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