The Hajj Tragedy, Victim Blaming and the Gospel of the Kingdom

Of the many tragedies our world has suffered in 2015, the death of over 700 pilgrims at the annual Hajj in Saudi Arabia must be one of the most pitiful. The idea of hundreds of devout worshippers, having saved their hard-earned money to pay for this once-in-a-lifetime event, being crushed to death at a time which should have been at the pinnacle of their religious faith journey, is a true tragedy.

  

Along with the death of thousands of migrants in the Mediterranean this summer, and the desperate experience of those affected by the Ebola outbreak in recent years in west Africa, the Hajj calamity is a human tragedy on a grand scale.

With tragedies come recriminations. Reports suggest that some Hajj pilgrims are blaming the Saudi police and authorities for the stampede in Mina. Saudi spokesmen, meanwhile, are reported as blaming African pilgrims for not following instructions. Iran is blaming the Saudi Royal Family.  

When faced with a tragedy in his own lifetime, the mainstream view confronting Jesus of Nazareth appeared to be that the victims themselves were to blame for what happened.  Jesus responded to this popular assumption by analysing the self-righteous motives of his contemporaries who were not directly affected by the tragedy, and turned their complacency upon themselves by warning them of their own impending doom. 

"Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:4)

Although fewer in number, the victims of the Siloam rower collapse were also the objects of criticism by the self-righteous of Jesus' day. The world-view of the critics is not difficult to detect: a high view of God's sovereignty, meaning that all that happens does so ultimately by the permissive or directive will of God, and a covenant theology which saw unfaithfulness to God resulting in judgement, combined to interpret the death of these 18 as the result of their morally dubious state.

Victim blaming today seeps through much of the analysis of contemporary human tragedies. It is implicit in the European Union's decision in 2014 to not support Italy's Mare Nostrum operation, rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean. The claim was that such a humanitarian initiative would act as a "pull factor" in emboldening migrants to board unseaworthy vessels and attempt the perilous crossing from the north African coat to Italy or Malta.  Victim blaming was present in the Sun newspaper's coverage of the Hillsborough tragedy - an editorial decision for which it has publicly apologised. 

The focus of Jesus' few words on this Siloam tragedy is not on explaining "the problem of evil" in abstract, philosophical terms. Nor does he align himself with those who cast aspersions upon the victims. Instead, he turns the tables and points to those of us who would pass judgement:

"Unless you repent, you too will all perish."

It is highly unlikely that the words of Jesus were intended to predict further tower collapses or similar calamities. Rather, his focus is on something much worse.

To "perish", in its New Testament usage , often means to come under the judgement of God - in this age and the one to come. The apostle Paul, for instance, is quite willing to distinguish between "those who are perishing" and "us who are being saved." (1 Corinthians 1:19) and elsewhere describes those who "perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:10)

Evidently, the Son of God saw it as imperative that people "repent" of sinful patterns of thought, attitude and action. This theme of repentance is present, implicitly or explicitly, throughout the gospels and other New Testament writings.

The tragedies of the Hajj, of tsunamis and of plagues are not to become opportunities for hard-hearted self-righteousness, but occasions to express sorrow and sympathy with the victims, their families and their communities. They also provide a stark opportunity to examine ourselves by asking some uncomfortable questions: have I repented? Am I to perish?

For those who embark on such a process of self-examination, the words of the gospel truly come as good news:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " (John 3:16-17)

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Islamophobic attacks in France up by 34 pc - predictably

Islamophobic attacks in France up by 34 pc: report | Europe | World Bulletin

As predicted on this blog at the time, the banning of the burka in France has not, as advocates of the ban predicted, ushered in a more tolerant attitude among French citizens by creating a religiously neutral mono-cultural citizenship. The ban appears, rather, to have reinforced islamophobic tendencies as attacks on Islams and their buildings and business have risen by a third in the last twelve months (see link above).

It is interesting to observe how government policies tend to not only establish legal rules, but also contribute to the setting of a cultural mood within a nation, resulting in actions which the legislation itself was not intended to encourage.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

O Brotherhood Where Art Thou?

Image via Wikipedia

Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood?

Binary assumptions that the only options for Egypt are dictatorship or Islamic theocracy are both misguided and dangerous.

Read the rest of the article here...

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'

It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'

Interesting, controversial article on the logic, reasons and solutions to islamophobia.






If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Burka Banning: a Christian Perspective

After an initial appearance in the Belgian legislature (a nation not known for its large number of fully-veiled Muslim women, as far as I was aware), the issue of banning burkas in public has moved to the French parliament and is also now receiving attention among Spanish politicians. It was therefore only a matter of time before the issue would be raised in the British context.

Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering, has provided the opportunity with his pledge to introduce a private member's bill which would ban the Muslim facial veil in public - along with the wearing of full-face balaclavas.

It's worth stating at the outset that the actual issue is over the niqab, the full veil which allows the eyes to be seen. The burka - which hides the eyes behind a mesh - is almost never seen outside of Afghanistan or parts of rural Pakistan.

It seems unlikely that a bill to ban the burka/niqab/balaclava would ever make it to the House of Commons - especially in the light of Immigration Minister Damien Green describing such a ban as "un-British". The issue, however, is one that warrants thoughtful consideration as it touches on a number of important issues of personal freedoms, the role of the state, the equality of women and the place of religion in a modern society.

Advocates tend to cite four main reasons in favour of such a ban:

a) the burka/niqab is a symbol of the oppression of women. Removing it from the public space is an emancipating and empowering act for women

b) the veil hinders communication and, therefore, tends towards segregating the wearer from the wider non-veil wearing society

c) the garment is dangerous to the wearer in certain settings - such as near machinery

d) the garment can be a security risk. Labour MP Stephen Timms was recently stabbed at his constituency offices by a woman wearing a burka-like garment. At least one terror suspect in Britain has attempted to avoid arrest by dressing as a Muslim woman.

There is a fifth reason why some desire such a ban, though it is rarely stated in public debates. This is to limit the perceived spread of Islam in the west by reducing aspects of its visible presence.


Those seeking to apply a Christian perspective to the issue might do well to consider the following factors.

1. A garment similar to the niqab was common among women in the Bible

Especially in the Old Testament, the veil was often worn, for cultural, family and ethical reasons. The matriarch Rebekah clearly wore one as did the "beloved" in the Song of Songs. The story of Tamar reveals that the veil could, as today, be used for deceptive purposes. In Isaiah's day, it appears that veils were part of the essential wardrobe of the fashion-conscious Jerusalem urban elite.


2. The focus needs to be on the specific question of a legal ban

The current debate does not centre on whether the veil (or balaclava) is appropriate or liked, but whether it should be made illegal in public. A wider debate about the meanings inherent in the niqab may well be worth having, but the more limited issue that the current wave of European legislation raises is whether the state should criminalise the wearing of such a garment in public.


3. A simplistic secular, feminist analysis of the issue should be treated with caution

As my friend Steve Smith has pointed out, the current debate often rests on a binary assumption that veil = subjugation, and non-veil = liberty. Clearly, many women in liberal western democracies do have a number of freedoms not always afforded in other parts of the world. Having said this, western women do face significant levels of oppression from men, some legalised.

Writing in the Washington Post, American feminist writer Carol Campbell has noted what she perceives as one such area of oppression:

For many American women, the feminism that once attracted them with its lofty goal of promoting respect for women's dignity has morphed into something antithetical to that dignity: a movement that equates a woman's liberation with her license to kill her unborn child ... and colludes with a sexist culture eager to convince a woman in crisis that dealing with her unplanned pregnancy is her choice and, therefore, her problem.

Indeed, it is a conscious rejection of western liberalism, and, its perceived destructive influence on the family unit, that is currently providing one of the motivations for some women to explore more conservative religious movements. The language of women being "precious" and requiring "protection" in Islam may be repellent to many secular feminists but to some, the security that such a world offers is an attractive option if the alternative appears to be a life of insecure short-term relationships, casual sexual encounters and divorce or abandonment in one's middle years.


4. The bigger question about the nature and role of government should be addressed

Although there has been a minority view among Christians over the centuries that human governments have no genuine authority at all to coerce obedience - Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day and Jacques Ellul are among those often associated with this strand of Christian Anarchism - the vast majority of Christian thinkers and churches, Protestant and Catholic, have accepted the traditional view that the state is a God-given institution with legitimate legislative and punitive powers. For the purpose of this article, I am assuming this majority Christian position on the role of government.

Within this mainstream framework, much attention has been given to Romans chapter 13 where the role of government is stated by the apostle Paul as being to "commend good" and "punish wrongdoing". John Stott once noted that governments of all types tend to perform the latter role much more effectively than they do the former! Nonetheless, this framework suggests that governments do well to consider the specific moral issues involved before criminalising any action.

At this point, a call to ban the burka in public seems to fall short. There is no breaking of a moral code when a woman wears such a garment (as would be the case, for instance, if she were to appear in the high street naked). No harm is being done to another person. There is no victim to be protected. Claims that the woman herself is a victim require too subjective a judgement on the motivations and meanings inherent in such attire to be a valid basis for legislation, in my opinion.

In the absence of such a clear moral issue, our default position should surely be to allow human beings to exercise their own choices and freedoms in public (and private) without interference by the state.


5. We should not abandon informal means of achieving desired outcomes

Our recent political history in the UK has tended to create the assumption that the majority of social issues can be addressed through legislation. This can actually amount to a diminishing of the value of more personal, informal means of effecting positive social change or of resolving difficulties. The general point is to consider carefully whether we want the state to take on the role of clothes monitor when other more effective mechanisms exist.

Jack Straw, for instance, asks veiled women to remove their veils when he meets with them at his constituency surgeries in Blackburn, so that he can better hear and understand what they are seeking to communicate with him. His experience, apparently, is that about half of women comply with this request and half do not.

Philip Hollobone, by contrast, is quoted as saying that he would refuse to meet a woman if she declined such a request. This position seems unnecessarily illiberal and against the spirit of the role of a public servant, whereas Jack Straw's approach seems more reasonable and pragmatic.

Health and safety aspects of robe wearing can (and should in my opinion) be dealt with at the level of the individual organisation or business concerned. There are situations where such attire is unsafe - best practice in hygiene requires a surgeon to prepare for and perform an operation with bare arms, for instance. This does not require legislation. Former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir -Ali, the son of a convert from Islam, has noted that such issues can be dealt with at a decentralised level.


5. We should support those actions which lead to social peace

Although unwavering on key issues, the apostle Paul's approach to life in a multicultural society (the urban Roman Empire) was notably peaceable and accommodating, while always keeping his focus on the furtherance of the Christian message. Although he was not involved in a democratic society, his mindset can be applied to those of us living in one:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God — even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

1 Cor 10:31-33

Elsewhere, Christians are warned against those who have "an unhealthy interest in controversy." Of course there are times when a principled stand needs to be taken on issues of clear right and wrong, such as matters of justice. We must not fall into the trap, however, of assuming that all issues are in this category.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the politicising of the issue of burka wearing tends to inflame inter-communal passions rather than reduce them. France has already had its first "burka rage" incident, for instance when a female lawyer (no less) ripped the veil from a fellow shopper in a department store. Police in Leicestershire are also concerned at a discernible rise in recent months in such physical or verbal attacks on women wearing veils.

In summary, we would do well to highlight and overcome any perceived fears of "the other" that may be behind calls for the banning of the veil and affirm that, despite its difficulties, freedom of expression is a commodity worth preserving. Maintaining such freedoms is significantly easier than regaining them once lost.

Image, Steve Evans.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Opponent of "Mosques" on Army Firing Range Was Rushdie Book Burner

When a member of the media wants to report a story, they will often get in touch with their list of known contacts and ask them for a quote.

Not surprising, then, that the BBC and other media providers should turn to Ishtiaq Ahmed, of the Bradford Council of Mosques, for a comment on the presence of mosque-like wooden buildings on the army's firing range in North Yorkshire.

Not only has Mr Ahmed served as Press Officer for the Bradford Council of Mosques for several years, but members of the press may also remember him as the local leader of the group which publicly burned copies of Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses in January 1989. (Source).

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

John H Armstrong : Why Do Muslims Become Jesus Followers?

John H Armstrong : Why Do Muslims Become Jesus Followers?

Some interesting and well-researched work into the issue of muslim conversion.








If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

A Brief History of Afghanistan

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Democracy Afghan Style

A new law has been passed in Afghanistan allowing Shia men to withhold food from their wives if they refuse to obey their sexual desires. It also prohibits women of Shia mean from leaving their homes without their husbands' approval.

The law is seen as an attempt by President Karzai to win votes in the forthcoming national elections.

Source.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Satanic Verses - 20 Years On

A few links from commentators marking the 20th anniversary of the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini against British writer Salman Rushdie over the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses.

A brief summary of the issue from the BBC web site.

Lisa Appignanesi comments on the ban from a non-censorship perspective.

The legacy of the fatwa was to make public criticism of Islam as a religion politically and socially unacceptable, says Kenan Malik.

Interview with Salman Rushdie from 1990.

The Times of India on the challenges of publishing "offensive" books post-Rusdie.

Members of the Iranian Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission explain why they believe the fatwa is still in force and should be implemented.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

An Eye for an Eye?

News that an Islamic cleric in Saudi Arabia has called for the introduction of one-eyed veils for Muslim women has produced an unflattering response in parts of the Arab world.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan has proposed the radical measure as a way of reducing the incentive for women to wear eye make up and thus appear seductive to men.

The Sheikh's thought process reminds me of the logic of the Pharisees - an ultra-strict Jewish sect who were at their peak around the time of Christ and who proved among his most formidable opponents. The Pharisees believed that God's moral law should be protected by a "fence" of additional restrictions that would reduce the possibility of humans transgressing by never even getting close to a forbidden act. In taking this stance, they became guilty of externalism - a preoccupation with form and ritual at the expense of inner morality.

Jesus' diagnosis of the problem of male lust is as challenging to a western secular audience as it is to Sheikh al-Habadan's version of Wahabbi Islam. Placing the responsibility on the man not the woman, he calls for radical action in pursuit of sexual purity:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Matthew 5:28-30

Bahraini female blogger Esra'a Al Shafei seems to have reached a similar conclusion, though I don't know whether she's read the Bible:

"Such disturbing calls only further objectifies women, inviting “religious” clerics to harass and disrespect them in ways that are no longer acceptable.

I have a more fitting proposal for clerics in favor of this bogus call; gouge your eyes out with a tack hammer if you wish to refrain from being seduced. Women should no longer pay the price of your disturbing and sickening mentalities."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Al-Jazeera Camerman Speaks of Guantanamo

When Sami Al Hajj arrived in his native Sudan following his surprise release from Guantanamo Bay, he was too weak to talk.

Here is is first interview about his ordeal.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Al-Jazeera Camerman Released From Guantanamo

Apparently without warning, Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Hajj was released from detention in Guantanamo Bay today and flown home.

Mr al-Hajj had been imprisoned without trial or charge for over six years following his capture in Afghanistan in 2001 when he was on assignment for the Arabic-language TV station.

As previously reported on this blog, Sami al-Hajj had been on hunger strike for over 8 months at Guantanamo and was taken to hospital on a stretcher on his arrival in Khartoum. Announcing his joy at his release, Mr al-Hajj declared, "I have every right to cry after I've survived these seven horrid years of humiliation, repression and injustice for no fault on my part apart from being a Muslim."

While in Guantanamo, al-Hajj drew several cartoons depicting his ordeal. Although these were eventually confiscated by his American guards, al-Hajj was able to show the drawings to his lawyer who in turn described them to professional cartoonist Lewis Peake. Peake then reproduced one, Scream for Freedom, which is included in this post. The cartoon depicts al-Hajj being force fed during his hunger strike, an event that took place regularly and lasted up to two hours at a time.

Reporters without Boarders, who have campaigned for his release and the closure of Guyantanamo bay, issued the following statement: “Sami Al-Haj should never have been held so long. U.S. authorities never proved that he had been involved in any kind of criminal activity. This case is yet another example of the injustice reigning in Guantanamo. The base should be closed as quickly as possible.” Meanwhile, the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists welcomed al-Hajj's release and announced that "His detention for six years, without the most basic due process, is a grave injustice and represents a threat to all journalists working in conflict areas."

Readers concerned about the erosion of human rights that is being perpetuated by the existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility may wish to take any of the following actions:

1. Forward the cartoon to as many friends and social networks as possible
2. Support Amnesty's campaign to close Guantanamo Bay and stop illegal detentions worldwide
   
3. Visit Guantanamo Blog and support the campaign to remove the law licenses from American attorneys who have facilitated the current administration's policy of detention without trial.

Al-Hajj's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith has said previously that his client's detention was political and that U.S. interrogators focused almost exclusively on obtaining intelligence on Al-Jazeera and its staff. Stafford Smith also claims that on one occasion, military officials told al-Hajj that he would be released if he agreed to inform U.S. intelligence authorities about the satellite network’s activities, which Al-Haj refused to do.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Watch This Trend - Sharia-Compliant Hotels

Looking for a quality hotel without the risk of drunken rugby fans next door?

Welcome to Islamic hotels - the latest business trend to emerge in the Gulf states of the UAE.

With a near 100% occupancy year round, the Jawhara Group is one of the growing chains of hotels that describe them selves as Sharia-compliant.

Distinctive features of the hotels include:

• no alcohol served or allowed on site
• female staff dressed in accordance with traditional Muslim culture
• separate swimming pools for men and women
• halal food served at all meals

Popular with families, Jawhara claims that 80% of its guests are non-Muslim.

Watch out the the first one to arrive in a capital city near you.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Bosnia - a Radically Different Prospective

For most of us who witnessed the Bosnian war in the early 1990s from a safe distance, the fault lines appeared fairly straight forward. The analysis, such as it went, read like this: Serbians bad, Croats quite bad but not as bad as the Serbs, Bosnians innocent victims.

This simplistic analysis, versions of which which informed the policy making of western governments and the editorial viewpoint of many media outlets, has been fundamentally challenged in a new book by former NSA advisor John R. Schlinder, a field agent in the former Yugoslavia at the time of the war.

An in-depth review of the book, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, is available here. It's a lengthy review, but worth it for the light it sheds on the book's central thesis: that the Bosnian government of the early 90s, far from being a model of modern multi-culturalism, was Islamist in nature, committed to global jihad and linked with terror networks across the Muslim world.

Strong stuff.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Kosovo - is the Cold War Really Over?

With a declaration of independence expected today in Kosovo, it is worth noting how the emergence of the new state is serving the purpose of strengthening American and British interests in the region at the expense of Russia, who are strongly backing Serbia's opposition to any such unilateral declaration.

In one sense, this last twist in the tale of the dismantling of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia is evidence of the growing antagonism between Russia and "the West". Relations have turned sour over a range of issues:

• the creation of a US missile defense shield in eastern Europe - an act which Moscow has described as "provocative"
• the increase in Presidential power at the expense of the Russian Parliament and the corresponding reduction in democratic checks and balances on the President
• numerous instances of press intimidation inside Russia including the murder of several investigative journalists
• the Litvenenko affair - British authorities seeking the extradition of a former KGB agent to stand trial for the murder of a Russian exile in London
• tensions over gas and oil supplies from Russia to the west
• Western support for anti-Russian political movements in the former Soviet Union - most notably in Ukraine and Georgia
• Alleged incursions of Russian military planes into NATO air space in recent months
  

Seen against this backdrop, Western support for the new state of Kosovo is a convenient way of supporting democracy while also dealing a blow to Russian influence in the Balkans. The PR value of America and Britain supporting a Muslim-majority democracy will also not have been lost on policy makers in London and Washington.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Who Killed Imad Mughniyeh?

Joshua Landis' blog Syria Comment has the best English-language discussion on this topic at the present time, in my opinion.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Noam Chomsky on World Ownership

Follow the link above for a major interview with the American writer, linguist and commentator on the state of American foreign policy.

His key claim: American foreign policy is governed by a belief in American ownership of the world.

A good read.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Brown to Scrap Blasphemy Law - a Christian Perspective

With Prime Minster Gordon Brown - the son of a church minister - signaling his intention to repeal the various laws governing the offense of blasphemy in the UK, an opportunity has arisen for thinking Christians (both inside and outside Parliament) to consider this issue carefully.

No doubt among some there will be a knee jerk reaction to any move to tamper with the law as it stands. The reasoning will be simple enough: blasphemy is a sin; sin should be restrained in society; repealing this law will remove this restraint; therefore, it should be kept in place.

Between that and an aggressive secularist perspective (all religion is superstition, etc) there may appear to be little common ground on the matter.

Thankfully, both the Church of England and the Evangelical Alliance have both signaled a willingness to engage in the debate and have welcomed the review in broad terms.

The fact is that the current law has not been used for decades and is unlikely to be used in the future. Furthermore, as the EA puts it, "God does not need legal protection".

Readers may be surprised that, as a committed Christian myself, I welcome the removal of this law for three reasons. Firstly, I have always been of the opinion (not shared, I know, by all believers) that the state should not have a punitive role in matters of individual religious belief or practice. This must surely include the act of blasphemy, which I take to be an area of religious (or rather, irreligious) practice and one on which the state should not legislate. My Third Stream Christianity blog records the history of those Christian groups over the centuries which have sought this separation of church and state and have taken a similar view.

Secondly, the offense caused when people blaspheme - and take my word for it, it is offensive - can be most effectively discussed and dealt with through informal mechanisms (for instance in the work place) and, in more extreme cases through existing legislation covering threatening or intimidating behavior, drunkenness and discrimination.

Thirdly, and perhaps most controversially, I do not want to see the blasphemy law extended to include other religions, which I would see as a restriction on my freedom to question and critique them. Denying that Mohammed is a true prophet, for instance, may be regarded as blasphemous by some. I can hardly ask for the liberty to express this view if I would deny it to others.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Andranik Teymourian

Football fans around the world have been surprised to see Iranian international footballer (now playing with Bolton Wanderers) Andranik Teymourian routinely crossing himself as he leaves the field of play.

The only non-Moslem player in the Iran national team, Teymourian is from the country's small Armenian minority who are historically Orthodox Christians.

Iranian Christians have historically been members of this ethnic-religious minority or of ethnic Greek ancestry. In recent years, increasing numbers of Iranians have become born-again Christians. Many are asylum seekers living in Western Europe and are from a Moslem background. A previous post illustrates this trend.

The existing ethnic-Christian minorities are tolerated in Iran. Conversion from Islam, however, is a criminal offense punishable by long prison sentences or death. Issa Motamedi Mojdehi (pictured) is one such convert, currently awaiting charges related to his conversion 7 years ago. Despite imprisonment and death threats to his family, he remains committed to his Christian faith.