Replies

Thanks again.

This is the Daniel Pipes testimony I mentioned in #30. Here's an excerpt:

REP. DOUG OSE (R-CA): Now, I do want to pay a compliment to the State Department. The State Department has posted on its website an advisory to Americans considering marriage to Saudis. But what I don't understand is why that advisory has been taken off the website.
MS. ANDRUCH: I was not aware that it was taken off the website? There's one on Islamic law that's on our website, it's a travel-dot- state-dot-gov.
REP. OSE: Travel-dot-state-dot-gov.
MS. ANDRUCH: Yes sir.
REP. OSE: So, this one that refers specific to Saudi Arabia has or has not been removed?
MS. ANDRUCH: I-I don't know if it's on there right now, so I'll have to check.
REP. OSE: Dr. Pipes?
MR. PIPES: If my recollection is correct, it was taken down at the behest of an Islamic group in the United States.
REP. OSE: It was taken down at the behest of an Islamic group in the United States? Which Islamic group?
MR. PIPES: I believe it was the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
REP. OSE: And with whom did they communicate their interest-
MR. PIPES: They protested this document to the State Department, which proceeded to take it down.
REP. OSE: Well, did they protest it on the basis of inaccurate information?
MR. PIPES: They said it was discriminatory. This is all from memory it was a couple of years ago. I believe they said it was discriminatory.
REP. OSE: Is there information in this material that's inaccurate?
MR. PIPES: I don't think that was their point. I think it was that posting this about marriage to Saudis, as opposed to, say, marriage to Canadians, was discriminatory.
REP. OSE: Have we had any protests about the postings on Sharia?
MR. PIPES: I'm not sure.

Apparently, my recollection -- removed at Saudi insistence -- was half-correct. It was removed, but (according to the Pipes's recollection) under pressure from CAIR. Of course, that doesn't exclude the possibility of Saudi pressure as well.

Interesting. I wonder did CAIR see the abcnews story?

Actually, the point about it being 'discriminatory' is just wrong. The travel.state.gov site has a lot of information for Americans planning to marry nationals of various other countries.

MR. PIPES: They said it was discriminatory.

Discriminatory? From my time in Kingdom this guide book is an understatement. It paints a grim picture but to me it doesn't go far enough.