24%) indicate that they attend services of at least one faith other than their own, and roughly one-in-ten (12%) say they participate in the services of two or more faiths in addition to their own.

Three-in-ten Protestants say they attend multiple types of religious services, including those who attend services at Protestant denominations different than their own; 18% of Protestants indicate that they attend non-Protestant services.

More than four-in-ten black Protestants (42%) and roughly one-quarter of white evangelical and mainline Protestants (28% and 24%, respectively) regularly or occasionally attend services at a faith other than their own. Among all three groups of Protestants, the most commonly cited type of services attended (other than services of one's own faith) are those of other Protestant denominations (40% among black Protestants, 24% among white evangelicals and 22% among white mainline Protestants). However, significant numbers within all three Protestant traditions report sometimes attending Catholic Mass; this includes nearly one-in-five black Protestants (19%), 13% of white evangelicals and 14% of mainline Protestants. Fewer say they attend Jewish synagogues or Muslim mosques.

Roughly one-in-five Catholics say they attend services of at least one faith other than Catholicism, with most of these (18% of Catholics overall and 16% of white Catholics) saying they attend Protestant services. About one-in-twenty Catholics report attending services at Jewish synagogues (5%) and 1% say they attend Muslim mosques.

Attending religious services at more than one place is most common among those who attend services only occasionally. Among those who attend services once or twice a month or a few times a year, fully six-in-ten (59%) attend services at more than one place, including four-in-ten who attend religious services of faiths other than their own. Among those who say they attend services on a weekly basis, fewer say they attend at more than one place (39%); still, more than a quarter of Americans who are regular, weekly attenders at religious services (28%) say they also attend services outside their own faith, not counting when they are traveling or special occasions like weddings and funerals. (Respondents who seldom or never attend religious services were not asked about where they attend.)

The survey finds a complex link between attending multiple types of religious services and being in religiously mixed marriages. The key distinction between those in religiously mixed versus religiously matched marriages is in the overall level of religious commitment, with those in religiously mixed marriages exhibiting lower levels of religious commitment, as measured by frequency of attendance at worship services. Among those in religiously mixed marriages, fully four-in-ten (43%) say they seldom or never attend religious services, twice as high as seen among those married to someone of the same faith (21%).

On the surface, people who are married to a spouse from a faith different than their own are neither more nor less likely than married people overall to attend multiple types of religious services (25% among all of those in religiously mixed relationships, 24% among those in religiously matched marriages). However, among those who attend religious services at least yearly, more than four-in-ten in mixed marriages attend services of faiths different than their own, compared with roughly three-in-ten of those married to someone of the same faith.

Worship Venues

In addition to asking about the types of religious services that people attend, the survey also asked about the locations or venues in which these services are held. Most people who attend services at least yearly do so at a church or other house of worship. But a significant minority of Americans (11%) say they go to services at other locations, either instead of (3%) or in addition to (8%) services in a regular house of worship.

Roughly one-in-six white evangelicals attend religious services in a place other than a church or house of worship (16%), as do 13% of black Protestants. Nearly one-in-ten white mainline Protestants say the same (9%), while the comparable figures among Catholics and the unaffiliated are 5% and 6%, respectively.

Homes are the most popular alternative venue to churches and other houses of worship. About 7% of Americans say they attend religious services in someone's home. Attending services in homes is somewhat more common among Protestants (9%) than among Catholics (4%).

Eastern or New Age Beliefs, "Evil Eye"

Roughly one-quarter of adults express belief in tenets of certain Eastern religions; 24% say they believe in reincarnation (that people will be reborn in this world again and again), and a similar number (23%) believe in yoga not just as exercise but as a spiritual practice. Similar numbers profess belief in elements of New Age spirituality, with 26% saying they believe in spiritual energy located in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals, and 25% professing belief in astrology (that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives). Fewer people (16%) believe in the "evil eye" or that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen to someone.

Compared with other religious traditions, white evangelical Protestants consistently express lower levels of acceptance of both Eastern beliefs (reincarnation, yoga) and New Age beliefs (spiritual energy in physical things and astrology). For example, roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals believes in reincarnation, compared with 24% among mainline Protestants, 25% among both white Catholics and those unaffiliated with any religion, and 29% among black Protestants. Similarly, 13% of white evangelicals believe in astrology, compared with roughly one-quarter or more among other religious traditions. There are few differences among religious traditions in belief in the "evil eye," though black Protestants stand out for high levels of belief on this question (32%).

Among Protestants, high levels of religious commitment are associated with lower levels of acceptance of Eastern or New Age beliefs. Among both evangelical and mainline Protestants, those who attend church weekly express much lower levels of belief in reincarnation, yoga, the existence of spiritual energy in physical things and astrology compared with those who attend religious services less often. Among Catholics, by contrast, frequency of church attendance is linked much less closely with these kinds of beliefs, although those who attend less often do express higher levels of belief in astrology compared with weekly attenders.

Hispanics are more likely than whites to believe in yoga, spiritual energy in physical objects, astrology and the evil eye, and blacks are more likely than whites to believe in reincarnation and the evil eye. Older people (those over age 65) consistently express lower levels of acceptance of these kinds of beliefs compared with younger people. These beliefs are more common among Democrats and independents than Republicans and are more widely held by liberals and moderates than conservatives. The difference between liberals and conservatives is especially pronounced on the question of belief in yoga as a spiritual practice; nearly four-in-ten liberals express this belief (39%), compared with 15% of conservatives.

Ghosts, Fortunetellers, and Communicating With the Dead

Roughly three-in-ten Americans (29%) say they have felt in touch with someone who has died. Nearly one-in-five say they have been in the presence of a ghost (18%), while 15% say they have consulted a fortuneteller or a psychic.

The proportion of Americans who say they have interacted with a ghost has doubled over the past 13 years (9% in 1996 compared with 18% today). The number saying they have felt in touch with someone who has died has also grown considerably, from 18% in 1996 to 29% today. There has been no change, however, over the past 20 years in the proportion of Americans who have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic, with a steady minority of roughly one-in-seven continuing to say they have done so.

Evangelical Protestants are the group least likely to say they have felt in touch with a dead person (20%). Members of other religious traditions are much more familiar with this type of phenomenon, with 37% of black Protestants, 35% of white Catholics, 31% of the unaffiliated and 29% of white mainline Protestants saying they have felt in touch with someone who has died. Differences between evangelicals and other religious traditions are smaller on the questions of ghostly experiences and consultations with fortunetellers.

Having been in touch with a dead person is more common among women than men (33% vs. 26%). Women are also twice as likely to have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic (20% vs. 10%). Blacks report more experience feeling in touch with the dead than whites or Hispanics (41%, 29% and 30%, respectively). But they resemble whites and Hispanics on other items, such as encounters with a ghost or consulting a fortuneteller.

Compared with those with a college degree, more Americans with a high school education or less report having felt in touch with a dead person (32% vs. 24%) and having seen a ghost (21% vs. 13%). However, Americans with less education are no more inclined to have consulted a fortuneteller than are Americans with a college education (13% vs. 17%). Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortunetellers or psychics.

Diverse Supernatural Beliefs and Experiences

In total, upwards of six-in-ten adults (65%) express belief in or report having experience with at least one of these diverse supernatural phenomena (belief in reincarnation, belief in spiritual energy located in physical things, belief in yoga as spiritual practice, belief in the "evil eye," belief in astrology, having been in touch with the dead, consulting a psychic, or experiencing a ghostly encounter). This includes roughly one-quarter of the population (23%) who report having only one of these beliefs or experiences. More than four-in-ten people (43%) answer two or more of these items affirmatively, including 25% who answer two or three of these items affirmatively and nearly one-in-five (18%) who answer yes to four or more. Roughly one-third of the public (35%) answers no to all eight items.

With the exception of white evangelicals, majorities of all major religious traditions report holding at least one of these beliefs or having experienced one of these phenomena. In fact, roughly half of black Protestants (50%), the religiously unaffiliated (48%) and Catholics (47%) answer yes to two or more of these items, as do 43% of white mainline Protestants. A slim majority of white evangelicals (53%) answer no to all eight questions, while 47% indicate belief or familiarity with at least one of these items. Among white evangelicals and white mainline Protestants, higher levels of religious commitment (as measured by frequency of church attendance) are associated with lower levels of belief in these phenomena and familiarity with these experiences.

Religious and Mystical Experiences

In response to a separate question, half of Americans (49%) say they have had "a religious or mystical experience - that is, a moment of religious or spiritual awakening." This is roughly the same as the number that said this in 2006 (47%), but it represents a sharp increase over the past four decades. In 1962, only 22% of Americans reported having had such an experience, which grew to about a third in 1976 (31%) and 1994 (33%). Since then, the number has continued to increase to roughly half of the public in this decade.

Differences among Protestants are striking. Strong majorities of white evangelicals (70%) and black Protestants (71%) say they have had religious or mystical experiences, compared with four-in-ten mainline Protestants (40%). Catholics resemble mainline Protestants, with 37% having had a religious or mystical experience.

Among the unaffiliated, three-in-ten have had a religious or mystical experience. This is lower than nearly any other religious segment of the population but is still a higher proportion than among the general public in 1962 (22%). These kinds of experiences are particularly common among the "religious unaffiliated" (i.e., those who describe their religion as "nothing in particular" and say that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives), among whom 51% have had a religious or mystical experience. Among self-described atheists, agnostics and the "secular unaffiliated" (i.e., those who describe their religion as "nothing in particular" and say that religion is not important in their lives), roughly one-in-five (18%) say they have had this kind of experience.

Mystical or religious experiences are most common among people who regularly attend religious services. More than six-in-ten of those who attend weekly say they have had this kind of experience (61%), compared with half of those who attend monthly or yearly (48%) and just one-third of those who seldom or never attend religious services (33%).

Blacks are much more likely than whites or Hispanics (69%, 47% and 44%, respectively) to report religious or mystical experiences. More than half (55%) of baby boomers (age 50-64) identify with such experiences, compared with fewer young adults and seniors (43% each).

There is little difference along party lines on this question. Roughly half of Republicans, Democrats and independents say they have had a religious or mystical experience. More than half of conservatives (55%) claim to have had such experiences, similar to the number of liberals who have had these kinds of experiences (50%) and much higher than among moderates (43%).

About the Survey

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 4,013 adults, 18 years of age or older. Interviews were conducted in two waves, the first from August 11-17, 2009 (Survey A) and the second from August 20-27, 2009 (Survey B). In total, 3,012 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,001 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 347 who had no landline telephone. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/.

The combined landline and cell phone sample is weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2008 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the sample.

The following table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey. The topline survey results included at the end of this report clearly indicate whether each question in the survey was asked of the full sample, Survey A only or Survey B only. Most of the results analyzed in this report were asked in Survey B only.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

About the Projects

This survey is a joint effort of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Both organizations are sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and are projects of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of the Center's current survey results are made available free of charge.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life seeks to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. It studies public opinion, demographics and other important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. It also provides a neutral venue for discussions of timely issues through roundtables and briefings.

This report is a collaborative product based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Luis Lugo, Director
Alan Cooperman and Sandra Stencel, Associate Directors
Gregory Smith, Senior Researcher
Allison Pond and Neha Sahgal, Research Associates
Scott Clement, Research Analyst
Michelle Ralston, Research Assistant
Diana Yoo, Graphic Designer and Assistant Web Editor
Tracy Miller and Hilary Ramp, Editors
John C. Green, Senior Research Advisor

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf, Leah Melani Christian, Jocelyn Kiley and Alec Tyson, Research Associates
Jacob Poushter, Research Analyst

Global Restrictions on Religion

December 2009

Executive Summary

For more than half a century, the United Nations and numerous international organizations have affirmed the principle of religious freedom.¹ For just as many decades, journalists and human rights groups have reported on persecution of minority faiths, outbreaks of sectarian violence and other pressures on religious individuals and communities in many countries. But until now, there has been no quantitative study that reviews an extensive number of sources to measure how governments and private actors infringe on religious beliefs and practices around the world.

Global Restrictions on Religion, a new study by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds that 64 nations - about one-third of the countries in the world - have high or very high restrictions on religion. But because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, nearly 70 percent of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high restrictions on religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities.

Some restrictions result from government actions, policies and laws. Others result from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations and social groups. The highest overall levels of restrictions are found in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, where both the government and society at large impose numerous limits on religious beliefs and practices. But government policies and social hostilities do not always move in tandem. Vietnam and China, for instance, have high government restrictions on religion but are in the moderate or low range when it comes to social hostilities. Nigeria and Bangladesh follow the opposite pattern: high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.

Among all regions, the Middle East-North Africa has the highest government and social restrictions on religion, while the Americas are the least restrictive region on both measures. Among the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and India stand out as having the most restrictions when both measures are taken into account, while Brazil, Japan, the United States, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom have the least.

The Pew Forum's study examines the incidence of many specific types of government and social restrictions on religion around the world. In 75 countries (38%), for example, national or local governments limit efforts by religious groups or individuals to persuade others to join their faith. In 178 countries (90%), religious groups must register with the government for various purposes, and in 117 (59%) the registration requirements resulted in major problems for, or outright discrimination against, certain faiths.

Public tensions between religious groups were reported in the vast majority (87%) of countries in the period studied (mid-2006 through mid-2008). In 126 countries (64%), these hostilities involved physical violence. In 49 countries (25%), private individuals or groups used force or the threat of force to compel adherence to religious norms. Religion-related terrorism caused casualties in 17 countries, nearly one-in-ten (9%) worldwide.

These are some of the key findings of Global Restrictions on Religion. The study covers 198 countries and self-administering territories, representing more than 99.5% of the world's population. In preparing this study, the Pew Forum devised a battery of measures, phrased as questions, to gauge the levels of government and social restrictions on religion in each country. To answer these questions, Pew Forum researchers combed through 16 widely cited, publicly available sources of information, including reports by the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom's Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, the Hudson Institute and Amnesty International. (The complete list of sources is available in the Methodology.)

The researchers involved in this process recorded only factual reports about government actions, policies and laws, as well as specific incidents of religious violence or intolerance over the main two-year period covered by this study, from mid-2006 to mid-2008; they did not rely on the commentaries or opinions of the sources. (For a more detailed explanation of the coding and data verification procedures, see the Methodology. For the wording of the questions, see the Summary of Results.) The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective measures that could be combined into two comprehensive indexes, the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index. Using the current, two-year average as a baseline, future editions of the indexes will be able to chart changes and trends over time.

Global Restrictions on Religion is part of a larger effort - the Global Religious Futures Project, jointly funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation - that aims to increase knowledge and understanding of religion around the world.

Limitations of the Study

It is important to keep a few caveats in mind when reading this report. First, because freedom - defined as "the absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement or repression" - is difficult if not impossible to measure, the Pew Forum's study instead measures the presence of restrictions of various kinds. The study tallies publicly reported incidents of religious violence, intolerance, intimidation and discrimination by governments and private actors. That is, it focuses on the problems in each country. It does not capture the other side of the coin: the amount of religious dynamism, diversity and expression in each country. The indexes of government restrictions and social hostilities are intended to measure obstacles to the practice of religion. But they are only part of a bigger picture.

Second, this study does not attach normative judgments to restrictions on religion. Every country studied has some restrictions on religion, and there may be strong public support in particular countries for laws aimed, for example, at curbing "cult" activity (as in France), preserving an established church (as in the United Kingdom) or keeping tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing candidates for elected office (as in the United States). The study does not attempt to determine whether particular restrictions are justified or unjustified. Nor does it attempt to analyze the many factors - historical, demographic, cultural, religious, economic and political - that might explain why restrictions have arisen. It seeks simply to measure the restrictions that exist in a quantifiable, transparent and reproducible way, based on reports from numerous governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

Finally, although it is very likely that more restrictions exist than are reported by the 16 primary sources, taken together the sources are sufficiently comprehensive to provide a good estimate of the levels of restrictions in almost all countries. The one major exception is North Korea. The sources clearly indicate that North Korea's government is among the most repressive in the world with respect to religion as well as other civil and political liberties. (The U.S. State Department's 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom, for example, says that "Genuine freedom of religion does not exist" in North Korea.) But because North Korean society is effectively closed to outsiders and independent observers lack regular access to the country, the sources are unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that the Pew Forum categorized and counted ("coded," in social science parlance) for this quantitative study. Therefore, the report does not include scores for North Korea.

Download the full report PDF (72 pages, 8MB)