Sponsorship System

Mufleh Al-Qahtani, vice president of the National Society of Human Rights (NSHR), articulated the sentiments of not just the expatriate community but also of enlightened Saudis when he demanded an end to the sponsorship system (Feb. 12).

The abolition of the system, when it occurs, will be in tune with the changes required since the Kingdom’s ascension to the WTO. As the report made amply clear, the system benefits neither employers nor workers. All that it does is to give a bad name to the Kingdom by making it easy for unscrupulous people to abuse guest workers and deny them their rights.

I can understand the logic behind the desire to reduce the number of foreign workers in the Kingdom. However, there are better ways to do that. The most positive attitude is to utilize the opportunity provided by their presence here to learn from them the skills and ethics of work and also devise the best ways in which citizens can make them more effective contributors to the progress of this great country. It must be recognized that Saudi Arabia is short of skilled people and that the young men who take jobs tend to be lazy. If this situation is allowed to continue, the nation will suffer.

The sponsorship system is a modern face of slavery. Before taking any decision on drafting new rules to govern the employment of foreign workers, the government must have them thoroughly examined by experts and then have a national debate on the subject. That will make those sponsors who believe that they have the right to abuse and degrade foreign workers rethink.

Saudis must protect their image and that of Islam by observing Islamic values of justice and fairness in the new system.

Saif Ul Islam, Riyadh published 26 February 2008

Language of Enemy

This is in reference to the report “’Open War on Israel’ Harms Hezbollah, Arab Cause: Lebanese PM” (Feb. 17). It seemed pitiable to me that an Arab daily is using the language of Israeli terrorists by calling the great martyr Mughniya a terrorist. Has he ever killed innocent Arab civilians as the Israelis do? Has he terrorized innocent people? Why do you call him terrorist, imitating Western aggressors?

Haider Ali, Madinah published 26 February 2008

Action Against PKK

Although your editorial “Action Against PKK” (Feb. 24) clarifies the reason and aim of the latest Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, unfortunately it draws the wrong conclusion.

Let me clarify a few points about the PKK reality: It is a terrorist organization. It has continued its murderous campaign against Turkish citizens from its bases in northern Iraq. Over the years, countless lives have been lost due to PKK terrorism, which you regrettably refrained from describing as such in your editorial.

The terror attacks have intensified in recent months. Turkey, as any sovereign country, has the responsibility and determination to protect its citizens against the attacks of the terrorist organization. Numerous diplomatic attempts have been made to resolve the problem of terrorist presence and activities in northern Iraq. Since December 2007, Turkey has initiated air operations against PKK terrorist targets in northern Iraq. These operations have exclusively targeted the terrorist organization. Utmost care has been taken in order to prevent civilian casualty. In the same vein, on Feb. 21, the Turkish Armed Forces launched a ground operation supported by their air wing. The sole target of the ground operation is the PKK. Utmost care is being exercised to make sure no civilians are hurt.

Therefore, it is difficult to understand why Iraqi Kurds will translate military action against the PKK terror organization into greater support for the PKK. Besides, it is very well known that Turkey has been among the staunchest advocates of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and national unity of Iraq.

As I mentioned above, it should not be forgotten that refraining to call PKK a terrorist organization and its members terrorists would only encourage this establishment to continue its murderous campaign.

Naci Koru, Ambassador of Turkey, Riyadh published 26 February 2008

OIC on Cartoons

This refers to the report “OIC Warns of ‘Bigger Conflict’ Over Cartoon” (Feb.16). As a Muslim who was hurt by the cartoons, but also as one who has watched with pain the disdain with which his organization’s “threats” are dismissed by the rest of the world, I wish the OIC chief had resisted the temptation to issue another ultimatum. The OIC has an impressive record in issuing ultimatums — and not being deterred from issuing more of them just because nobody had taken the earlier ultimatums seriously. We saw it, in its most pathetic form, during the Kosovo ethnic cleansing.

Let us face reality. We do not have the power to force anybody to do anything. We are not America or Russia or NATO. We do not have the unity that would enable us, as a solid bloc of nations, take a united stand against anyone who offends us. We are all talk, and no action. Israel and America have done us more real harm than Denmark ever has or ever will. What did we do to them? It is our fundamental belief that the merit of our Prophet (peace be upon him) rests on Allah’s choice of him as His messenger, not on the good will of cartoonists. He was attacked during his lifetime more savagely than the cartoonists are doing now. His glory was not affected by those attacks. Then why do we have to get all worked up about the actions of a few mean minds?

The Qur’an says what we should do in such circumstances: “And the servants of Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say ‘Peace!’” (25:63). Our mission is not to be braggarts, making threats that we and they know are empty, but to walk on this earth in humility, wishing peace even on those who try to hurt us.

Faheem Aslam, Dammam published 26 February 2008

OIC on Cartoons [2]

Can’t Muslims simply overlook what non-Muslims do in their own countries and save them all the mayhem they create in their lives and in the lives of others? After all, non-Muslims are not supposed to forbid to themselves what are forbidden for Muslims. Why can’t Muslims understand this simple fact and go on living their lives according to their own beliefs?

M.A., London published 26 February 2008

Nader’s Hidden Agenda

Though Ralph Nader, who has announced his plans to run for the US presidency once again, describes himself as an anti-establishment consumer advocate, he has been accused by many Democrats of handing the presidency to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential elections. He ran again in 2004, getting nearly three million votes, representing 0.3 percent of the total votes cast. Since Nader’s fate at the elections is a foregone conclusion, one wonders why he has ventured out again. From where does his financing come? Obviously, it must be from the party that would benefit by his presence in the fray. What the US needs to demonstrate now is its rejection of Bush’s policy. But Nader’s entry badly weakens this. Once again, Nader is playing right into the hands of the Republicans. If he genuinely wanted corporate influence to be an issue at the elections, he could very well endorse Obama, who is running his campaign without “dirty money.” Nader’s hidden agenda is now well known to the American public.

S.H. Moulana, Riyadh published 26 February 2008