On October 4, 2009, international media reported that a Saudi cleric, Sheikh Saad bin Nasser al-Shithri was removed from Saudi Arabia’s Council of Senior Clerics. Reason: He had opposed gender-mixing at King Abdullah Science and Technology University, the first co-ed institution in the Desert Kingdom. King Abdullah, the country’s ruler, has been battling opposition from within the deeply fundamentalist ranks of Wahabis in his own country for a while. This time, he had his way. But, the setback for fundamentalism is still the exception, not the rule.

Joy C Raphael’s book Mutawas, Saudi Arabia’s Dreaded Religious Police, tells the story of the origins of the country’s religious Gestapo, and how they have become an integral part of the Saudi society. Speckled with terrifying real-life stories and observations on the way of the Saudi religious police, Mutawas is an eye-opener for outsiders dazzled by gleaming minarets and oil wealth of Saudi Arabia.

Raphael, who spent 14 years of his career as a journalist in Saudi Arabia, grew curious about the working of the Mutawas ever since he set foot in the Holy Land. Over the duration of his stay in Saudi Arabia – he later moved to other, more humane countries in the Middle East – he collected information about the religious police, finally leading to the birth of Mutawas, published by Turtle Books, an imprint of Zen Publications.

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Prophet Mohammed, is the land of Wahabism. Muhamed Abdul Wahab entrenched his Islamic fundamentalist ideals on the desert nation with a wedding alliance with the ruler of Saudi Arabia. This means that the ruler of Saudi Arabia is the moral guardian of Wahabism, one of the most primitive forms of Holy Islam. Iqawan, an early band of religious zealots were the forerunners of Mutawas.

Supported by Saudi Arabia’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Mutawas have a free run in the Saudi society, with forced conversions, physical assaults and personal espionage. In Saudi Arabia, women are prevented from exposing any part of their body, and are expected to be in long body-enveloping black gowns. Men and women are segregated, and even married couples are not allowed to be together in public. Women are no allowed to drive. There are no movie theatres in Saudi Arabia, though a flourishing market in pirated movie CDs survives. Worshipping false gods of Christianity, Hinduism and
Sikhism are barred, and even keeping a crucifix, a picture of Guru Nanak or a statuette if Lord Ram can attract jail terms and lashings. Beheadings are reserved for more serious crimes, and are not uncommon. And lording over this fundamentalism mechanism are the menacing Mutawas, who consider it their sacred duty to keep the Holy Land “pure”.

Technically, Mutawas have no powers to police: they are supposed to inform the police when they spot violations of morality. They are not expected to enter homes, or conduct searches. However, these rules are observed more in the breach. Except Riyadh’s diplomatic quarters which are out of bounds for the religious zealots, no place in Saudi Arabia is safe from the tentacles of the marauding Mutawas.

Mutawas are dressed similar to most Saudis – in ankle-length robe, with a head-scarf, but no black band. They have long beards, and wear leather sandals. Moving around in the residential and commercial nooks and crannies of Riyadh’s busy entrails in their large GMC Suburbans, they spread fear in the hearts of even god-fearing Saudis, and most expatriates in the city. After numerous complaints from foreign diplomats and wealthy Saudis, Mutawas were put through a training
programme in the past, but that has served little to reform the Wahabi bigots. Joy Raphael narrates the true-life tales of several Indians, Filipinos and westerners who fell afoul of the Mutawas, and had to pay dearly for their indiscretion.

Apart from watching over public morality, Mutawas also have a sacred duty to convert as many non-Muslims to their own faith – they call it reversion. Wahabis believe that everyone is born a Muslim, and some are then distracted and misled to worshipping false gods. Reversion will bring them back to the right path. Non-Muslim expatriates are forced to convert through threats, blandishments and outright bribing. One expat coming back to Saudi Arabia from Cairo was stopped at
Immigration and asked to convert to Islam because “Muslims are good. Very good. Your religion not good.” Those who struggle to make a living in Saudi Arabia to support families at home acquiesce, or at least do not object. Some workers are arbitrarily terminated from their work, and asked to convert if they have to continue in the country. If they do agree and change faiths, they receive cash gifts, salary hikes and favorable treatment.

Many expats work as spies for the Mutawas – some for financial gains, some out of religious conviction. They move around in expat circles, feeding inside information to the religious police.

There have been occasional, half-hearted attempts to reform Mutawas, but to little avail. Joy Raphael’s book throws light on the dark deeds of the Mutawas and what drives them. The cleric who poured scorn on co-education at King Abdullah University may have landed in trouble, but Saudi Arabia is still far from leaving the Middle Ages, where the Mutawas feel they truly belong.

The editor and publisher of The Statesman were arrested by West Bengal Police for allegedly hurting the religious feelings of Muslims.

The two were arrested from their residences after Muslim groups protested in the streets against an article The Statesman had reprinted from the Independent titled “Why Should I respect These Oppressive Religions” by Johann Hari, a veteran journalist.

The Independent writes about the controversy:

On two separate occasions Mr Kumar, The Statesman’s editor, issued statements standing by his decision to publish the article. But he also said he had not meant to cause offence to any religion. A note published on 8 February said The Statesman had reprinted Hari’s article because “it mourned the marginalisation of the middle, liberal path in modern society”. It added: “The Statesman has always upheld secular values and has a record of providing space to all viewpoints, even contentious ones. If we were unable to fulfil this role, we would rather cease publication with honour than compromise our basic values.

Bold and courageous words. Follow up and actually do it again, and probably you will spend a lot of time behind bars, my fellow Indian journalists.

There is no explicity guaranteed freedom of speech in India, and it has been very obvious to us. Considering that 90 % of the country would want freedom of speech to be curtailed so it does not offend the religious sensibilities of every community in India – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain – you are on a losing wicket.

Yes, you can try to push the envelope and try to tread that line where a lot of people are perennially pissed but never go ahead and file a case againat you. Tricky. We all make mis-steps and so will you.

There is a reason why this site – dancewithshadows – does not publish very many articles about religion. Any religion. Because if I do that, I am left with two options. Get thrashed by some group, or get thrown behind bars. And as this is a simple news and features site, and we do not make enough money to afford a lawyer to get me out, it is a losing battle which would just see me spending weeks or months taking a crap in a dirty crapper while my cell-mates watch.

In a way, it is hilarious that the protests by Muslim groups in Kolkata actually prove the point Johann Hari made – that you can’t criticise religions now, and freedom to do so have been eroded.

India has the infamous Section 295A (maliciously insulting the religions or the religious belief of any class) of the Indian Penal Code, under which anyone can file a case. Several such cases have been filed across India, and many have been put behind bars. Usually everyone tends to lose interest in the case as soon as the malicious insulter is behind bars, and soon, he manages to be out on bail.

It has not helped that every community in India has a small group of dedicated offendees.

There were protests in India when we heard about the Prophet Mohammed cartoons published in Denmark. There are continuing protests against MF Hussain’s paintings by Hindu groups, and they have a lot of support, at least online. Christians were offended about the Da Vinci Code and even the Catholic Church got involved.  An art exhibition in Vadodara, Gujarat, India was attacked, and the painter and the Dean got in trouble. Taslima Nasreen could not live peacefully in India after she had to leave Bangladesh for offending Muslims, and she had to leave India too (In this case, Gujarat suddenly became the beacon of freedom of expression). A joke book about Sikhs (sardar jokes have always been popular in India, and even Khuswant Singh got in trouble for publishing them in his columns) saw its publisher behind bars. Even Anil Ambani got into trouble, but he’s Anil Ambani, and he is safe. That’s what being an Ambani can do for you. Hell, wearing a certain kind of dress can offend some people.

If there is one thing most of India agrees on, it is that criticising a religion should get your ass kicked. It may be a physical ass-kicking, or a legal one – but it would get kicked with massive force for sure.

What is one to do if you want to criticise something in a religion, caste or community in India? Nothing. You can’t do it. There is no legal way to do it. It might be a very reasonable question about Lord Rama, or the actions of Prophet Mohammed, or about the birth of Jesus Christ. No chance. (Notice how polite and formal I have been there, with no describing anything? That’s what fear of jail can do to you.)

I wonder why no one tries to take it to its logical conclusion, though.

For example, Islam does not recognise Jesus as the son of God. So doesn’t every true believer of Islam continuously offend Christians? Christians do not recognise Prophet Mohammed as a prophet, so isn’t that absolutely offensive to all Muslims? And aren’t all monotheistic religions offensive to Hindus as they…. never mind, I am scared already.

The only community or class which cannot be offended, even if you really try, are the atheists. You can offend them all you want, and they would neither take you to jail, or would come beat you up. Courts would throw out any lawsuit they file against anyone offending their beliefs.

So let’s enjoy what little freedom of speech we have. Let us all gang up and offend the atheists. Or let us gang up and offend, ah, Zeus.

Everyone say it aloud, together.

Fuck you, Zeus!