Introduction

Two types of police force have coexisted in Saudi Arabia for decades: general police and morality police. The former is the typical entity that is tasked with criminal matters to provide national security. The morality police, officially titled the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, and colloquially termed hai’a (Arabic for committee), has been tasked with enforcing moral law and monitoring social behaviors.Footnote 1 The Committee used to patrol public places to enforce strict rules of hijab (covering all of the female body except the hands and eyes), segregation between the sexes, and daily prayer attendance. Its officers were authorized to pursue, detain, and question suspected violators. Because of its role and unchecked power, the Committee infiltrated the education system and cultural scene in Saudi Arabia, leading to more restrictions. However, the power of the Committee was drastically reduced in the reforms of 2016. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has implemented a series of reforms which aims to improve the lives of its people and bring society back to moderate Islam. One of the most significant reforms was the decision to strip the Committee of its unchecked power; it was banned from pursuing, arresting, and detaining people.Footnote 2

The Committee adheres to Wahhabi religious doctrine and advocates a more conservative society.Footnote 3 The Committee has always inspired different, often conflicting, feelings in Saudi society. While many have supported the morality police, others saw their old privileges as problematic.Footnote 4 Representations of and attitudes toward the Committee have been reflected widely in Saudi fiction in a multitude of works. However, research on the contextualization of the morality police in Saudi literature is often overlooked by literary critics. This research attempts to show how Saudi literature offers representations of the morality police that can allow for a more profound insight into their role and its many implications. While this study considers select literary works to showcase fictional depictions of the Committee, the focus will be limited to three Saudi novels spanning 2005–09: Abdo Khal’s Immorality (2005), Samar Almogren’s Women of Vice (2008), and Yousef Al-Mohaimeed’s Where Pigeons Don’t Fly (2009/2014). The three novels chosen all feature compelling representations of the Committee with prevailing narrative and character templates and vivid graphic depictions. While they differ in setting, the three novels contrast hugely in theme. This research argues that while these novels are cultural pieces that give extensive depictions of the Committee and are effectively centered on a regional issue, the manifestations offered are still global in scale and extent: violence, power, control, silencing, resistance, and the trauma of everyday life. Thus, given space limitations, this research argues that many other texts lend themselves to similar treatments and are worthy of scholarly attention.

To study these representations, this research considers historians’ views of the Committee. The historical context weighs heavily in how we understand the formation of these narratives. The historical setting of the author is seen by New Historicists as an imperative starting point to interpret a literary text. New Historicism, coined by Stephen Jay Greenblatt, an American literary critic and theorist, investigates the “mutual permeability of the literary and the historical” (Greenblatt, 2005).Footnote 5 Greenblatt argues that “works of art, however intensely marked by the creative intelligence and private obsessions of individuals, are the products of collective negotiations and exchange” (Greenblatt, 1988). New Historicists argue that if there is a historical event in the text, then the text’s interpretation must relate to history. Anton Kaes explains the New Historicist approach further:

“A critical method that perceives the literary text as a communal product rather than the expression of an author’s intention; that disputes the autonomy (and isolation) of the work of art and reconnects it to its cultural context; that scrutinizes artistic production as social intervention; that consistently crosses disciplinary boundaries; that draws on recent theoretical work, and nevertheless seeks historical and textual specificity (1989).”

Kaes believes that literature has a historical base and literary works are influenced by the social and cultural spheres that shape the text. Thus, the understanding of literature is bound to accounts of culture and society because a literary work, as New Historicism argues, is not a product of a single consciousness, but is, rather, an account of history. Therefore, New Historicism defies the idea that texts have fixed meanings (Carroll, 1998; Gallagher & Greenblatt, 2000). This being the case, the selected novels are an attempt to revalidate the views of New Historicists about literature. The representations of the Committee cannot escape the cultural or historical contexts that led to their formations.Footnote 6

Moreover, influenced substantially by the ideas of Michel Foucault (1926–1984), New Historicism focuses on issues of power, complicity, exploitation, and oppression. Foucault sees power as being “everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (1976). The omnipresence of power means one needs to look in all directions rather than tracing it to the top of the socioeconomic and political structure. Inspired by Foucauldian thought, Greenblatt argues that the pervasiveness of power occurs when any subversiveness, any attempt to change a political structure, is undermined and contained (1981). Hence, within the tenets of New Historicism, the examination of a literary text encapsulates reading subversive and containment activities found in the narratives.

There are many fictional depictions of the Committee in Saudi fiction that are negative in nature. While many novels draw attention to encounters with the Committee, other works do not show them; they are only referred to. For example, Turki Al-Hamad’s Wounds of Memories (2002) situates the Committee as a feared force, like others, but what is interesting is the novel’s presentation of a female character who stands against the Committee’s intervention: “Many times the Committee has stopped her but she stood against them fiercely, so they let her go,” Al-Hamad writes (2002). Hani Naqshabandi’s Embezzlement (2007) has a different take on the Committee, as it exhibits some degree of contempt. The female protagonist’s Asian chauffeur is arrested by the Committee due to non-attendance at prayer. Naqshabandi writes: “while he was waiting for her at the mall, a member of the Committee hit him with a stick, as well as hitting several other Asians with hysterical screams calling them to the mosque … he told them that he was waiting for his boss, and I wish he had not done so. They dragged him by the neck to the Committee’s detention center” (2007). The depiction is an intense representation of the Committee patrolling the streets, eliciting terror, and physically attacking people. Another example is The Swing (2010) by Badriyah Albeshr, which refers to the Committee as an enforcer of strict segregation of the sexes—a policy that leads a couple to dine at a restaurant in the Diplomatic Quarter, where embassies and high officials are based, because it is “away from the attacks of the Committee” (2010). In a similar vein, in Monther Alkabbani’s One Wife Is Not Enough, One Husband Is A Lot (2018), the protagonist meets his girlfriend in London without “the fear of being caught by the Committee” (2018). In Riyadh, he meets his girlfriend in the Diplomatic Quarter. Characters pursuing romantic relationships are haunted by the power of the Committee. The writers do not show acceptance of the Committee as a monitor of morality but rather dismiss their prerogative.

These novels and others reveal, as scholar Emad Abdullah notes, “the secrets of the society” and Saudi novelists utilize their works “to expose the unspoken in society” (2021). Interestingly, strict segregation of the sexes has been fictionalized in Saudi literature in many works but the appropriations of the Committee that are woven into these narratives go unnoticed by literary critics. One possible reason for this oversight could be the preference to refrain from approaching content that has already sparked controversy due to its inflammatory position on religious practices. Such novels cannot escape public criticism. Writing about The Swing, Aliaa Alamri notes, “the more the novel’s topics were freed from social taboos, the more it was subjected to criticism and attack from its local public space, as the novel became one of the most controversial and criticized topics” (2017). Saudi writers attempt in their works to defy the concept of holiness and inherited morals. Laila M. Al-Sharqi notes that Saudi writers “have in the last two decades been accused of crossing social and political boundaries by focusing boldly on momentous social and cultural issues” (2017). Thus, it is natural for Saudi writers to have scenes in which men and women try to evade the Committee’s authority and see it as an impediment to social and economic stability. These works interconnect as they navigate these issues. Researcher Zuhair Al-Amri states that “one form of intertextuality is the repetition of privacy scenes between unrelated men and women in many Saudi novels” (2015). The Saudi novel was able to launch bold novelistic content after the Second Gulf War, due to the openness of the Saudi cultural scene at that time and the influence over it of the rapidly globalizing media and information space, which was difficult to subject to censorship. At a later stage, many novelists benefited from the internet and cultural forums in passing on and publishing their novels that were banned from circulation in Saudi society. This confidence increased after 9/11, when the topics of religious extremism and terrorism became prominent in the writing of novels (Aljam’an, 2013; Alamri 2017). Such thematic boldness has encouraged many writers to talk about other taboos in order to present a realistic picture of contemporary Saudi society that clashes with and undermines the idea of the “ideal” Saudi society promoted by the prevailing conservative culture (Alajmi, 2008). The reality is that while there is a multitude of works where authors navigate taboo subjects—especially religious practices—sufficient scholarly attention to the diverse ways in which morality police and Arabic literature merge is absent. This research aims to fill this gap and broaden the scope in which researchers can understand the intersection of religion, policing—religious or secular—and literature.

Immorality

An important novel that casts a critical eye on the Committee is Immorality (2005) by Abdo Khal. The novel revolves around Jalila, a poor woman who falls in love with a poor man, Mahmood, with whom she has a secret relationship. Jalila is caught by the Committee and eventually murdered by her family for dishonoring the family. The narrative situates the Committee in a context that makes clear its responsibility for Jalila’s death. Khal writes, “The Committee man was not wise … when he caught them [Jalila and Mahmood] he wanted nothing but to have Mahmood jailed and Jalila escorted by her family. After that, her reputation was in the mud” (2005). Saudi critic Hasan Alnemi believes the novel’s discourse uses women as a point of attraction between the morality establishment and society in general, with the dominance of the morality establishment’s discourse, which governs the behavior of individuals with the motive of preserving public morals, leading to Jalila’s ordeal and death (2012). Khal offers a detailed description of the arrest and portrays the Committee members as aggressors. The Committee stops Mahmood’s car and heavy-handedly pulls out Mahmood to investigate. Here Khal portrays a technique used by the Committee to see if a couple is related: when Mahmood is asked in isolation about who was with him in the car, his answer, “my sister,” contradicts Jalila’s answer, “my husband,” which gives the Committee, as Khal writes, “a victory smile” (2005). The narrative displays violent behavior by Committee members. They physically and verbally attack Mahmood during his interrogation: “The Committee man jumped to punch him again in the face and uttered ‘Now you want to marry, son of bitch’” (2005). In Immorality, Khal devotes several passages to vivid descriptions of assault and vulgarity and does not ignore the harsh consequences of the arrest on Jalila. Her life appears in danger the moment she is released from the Committee’s building.

Immorality is murky and depressing. Khal weaves his story around death. Albalawi writes, “the constant presence of death is seen everywhere in the novel” (2023). Thus, it is not surprising to read of Jalila’s demise. Jalila’s father kills her and admits, “I am not alone. The Committee was my accomplice in this crime” (2005). This bald statement is interesting, as the story holds the Committee accountable for the crime. The result of Jalila’s death seems to be a greater presence of her actions, which are a rebellion against the entity of the morality establishment—an establishment that is strong in its ability to isolate, monitor, and follow up (Alnemi, 2012). The novel raises the question of social and morality responsibility for Jalila’s disappearance, and even reaches the point of questioning the morality institution and its representative, the Committee. The questioning causes a clash, as the novel’s discourse insists on the responsibility of the morality elite for Jalila’s death, while the institution denies any responsibility. The arrest seems like a death warrant because Jalila “dragged her family’s name through the mud when she was caught,” Khal writes (2005). It should be noted that Khal does not limit the novel’s representation of the Committee to the arrest. It is even involved with Jalila’s behavior after her release. Committee members follow up to ensure she has redeemed her sins and summon her father to sign a pledge not to repeat any wrongdoing.

The most interesting point in Immorality is the discussion between the narrator and Ayman about the role of the Committee in society. Both are general (non-religious) police officers who are put in charge of Jalila’s case. Khal writes:

When he checked Jalila’s file, Ayman yelled, “The Committee again!” …

  • This girl is a victim of the abuse and arbitrariness of Islah,Footnote 7 in a society that never forgives, particularly when it comes to women’s honor … when she was caught, she had no other option to escape her bad reputation but to close in on herself or become a prostitute …. The Committee is a country inside a country. If its power is not limited, we will find ourselves in a war between these two countries, and we will be the victims of this war.

  • The Committee is carrying out important reform efforts. I see that you are biased against the Committee.

  • Biased? I can show you many cases when they could have just provided advice rather than being criminals.

  • No! No! This is clear bias. Without them, society will lose its morality. (2005)

The conversation is significant because Khal brings two contrasting voices into the dialog about the role of the Committee, an aspect that is absent in When Pigeons Don’t Fly. These voices are important because they come from authority figures. While Ayman attacks the unchecked power of the Committee, the narrator defends it and rationalizes its purpose and necessity. Khal devotes several passages to this dialog to question the Committee’s validity. Ayman believes that the Committee cannot advise and guide society to become better people because its members are humans subject to weaknesses. Moreover, the power they have conflicts with the government’s power, which guarantees individual freedom. The discussion does not reach an agreement but serves to highlight how the two sides of society see the Committee. The dialog is used to instill a sense of the panic and fear of the authority represented by the head of the Committee center, who does not understand his job responsibility in the way Ayman describes it. However, the portrayal comes from one party, as Majdi Al-khawaji asserts, and it is not possible for him to monopolize the truth for his side unless the other party is fully heard (2010). The image is not indicative of real-life heads of the Committee’s centers, Al-khawaji adds, and it contains a lot of exaggeration, mockery, and slander, which takes it away from reality that serves the public interest (2010).

Khal clearly proceeds to show the reader how this morality body can infiltrate other government bodies and influence decisions that work for their benefit. The Committee has Ayman taken off Jalila’s case because he once stood against its authority. The incident is worth particular attention because it shows that the Committee’s power is not limited to ordinary individuals. The Committee catch an unrelated, unmarried couple and bring them to the police station. Ayman refuses to incarcerate them because “jailing them would create more damage,” as Ayman informs the head of the Committee branch that handles the case in a lengthy phone conversation (2005). Ayman’s attitude is met with resentment: “You are a law enforcer, not judiciary. You need to mind your business and do your job,” the head yells (2005). Ayman relies on a moderate interpretation of Islamic law to defend his argument, but he fails to convince the Committee, so he shoots back: “you insert yourselves into everything and turn it into immorality and crime. By doing this, you are turning the country into a hotbed for committing evil. You are not making people live normally. You cannot wipe sin off the earth. Sin is the other side of the scale” (2005). Ayman’s criticism is not taken kindly, as the head threatens: “This will get you into something you don’t like. … It seems that you are new at this and do not know our strength. … People like you should be punished and not left in positions that disrupt God’s law” (2005). The narrative shows that the Committee can exhibit a radical shift in tone if met with any kind of opposition. Ayman’s voice represents a group that calls for the abolition of the Committee—a group that is seen by the Committee as a dangerous, secular section of society that fights Islam and Muslims, and that must be punished.

The Committee is a constant force in Immorality. It appears throughout the narrative; it detains, questions, and summons parents, but most importantly, its members interact with members of other government bodies to influence decisions. Khal attempts to show the dominance of the Committee in society through the depiction of numerous experiences with it and the fates of those who show disobedience. Ayman is fired for obstructing the enforcement of Islamic law. The Committee files an official complaint that results in his termination. “You should thank God it ended in a termination and not a prosecution,” Ayman’s superior tells him (2005). Ayman does not show any kind of regret for candidly spelling out his resentment of the Committee’s actions. He believes that such actions damage, rather than fix, undesirable behaviors and that the damage is more severe for women. “Putting a woman in jail would make her unwanted when she gets out,” as he puts it, because “her life and reputation would be completely ruined” (2005). Ayman pleads, “Jailing a woman would have a negative impact on her family, her in-laws; many people would be harmed, even her children when they grow up, as their mother’s bad image will follow them” (2005). Ayman believes in people’s right to live their lives the way they want without any interference. Khal gives a few passages in Immorality to talk about Ayman’s belief system and how this system is perceived by the Committee. Clearly, any opposition—even using a more tolerant interpretation of Islamic law—is not welcome. Those who advocate for people’s freedom are often labeled secular, liberal, Americanized, or masonic, all terms mentioned in Immorality. Ayman believes he helped this woman: “I do not regret it. I saved this woman from disgrace, and I wish I could have done the same with many others” (2005). The employment of the concept of saving in this context is interesting. Both parties believe their actions to be a form of saving: the Committee is saving the woman by enforcing Islamic moral law, while Ayman is saving her by preventing a family shame that could lead to serious consequences.

Ayman is a critical character that Khal utilizes to explore the Committee. While it appears through its agents, who attempt to monitor social behaviors and intervene when certain behavior is deemed inappropriate, Ayman believes that they should be deprived of all their prerogatives and, consequently, that the Committee should be abolished. He asks the narrator, “Look at other societies! Have they lost their morals because they don’t have morality police?” (2005). Khal, through the voice of Ayman, not only scrutinizes the spheres of the Committee’s authority and its impact in vital aspects of Saudi public life, but also infuses the culture of peace and tolerance. In one of the most critical passages in the novel, Khal highlights the level of tolerance that the Committee should abide by:

“Running after people to believe is against the Divine Will. God made faith an optional right. “Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve.”Footnote 8 God gave them the right to choose. Faith is a private right, not a general right. You do not have the right to force someone to be a believer. This is at the level of faith, let alone at the level of living life, as it is more important than freedom and choice (2005).”

These words signify religious harmony that requires no authority to dictate moral behaviors to seek Islamic purity. However, as critic Omar Basarih notes, society in Immorality is divided into hierarchical classes in terms of weakness and strength (2017). The characters here are divided into two sections, Basarih further explains: two strong characters, the head of the Committee and Ayman, and two weak characters, Mahmood and Jalila (2017). Ayman ends his conversation with the head of the Committee with a sense of power. Yet, as Khal shows, it is a momentary power, because he soon becomes a victim at the end of the story when he is fired from his job. Thus, the strongest in the narrative becomes the Committee, and the number of victims increases to three: the man, the woman, and the officer.

Women of Vice

Women of Vice has gained notoriety for two reasons: its boldness in describing the affair between the narrator and her lover, an illegitimate relationship that is not accepted by their strict society, and its detailed critique of the Committee and its brutal treatment, specifically of women.Footnote 9 Almogren does not utilize the Committee in a particular context. The Committee has a significant function here. Not only does it direct the narration and further the dramatic action, but it also designs the protagonist’s plight and decides her fate. In doing so, Almogren exposes the complexity of the issue. The novel revolves around the narrator Sara, a Saudi woman who has been trying for eight years to get a divorce, without success. During this time and while still in her bitter marriage, Sara has an internet relationship with her friend’s ex-lover, Raeef, who lives in London. Sara falls in love with him and travels to meet him. There, they spend ten days engaging in physical intimacy. Eventually, Sara returns to Riyadh; after some time, Raeef also returns, and they try to meet in a restaurant, but they are caught by the Committee, leading to their imprisonment. Four years later, Sara is released and learns that Raeef was only imprisoned for three months. She seeks work but finds nothing but a job serving coffee at weddings. The novel ends on an ironic revelation: the groom at the first wedding she serves is Raeef.

The narrator travels to London to escape the power of the Committee. She tells the reader, “His face before me … free in the open air of London, far from the fortresses of Riyadh and the screams of devils [the Committee] around us that scorn our humanity” (2008). The narrator explains that such meetings could not happen given the vigilance of the Committee: “In the markets, the shouts of the men from the Committee at women are followed immediately by quickened steps, confusion, fear, and hiding behind a column, a wall, or inside a shop. With her weakness, she tries to rid herself of its power, who can do to her whatever it pleases” (2008). Sara is aware of the power and restrictions the Committee places on restaurants, even recruiting their employees to report any violations. Her Jordanian friend, a marketing manager at a hotel in Riyadh, explains what happens if the staff do not report such violations. “The issue is bigger than that … if a month passes without receiving a report from us, they come to the hotel, grab a few employees, throw them in the back of a GMC, and keep them for a few nights” (2008). The lure of meeting her lover leads Sara to ignore this obvious warning. Sara is caught between conventional structures and the possibility of free will and choice. She goes to meet the skeptical Raeef in a local restaurant. “Don’t forget we are in Riyadh, not London,” he worries (2008). However, Sara assures him of the safety of the place and ultimately chooses to defy the Committee, a decision that alters the course of her life in a humiliating way.

Women of Vice gives a striking account of how the Committee fiercely storms the restaurant and arrests them. Sara narrates vividly:

“I screamed, hoping people would come to our aid, but he [a member of the Committee] struck my face with his hand so hard I felt as if I had lost my sight. Then they dragged me toward a small limousine as I screamed, calling out: “Raeef, don’t leave me, I’m scared!” The car that took him away drove off. I sat on the ground, resisting their force, so the man began dragging me along the asphalt until I saw my blood trailing on it (2008).”

Raeef tries to resist arrest: “You have no right to treat me this way. I haven’t committed a crime … If you suspect me of any crime, you can summon me formally, but I cannot accept this kind of treatment” (2008). Raeef’s opposition is, however, met by force: “four bearded men, along with a fifth in a military uniform, restrained him and dragged him away,” Sara narrates (2008). As can be inferred from this incident, the novel pays much attention to the abuses of the Committee, and the narrative is suffused with graphic depictions of these abuses. This not a solitary incident in Women of Vice. Almogren lubricates the narrative with the use of obscenity, coercion to sign false confessions, and instances of violence. One example is Sara’s recounting of being in custody. She says, “He threw me into the small car and held the door shut, afraid I might escape while it was moving. Then he signaled to his colleague, who got into the front seat, while the other sat beside me in the back and began beating me all over my body throughout the ride. My head received the worst of it until I lost consciousness” (2008). Another notable example, which probably surpasses any other, is when Sara is beaten because she refuses to sign a false confession. The narrator vividly describes the scene: “A wooden stick with a broad head and a thin handle, wrapped in black tape, greeted me in the most thorough way—head to head. Blow after blow rained down on my head. He wanted to enjoy it with his own hand, sometimes hitting me with the stick, other times with his hand, until blood covered my face” (2008). Moreover, the factor which seems particularly interesting here is the offensive language used in Women of Vice by members of the Committee. Examples are: “Get in front of me, you shameless woman!”; “Walk in front of me, you immoral one!”; “May God curse you and curse women like you, you wicked woman” (2008).

This exposure of the Committee does not end with Sara’s arrest. In prison, Sara narrates several stories of women who have been victims of the Committee. Their lives are changed forever because they have been accused of moral crimes and abandoned by their families due to the social stigma attached to them. Sara’s incident with the Committee is not the sole focus of the narrative. Sara redirects the reader to other voices, so the rendition of the Committee has a far greater reach than merely showing one incident. This choice of spicing up the narrative with the voices of other victims is the author’s attempt, as critic Mohammed Deebo notes, “to expose the largest religious institution that controls the lives of Saudi men and women by exposing the inner worlds of the Commission and the way it arrests ‘suspicious and immoral women’” (2008). The varied depiction is what makes Women of Vice bold, because through this text, as researcher Sami Aljama’n states, “the position of the Saudi women’s novel on the Commission is no longer hidden but has emerged on the surface with direct and opposing statements” (2013). Sara dwells on her fate through recollections of the events that have led to her current state and is made painfully aware of how her failure to resist her infatuation with Raeef and comply with social structures has affected her life. Sara finds a source of solace in the prisoners’ stories and a remedy for coping with her present status. Sara is released from prison, aware that she is now a social outcast. She fails to find work even though she has a college degree. Sara then desperately plunges into sermonizing reflections about her life. In designing the narrative, Almogren situates the Committee as the most powerful force in Women of Vice. The power is undeniable, and the author illustrates where it lies in elaborate detail.

Where Pigeons Don’t Fly

Yousef Al-Mohaimeed’s Where Pigeons Don’t Fly (2009/2014) is a problematic novel that raised many questions because of its boldness in dealing with certain aspects of Saudi society.Footnote 10 The novel tells the life story of Fahd Al-Safeelawi in Saudi Arabia before he decides to flee the country indefinitely in search of personal freedom.Footnote 11Where Pigeons Don’t Fly opens with Fahd traveling in a train from London to the English coastal town of Great Yarmouth. En route, Fahd recalls memories of growing up in Riyadh—vivid renderings of cultural and religious norms in a segregated society. His amorous adventures with several women were set in shopping centers, cafes, and rented rooms in constant fear of being caught by the morality police. In one of his contemplations, Fahd revisits the incident when he and divorcée lover Tarfah were detained by the Committee for drinking coffee in public while unmarried. Al-Mohaimeed packs the scene with suspense as he describes the events leading to the detention. Fahd and Tarfah go to Starbucks, hoping they can have a coffee away from the eyes of the Committee. The couple is consumed by fear and anxiety at being caught in the act by the heavily policed Committee. Fahd is skeptical before entering Starbucks, worrying about the intrusive eyes of the Committee, but his hesitation is overshadowed by Tarfah’s insistence on going in. The sheikh begins questioning the helpless Fahd to see if he has female company. To avoid trouble, Fahd lies and says he is with his wife. The lie does not land on the highly unsympathetic sheikh, who arrests them both.

Al-Mohaimeed concentrates on Fahd’s behavior and provides some graphic context with tragic ends for what happens when an arrested person tries to escape. Fahd’s monologue is interesting because it sets the tone for the power of the Committee and the fear it imposes on young people who attempt to enjoy romance. Al-Mohaimeed writes:

“Fahd thought of all the stories he had read in the papers of people trying to make a run for it. A man in his forties tried to sneak out of a fourth floor window and was smashed to pieces when he fell … a young man fled with his girl and driving wildly and collided with a reinforced concrete barriers and died … two men and their female companions drove the wrong way down the road in a bid to escape, hit an oncoming vehicle and all four died … a story from Tabuk, another from Sharqiyah, a third from Ha’il and now … This times the papers would write of a young woman from Starbucks who committed suicide by throwing herself into the roaring torrent of King Abdullah Road. (2014)”

This incident is important because Al-Mohaimeed does not ignore the repugnant facets of the ever-vigilant Committee. It is not a mere depiction of a terrifying authority. First, it can exercise raids in public places in search of any intimacy between unrelated men and women. Second, escape is ineffective and can be lethal. Third, the event is not unique. Similar events occur in various parts of the country. Finally, the Committee’s power is absolute and unquestioned. It can inspect, interrogate, chase, and detain. Moreover, the portrayal of the Committee is not limited to this incident: it is featured in many parts of the novel as its members patrol the streets looking for any immoral doings. Al-Mohaimeed paints them as terrifying and intimidating, black-bearded men who attempt to enforce prohibitive measures. Some critics believe that Where Pigeons Don’t Fly “conveys reality in its entirety without exaggeration” (Als’arani, 2019). The writer deals with the issue of the Committee and the control it exerts on society in a repugnant yet direct manner. The narrative does not leave out any details to show how the Committee fills Fahd with dread. For example, “the sheikh encircles Fahd’s wrist with an iron grip,” Al-Mohaimeed writes, when he is escorted to their patrol car. (2014). However, others view the depiction of this incident as “stereotypical, boring … with many details filled in and ineffective for the novel” (Als’arani, 2019). But situating this incident, with these intense details, very early in the novel is significant because Al-Mohaimeed wants to show that the presence of religiosity in the novel is not secondary, but rather an active and influential element in the construction of the narrative. It is evident that the event of this day is what drove Fahd to leave the country. Scholar Nahrain Al-Mousawi notes that “the suffocating conditions under which people try to lead their lives drive Fahd out, so he certainly can’t miss it” (2015).

Al-Mohaimeed draws Fahd as a liberal young man with an inclination for romance under the constraints of his society. He can neither adapt to the prohibitive conditions nor defy their enforcers, so he chooses to peacefully leave. Michael Orthoferone notes that “one can’t really expect too much from Fahd, and admirably Al-Mohaimeed doesn’t try to make him any sort of hero” and “[Fahd] certainly has no ambitions to try to affect any change in even the smallest circle around him” (2015). Most of the narratives circle around Fahd’s memories in Saudi Arabia. The memories he carried of the Committee seem inevitable and traumatizing. Fahd is still “possessed by fear, a terror of the sheikhs,” Al-Mohaimeed writes, and at night has visions of “fat men with long black beards … advancing with sharpened lances with which they pierced his pillow and riddled it with holes, the white feathers flying out until he couldn’t breathe” (2014). Such nightmares wake Fahd in terror.

Al-Mohaimeed gives more details about the power of the Committee. They can search detainees’ personal belongings and use any evidence they can find to file charges. Fahd is asked to take out everything in his pockets including his wallet and phone: “Shit, he thought to himself. What would he do if they opened the phone and searched through the names, the messages, the swapped pictures, the Bluetooth records, the …? Why hadn’t he asked to go to the bathroom in the coffee shop and chucked it down the lavatory?” (2014). Fahd does not show any kind of resistance. The factor that seems significant here is the public’s reaction to the happenings. While Al-Mohaimeed’s protagonist submits to the system and does not attack or debate its function, the portrayal of the Committee appears exculpatory rather than accusatory. Drivers observe the scene and say nothing. This applies even more so to Starbucks customers, who turn to the window to watch Fahd’s arrest, or as Al-Mohaimeed describes it, “to enjoy the show as though they were watching some drama from the natural world on the Discovery Channel. The lioness stalks her unsuspecting prey through the bush, moving her paws very slowly so as not to make the grass rattle, and thus did the sheik move his paws, quiet and assured, as he guided his quarry to the ambush” (2014). The analogy here is interesting. People are prepared for the inevitable aftermath of Fahd’s arrest that Al-Mohaimeed eagerly portrays in a predatory manner. As can be inferred from this passage, Fahd is tricked into getting into the Committee’s car: “Don’t be worried. Come along with me. Just a few simple procedures and you can go on your way with the protection of God,” a member of the Committee assures Fahd (2014). What appears to Fahd as leniency is actually an ambush to seize him before he escapes the scene.

The novel gives much weight to Fahd’s detention but does not leave aside Tarfah, who has been waiting in the family section during Fahd’s interrogation. When caught, she enters a state of shock, pleading and weeping, trying to understand the circumstances. Al-Mohaimeed does not reveal much when she is caught, but her experience at the Committee’s government office later seems worthy of particular attention. Tarfah is worried that she will be taken to a women’s shelter.Footnote 12 Preliminary investigation largely takes place inside the office, and first offenders are usually released in their father’s presence. Al-Mohaimeed narrates, “This is a pledge. Place your thumbprint here, promising not to commit any more offenses against the laws, and we will keep it safe with us, in complete confidentiality. We might need it again if, as I mentioned, you engage in any immoral act a second time” (2014). This passage speaks more about the procedures carried out when one is detained. Tarfah will not be prosecuted, but her offense is not dismissed but rather kept on record in case of future transgression. The sheikh warns her that there will be no leniency if she is caught again. Another important passage about the events at the office involves an extreme scene. Tarfah becomes a victim of sexual harassment. When she is given the pledge to sign, a member of the Committee touches her inappropriately and utters “So, what’s fine for him is forbidden for me?” (2014). Al-Mohaimeed’s characters appear to be in conflict with multiple and unequal forces, such as society, morality, authority, and customs. However, the Committee as a morality authority is represented, as Faisal Alsarhan argues, “in an overbearing, condescending, extremist and repulsive manner” (2018). Embedding abuse in this context has far greater potential than portraying the unchecked power of the Committee. Where Pigeons Don’t Fly seems to reveal the hypocrisy of the system, one that acts as a spiritual guide, promoting decency and morality and preventing vice. Tarfah’s comment not only preaches but also condemns the Committee member’s distasteful behavior.

Another arresting scene in Where Pigeons Don’t Fly is the trauma caused by this experience. Because her father is dead, Tarfah’s mother and younger brother, Ayman, are present to pick her up. The mother brings Ayman, the more tolerant of Tarfah’s brothers, “for fear that he [Abdullah, her older brother] might lose his temper and exact revenge on his sister” (2014).Footnote 13 Tarfah’s pain and suffering emerge when the Committee requests the presence of Abdullah, her legal guardian:

“Damn! It was as though they were arranging Tarfah’s death, quite blithely and in cold blood. He mother imagined Abdullah coming with a killer’s calm taking her away—forgiving, understanding, affectionate—without mentioning the subject, as though he didn’t care … On the way, he would drive her to dark parking lot in the basement of some building, butcher her with a huge, razor-sharp knife and put her body into a black bag, which he’d heave on his shoulder and throw into a large yellow skip. (2014)”

The vision is disturbing but necessary for the narrative to uphold a traditional view of potential consequences for women based on past events. Al-Mohaimeed ignores the consequences of arrest for Fahd and chooses to focus the reader’s attention on Tarfah’s experience to signal how it can have greater bearing for women. Tarfah is traumatized, as are her concerned mother and disappointed brother. While the mother struggles to ensure Abdullah remains unaware, Ayman reveals great discontent. “This is the end of my trust in you, Tarfah! I’m the only one who respects you and does what you ask, and now you put me in a situation like this” (2014). Ayman’s reaction causes Tarfah to reconstruct the past. “I swear I’ll only leave the house to go to my grave,” she vows (2014).

The discussion of Where Pigeons Don’t Fly has uncovered various templates that Al-Mohaimeed utilizes to show his readers his fictional depiction of the Committee. First, the narrative characterizes the Committee in an oppressive tenor. It appears as a dominant and self-regulating authority with no liability for its actions. The novel offers several episodes to show the power the Committee exercises. Second, the text is not laden with preaching that justifies the Committee’s purpose but rather strives to expose dishonesty and hypocrisy through the action of one of its members. Finally, while lacking substantive oversight, the consequences, particularly on women, are traumatizing. Al-Mohaimeed, as Al-Mousawi asserts, “reviews the various repressive social conditions under which people live in Saudi Arabia” (2015), yet the treatment of the Committee focuses on the complexity of the issue rather than exploring its social constraints.

Conclusion

The phrase “morality police,” or the Committee as I have called them in this research, is generally used to mean a government body that oversees moral norms in society and more importantly, corrects immoral behaviors. This involves patrolling the streets to regulate roles and relationships. The conceptualization of the morality police in literature around the world is often overlooked. Critics have paid little attention to the diverse ways in which morality policing entities are entangled with literature. This invites two further important ideas for literary treatments: how literature examines moral practices that are employed in secular countries by non-religious police and how individual or group entities that exercise surveillance and other responsible roles are reflected in literature. This research has attempted to stress the merit of analyzing the intersection of morality police and literature through the analysis of Saudi fiction. Saudi writers have shown literary interest in the representations of the Committee and its power, as exhibited in a great number of works, but more importantly in the select three works that encapsulate different shades of the Committee. This research has borrowed the lenses of New Historicism to examine the discussed narratives. The premise of New Historicism is that texts must be read with reference to their cultural and historical contexts. The historical events and the texts are of equal importance in the eyes of New Historicism. This discussion of Immorality, Women of Vice, and Where Pigeons Don’t Fly has focused on the historical and cultural contexts from which the morality police emerged. The fictional representations of the Committee not only expose historical facts but also disclose the social conventions of the period in which these works were written. The three novels offer a wider perspective on gender, social relations, and power. The exercise of power is not centralized—it is demonstrated in the fabric of daily life as reflected in the personal experiences of the characters.

The interaction of discourses and the negotiating exchanges of powers in these narratives, from a New Historicist perspective, are the bases for understanding the human experience. A single discourse cannot explain the complex issue of the morality police. The questions of traditions, gender relations, social status, and power relations that have a critical role in understanding these stories are well dispersed through the narratives. The research has shown that these discourses yield power that circulates to and from all social levels as well as subversion and containment.

The subversion in these stories is evident in the way the characters challenge the Committee and the dominant cultural and social norms. Not only have these narratives attempted to expose the restrictions imposed on gender relations and oppressive aspects of prevailing values in society, but they have also designed characters that are not useless and submissive to these ideological forces. The Committee, being the dominant group, has utilized its power to contain the characters, supervising their actions and thus maintaining the status quo. Moreover, the narratives have shown that the Committee’s containment also operates through recruiting helpless employees to report any violations of codes of conduct, an effective strategy to neutralize any subversion. In the end, the Committee maintains its power by curbing any challenge, resistance, or confrontation.

Still, this is not to claim that the subject has been exhaustively discussed. Though there exists a limited number of active morality police forces around the globe, there are still many Islamic nations whose regular police enforce morality norms, and thus could inspire further investigations.Footnote 14 Additionally, while this research focuses on Saudi Arabia, and while similar literary treatments can be applied to other Muslim nations that enforce Islamic moral codes, this study has implications for other researchers. It proposes a broader utilization of literary texts that include morality belief systems in cultural studies, history, social studies, political science, and other areas that involve the understanding of morality enforcers. It is true that moral belief systems are not fostered in Western legal structures today, but other entities or agencies function more similarly to traditional Western enforcement agencies, and this fact can open up the possibility of selecting literary works that include similar representations. Finally, even if the Saudi morality police are defanged, the conceptualization of moral elements and moral coercion in Saudi fiction can be further delved into to understand how writers challenge or attest perceptions of other elements such as gender, race, behavior, class, and sexuality.