Ban on Headscarves

I find it strange that Shumaysa Mohammed Ali in her letter “Headscarf Ban” (Dec. 25) writes about freedom of expression and narrow-mindedness.

The French authorities have not banned praying in mosques or synagogues or other places of worship, nor do they forbid anyone to express their beliefs in public. All they are doing is trying to maintain the secular nature of their state and keeping religion out of state schools.

It is strange that no one in Muslim countries publicly objected to a Muslim group trying to ban crucifixes in Italian schools; it looks like a case of double standard.

Perhaps those who object to the French system should consider leaving France and going to a country where they’ll be happier.

Chris Wills • Glasgow, UK published 27 December 2003

You Too Brutus

The report “Father of Pak N-Bomb Quizzed Over Iran Link” (Dec. 23) is pretty embarrassing for any Pakistani.

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan is probably the most venerated figure in the country after its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

To subject him to interrogation on flimsy charges and under US pressure is unfortunate.

Qadeer Khan is the brains behind Pakistan’s nuclear program, and it is his efforts that enabled the country to become a nuclear power. This deterrent has prevented India from attacking Pakistan so far.

President Pervez Musharraf in a bid to appease the United States has cracked down on many organizations justifying his actions as war on terrorism. But quizzing a person like Qadeer Khan is unbelievable.

Sajjad Zaheer • Riyadh published 27 December 2003

Israel’s WMD Arsenal

The editorial “Israel’s WMD Arsenal” (Dec. 24) illustrates how shortsighted the writer is.

Please look at your history and your rhetoric: “The only good Jew is a dead Jew”, or maybe “Israelis need to be driven into the Sea.”

Jews in general are not trying to take over the world as certain commentators have suggested to readers who are not very well informed, due to their inability to hear, read and see what is actually going on in the world.

Arab countries value strength and loyalty along with pride. They want to be respected for these values, along with their history. So why do they not grant other people the same?

Does the writer really think that the world is going to applaud this shortsighted agenda that is constantly being spewed out.

How can pride or strength or loyalty be obtained for any enduring period when innocent lives in both the Arab and Jewish world are being sacrificed daily?

If we want pride, honor and peace we have to stop the rhetoric. The path we choose today will lead to the memories of tomorrow.

What do you want for your children? Hatred? Selfish denial? Certainly not.

A Fellow Human • Tel Aviv published 27 December 2003

Jeddah Zoo

This refers to Gerda Kuhfittig’s suggestion, in her letter “Jeddah Zoo” (Dec. 24), that we should contribute to alleviate the suffering of these miserable animals. I fully support her.

I am a local resident and I frequently pass by this zoo but have never had the courage to enter since I have a gloomy picture of the situation inside.

Animals can be real fun to watch if they are healthy and enjoying a good environment. However, if they are sick or depressed, then there is no point in visiting them. And the zoo loses the purpose it was made for — entertaining and educating people.

I am aware of schools taking their students on visits to certain entertainment or educational places, but not to the zoo.

As a first step toward improving the zoo, I would suggest that it be relocated to a place more conducive for the animals.

I believe the zoo could offer a good return on invested capital if it was managed like any other investment project.

It would serve several purposes — entertaining the public, educating children, generating money for shareholders and, most importantly, making animals enjoy their life in the zoo.

Abdullah Hamidaddin • Jeddah published 27 December 2003

Arab of the Year

As the year 2003 draws to a close, many foreign newspapers and magazines nominate their Man of the Year. Perhaps we should also nominate an Arab of the Year — someone whose contribution to the Arab cause is immense.

I would propose Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. He has handled a difficult job well in the not-so-friendly environment after Sept. 11. As such he has set a new standard in international diplomacy.

Saudi-US relations have undergone a qualitative change since the World Trade Center attack. The Kingdom has undertaken economic and social reforms.

It has redoubled its efforts to join the WTO by signing a landmark agreement with the EU and other countries. Partial municipal elections have been announced.

The Kingdom has cracked down on terrorists, netting a large number of militants.

Prince Bandar has explained these critical developments and put them in their proper context, not only to the US administration but to the US media too.

He has built many bridges of understanding between cultures while others have been demolishing them. He has talked sense and reconciliation on more TV shows than any other Arab.

P.B.V. Raajan • Riyadh published 27 December 2003

Ban on Headscarves [2]

There is a lot of debate over the headscarf issue, more so after French President Jacques Chirac backed the ban.

San Francisco faced a similar dilemma with regard to student dress. Gang colors were being worn to school. If students happened to have on the “wrong” colors in a certain neighborhood or on the bus, they risked serious harm.

School authorities had to choose between, on the one hand, the right of the students to dress as they choose and, on the other hand, the risk of bodily harm from a rival gang caused by exercising that right. Schools chose to regulate school dress.

Actually, Chirac proposed banning the wearing of the Jewish yarmulke as well.

Interestingly enough, this might just result in uniting both Jews and Muslims in France over their right to religious expression.

Sharlie Kulz • France published 27 December 2003

US Politics

The article “Events That Will Shape US Politics in 2004” by James Zogby (Dec. 24) presents a biased view of America. The writer thinks that the Washington Post, MSNBC and Hollywood are the real America, but they are not.

The real America is the working class people that live in the suburbs and cities outside New York and Washington, D.C.

It is the people who want a better life for themselves and for their children, and they work hard to get it. Unfortunately, not everybody in the world sees the real America.

All they see is our foreign policy. President Bush is doing what President Clinton should have been trying to do. In fact, Bush is taking on terrorism the same way that Reagan took on Communism — he’s staring it right in the face and showing it America’s muscle.

Every time that this country has tried to be nice (Iran 1979 and WTC bombing 1993), we have paid dearly. Clinton’s policy was to be nice to the terrorists and what happened? Sept. 11, 2001.

Next time you criticize America, take a look at our history. Immigration to this country wouldn’t be such a popular thing if we were all that bad. In fact, how many Muslims live in this country? And why do they live in this country? And where are they sending the money that they make from this country?

Matt Buecker • United States published 27 December 2003