MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Saudi Arabia
Index
The population was characterized by a high degree of cultural
homogeneity. This homogeneity was reflected in a common Arabic
language and in adherence to
Sunni (see Glossary) Wahhabi Islam,
which has been fostered within the political culture promoted by
the Saudi monarchy
(see Wahhabi Theology
, this ch.). Above all,
the cultural homogeneity of the kingdom rested in the diffusion
of values and attitudes exemplified in the family and in Arabian
tribal society, in particular the values and attitudes regarding
relations within the family and relations of the family with the
rest of society.
The family was the most important social institution in Saudi
Arabia. For Saudis generally, the family was the primary basis of
identity and status for the individual and the immediate focus of
individual loyalty, just as it was among those who recognized a
tribal affiliation. Families formed alignments with other
families sharing common interests and life-styles, and
individuals tended to socialize within the circle of these family
alliances. Usually, a family business was open to participation
by sons, uncles, and male cousins, and functioned as the social
welfare safety net for all members of the extended family.
The structure of the family in Saudi Arabia was generally
compatible with the structure of tribal lineage. Families were
patrilineal, the boundaries of family membership being drawn
around lines of descent through males. Relations with maternal
relatives were important, but family identity was tied to the
father, and children were considered to belong to him and not to
the mother. At its narrowest, a family might therefore be defined
as comprising a man, his children, and his children's children
through patrilineal descent.
Islamic laws of personal status remained in force in Saudi
Arabia without modification, and the patrilineal character of the
family was compatible with and supported by these Islamic family
laws. Marriage was not a sacrament but a civil contract, which
had to be signed by witnesses and which specified an amount of
money (mehr) to be paid by the husband to the wife. It
might further include an agreement for an additional amount to be
paid in the event of divorce. The amount of the mehr
averaged between 25,000 and 40,000 Saudi riyals (for value of the
riyal--see Glossary)
in the early 1990s, although some couples
rejected the mehr altogether, stipulating only a token
amount to satisfy the legal requirement necessary to validate the
marriage contract. The contract might also add other
stipulations, such as assuring the wife the right of divorce if
the husband should take a second wife. Divorce could usually only
be instigated by the husband, and because by law children
belonged to the father, who could take custody of them after a
certain age (the age varied with the Islamic legal school, but
was usually seven for boys and puberty for girls), legally a wife
and mother could be detached from her children at the wish of her
husband.
When women married, they might become incorporated into the
household of the husband but not into his family. A woman did not
take her husband's name but kept the name of her father, because
legally women were considered to belong to the family of their
birth throughout their lives. Many in Saudi Arabia interpreted
the retention of a woman's maiden name, as well as her retention
of control over personal property as allowed under Islamic law,
as an indication of women's essential independence from a
husband's control under the Islamic system. Legally, a woman's
closest male relative, such as a father or brother, was obligated
to support her if she were divorced or widowed. Divorce was
common.
According to Islamic law, men are permitted to marry as many
as four wives. Among the adult generation of educated, Western-
oriented elites, polygyny was not practiced. Polygyny was common,
however, among some groups, such as the religiously conservative
and the older generation of the royal family. In the cities,
polygynous households were seen among recent migrants from rural
areas. For a family of means, a polygynous housing arrangement
usually entailed a separate dwelling unit for each wife and her
children. These units might be completely separate houses or
houses within a walled family compound, in which case the
compound might include a separate house that the men of the
family shared and used for male gatherings, such as meals with
guests or business meetings.
Because the prerogatives of divorce, polygyny, and child
custody lay with the husband, women in Saudi Arabia appeared to
be at a considerable disadvantage in marriage. However, these
disadvantages were partially offset by a number of factors. The
first was that children were attached to mothers, and when
children were grown, especially sons, their ties to the mother
secured her a place of permanence in the husband's family.
Second, marriages were most often contracted by agreement between
families, uniting cousins, or individuals from families seeking
to expand their circle of alliances and enhance their prestige,
so that a successful marriage was in the interest of, and the
desire of, both husband and wife. In addition, Islamic
inheritance laws guaranteed a share of inheritance to daughters
and wives, so that many women in Saudi Arabia personally held
considerable wealth. Because women by law were entitled to full
use of their own money and property, they had economic
independence to cushion the impact of divorce, should it occur.
Most important, custody of children was in practice a matter for
family discussion, not an absolute regulated by religion.
Furthermore, judges of the sharia courts, according to informal
observations, responded with sympathy and reason when women
attempted to initiate divorce proceedings or request the support
of the court in family-related disputes.
Families in Saudi Arabia, like families throughout the Middle
East, tended to be patriarchal, the father in the family
appearing as an authoritarian figure at the top of a hierarchy
based on age and sex. Undergirding the patriarchal family were
cultural and religious values that permeated the society as a
whole, and that found their clearest expression in tribal values
and practices. Families shared a sense of corporate identity, and
the esteem of the family was measured by the individual's
capacity to live up to socially prescribed ideals of honor.
The values and practices inherent in these ideals as well as
adherence to Islam, were at the heart of the cultural homogeneity
among the diverse peoples--tribal and nontribal--of the kingdom.
The society as a whole valued behavior displaying generosity,
selflessness, and hospitality; deference to those above in the
hierarchy of the family; freedom from dependence on others and
mastery over one's emotions; and a willingness to support other
family members and assume responsibility for their errors as
well. An example of the sense of corporate responsibility binding
Arabian families may be seen in an incident that occurred in the
1970s in a Hijazi village. Although this incident occurred among
beduin who were recently settled, the group solidarity
illustrated was applicable to the Arabian family in general as
well as to those united by tribal affiliation. An automobile
accident took the life of a young boy, and the driver of the car
was obligated to pay compensation to the boy's father. The family
of the driver, although indigent, was able to borrow the money
from a local merchant and present it to the boy's father in a
ceremony "to forgive." Afterward, delegated members of the tribe
assumed the responsibility of collecting money toward repayment
of the compensation from all the people in the tribe, who
happened to include close relatives of the boy who was killed. In
this way, all parties to the tragedy were satisfied that the best
interests of the extended family/tribal group had been served in
serving the interests of an individual member.
Chastity and sexual modesty were also very highly valued.
Applied primarily to women, these values were not only tied to
family honor but were held to be a religious obligation as well.
Specific Quranic verses enjoin modesty upon women and, to a
lesser degree, upon men; and women are viewed as being
responsible for sexual temptation (fitna). Although this
attitude is ancient in the Middle East and found to some degree
throughout the area in modern times, it has taken on religious
significance in Islam through interpretations of Muslim
theologians.
The veiling and separation of women were considered
mechanisms to ensure sexual modesty and avoid fitna. In
practice, the effect of veiling and separation also ensured the
continuing dependence of women on men. Some families adopted more
liberal standards than others in defining the extent of veiling
and separation, but the underlying value of sexual modesty was
almost universal. Because the separation of women from unrelated
men was accepted as a moral imperative, most activities of a
woman outside her home required the mediation of a servant or a
man; for example, if a woman should not be seen, how could she
apply for a government housing loan in an office staffed by men?
In fact, how could she get to the government office without a
servant or a man to take her, because women were not allowed to
drive. The continuing dependence of women on men, in effect,
perpetuated the family as a patriarchal unit. Control of women
ensured female chastity and thus family honor as well as the
patrilineal character of the family. In Saudi society in general,
the role of women was basic to maintaining the structure of the
family and therefore of society.
Data as of December 1992
|
|