Author: MandarinTangerine

What’s the reason for the upsurge in violence that many associate with Islam? Is the doctrine promulgated by Mohammed Ibn Abd-Al Wahhab in the 1700s the source of the problem? The name Wahhabism is often linked with the current violence in the Middle East. What is the connection, if any, between the doctrine and the violence?

Wahhab’s central teaching was the uniqueness and unity of God. Anything that contradicted or detracted from that principle constituted sin and an affront to God.

Although modern proponents are often referred to as Wahhabists, they oppose that name, apparently due to the view that to do so venerates ibn Wahhab. Thus, use of the man’s name undermines the central idea of the doctrine. They may prefer to be called Salafi Muslims, loosely meaning that they adhere to the earliest doctrines of Islam.

But to the political aspects. Almost from its earliest days, the doctrine was politicized. As the doctrine came of age in the great Arabian peninsula desert, it was adopted by the House of Saud. These early rulers used the doctrine in their attempts to evangelize and control the people of the desert. Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud, the father of modern Saudi Arabia, brought to the table the highest level of political skill in achieving dominance of the land. He used the doctrine to his advantage as a tool to promote his own brand of leadership.

Beginning in the early 1900s Ibn Saud recruited a group of desert warriors to carry out his will in the name of the Wahhabi or Salafi doctrine. The Ikhwan, or Brethren, took on a brand of war unheard of among the desert tribes: they killed women and children. Only when the Ikhwan exceeded Saud’s political control, by invading areas where he saw no advantage, did Saud intervene. He used motor vehicles and modern weapons, eschewed by the Ikhwan on the basis of doctrine, to control and eventually extinguish his desert warriors. Once again the political aspects held sway over doctrine. But not before innocent lives were sacrificed. A weapon as sharp as the doctrine of the unity of God must be used with care and great skill. Even the great Ibn Saud was not fully up to the task.

Is there any difference today? I contend that the violence we see today in the name of Islam is political, not doctrinal. Still, Saudi Arabia is trying to walk the balance beam of Wahhabi doctrine. Will they stab themselves by falling on the same sword?

I offer one example. I cannot verify the translation of Quranic Arabic myself, but I trust the work of David Commins in his book, The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis participate in the distribution of an English translation of the Quran in US mosques. The literal translation of a passage reads:

O Prophet, tell your wives, daughters and the women of believers to lower (or possibly, draw upon themselves) their garments. This is better so that they will not  be known or molested.  And, God is forgiving and merciful.

The Wahhabi version reads:

O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed.  And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[in a Western context, the mention of God’s mercy in this situation may seem strange, but verses from the Quran frequently make this allusion.]

The distribution, of the Wahhabi translation by the Saudi government, must be considered a political decision. Otherwise, why would they not distribute a literal translation of the word the Prophet Mohammed? After all, Mohammed told us the Quran was delivered as a dictation from God.

I think it’s the politics that gets us in trouble, not the doctrine.

But my wife has a different view. When we lived in Kuwait, she had strong personal relationships with the Bedouin women of the Murra tribe. She tells the following story.

During our time in Kuwait, there occurred the murder of a young woman and her newborn baby by the brother of the woman’s husband. The woman had conceived the pregnancy by a man other than her husband. The murderer was never charged. The event was ripe for discussion.  My wife was surprised to learn that two of the young women with whom she was close, and actually friends of the murdered woman, supported the murders, even that of the innocent infant. The young women expressed the practical concern that there would be no one who would care for the baby born in such sin. The baby’s murder was therefore the only option. The two young women knew my wife disagreed. Their response: “As you learn more about God, you will understand.”

For them, the issue was not political. It was from their hearts. This was what they believed at a deep level.

So, perhaps there is more than just the politics.

Both the Bible and the Quran address the subject of trees in the Garden of Eden. While the accounts differ in some respects, vital concepts arise.

The Bible names two trees among the number in the Garden: the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God allowed Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life but not to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve, who accepted the lie of the serpent, gave the fruit to Adam, and both ate from the tree. As a consequence, God put a curse on them and expelled them from the Garden, preventing any further access to the sustenance provided by the Tree of Life.

Among the trees of Eden, only one is specifically mentioned in the Quran: the Tree of Eternity or Immortality. While this tree seems analogous to the Bible’s Tree of Life, the God of the Quran forbade access to the Tree of Eternity. When Adam and Eve disobeyed after they believed the counsel of the devil, they were forgiven, but they were expelled from the Garden. God did not deliver a curse upon them. The other main difference in the Quran account is that Eve was not mentioned by name nor was she blamed as the one at fault.

The trees of Eden are still prominent symbols for us. The concept of Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge pervades many religions and cultures,  The two trees may be considered as one tree or two trees. I have seen two trees so-designated in my Middle East travels.

In Bahrain, out in the desert a short distance from Manama, I saw a lonely mesquite tree referred to as the Tree of Life.

The tree is estimated to be about 400 years old.The tree lies near an archeological site believed to be from the Dilmun era, which was mentioned as early as 3000 BC, and possibly referred to in the Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2000 BC) as a “Paradise.”

In the little town of Al-Qurna near Nasiriya in southern Iraq, I observed the jujube tree called the Tree of Knowledge. The sign, in English, in front of the tree says “Adam’s Tree”. Somehow appropriate, the tree is dead.

What are the takeaway messages from the Tree(s)? The first is that God must know something we don’t know. We no longer possess access to the real Tree of Life or the wisdom of the Tree of Knowledge. The second point is that we lost these resources through disobedience to God.

Among the religions of the world the only two possible solutions are typified by what’s seen in Islam on one hand and Christianity on the other.

Islam presents the noble idea that we must strive to please God and that through this endeavor we may regain what we lost. We may be able to solve the problem through our own efforts. which must be of the highest quality.

Christianity, in contrast, says we are unable to solve the problem. God must solve it for us, and this can only be done through the perfect work of Jesus.

I can’t think of any other possible solutions besides these two.

“You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham.” (NIV, Nehemiah 9:7)

In 2003, just after the US-led attack on Iraq, we traveled as a medical relief team to southern Iraq around the Basra area. As we knew Ur was nearby, we took a day off and went on a search for the proposed site just out of Nasiriya. We located it and got close enough for a photo.

The ziggurat of Ur is barely seen in the middle of the photo on top of the hill.  We got no closer. The area was guarded by our soldiers.

How peculiar our boys were sent around the world to fight a war and ended up protecting Abraham’s birth place and the preserved monument to the moon god, Nanna. We surrendered to the superior force and retreated.

A short way out of Ur we encountered a man and a woman herding camels. The man was walking and his beautiful, much younger wife (or daughter) rode their camel. When they saw us as we stopped to gawk, the woman dismounted, and they both motioned for us to come over for a camel ride, for a price of course.

But two interesting things struck me. First, the man allowed the young woman to ride while he walked. Second, the man was severely disabled. A close-up of his lower legs revealed marked muscle atrophy and foot drops.

As a neurologist, I can firmly state he was afflicted by severe sensorimotor neuropathy. Yet he insisted the young woman ride. I considered this a noble act on his part.

More than 4000 years have passed since Abraham departed Ur at the Lord’s command. Yet we know that man, that is, every man and woman, is created in the image of God. Perhaps of some Abraham’s DNA  still roams the area around Ur.

I visited Yemen numerous times over the years as I worked with an NGO there. The little country at the tip of the Arabian peninsula was a mix of starkly beautiful mountains, the old city in Sanaa with its gingerbread architecture, stone villages on hilltops, and ill kept countryside with trash strewn throughout the landscape.

Even at its best one could tell the country was doomed. The greatest long-term concern was its shortage of water. The country could not afford desalinization facilities. They even entertained the idea of towing an iceberg down from the Arctic. And the shortage was compounded by the cultivation of qat ,which required much of the available ground water. Virtually all the populace chews the mildly narcotic plant. Indeed, all the resources of the country were stretched by the population growth rate that exceeded the capacity of the country to support itself. For the time I was there, it appeared the country was on a slow downward spiral.

Then, things got worse. The so-called Arab spring forced then president Abdullah Al-Saleh to resign in 2011. In 2014 civil war developed between Houthi rebels and the new Hadi government. Hadi subsequently set up a Sunni based government in exile in Aden in the south, and the Houthis, a Ziadi/Shia-based group allied with the former president, Al-Saleh, took over the Sanaa area. Because of their fear of a Shia based group on their southern border, Saudi Arabia began bombing Houthi sites. This conflict has led to further disaster in the country with increasing loss of civilian lives and damage to the country’s sad infrastructure. The situation is further complicated by the rise of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a Sunni-based group from southern Yemen.

On the international front, the big concern is whether the overall Yemen conflict is in fact a proxy war between Saudi Arabia backing Sunni elements and Iran backing the Shia groups. Certainly Saudi Arabia has guns in the fight, and as far as news reports are concerned, the Saudis are causing much damage to the country. The role of Iran is less clear.

What can be done? The real question is whether any one cares. The answer is: no one of any importance cares. The conflict in Yemen presently has little effect on our economics or oil supply. The minor concern is that the entry for oil shipping into the Red Sea could be blocked at the Bab Al-Mandab, thus obstructing traffic to and from the Suez Canal, but frankly that result is unlikely.

The Shia/Sunni divide may be the fuel for the conflict, with Saudi and Iran carrying the current torches. The theological, social, and economic differences between the two argue against solution.

My wife Shirley writes:

It was a privilege to get to know some of the Bedouins of the Al-Murrah tribe when we lived in Kuwait in 1988-1990.  Another American family had lived many years in Kuwait and introduced me to the Bedouin women.  They showed me the clothes we needed in order to visit the Bedouins respectfully.  All children under twelve went with me to the women to visit while Jim went to visit the men.  We were accepted since Jim was their doctor at the hospital in Kuwait City.

I tried to learn Arabic, and although I took classes, I never got beyond simple greetings.  We were never able to communicate verbally in Arabic, but the Lord provided other means.  The young girls among the Bedouin who attended school were all able to speak English.  The children and I would go the one and half hour each way trip into the dessert to visit then about twice a week.  They did not question why we would want to be their friends and come to sit with them in very modest homes without air conditioning.   They considered themselves a superior people who took great pride in their way of worship and the life they led.  They accepted us as Christians believing that we did not yet have their superior understanding.

The women drank tea together with me.  As I got to know them better they would take off their coverings. Although they also allowed me to photograph them without their niqab, I would never betray them by showing these photos to others outside our family.

Our children joined their children playing in the desert, antagonizing snakes and other desert creatures.

They allowed me to help pick the bugs out of the rice for dinner.  As we got to know them, the elder among the women (Um Salem) allowed me to take her and some others in my car to go shopping.  I left the children in God’s care with the other Bedouins as we went to the souq to shop.

The peak of our relationship was when we were invited to be a part of a wedding of one of the girls.  They had a special dress made for me and told me what to get for the children.  Jim celebrated with the men while we danced with the bride.

The Bedouins knew how to rejoice and find joy in living.  They welcomed strangers because they were confident of their position in life.  They considered themselves a richly blessed people.  They were able to show hospitality to strangers because they knew they had much to give.  Wilfred Thesiger, who lived among the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula, wrote of them in Arabian Sands, “I shall always remember how often I was humbled by those illiterate herdsmen who possessed, in so much greater measure than I, generosity and courage, endurance, patience, and lighthearted gallantry. Among no other people have I ever felt the same sense of personal inadequacy.” I find it sad that the Bedouin way of life is fading away in the name of progress.

For more than a thousand years the marsh Arabs of southern Iraq persisted in the Tigris-Euphrates delta. When we think of an Arab, the Bedouin of the desert often comes to mind. But the marsh Arabs of the Ma’dan tribe built their lives around the marsh with their hunting, water buffalo and agriculture. Their population reached the hundreds of thousands.

The above photo was taken before 1991.  Saddam drained the marshes and displaced the inhabitants following the Shia uprising in southern Iraq after the first Gulf war. The marsh had been a refuge for those who opposed Saddam. Further, the marsh Arabs had long been known for their resistance to outside interference, and hence, they were obvious victims of Saddam’s need to regain control of Iraq.

The people of this area were chronicled by Wilfred Thesiger in his classic, The Marsh Arabs ,and by Gavin Maxwell in his poetic work A Reed Shaken by the Wind. The photo below was taken when we visited the marsh Arabs in the summer of 2003 after the Second Iraq war. The reed house shown here is typical of their dwellings.

The photo below shows the marsh filling again (2003), and the marsh Arabs began to return to their homeland, perhaps in the tens of thousands.

Our medical team traveled north from Kuwait City, over the border staying in Basra, and then up to Nasirriya where we worked, under military guard, with the people of the marsh. Infant malnutrition was terrible and unrecorded by authorities. Their toughness had not diminished, and they were desperate for medical care. There were no mosques, and the people were bereft of any remaining religious heritage.  So disconsolate were the people that our clinics verged on open combat. When we lagged behind the pace they wanted, scuffles broke out, and on one  occasion an AK-47 announced their frustration. Our vehicles were partially looted including all the outside mirrors. They were a tough, rough people, their anger enhanced by years of neglect, attacks from Saddam, destruction of their homeland, and ethnic bias from their fellow Iraqis.

Perhaps we helped a few. But we had to leave. I have not been able to return.

Our visit was thirteen years ago, and I hoped as the marsh filled, their conditions would improve. But now I understand the flow of the two great rivers has diminished, from excessive damming and reduced rain, and the salt is creeping up from the Shatt Al-Arab. The salt is a time bomb for the marsh Arabs.

Twenty-six ago today I woke up in Kuwait to a country just invaded. Shirley and I are writing a memoir of the time, and an excerpt follows.

I had been downtown shopping for a new TV, and I had never seen Kuwait City so quiet. After Shirley’s call from Augusta, I switched on the news. The August 1, 1990 report on the evening TV was even blander than it had been on preceding days, and I should have been suspicious. The Ministry of Information Station, KTV-2, was known for its commitment to boring news, often featuring videos of the Emir greeting his guests of the day, and that evening the station was at its tedious best. The young Kuwaiti woman with no hair covering and the British accent said, “Kuwaiti and Iraqi ministers continue to discuss grievances in the peaceful setting of Jeddah. Hosni Mubarak, mediating the conference on behalf of the Arab League, remains confident in a peaceful resolution.” There was no mention of troop deployments or any intention of hostilities. Kuwait was safe.

But what the Kuwait TV gal didn’t say was that the problem was a big deal. It was a giant cat against a little mouse. Kuwait had supported their northern Arab neighbor, loaning the Iraqis nearly twenty billion dollars in their war against Iran. The Iraqis didn’t want to pay it back, maybe they couldn’t, and they wanted the northern Kuwaiti oil fields, perhaps as far south as Mutla Ridge, the highest point in Kuwait. Mutla was the rocky escarpment north of the city running parallel to the Subiya Motorway.

The Iraqis had accused the Kuwaitis of “slant drilling,” meaning the Kuwaiti drillers aimed their oilrig drills under the border and into Iraqi oilfields in order to steal Iraq’s main source of revenue. The Iraqis claimed it was their land anyway based on old maps, which existed prior to the British re-drawing the map of the Middle East. All these accusations had been in the news for months, and there was nothing new in the Iraqi demands.

But the two sides were talking and making progress, at least that’s what the news lady said. In fact, by the time of the news broadcast, we later learned, the peace conference had pretty much dissolved.

A week earlier, the Emir had offered his poetic description of the negotiations, a “Summer Cloud.” A summer cloud in Kuwait has no antecedent and no consequence. There is no rain before it and none after. Thus, the remark was designed to reassure the populace, at least the small number who remained in Kuwait during the summer heat. The Emir had said all was well in Kuwait. I had no reason, other than Shirley’s concerning phone call that evening, to worry about Saddam.

And I had even convinced Shirley of the peace of Kuwait. “Well, ok Jimmy, I guess we’ll see you soon at the airport in Kuwait.”

At 2 AM the first explosions began, and I woke up. Because of Shirley’s warning I hadn’t slept well anyway, and as soon as the jets roared over the city, I knew. Commercial jets never sounded like that, and they never flew so low over the city. All the explosions were in the distance at first but they were repeated with only brief interruptions. The booms moved closer to our home.

And the great experience began. What followed was the longest siege of a US Embassy in American history, and I was privileged to be there for the show.

The Russians and the Syrian army have “granted” exit from the city for the citizens of Aleppo. How gracious of them! Assad wins again. Russian air attacks have slaughtered citizens. Why would the citizens choose to stay? The progress of the Syrian conflict now favors Assad, and the Syrian people will be back where they were before their revolt against Assad began, but much worse off.

Syria will be a Russian puppet state.

What does this mean for the politico-religious state of the people? Syria can neither be counted Islamic or Christian. The religious posture of the country as a whole is just what Putin or Assad decide. And they have no real interest in faith of any stripe. Putin certainly doesn’t care, and Assad ascribes to that peculiar species, the Alawites.  Alawites venerate Imam Ali, possibly making them a Shia derivative. But they invest Ali with divine attributes. They also believe in incarnation and the celebration of the Zoroastrian new year. What a mess! The Alawites are not Islamic.

What can the US and other Western powers do? Nothing apart from a major infusion of ground forces. It’s too late.

Iran ascends. Saudi Arabia descends. There are three reasons for these trends: history, finances, and diversity.

Hegel called the Persians the first Historical People.  The Medes brought the nation together in 625 BC. Cyrus the Great later ruled three continents from Persepolis, creating the first world empire. The Seleucids, the Parthians, and the Sasanians followed finally competing with the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Monuments to these former kingdoms still exist and issue the promise of more to come.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, operates from tribal history with its major achievements marked by the rise of Islam in the seventh century and the unification brought by the great Abdulaziz Al Saud in 1932.

The finances of Iran, while troubled by the sanctions which have been recently released, can only improve.

The finances of Saudi Arabia are troubled. They have a 100 billion dollar budget deficit and no obvious way to get out of the problem. They tried to break the back of the US gas and shale industry, but failed. They threaten to sell their US assets. They must devote resources to combating ISIL.

The diversity of Iran has been concealed by the theocracy, but the power and reach of the Ayatollah is diminishing as new resources flood into the country with the fresh money.

Saudi Arabia has effectively limited its diversity and will now pay the price.

The Saudi dominance of the Middle East is over.

Al Jazeera has announced it will pull out of the US market.

What’s the reason? I suppose the decision is financially based. But why couldn’t an international news agency make it in the US?

I asked our cable supplier, Com Cast, to pick up the Al Jazeera news network. No response.

I question why the US is not supportive. Is this the beginning of a new xenophobia? Does it have something to do with a fear of Islam? Al Jazeera is more than fair in its treatment of religious and social issues.

I’m not concerned about Al Jazeera. They will be ok. I can get access to their news and opinion pieces through other sites. I’m concerned about the US. Does this mean we’re not open to new ideas if they have the mark of the Middle East?

Will Al Jazeera shake the dust off its feet?