RIYADH: With the release of the US Congressional Committee report on 9/11, Saudi-US relations are once again under severe strain, with some Congress members and “sources”, implicating the Saudi government and leading Saudi personalities of involvement in the events.

The accusations have followed a certain trend. As soon as things start to cool down on the Saudi-US front, one development or another rekindles the entire debate. This pushes governments on both sides into a damage control mission. The same stands true this round as well, as the US government has again come out in defence of the Saudi government.

However, in response to the Congressional report, the US Senate’s government affairs committee will hold a hearing on Friday on Saudi Arabia’s alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks. Saudi Arabia is abstaining from the hearing the possibility of the country getting again an adverse image cannot be ruled out. From the Rand Corporation’s report last year to the Congressional report, Saudi Arabia has been at the receiving end, despite numerous efforts on its part to satisfy the critics of its intentions and actions in the “ongoing fight against terrorism”.

Two major issues seem to be at the core of debate. The issue of jihad and that of funding or extremist organizations. Many in Washington allege that the Saudi educational system and especially the religious schools are spreading hatred against the United States. They also charge that Saudi money has been aiding the cause of extremists. The Wahabi school of thought is also increasingly coming under attack for having promoted a specific line of thinking, with the emphasis on jihad.

This negative impression about Saudi Arabia persists is despite the fact that Riyadh is moving simultaneously on a number of fronts. Distinct steps here have been taken to lead society towards moderation on all issues, including the much abused term ‘jihad’. During a four-day national forum on June 15-18, the panelists, who included members from the Shia and Ismaili minorities, it was decided to work on explaining the meaning of jihad, so that no one misunderstand the concept. It also called for restrictions on the right to declare jihad.

There has also been an open debate on the issue about who is entitled to issue fatwas (religious edicts). Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif has in past very candidly said that there were people issuing fatwas who were not entitled or competent to issue such pronouncements.

In order to promote moderation, Saudi Arabia has in the past few months suspended more than 1,000 khateebs and ulema to undergo re-training. A Saudi deputy minister of religious affairs has said ulema and khateebs will be instructed to say during their sermons that the 9/11 attacks violated Islamic principles. “They have been told what happened on September 11 and (attacks) in other places are against Islam and they have to tell the people that this is the stand Muslims should take’, he said in an interview earlier.

The Saudi higher committee on education policy, in a meeting on June 18 debated and adopted its recommendation on a programme to introduce English as a subject at the primary schools in the kingdom. English is currently taught at a higher stage in government schools.

Saudi society is also currently debating the concepts and the true teachings of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab, the 18th- century scholar whose thoughts are often maligned in the West as the reason for extremism in the region. There have been a number of stories in the press on the issue. The Al-Watan newspaper had carried a write-up arguing, “who is more important, the kingdom or Ibn Tamiyah believed by many as the ideologue of Shaikh Wahab. In a recent series of articles in the daily Saudi Gazette, was emphasised that considerable differences existed in the ideologies of Ibn Tamiyah and Shaikh Muhammad Wahab.

In fact the author had argued that Shaikh Muhammad had not laid much emphasis on jihad. It was also said in the second part of the write-up on July 26 that “Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab did not require women to wear the full abaya (the black covering which is mandatory upon women here including a veil to cover the face, hands and feet when they are out in public). He also granted couples contemplating marriage the right to meet and view each other in a more relaxed setting. He also granted unrelated men and women to meet for business and medical purposes and recognized both as capable partners in commercial agreements”.

This sort of debate was previously unheard of in Saudi society and is a manifestation of the changing environment, or the reforms process, as it is often termed here. The process it seems will include every sphere of life and there do not appear to be any forbidden areas.

Then with the spotlight on Saudi charities, often blamed by the US for funding and aiding extremist networks, the Saudi Arabian government has announced the setting up a financial intelligence unit to monitor and ensure that funds are not misdirected into the hands of those who wish to use them to harm others. All foreign transactions will now have to be made from one single point and all the transactions will be monitored. All transactions above $10,000 are looked at before being cleared. Some of the leading Saudi charities including Al-Harmain Foundation, believed in the US to be aiding extremist organizations, have been asked to suspend their activities outside Saudi Arabia until a security clearance mechanism to screen all personnel is implemented.

A number of donation boxes put at different public places were also pulled out, and the authorities have been urging the public to make their donations directly to the needy ones rather than putting it in the donation boxes.

Rules regarding money laundering have been overhauled with penalties for laundering and terror financing. A number of bank accounts suspected of having links to terrorism were investigated and 41 of these were frozen. These belonged to seven individuals and totalled more than $5.69 million.

Saudi Arabia has changed but in order to please its critics in Washington, it seems it may be required to do much more. Some here feel that even much bigger steps will not satisfy the neo-conservatives in Washington since they appear to believe in an anti-Saudi policy as a matter of faith or principle.