AL-RIYADH newspaper recently reported that the Civil Service Council had decided to remove teachers who are known to have “extremist ideas and thoughts” from teaching. The plan is either to transfer them into administrative positions or give them the option of early retirement. At first glance, it seems to be a step in the right direction; at least it is a strong tacit acknowledgement that we are finally aware of the dangers posed by such teachers. This is all on the theoretical side, however; the practical side of the decision could literally mean that half of all Saudi schools would be unable to operate because of severe staff shortages. Extremist thought is nothing rare or unknown in Saudi Arabia and it will most certainly not be eradicated by transferring a few teachers to other jobs. There is little doubt, on the other hand, that it would be a good thing in a number of cases. So far, we are talking about what is called “the big picture” — the real danger is that we might end up sidelining large numbers of teachers without actually achieving the desired result.

If we are talking about reducing extremist thought, then we must look at all social institutions and not only schools. In every institution, there are always individuals who act as self-appointed preachers and regardless of whether they are right or wrong, they invariably produce something they refer to as “advice” which is invariably couched in terms of “you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us.” The implication is always clear: If you do not follow the advice, you are a “bad” Muslim.

In Al-Watan newspaper, a columnist recounted an experience at the Riyadh Book Fair, which is alleged to have escaped virtually unscathed from the censors and their prohibitions. The writer relates that a bearded man (I assume he is some kind of teacher/preacher) walked around the book stands, accompanied by a group of young men (presumably his students/disciples/acolytes) and began announcing to those working in the stands that this book was “anti-Islamic” while that one was written by “a bad person.” People such as this man are often self-appointed censors and guardians of public morality; the public is free to listen to them or ignore them. The writer then talked about individuals from the Committee for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue who also attended the fair, making severe judgmental remarks and reprimands concerning some titles though the titles were clearly permitted in the Kingdom.

Once I heard that in a certain hospital in Jeddah after prayers, the iman always gave a daily sermon on the PA system. His words were amplified all over the hospital full of sick people who did not need such a disturbance. A hospital is surely not the place to use a PA system and preach in a loud voice. Yet, as this particular imam was officially supported, doctors had no choice but to remain silent. Intimidation is obviously a part of this process: People feel they cannot say what they think when someone uses religion as a weapon of admonishment. After all, we are a very religious society, and most of us were taught that people with religious knowledge should be respected. At the same time, we were never taught to use our minds critically in order to be able to differentiate between authentic religion and the “extremist” variety.

Added to that is the sad fact that there is a fear in many of us of being on the “wrong side.” This translates into our taking comments and directions from a “religious” person that we would never accept from anyone else.

It does not therefore seem likely that this problem of extremism can be solved by simply transferring a few teachers out of the classroom. There are plenty of other people with similar views and they exert an influence on the way we think. Unpleasant as it may be for us to admit it, we cannot blame someone for what he learned in school and which was reinforced by television and the mosque. The fact is that most