Saudi Arabia

Jaqui White clarifies that Muslims wear the egalitarian white robe when in Mecca on a pilgrimage: "Perhaps my meaning was unclear concerning the Saudi men all wearing the white thobe. There is a tenet of Islam encouraging equality, hence the identical thobe and the thousands upon thousands of identically clad men making the pilgrimage to Haj. This has nothing to do with wealth. When meeting Prince Bandar again in the States, I had difficulty accepting him in the required beautifully tailored suit. I prefer the Saudis in their thobes.

Each region has its own Prince. Each day there is a time when anyone who wishes may go and confer with him. I understand this also true of the King. The Saudi men have a bearing of great dignity, but at the same time are extremely outgoing, friendly, and overwhelmingly hospitable. The Prince and Princess in our region seemed extremely interested in their guests, fascinated by their stories. There seemed to be no interest whatsoever in status. One is always invited to dinner, large informal affairs, where the multiple courses appear and disappear rapidly, scarcely noticed in the myriad of conversations and laughter. They insisted we use their desert retreat, which were large tents lined with paisley fabric, around which camels wandered happily, and gave milk, which was delicious. We would also go to their farm where there were the customary farm animals, plus dogs and cats, which their children loved. The point I am making about all this, is that although they lived in a palace, it was a simple, cool, peaceful, informal place, with none of the heavy, ornate, ostentatious accoutrements one associates with palaces, and a place where strangers and guests were always welcome. I believe this is the Bedouin custom".

RH: Could someone tell us where Mohammed enjoins equality,and what he understood by it?

Saudi Arabia, Oil, and the Presidential Elections

Phyllis Gardner sends this transcript of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, as reported by Joshua Micah Marshall at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ .White House -- April 19, 2004

QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --
QUESTION: He didn't talk specifically about the election.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it's $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don't want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we've made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren't taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.
QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President's reelection?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --
QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.
QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.
MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.
QUESTION: We're missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --
QUESTION: Is there a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn't speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I'm telling you --
QUESTION: I'm not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed -- QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.
QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?
MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --
QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.
MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
RH. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Phyllis Gardner sent the transcript of a report by Joshua Micah Marshall on a hearing in which it was charged that the Bush administration had connived with Saudi Arabia to have the price of oil lowered just before the presidential election, See http://talkingpointsmemo.com/. Randy Black asks: "Where is the controversy? Presidents Carter and Clinton asked the Saudis to hold down the price of a barrel of oil during the time that they were President? So what?"
RH: Presumably every modern president had asked Saudi Arabia to hold down the price of oil. The difference is that the Bush administration is alleged to have connived with Saudi Arabia to have the priced lowered just before the presidential election.

Tim Brown answers the allegation that the Bush Administration connived with Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil just before the presidential elections: "Even if this happened, how is keeping down the price of oil bad? Despite the use of deliberately prejudicial words "charged" "connived" and so forth, it would hardly be a bad thing to keep oil prices down. Perhaps Ms. Gardner has a higher bench-mark crude per barrel price she would politically prefer, maybe $35 or $40 a barrel? I suspect that she would then be among those happily screaming bloody murder that Bush is levying a regressive tax on the poor because gasoline would cost more. The only consistency here seems to be damn Bush if he does and damn him if he doesn't. Good politics, perhaps, but miserable logic".

RH "Alleged to have connived" is not the same as "connived", and is not "deliberately prejudicial words". "Happily screaming bloody murder" is. Phyllis Gardner does not scream bloody murder. It is not her style. If the Bush administration did connive, generalities about the price of oil will not cover up the facts.

Forms of address and habit

Miles Seeley writes;"I defer, respectfully, to Ed Jajko's knowledge. The princes I dealt with and visited in Jeddah and Ryiadh asked me to address them as "Mohammed" or "Abdullah," whatever their first name was. While diversity in dress was evident to some degree, for every audience or semi-formal occasion, they dressed in white. When they came to the US, they dressed in business suits. When they entertained in their hotel suites, they sometimes dressed in sweats if it was a gathering of friends. Some, when in the States, served and drank wine and liquor, some did not. The palaces were indeed huge, and furnishings for the most part minimal; but one prince whose family I came to know fairly well had a living room filled with gorgeous antique furniture and Impressionist paintings on the walls. As I have said, it is a society in transition, and things are often confusing to them as well as to us".

RH: We spoke of sociological studies of changes in the use of personal names. Similar studies could be made oof clothing, e.g. the use or rather non-use of ties. It is hard to know where they are still required. Silicon Valle¡y no, but if you call on a Vatican official or President Bush, definitely yes. I believe it was not to in the Clinton administration.
Perhaps the tie will become the symbol of the Republican Party, whereas Democrats will go tieless.

Prince Bandar

Jaqui White, who spend several happy years in Saudi Arabia, writes: "In Islam equality is very important. That is why the men (from the King on down), including Muslim men from China, the Sudan, Pakistan, India, etc., wear identical white thobes and ghutra head coverings. The only jewelry allowed is a very plain, unostentatious wristwatch. When mentioned on newscasts, King Fajd is referred to as "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" EVERY time is name is mentioned, even if it is several times in the same sentence, the emphasis being upon his relationship with Islam, not the fact that he is a King.

The point I am making, is that it is possible that it is not proper to refer to any man in the Kingdom by a title (such as Prince), since then he would not be on equal status with all the other Muslim men in the kingdom.

This is a supposition, check with Miles Seeley about this"..

RH. Despite this "equality", there are very rich Muslims and very poor ones.. No country in the world has more princes than Saudi Arabia- Of course in the US we have such similar inequalities. One men one vote, but otherwise there is enormous inequality-

If one does a Google search under the terms "Custodian of the Two Mosques," the first item that pops up is the web page of the Saudi Arabian Information Resource, with an article about: "King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz King Fahd, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is the fifth King of Saudi Arabia. For a full biography of King Fahd, his life and achievements, click here to go to the King Fahd web site. ... etc. This web page is at http://www.saudinf.com/main/b46.htm
For further information on Fahd, see http://www.kingfahdbinabdulaziz.com/main/h010.htm

When I think of the lack of ostentation over there, I cannot help but recall the audience my friends and I were accorded by the governor of Riyadh, Prince Salman, in his office. I could fit my entire house in that office, severe as it was".

Saudi Ambassador to the US

Getting personal names straight is a constant problem. Because of different transliterations, that is especially true of Arab names. But there is more. I wrote to Miles Seeley: " I posted your piece about Prince Bandar, Saudi Ambassador to the US. The latest issue of the Current World Leaders Almanac says the ambassador is bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz AL SAUD. Is this wrong?" Miles replies:" No, that's his (almost) full name. He goes by Prince Bandar, sometimes adding the al-Saud at the end". RH: Can someone explain the structure of Arabic personal names? Current World Leaders used the name supplied by the Saudi Embassy. Why doesn't the Embassy use "Prince Bandar"?

Miles Seeley adds this note explaining why Prince Bandar, Saudi Ambassador to the US., is really "bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz AL SAUD": " "bin" is "son of, so Bandar is the son of Sultan (the Saudi defense Minister) who is in turn the son of Abulazziz, all of the house of Saud". RH: I still think "Prince Bandar" should come in somewhere, since that is the way he is commonly known.

Steve Popp, editor of Current World Leaders, says; "The full name of the Saudi ambassador to the US is: bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud BANDAR. Somehow the last name was cut off in our listing. Thanks for catching this!" RH: Now we have to look into the Arab title translated as "Prince", which is omitted from the name.

Steve Popp, editor of Current World Leaders, said; "The full name of the Saudi ambassador to the US is: bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud BANDAR. Somehow the last name was cut off in our listing. Thanks for catching this!" RH: Now we have to look into the Arab title translated as "Prince", which is omitted from the name". Ed Jajko comments: "I do not have on-line access to Current World Leaders, and will not make the 15-mile trek up to Stanford with the subsequent hunt for a parking space to consult a copy in the libraries, but simply on the basis of Mr. Popp's message that "the full name of the Saudi ambassador to the US is: bin Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud BANDAR" this is a form that just ain't so. If the intention is to enter Prince Bandar -- the word for prince, by the way, is "amir" or in this case "al-amir," the prince; or perhaps more accurately "sumuw al-amir," his highness the prince -- if the intention is to enter Bandar under his family name, then the entry should be under "Al Saud," the house or family of Sa'ud, the founding ancestor. With certain exceptions now current, like Bin Ladin, the word "bin," meaning "son of," is not used as the entry element. If one does desire to begin the name with the "son of" segment, then the word is "ibn." In any event, one does not ordinarily invert name order as the listing in Current World Leaders seems to. Arab practise -- and I would be happy to hear comment from the Arab members of the WAIS list on this -- is to list names by the first element, the given name, rather than by a family name. So the entry in Current World Leaders should really be under "Bandar." And yes, the Cairo telephone directory, the last time I looked, had an extraordinary number of pages with entries beginning with "Muhammad"."

Ronald Hilton -

Webmaster