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.

From Cairo to the Drone Wars: how the Wheels Came off Obama's Rapprochement with the Muslim World

President Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University in Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Raise your hands if you can remember when President Obama used to be accused of being soft on Islamic militancy?

Me neither.

The 44th President of the United States may well go down in history not for his health care reform, but more significantly for the dramatic volte-face in his foreign policy. The change from peace-maker (remember his Nobel Prize?) to his relentless pursuit of drone-based attacks has been dramatic. Not only that, his policy of attacking suspected militants with drone-based missiles is actually contributing to the creation of new generations of Islamic militants, radicalised by the experience of silent and lethal force which has killed between 282 and 535 civilians in Pakistan alone. This total includes 60 children (source).

It is difficult to remember the early days. The President's speech - titled A New Beginning - at the University of Cairo in June 2009 was claimed by the White House to be the start of a new process of restoring relationships between America and the Muslim-majority world which had been damaged during the Bush era and following the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Some saw the speech as representing a water-shed in US-Muslim relations.  The sight of an American President talking in a conciliatory manner about the rich contributions that Islam has made to the world was favourably received in some quarters, even as it was rejected out of hand by others.

It was on the back of the speech - and his earlier New Year video message to the people of Iran - that Obama was awarded the the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009. The Nobel Committee specifically referred to the President's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" and particularly his reaching out to the Muslim world.

Two turning points can be discerned in the President's approach since these early, heady days. The first was his decision to intensify the war in Afghanistan through the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops. Initial deliberations in the White House about this policy gave some encouragement to those hoping for a early US departure from the country. Critics, meanwhile, accused the Commander in Chief of weakness and dithering.

The second turning point was Libya. Although signalling early on that America would not take a lead in military action in the country, the President nonetheless ordered cruise missiles and attack aircraft to be deployed against ground and air forces loyal to Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi.  Regime change would not have been possible in Libya without American approval, participation and support.

America's co-operation during the Libya campaign with the Gulf state of Oman was significant. After the country's air force had played a crucial role in the operation, the US Defence Department concluded a treaty by which US-based Lockheed Martin supplied 18 new F-16 Fighting Falcons at a cost of $600 Million. 

America's engagement with Oman - a tiny Arab state with a vast military sector - highlighted the increasing difficulty with Obama's policy towards the Arab Spring, then in its early days. While endorsing the aspirations of those demonstrating for democratic freedoms in Egypt, the President also refused to publicly condemn the brutal suppression of those protesters who were demanding reform in the Gulf state of Bahrain. 

Increasingly hiding behind his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the President's Bahrain policy stemmed from his administration's fear that the old enemy Iran was fuelling the fires of protest inside the island state. Bahrain's Shia population, with historic and cultural links to Iran, were at the forefront of the protests against the embattled and pro-Western Sunni elite who dominated the government. 

When US-made M-113 Armoured Personnel Carriers rolled menacingly across the road bridge that links Saudi Arabia with Bahrain, Obama was mute at the use of foreign military forces to put down a pro-democratic uprising. With a vast US military base in Bahrain, America simply could not run the risk of endorsing a possible takeover by a population with close links to Iran, even if such a democratic moment was in line with the President's stated policy in his Cairo speech of supporting democratic movements in the region.

With Afghanistan and Libya as hard lessons in realpolitik, the increasingly embattled President, whose domestic policy endeavours were being thwarted by a hostile Republican-Congress, began to broaden the scope of his military interventions.

Here was an area of Presidential power not hampered by internal partisan bickering. As Commander-in-Chief he had exactly what he lacked in his domestic agenda - the power to command and achieve dramatic results.

The daring raid into Pakistani sovereign territory in order to kill Osama bin Laden must have felt like an affirmation that such bold military moves were the way forward. Ignoring the legal niceties of invading a foreign country with whom they were not at war, the bin-Laden success seems to have emboldened the President. Despite no declaration of war, military activities were ramped up in Yeman and Somalia, with apparently scant regard for the killing of innocent civilians in the process.

Obama's drone wars have, since their early days in Afghanistan, expanded dramatically. US drone strikes are often controlled by operators thousands of miles away in American bases in Nevada and have resulted in hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Statistics compiled by those watching with concern the escalation in the drone wars indicate that drone attacks are now occurring about once every four days inside Pakistan.

There are several worrying developments with this drone war policy. Firstly, the weapons are killing innocent civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that over 3,000 people have been killed by drones inside Pakistan since 2004. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, it has also calculated that between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed in drone attacks inside the country since Obama took office.

Secondly, the use of drones is contributing to rather than reducing the rise of Islamic militancy among those populations affected by the drone-borne missiles. A recent report by Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law highlights the psychological effects on the civilian population of those living in the areas attacked by US drones. 

This from the report Living Under Drones:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false......

"This report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies...."

One of the few accounts of living under drones ever published in the US comes from a former New York Times journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban. He reports:

“The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”

Living Under Drones describes how

"Community members, mental health professionals, and journalists described how the constant presence of US drones overhead leads to substantial levels of fear and stress in the civilian communities below....".

"Another interviewee who lost both his legs in a drone attack said that “[e]veryone is scared all the time. When we’re sitting together to have a meeting, we’re scared there might be a strike. When you can hear the drone circling in the sky, you think it might strike you. We’re always scared. We always have this fear in our head.”

Another described the effect of the drones as causing a "wave of terror" among the civilian population of north-west Pakistan.




It is difficult to imagine how US-Muslim relations could be made any worse than by pursuing a policy that traumatizes the civilian population of Pakistan, leading to parents keeping their children away from school for fear of attack by unseen unmanned American aircraft.

The President's policy of openness and engagement with the Muslim-majority world has come a long way since the heady days of his Cairo University speech. It is a tragedy that the direction of travel has been in the wrong direction. 

   

  

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

Saudi Government Facilitating Child Sex Trafficking

Image via Wikipedia

Cable Viewer

This from Wikileaks. Click link above for full US diplomatic cable from its embassy in Yemen.

ROYG officials and independent experts 
repeatedly express frustration with the lack of Saudi 
cooperation on trafficking-in-persons issues, including 
children smuggled to Saudi Arabia for work and Saudi "sex 
tourists" who frequent underage prostitutes in Yemen.  They 
allege that the Saudi government has significantly stalled 
bilateral efforts to combat trafficking.  Without 
higher-level Saudi commitment, it will continue to be 
difficult for impecunious Yemen to fight this cross-border 
problem alone.

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

Interview with the Ink Cartridge Bomber (Yeah-Man!)

Image via Wikipedia

In a rare global scoop, Philosopher's Tree has secured an exclusive telephone interview with Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, regraded by American security experts as the manufacturer of the so-called ink cartridge bombs recently discovered on cargo flights originating in Yemen.

PT: Mr al-Asiri-

A: Please, you infidel, you may call me Ibrahim.

PT: I'm sorry. Ibrahim. Could you please tell me whether you are in any way connected with the recent ink cartridge bombs which were found on their way to Chicago?

I: If it please you, I cannot say.

PT: You are, however, widely regraded by the US authorities as being the mastermind behind the attempted bombing.

I: Mastermind? I thank you, though, I can say no more about my possible involvement with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

PT: I hadn't mentioned that particular terrorist group.

I: Ah.

PT: You are also credited with the so-called underpants bomb worn by Umar Abdulmutallab in an attempt to blow up a plane on route to Detroit. Can you comment on that report?

I: Underpants are a decadent Western garment and worthy of destruction. Detroit is also a decadent Western city.

PE: A city which contains one of the largest Arabic-speaking populations in America.

I: Why do you accuse Arabs of being involved? You decadent Western bloggers are quick to rush to blame us when underpants are on fire over your beloved automobile manufacturing city, but silent when the sky is on fire due to American-backed Zionist aggression.

PT: Are you saying then that you were involved in the Christmas Day plot?

I: Plot? There was no plot, just an attempt to pin the blame for America's economic collapse on an innocent man.

PT: You mean Mr Abdulmutallab?

I: I mean Father Christmas, you son of a camel. Do you think I am unaware that this innocent figure was originally a middle eastern holy man, centuries before he was stolen by the Coca Cola Company for use in its commercial advertising campaigns?

PT: Moving on, if I may, your brother, Abdullah al-Asiri (pictured) was the suicide bomber involved in the assassination attempt of Saudi Arabia's intelligence minister last year. Were you aware of his plans beforehand?

I: How do you know my dear brother was a suicide bomber? Were you there at the time? No, you have only read the news reports put out by the oppressive Saudi rulers, bankrolled by the imperialist Zionist regime.

PT: But you do accept that your brother did die in the attack?

I: My brother is dead.

PT: Do you know how he died?

I: He exploded, due to excessive consumption of decedent Coca Cola, created by the imperialists in Atlanta, Georgia.

PT: And you accept that he died in the presence of the Saudi intelligence minister?

I: I believe my brother was taking part in a prize giving ceremony for his contribution to the development of the carbonated drinks industry within the Kingdom.

PT: Some security analysts are suggesting that the three bombs which have been linked to you - the underpants bomb, the body cavity bomb and the most recent ink cartridge bomb, were all rather poorly made.

I: How dare you!

PT: It is a fact, is it not, that none of the three devices have so far achieved their intended outcomes so far?

I: Do you know my intended outcomes? Can you see inside my mind?

PT: You were involved in these attacks then?

I: You twist my words like the cords of your underpants. We have a saying in Yemen: some liars tell the truth.

PT: Which seems an appropriate point to thank you for your time today.





end

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

Related articles

• Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri: the prime bombmaking suspect (guardian.co.uk)
• "Suspect Behind Yemen Parcels: 'Underwear Bomber' Who Once Blew Up His Own Brother" and related posts (nymag.com)
• Factbox: Who is Ibrahim al-Asiri? (reuters.com)
• Cargo plane bomb plot: profile of Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri (telegraph.co.uk)

Middle East Table Talk

Over the last year, my family has had a succession of students lodging with us from various Arabic-speaking countries in the middle east and north Africa.

Without wanting to reveal too much about specific individuals, it would be fair to say that our guests have all been well connected to senior members of the governments of their home countries.

As we've got to know each other, I've learned a lot of new things, some significant some mundane. Here's a sample of the anecdotes shared around our meal table over the last year by people closer to life in the middle east than I will ever be:

• Prior to the first Gulf War, it is claimed, the governments of Iraq, Jordan and Yemen made a secret deal between themselves to effectively carve up Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between the three of them. Money was exchanged and deals done, only to be thwarted by the arrival of large numbers of American troops in Saudi Arabia itself in preparation for Operation Desert Storm. Interestingly, I understand, though have not been able to verify this yet, that both Jordan and Yemen abstained from the vote in the UN General Assembly that confirmed the imposition of sanctions against Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait. It was well known at the time that both countries provided sanction busting services to Iraq during and after the first Gulf War.

• Camels - loved and kept in large numbers by Saudis and Kuwaitis - have extremely long memories, especially if mistreated. There are stories circulating about camels attacking former owners, even though they have not seen them for years, as retaliation for a beating given many years earlier.

• When Sadaam Hussain met King Hussain of Jordan on one occasion, he presented the King with a gold plated automatic weapon. Apparently, Sadaam's gift of choice to foreign heads of state was almost always a rifle or pistol of some kind.

• When a student living with us failed to reach the necessary grade in an exam which was a requirement for admission to a leading British university in the south of England, he announced that "I pay money" and was shocked when we informed him that that was not how things worked in Britain and that doing so could land him in prison.

• It is widely assumed in Jordan that the territorial integrity of Iraq is unsustainable and that the country will inevitably split into three states at some point in the coming 10-20 years. Interestingly, I noted on this site in November 2006 that such a solution was a distinct possibility. It is a view that receives absolutely no attention in the western media or in government but is , apparently, widely assumed in Jordan and possibly elsewhere.

• The cheapest place to take a holiday in the middle east is, apparently, Damascus, where high quality hotels come at a low price. Mind you, Syria is also one of the five worst countries in the world to be a blogger, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
  

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

On Changing the Clocks

It's really only 08.50 as I start to write this.

The change to British Summer Time at 01.00 this morning routinely produces such conversations in households around the country.

The practice of moving the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March was enshrined in British law in 1916. During World War 2, however, the country operated on double summer time, when the clocks went forward in October of 1940 and then were advanced again in the Spring of 1941. Less night time for enemy bombing raids, presumably. Or was it designed to save energy through less lighting being needed?

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents favours returning to the system of double summer time, claiming that the lighter evenings would result in fewer injuries and fatalities on the roads and elsewhere. Such a system, of course, would see sunrise occurring as late as 10.00 am in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland, were it implemented across the UK. The Local Government Association also favours such a system. A failed Parilamentary bill of 2006 would have allowed Scotland and Northern Ireland to opt out of double summer time if it were introduced in England and Wales.

In the Middle East, meanwhile, while the British-friendly Kingdom of Jordan adopts the practice of changing the clocks twice a year, neighbouring Saudi Arabia and Kuwait take a different approach. They keep the time constant year round but move the working day instead. Kuwaiti workers will therefore arrive at the office on Monday an hour earlier than normal. The latter system would no doubt generate its own variations on the "where did that hour go?" conversations.

Which reminds me, it's 10.10, so I need to go (even though it's really only 09.10).

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.

Drug Use Taking Hold in Saudi Arabia

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has named Saudi Arabia as having the middle east's largest number of users of illegal amphetamines.

Seizures of the stimulant Captagon (or counterfeit versions) in the Kingdom rose from 291 kgs in 2000 to over 12 tons in 2006, a development which the UNODC has described as a "dramatic and unprecedented increase."

Use of amphetamines is most common among those in their early 20s. Some use it as a stimulant to help with mental alertness during university exams; others acquire a deeper dependence on the drug, which in its inhaled or injected forms can create symptoms similar to cocaine.

It is believed that most of the drugs currently available in Saudi Arabia - which has the death penalty for drug trafficking - originate in Turkey or Bulgaria and are transported overland via Syria and Jordan.

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

Enough of This Saudi Arabian Appeasement!

I'm sick to the back teeth about our appeasement of the racist, oppressive Saudi Arabian regime.

Not only has an independent judicial enquiry into corporate corruption been shelved in order to not upset the Saudi princes, we now have their intolerance reaching into the personal freedoms of British citizens in a far more insidious way.

I refer to the recent ruling of BMI to ban one of its stewardesses from carrying her personal Bible with her on the plane - a practice she does because she carries it with her for personal use wherever she goes. The reason for this ruling is that the airline are following Foreign Office advice on banning the carrying of religious books and artifacts other than the Koran into the Saudi Kingdom.

This is an outrageous abuse of Saudi influence and shows a cowardly face on the part of the Foreign Office. This is the same nation which, in common with many middle eastern states, denies admission to the country for Jews and actively oppresses its tiny Christian minority as well as that of other religious faiths.

You know what? I'm fed up with British appeasement. Let the French build their jet planes. It's time to stand up to these bullies.