SAUDI PET BAN RAISES HACKLES

C O N F I D E N T I A L RIYADH 001235

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT PLEASE PASS TO NEA/ARP BMCGRATH

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/11/2018
TAGS: KISL PGOV PHUM PREL SA SENV
SUBJECT: SAUDI PET BAN RAISES HACKLES

REF: A. 07 JEDDAH 277

B. RIYADH 1170

C. 06 RIYADH 7190

Classified By: Charge' d'Affaires Michael Gfoeller
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) SUMMARY: Saudi Arabia made world headlines last week
by banning the sale of cats and dogs in the capital, Riyadh.
On the surface, the ban appears to be just another example of
the Saudi religious police run amok. However, the topic has
exposed a divide in views between Saudi religious leaders and
the general public. The announcement prompted ridicule in
the English-language press and in Arabic-language chat rooms.
The ban has a dubious basis in Islam and misses the mark on
controlling public morals. Past experience with similar bans
shows that enforcement is unlikely to be effective. END
SUMMARY.

--------------
Fuzzy logic
--------------


2. (C) The acting governor of Riyadh province, HRH Prince
Sattam bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, announced the decision
following a fatwa from the Council of Senior Ulema (religious
scholars). The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and
Prevention of Vice (CPVPV),aka Mutawwa'in or religious
police, requested the ban and are charged with enforcing it.
The ban prohibits trade in cats or dogs and also prohibits
walking them in public places. According to press reports,
the justifications were twofold. First, the Mutawwa'in had
received complaints about Saudi youths bringing pets into
public places, "violating proper behavior in public squares
and malls." The second justification is religious.
According to the Qur'an, the Prophet Mohammad forbade giving
or accepting money for dogs or cats. The Commission also
points out that it is forbidden to own a dog unless it is a
guard dog for home or livestock.


3. (C) The most salient argument in favor of the ban is that,
in Islamic teachings, one should not engage in the commercial
trade of cats and dogs. Islam also places restrictions on
dog ownership. However, contradicting this are other
teachings instructing Muslims to be kind to animals. The
Hadith tells several stories of kindness to dogs and cats.
This paradox is not new to Saudi society (reftels). In this
most recent case, cats find themselves innocent bystanders.
There is no Islamic prohibition on cat ownership and they are
commonly found in Saudi homes as well as the Hadith. More
confusing is how restricting pets will curb public flirting
(see para 7).


4. (C) A local English-language newspaper criticized not just
the ban, but the CPVPV in general. "Arab News" ran an
editorial sarcastically titled "Cats, dogs the new threat to
morality." The piece said that "Once again, the CPVPV misses
its goals." The author, a Saudi female, doubts the measure's
effectiveness, asking, "So are we going to ban the use of
mobile phones in public?" She also questions the ban's basis
in Islamic teaching.


5. (C) Commentators on Arabic-language web sites found fault
with the ban. One poster wrote, "Ban dogs if you want, but
what is wrong with cats?" A second poster quipped, "We have
a strange racist society, even against pets." Another
posting hinted at hypocrisy: "What about the dogs and cats of
their royal highnesses? Are they going to ban them too, or
are they different?" (Note: It is common knowledge that many
Saudi royals are avid pet lovers.) Two writers focused their
comments on the CPVPV. "Aren't there more important matters
to issue fatwas on than selling dogs and cats?" wrote one,
while another added, "The CPVPV is even interfering in dogs
and cats. Goodness."

--------------
Life goes on
--------------


6. (C) Riyadh pet stores have yet to feel the ban's effects.
A local veterinarian and pet store owner said he has not
received any orders regarding the sale of dogs and cats. He
recalled that the ban had been issued before, but never
enforced. Evening visits to Riyadh pet stores revealed
business as usual. Families delighted in not just the
numerous cats and dogs, but a surprising array of exotic
animals (e.g. rabbits, squirrels, skunks, parrots, peacocks,
pythons, turtles, monkeys, and even a crocodile). Still,
questions about the ban were met with averted eyes. In one
store, the employee explained that the pets were "not for
selling, just for looking." When asked what happened if
someone wanted to buy a pet, he said, "You want to buy?
Speak with the manager." Staff at a second shop, brightly
lit on a major street, were less inhibited. Poloff was
quietly quoted a price of 1400 Riyals (US$375) for the grey
purebred cat in the window.


7. (C) Meanwhile, inanimate tools of flirtation remain legal.
One internet commentator noted that cell phones are used
much more than animals to make social connections. Indeed,
Saudis of both genders exploit blue tooth technology -- in
malls and on streets -- to connect with members of the
opposite sex. In 2004, authorities quickly rescinded a cell
phone camera ban intended to thwart photo-sharing between
women and men. With or without pets, available Saudis
continue to take clandestine measures to meet one another.

--------------
Comment
--------------


8. (C) Saudis simultaneously use Islam to justify and defy
fatwas such as a pet ban. Many consider the ban ridiculous
and debate the rationale behind it. Others simply wave it
off as a waste of time. Still, many Saudis disapprove of the
exorbitant spending on pets while poor families suffer. The
editorial's defiant tone is noteworthy, given that all
newspapers are government-owned - although English-language
news is often able to cross this line more than Arabic press.
The pious see the necessity of complying with Islam's
prohibition on the trade in cats and dogs, regardless of
their affection for animals.


9. (C) This pet ban may likely be due to Saudi religious
conservatives being upset by King Abdullah's policies in
support of greater religious tolerance, perhaps specifically
the recent Madrid Interfaith Conference (Reftel B). The
aftermath of the Madrid Conference, during which Al-Qaeda put
out a death threat on King Abdullah, shows that the reforms
in Saudi Arabia are causing resentment by certain circles in
the conservative religious establishment.


10. (C) In the end, who wins? Prohibitions with a strong
basis in Islam, such as on alcohol or pork products, are
virtually unshakable. A long-standing ban, such as a
prohibition on movie theaters, can survive even when the
religious basis is murky. However, once a trend has
gradually woven its way into Saudi society, such as with cell
phones or satellite dishes, it can be surprisingly resilient.
A 2006 pet ban in Makkah province proved ineffectual (Reftel
C). As for Riyadh, public sightings of dog walkers will
likely remain rare, hidden behind compound walls. We expect
that the ban will be enforced loosely, if at all, and that
pets will remain a visible part of life for a segment of
Saudi society.

GFOELLER