Flirting – Punishable by Law

In Saudi Arabia, the national religion is Islam and is practiced in a conservative way that is called “Wahhabism.”  As it turns out, this conservative type of Islam limits the interactions that common male and female citizens can have outside of a marriage.  Given the recent celebration of love, Valentines Day, there has been growing controversy in the country about what is acceptable behavior and what is seen as a criminal offense in the eyes of the “mutaween” who punish such crimes.  Now, the fact that only Islamic holidays are allowed to be celebrated and that any other celebration is in violation of the common law is a perfect example of Islamic Fundamentalism which O’Neil claims that, “in Islamic fundamentalism, we find arguments that states and nations where Muslims live should return to Koran as the source for national laws, constitutions, and government policies” (69).  There is one instance where abiding by these religious laws has gotten men into trouble for seemingly petty crimes, something that would not even be punishable in less theocratic states like the US.  In another article, 57 men are under investigation for allegations of illegal flirting at a mall in the holy city of Mecca.  This is a crime because men are not supposed to have interactions with women due to the segregation of sexes under the religious laws and conservative Wahhabism.  These religion based laws would be highly controversial in a more democratic and free country but those living within the boundaries of this nation are constrained to practice one religion and one religion only, Islam.

Rational Genocide

The small country of Kenya has been facing increasing levels of terror as the number of mass killings has increased in recent weeks. With turmoil reaching all parts of the country, its citizens are faced with the daily battle of simply trying to survive. So far “more than 800 people have been killed across Kenya and tens of thousands have fled their homes.” Kenyan officials have stated that “today, if you look at Kenya you see violence on the streets…ethnic cleansing…[and] genocide.” The majority of these actions have come from opposition leader Raila Odinga who has, as Max Weber comments, “a conscious belief in the absolute value of some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other form of behaviour, entirely for its own sake and independently of any prospect of external success.“ This type of belief correlates to the rational choice approach often described in comparative politics. Odinga believes that his opinions are correct and will stop at virtually nothing in order to reach his goals. Much like the rational choice approach, Odinga follows the theory that “individuals act in accord both with their preferences and beliefs” (PowerPoint, 2/7/2008). Odinga is willing to go to the extremes he is currently using in order to fulfill his personal beliefs. However, the tension and mass killings in Kenya highlight an extreme negative example of the rational choice approach. Although many do not agree with Odgina’s actions, to him, his methods have low levels of risk and will produce the “best” outcomes. Although the situation is extremely devastating, is correlates with our semester long topic of looking at enforcement strategies in such areas as Africa. In many instances, citizens of Kenya are either not breaking the law or committing minimal crimes and are being persecuted regardless. It is interesting to notice how the open brutality is continuing simply because of one man’s rational choice. Similarly, it will interesting to see how Kenya will develop in upcoming weeks, and to see if the enforcement strategies used will begin to be based not solely on Raila Odinga’s rational choices, but hopefully they it will instead be based on the country’s rational choices as a whole. 

To watch a video further explaining the genocide happening in Kenya, click here.