SHARIA'A AND ITS APPLICATION, CACSA Member,
October 4, 1997
PART ONE: SHARI'A
From 1980-85 I lived and worked as a teacher in Taif, the summer capital
of Saudi Arabia. With a perfect mountain climate, friendly people and
convenient proximity to city-life amenities in Jeddah and remote campsites
along the Red Sea, Taif was an nice place to call home.
Early one weekend morning just as I was wading out to a reef north of
Jeddah, an urgent radio call reached camp with a message that there was an
emergency in Taif that required my immediate return.
Upon arrival at my residence in the Northrop cantonment two hours later, I
found Northrop management and Taif police detectives present in force. My
house had been burglarized. In the front yard Sri Lankan and Filipino men
who had access to the house were being questioned by the police.
Inside it was evident that virtually everything of value except
kitchenware and furniture was gone. A bedroom window in the rear of the
structure was broken. Various items were strewn wildly across the back
yard and over the wall that separated the cantonment from a neighborhood
soccer field.
Upon further inspection it was noticed that the perpetrators, apparently
in no particular hurry, had even stopped to refresh themselves with a
snack from the kitchen. Soft drink cans, wrapping and food were scattered
about. In minutes the entire kitchen and much of the rest of the house
would be covered with fingerprint dust.
Without saying so at the time, Taif's finest were also tracking a trail of
debris that extended from beyond the soccer field, across a four-lane
highway and up a steep, hillside path leading into a densely-packed
community of small mud brick houses - Saudi houses.
A boy who had been involved in previous criminal activity was confronted
by the police detectives that afternoon. I was later told that it took
about half-a-second for the suspect to identify the actual culprits.
By that evening three Saudi teenagers were being held at police
headquarters in downtown Taif. Inside the non-descript station the boys
were placed in separate cells - isolated from each other, their distraught
families and their peaceful community.
I was called to the station. There the chief-of-police introduced himself
and then led me into a room with several large boxes on the floor. He
asked if all of the items that had been stolen were present. A few things
were missing.
Next, I met with the parents of the teen-aged burglars. Never before or
since have I seen family members so deeply hurt by the misdeeds of their
children. These were economically poor people. Simple people. Honest
people.
In one blur-of-a-day a crime had been committed, the police department had
done its job, and the case was well on its way to a just conclusion.
Notably, nobody, but nobody, had attempted to cover for the boys or to in
any way lessen their responsibility for their actions. In fact, what
followed was quite to the contrary.
First, the boys' families apologized to me in words and gestures offered
with as much sincerity and grace as can be imagined. They asked the value
of the items damaged or missing and promised compensation (a pledge they
honored a few days later).
Second, one evening shortly thereafter, the police brought the boys back
to my house where they were photographed reenacting their looting spree.
The process was forthright, even friendly, and, whether by design or not,
served the purpose of reconciling the relationship between culprits and
victim.
As it turned out, the leader in crime was a third-time offender in his
late teens. While sitting on the cantonment wall between soccer games he
and his younger, record-free accomplices had seen me pack my car and leave
for the weekend. The combination of opportunity and curiosity had led
directly to the plunder that took place.
Third, a few weeks later I was called to attend an administrative hearing
related to the affair. With the confessions on record, it was time for
sentencing. The judges asked if I had further claims against the boys or
their families. I did not. I was then invited to comment regarding the
sentencing, which I did.
It was my belief that spending the summer in jail would be an appropriate
punishment for the first-time offenders. In the case of the third-time
thief, who was eligible to lose a hand due to his repeated crimes, I asked
that he serve an extended sentence, but that his hand not be severed. The
court agreed.
My last connection with the matter began near midnight on the Fourth of
July. It was a typically dead quiet night on the cantonment. I was asleep.
Suddenly, I was startled awake by rapid, loud banging on my doors and
windows and non-stop ringing of the doorbell.
Peeking out around a curtain, I saw Mutawa
(religious policemen) and many armed men in uniform in the front yard. A
SWAT-style vehicle was parked in the driveway. The whole setting struck me
as too bright.
Reluctantly, I opened the door. A Mutawa
immediately led me towards the street. He spoke no English; I only some
fundamental Arabic. The best I could understand was that he wanted me to
look at something.
There must have been twenty men shifting about on all sides, but the
ruckus of a few moments earlier had been replaced with absolute quiet.
Out from the back of the truck the three young men who had
broken into the house that spring stepped single file onto the street.
They seemed different. One looked up, pointed my direction and spoke to
the people around him. For an instant I wondered if I was being accused of
something.
The Mutawa and I continued our
attempts at a discussion. I wished I knew
more Arabic. Finally, I got the message.
That year our Fourth of July fell during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan
(the month of fasting). The Mutawa and other
police were present as part of a roving, city-wide demonstration against
vice in the community. They had come to me as a gesture of good faith - to
show me that justice was being served.
On command the boys leaned forward. Then, in turn, each was
"whipped" with a long, thin, flexible rod. The blows were popped
quickly against the loose-fitting thobes the boys were wearing. If anyone
was hurt at all it didn't show. But then, I don't think physical pain was
the intended consequence.
What I had just observed, and had come to appreciate ever since the
burglary was discovered, was a community (families, police, religious
leaders) with a strong, certain set of values and a sense of duty towards
all, including the occasional criminal . . . and an outsider like me.
The young men who had violated my home had already spent weeks
in jail. They had gone to their final exams at school in chains. And they
had been made public examples of during the most joyous period of the
year, Ramadan.
Nevertheless, their punishments had not been acts of vengeance,
but a reminder to them and to society that it is the responsibility of the
community to support the general welfare. The criminal actions of these
three boys had been a disgrace to every person of good faith in Taif. It
was the responsibility of the community not only to reject their misdeeds,
but to pave the way for their re-acceptance into society.
Of all my many experiences in Saudi Arabia none left so profound
an impression as this introduction to Shari'a (Islamic Law). As I saw it,
the young men who committed the crime were genuinely better off for the
way their infractions were handled, so were the people of Taif, and so was
I.
It is a lesson I will always appreciate.
PART TWO: . . . NOT SHARI'A
By late August - early September 1993 I was in the process of
reestablishing residency in Saudi Arabia. Except for an extended stay
during the conflict with Iraq and an occasional business trip, I had been
away from the kingdom for eight years. Working in Dallah Tower by day and
scouting for permanent housing during non-business hours, this was a time
of professional and personal transition that had long been anticipated.
I had served for the previous two years in the United States as vice
-president of Middle East Industrial Development Company (MEIDCO), a
Liechtenstein-registered, Jeddah-based investment and consulting operation
led by Munir Al-Moarawi, a Syrian national, whom I had met in 1991.
Over time, Dallah Telecom, a recent subsidiary of Dallah Al-Baraka Group,
Saudi Arabia's second largest company, had become the principal client of
the projects which I spearheaded for MEIDCO. Munir Al-Moarawi had
literally moved into the Dallah Telecom facility and had full run of the
place. [ Dallah Telecom was managed by Abdul Fattah Nazer, a
brother-in-law of Saleh Abdullah Kamel, president of Dallah Al-Baraka.].
I had not entered into this aggregate blindly or without some hesitation.
It is common knowledge that corruption is the life's blood of the Saudi
Arabian elite. In fact, the Saudi kleptogarchy is widely recognized as
being among the most successful, least encumbered criminal enterprises in
history.
Still, under the right circumstances, Saudi Arabia could be a great place
to live and work. For this I was mostly content in my role of identifying
and developing business opportunities for MEIDCO and its clients - while
remaining personally apart from the web of intrigue. Bypassing the
obstacles created by corruption was left to Munir Al-Moarawi.
Was I naive in believing that I could go about my work without being
affected by the graft that controlled the Saudi economy? You bet I was.
And it didn't take long to find out just how wrongheaded I had been or
just how much Saudi Arabia had changed in only a few short years.
It is not that the Saudi elite were honest stewards of the economy before
the Gulf War, but in its aftermath I found myself almost nostalgic for the
shady, yet unsophisticated corruption of the early 80's. Though still
played out daily in the newspapers and on TV, the illusion of the Al-Saud
as benevolent caretakers of state and religion was effectively dead. In
its place: a thoroughly-mercenary, blatantly-arrogant cynicism that was
spreading from the top.
The game was over. The pretense was gone. The feeding frenzy was on.
Every day at work became an education for me in the ways of the new Saudi
Arabia. However, with so much at stake, personally and professionally, I
was determined to endure. Silly me.
The first project which MEIDCO had brought to Dr. Abdul Fattah
Nazer and Dallah Group in 1991 was an opportunity to team with GTE
Government Systems Overseas Corporation in an effort to sell GTE's
Improved Mobile Subscriber Equipment (IMSE) and related support to the
Signal Corps of the Royal Saudi Army and to the Saudi Arabian National
Guard. The potential cost of the project over a period of several years
was as much as US$1,000,000,000. My role was that of liaison between GTE,
MEIDCO and Dallah.
IMSE was easily the right product for the needs of the Saudi ground
forces. It was clearly the best proven (Gulf War), best priced, best
financed system available. Furthermore, IMSE was easy to use, and the only
product which was interoperable with US equipment (no small benefit in
itself considering the fact that Al-Saud rule owed its continuing
existence to the backing of the US military).
The principal competition for IMSE came from Thomson, the French
communications giant. Its product, RITA, was no longer in production.
However, because of peculiar ties between the French and certain Saudi
military officials, including HRH Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the
Minister of Defense and Aviation, and General Marzouki of the Signal
Corps, GTE had been prohibited even from making a technical presentation
of its product to the Saudis.
MEIDCO introduced GTE to Dallah because, absent a strong, well-connected
Saudi partner, GTE was never going to be allowed to compete for the
contract. Dallah/MEIDCO then solicited the behind-the-scenes
"services" of HRH Prince Fahd bin Sultan.
After stringing GTE along for more than two unproductive years, Dallah (Nazer)
and MEIDCO (Al-Moarawi) essentially abandoned GTE to fend for itself. But
the GTE project, such as it was, had served another purpose. It had
created the illusion that Nazer and Al-Moarawi were veritable
"players."
To get a moribund Dallah Telecom going, Saleh Kamel, on the advise of
Nazer, approved a far-reaching compact giving Al-Moarawi/MEIDCO the
unrestricted use of Dallah Telecom resources to develop investment
opportunities on Dallah's behalf. By March 1993 Al-Moarawi had essentially
taken over the daily operations of building Dallah Telecom.
By mid-August the Al-Moarawi-Nazer duo had successfully defrauded Dallah
Al-Baraka and its investors of US$4,500,000. And they were primed for
more.
The project upon which the first fraud was based involved Dallah Telecom-MEIDCO
setting up a Jeddah-based, Cayman Islands-registered company (GDC) to
become the regional coordinator for long-distance callback services
offered by Telegroup, Inc. of Fairfield, Iowa. While legitimate on its
face, the Telegroup opportunity was nevertheless quite risky, as was
readily conceded by Telegroup.
First, the Federal Communications Commission in the United States was soon
to release a decision related to complaints by major long-distance
carriers involving the use of unanswered dial tones without charge by
resellers like Telegroup. An unfavorable ruling would have been a serious
competitive blow to Telegroup and its independent contractors like GDC
(now New Services Trading Company).
Second, according to the Ministry of Communications in Saudi Arabia, and
as was later widely reported in the Saudi press, international callback
services were patently illegal in the kingdom.
Despite these profound uncertainties, Mahmoud Youssef, economic advisor to
Saleh Kamel, set the value of the start-up company at US$10,000,000.
Saleh Kamel approved this generous valuation and also gave a green light
for US$2,500,000 in Dallah investor funds to be given to Al-Moarawi (and
Nazer) in order to reimburse a "bribe" that Al-Moarawi and Nazer
claimed had been paid to Mr. Cliff Rees, the Telegroup president for
rights to the project. (I know of no evidence that Mr. Rees was offered or
received such funds, and believe the opposite to be true.)
Contrary to Dallah policy, Kamel also approved $1,000,000 in undocumented
expenses to Al-Moarawi (and Nazer) even though Dallah office space, Dallah
staff, Dallah travel allowances, Dallah phone and fax, etc. (all paid for
by Dallah investors) were used to start the business.
Still yet another US$1,000,000 was given to Al-Moarawi (and Nazer) for
setting up the deal. (Nazer, of course, received his regular Dallah salary
and bonuses as well.)
On top of the above, Al-Moarawi/MEIDCO (and Nazer) was given 50% of the
shares in the business (minus a cut from each side to HRH Prince Faisal
bin Fahd to ensure protection from the Ministry of Communications).
In total, US$4,500,000 of Dallah investor funds (plus GDC stock) had
vanished into thin air - and the company had yet to set up operations. For
this purpose Kamel and Youssef came up with another US$1,000,000.
A few days later in a meeting to determine the operating budget for GDC,
Mahmoud Youssef let slip to me that funds other than those officially set
aside for operations (the US$1,000,000) had changed hands between Dallah
and MEIDCO in setting up GDC. As a GDC director (along with Nazer, Al-Moarawi
and Youssef) I was entitled to any information about the finances of the
company, but Youssef refused to explain the transaction(s) to which he had
referred.
That night, Al-Moarawi reluctantly admitted that additional payments had
been made by Dallah to MEIDCO. However, he would not reveal the purpose or
the amount. His stated opinion was that the financial relationship between
Dallah and MEIDCO was none of my business. He further advised that Nazer
was part of the arrangement and that previously undisclosed MEIDCO
partners (princes) were "people who could kill people and get away
with it."
I returned to the United States.
After weeks of getting nowhere in my attempts to resolve the situation, I
resigned from MEIDCO and sent the irregular information in my possession
to Saleh Kamel. Mahmoud Youssef, who works in Kamel's office, redirected
the materiel to Abdul Fattah Nazer (Al-Moarawi's purported accomplice).
By phone Nazer expressed his concern and offered himself to mediate the
problems. He promised that we would meet in London. Nazer also instructed
me that Saleh Kamel would not take an active role in resolving the matter.
I was told to provide information only to Nazer or Youssef.
As one might surmise, the only concern that Nazer subsequently evidenced
was for protecting himself (and Al-Moarawi). The meeting in London never
happened.
Instead, what transpired were surreptitious efforts by Nazer, Al-Moarawi
and Youssef to discredit me and to ensure that the fraud (or the fact that
I knew of the irregularities) was concealed from Saleh Kamel.
Not long thereafter, Kamel agreed, at the urging of Nazer, to pay Al-Moarawi
(and Nazer) an additional US$1,500,000 in bogus fees related to another
project I had set up. The cause for the payment this time was that Al-Moarawi
had somehow gotten hold of and copied Youssef's (Kamel's) internal office
files detailing an underhanded attempt by Dallah (Youssef and Kamel) to
cut Al-Moarawi/MEIDCO out of a consulting commission.
Finally, eight months after first trying to report my concerns, I reached
Saleh Kamel via a private fax line. He responded with a request for
documentation. I sent what I had.
Approximately six weeks later Nazer was dead. Al-Moarawi was (according to
Youssef) being protected from litigation by a son of King Fahd, either
Faisal or Sultan. Kamel fell stone quiet on the subject.
In fact Saleh Kamel unexplainably was silent on several fronts as relate
to his fiduciary duties to Dallah investors. He did not press criminal
charges against Al-Moarawi. He did not make a claim against the estate of
Abdul Fattah Nazer. He did not make a claim against Al-Moarawi's Saudi
sponsor, HH Prince Salman Suderi. He did not make a civil or criminal
claim against Middle East Industrial Development Company in Liechtenstein.
And he continued to operate a business (GDC) he knew to be illegal in
Saudi Arabia.
[The Al-Saud-controlled government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claims
SHARI'A (Islamic Law) as its constitution and the source of legitimacy for
its rule. In theory, all persons in the kingdom are obliged to conduct
themselves in accordance with basic standards set forth in Islamic Law and
are guaranteed the protection and support of SHARI'A.]
As an alleged victim and a person with alleged knowledge of criminal acts,
it has been both my right and my responsibility under Islamic Law to press
criminal charges in the matter. Nevertheless, my petitions have been
completely ignored by King Fahd, Prince Bandar (ambassador of Saudi Arabia
to the United States), the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Labor and
Social Affairs and the Saudi Grievances Court - all of which are REQUIRED
BY SHARI'A to respond to and act upon such allegations.
[The United States Department of State is now considering my claims of Due
Process Denial (avoidance in this case) as relates to my right to assert
criminal charges in Saudi Arabia.]
At issue is simply the Al-Saud's government's legal and moral
responsibility to adhere to its SHARI'A constitution.
Unequal justice, the sanctuary of the Saudi elite, is surely not SHARI'A
justice. It is not the prerogative of the Al-Saud family to decide (based
on the rank of the accused) whether allegations of criminal activity
should be investigated and ruled upon; it is their explicit duty under
Islamic Law to ensure due process.
Furthermore, the alleged role of certain members of the Al-Saud family in
the crimes (and cover-up) makes necessary under Shari'a the appointment of
an independent international tribunal (Muslim) to oversee the neutrality
of the judicial process. Said independent tribunal should have at its
disposal all the powers of investigation that exist under Islamic Law. And
it should be have the right to present its findings, whatever they may be,
in a public forum.
To be sure this is just one little case. Many have been wronged worse than
I have been.
Nevertheless, it is my intention that the Al-Saud government, or its
successor, will live up to its responsibilities in this case as
established by Shari'a. I seek nothing more. I expect nothing less.
My ultimate hope is to rediscover the Islamic integrity that I witnessed
years ago in Taif.
From a fatwa (issued by Imam Mohammed Hanooti, 8 December 1996):
I. A constitution based on Shari'a, as in Saudi Arabia, requires the
administration of equal justice for all. Equality is fundamental to
Islamic Justice and all should expect to live in peace, security and
justice.
II. Criminal allegations are a serious concern. Whatever merits
allegations of criminal activity may or may not have should be determined
through a proper investigation followed by appropriate judicial ruling.
III. Under Islamic Law no person in authority may in any way hinder the
pursuit of justice. As regards allegations of criminal activity, a person
of responsibility should do everything in his power to guarantee a fair
and complete investigation.
IV. According to Shari'a no title, or person with title, can give a person
an exception or privilege under law. For a person in authority to limit or
prevent investigation, trial or justice would be improper.
V. Islamic justice is based on neutral judgment. An Islamic judicial
system should provide a neutral channel for justice [when a monarch or his
family or their associates faces allegations of misconduct].
