Saudi Arabia may be the country in the world most different from the United States, especially where religion is concerned. An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.
Consider those differences: Secularism is a bedrock U.S. principle, enshrined in the Constitution's First Amendment; in contrast, the Koran and Sunna are the Saudi constitution, enshrined as the Basic Law's first article.
Anyone can build a religious structure of whatever nature in the United States, so the Saudis fund mosque after mosque. In the kingdom, though, only mosques are allowed; it hosts not a single church – or, for that matter, synagogue, or Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Baha'i temple. Hints going back nearly a decade that the Saudis will allow a church have not born fruit but seem to serve as delaying tactics.
Pray any way you wish in America, so long as you do not break the law. Non-Muslims who pray with others in Saudi Arabia engage in an illicit activity that could get them busted, as though they had participated in a drug party.
The United States, obviously, has no sacred cities open only to members of a specific faith. KSA has two of them, Mecca and Medina; trespassers who are caught will meet with what the Saudi authorities delicately call "severe punishment."
 Mecca, one of Saudi Arabia's two cities forbidden to non-Muslims (the other is Medina). |
With only rare (and probably illegal) exceptions, the U.S. government does not fund religious institutions abroad (and those exceptions tend to be for Islamic institutions). In contrast, the Saudi monarchy has spent globally an estimated US$100 billion to spread its Wahhabi version of Islam. Products of Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools and mosques have often been incited to political violence against non-Muslims.
The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism. For example, a 2005 Freedom House report reviewed some of the extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions and concluded that it poses "a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself." The monarchy has also given multiple and generous grants to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most aggressive and effective Islamist organization in the United States.
This discrepancy, a version of which exists in every Western country, demands a solution. Some Western governments have taken ad hoc, provisional steps to address it.
- In 2007, the Australian government turned down a Saudi request to send funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia to help build a new mosque. "Obviously we don't want to see any extremist organisation penetrate into Australia," explained then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Eight years later, Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks affirmed the kingdom's intense interest in influencing Islamic politics in Australia.
- In 2008, the Saudis offered to finance construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, prompting three Russian Orthodox groups to write an open letter to then-King Abdullah suggesting that his kingdom lift its ban on churches.
- In 2010, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre turned down Saudi funding for a mosque on the grounds that the Saudi kingdom lacks religious freedom.
- [In April 2016, Andreas Scheuer, general secretary of the Christian Social Union (Chancellor Angela Merkel's Bavarian counterpart) called for a law to stop the financing of mosques and Islamic schools by foreign governments.]
- In July 2016, reeling from multiple attacks over 18 months that killed 236 people on French soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused about prohibiting foreign funding of mosques "for a period of time to be determined," provoking an intense debate.
These one-off responses may satisfy voters but they had almost no impact. That requires something more systematic; legislation. [The Austrian government took the first step in this direction in February 2015 when it banned foreign sources of financing for Muslim organizations.]
Brat's proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the "Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act," makes it unlawful for "foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes." Hello, Saudi Arabia!
To "promote a religion" includes funding "religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature." Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.
The bill needs more work: it omits mention of religious buildings, offers no criteria for seizure of property, and does not indicate who would do the seizing. But it offers an important beginning. I commend it and urge its urgent consideration and adoption.
Americans cannot abide aggressive unilateral actions by Riyadh (or, for that matter, Tehran and Doha) exploiting their oil bonanza to smother the secularist principles basic to Western life. We must protect ourselves.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Aug. 23, 2016 update: Michael W. Schwartz kindly points out his Commentary article from Jan. 13, 2010, "Wahhabism and the First Amendment," in which he compares foreign funding of religious activities with foreign funding of political activities and argues for the legitimacy of the former being banned as the latter already is.
Aug. 24, 2016 update: Adam makes the important point that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the U.S. government from favoring one religion over others, should also apply to foreign governments. "Why should a foreign government be allowed to establish/favor a church if the US government is barred from doing so?"
Sep. 7, 2016 update: The above article prompted a letter to the editor, "Mosques don't lead to extremism," from Nail A. Al-Jubeir, director of information at the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C.:
Daniel Pipes writes in his blog entry "No Saudi money for American mosques" (The Hill's Congress Blog, Aug. 22) that Saudi Arabia's financial support for the building of mosques in other countries helps to create an atmosphere of intolerance and even violent extremism. This narrow view does a disservice to the vast majority of Muslims, who live peacefully as loyal citizens of the United States and elsewhere.
Nail A. Al-Jubeir.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia funds the building of mosques overseas to support Muslim communities, and never without the permission and support of local governments. We expect those Muslim communities to be integral members of the larger society, to enjoy a rich spiritual life and to live in harmony with people of other faiths.
We consider it our duty, as the birthplace of Islam and home of the Two Holy Mosques, to support Muslim communities. We have done so for Muslim communities in the United States, and the members of those communities have overwhelmingly shown themselves to be loyal Americans. The Muslim congregations have contributed to their larger communities and worked side by side with other religious organizations to promote tolerance, charity and understanding.
If the leaders of a mosque preach intolerance, they should be taken to task, and if they preach violence, they should be removed and sanctioned according to the laws of their country. That is what we have been doing in Saudi Arabia, where we have removed imams from their positions and conducted effective campaigns to promote tolerance and to combat extremism, particularly among our vulnerable youth.
Saudi Arabia is a traditional society that practices a conservative form of Islam. But strict adherence to faith does not foster violent extremism, and we are strenuously fighting that ideology and the terror it has spawned — in our country, in our region and around the world.
Saudi Arabia has done as much, if not more, than any other country to fight terrorism, terror financing and the misguided people who promote extremism and violence. We are committed to this struggle for the long term, internally and internationally, and are proud to work closely in this cause with the United States and our other allies.
