Category: Uncategorized

Vali Nasr’s The Shia Revival was first published in 2006 and now in 2016 with an update. In view of the ongoing struggle in the Middle East between Sunni elements in Saudi Arabia and the Shia renewal in Iran/Iraq, the book is timely. The US disengagement in the region has only enhanced the importance of this struggle.

Nasr has laid out the political changes occurring in the Gulf. For centuries Sunnis have lorded it over the Shia, but the power vacuum in the Gulf and the untapped strength of Iran are altering the calculus. The quiet distrust of Khomeini’s cult of the personality is now more evident among Shia intellectuals in the area, and other thinkers have displaced the philosophical ideas promulgated by Khomeini. It has not been possible for the Iranian religious leaders to fend off the wonderful diversity among the people of Iran. Nasr calls the government of Iran “a tired dictatorship.” He notes that Persian is now the third most popular language on the Internet after English and Mandarin.

The Saudis fear a democratic Iran more than they fear a theocratic Iran, and the changes in the direction of democracy persist, though still relatively silent, in today’s Iran. The only force that might disrupt this trend is unwise US intervention.

I recommend Nasr’s thoughtful and beautifully written book to those who want to understand what’s really happening in Iran/Iraq. Daily news on the networks doesn’t help.

The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins, was first published in 2006, but its message is highly relevant to today.

The book deals in a detailed way with Wahhabi doctrine and the history of its implementation in the Middle East. It is a bit of a hard read but worth it for one who wants to understand so-called Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism that sometimes results.

In the eighteenth century, Muhammad ibn And al-Wahhab enunciated the doctrine that the worship of anything other than God himself is a sin. Thus, worship of anything else, such as places, objects, or martyrs of the faith, was out of bounds.

The outcome of this strict position led many to avow violence against those who rejected it.

Ibn Saud in his successful drive to unify the Saudi peninsula utilized the Ikhwan (Brethren) as instruments of Wahhabi doctrine to carry out his biding. But when the Ikhwan proceeded beyond what Ibn Saud considered useful, he defeated them in battle.

The pattern for the Saudi use of Wahhabi doctrine thus defined itself in  the policies of the Saudi state. When it was useful, they employed the Wahhabi line of thinking. English translations of the Quran, which Saudi Arabia exported abroad, have been found to contain sections which depart from the literal and substitute Wahhabi interpretation. To some degree the world has been set upside down by versions and perversions of Wahhabi doctrine, as seen in groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

When Commins published the book in 2006, he believed the influence of Wahhabism was diminishing in Saudi Arabia. While this is true to a degree, its effects are still present.

The effects of Wahhabism linger both in Saudi Arabia and in the world.

George Mitchell’s recent book, A Path to Peace, first summarizes the sad, past history of attempts to reach a peaceful agreement between Palestine and Israel. The two-state solution has been most often pursued. The list of reasons why this has not been achieved is long, painful, and full of death: mistrust between the parties, recurring violence, lack of clear representation from the Palestinian side, the role of Hamas, the complex geography made more complicated by the Israeli settlements, and the fact that neither side perceives sufficient need to cooperate in a solution.

While there has been some economic advancement on the Palestinian side, Israel’s success has been remarkable. For example, Mitchell points out that after the US and China, Israel has the third highest number of companies listed on the NASDAQ. The widening economic disparity between the Israel and Palestine has only made compromise more difficult.

Mitchell proposes a map by which peace could be achieved. First, Mitchell recommended that President Obama outline principles for a solution. This did not occur.

Mitchell stated his own principles for an agreement. He believed the agreement must be based on the 1967 lines with land swaps. Resettlement provisions should be made for displaced Palestinians. Security arrangements must be real and effective. Jerusalem should be the capital of both states.

Mitchell further proposed that the plan would be energized by the establishment of an international fund for Palestinian refugees, by the West guaranteeing Israeli security, and by the generation of a fund for building housing for both Israelis and Palestinians displaced by the political solution.

Mitchell did not believe that current conditions are conducive to a settlement. A political solution will not occur until such time as one or both parties reach a stage of desperation.

A settlement between the two states would go a long way in advancing peace in the Middle East.

From a Christian prospective, one would like to place such a peace in a Biblical framework. The old idea that the rebirth of Israel in 1948 represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy has long lost its vigor. As Christians we must await the Lord’s unfolding of His plan. Only then will the Biblical framework fit.

Almost nothing can said about justice for Israel and Palestine without discussing the need for a two-state solution. For Israel the need is for safety and security. For Palestine the need is individual freedoms and self-determination.

So many years have passed in search of a solution that a conclusion seems impossible. So many alternatives have been pitched that none seem viable.

The impediments are immense: a distrust between the two peoples, the recurring violence, the intertwined geography with Israeli settlements mixed in among Palestinian areas, Hamas control of Gaza, and conflicting messages from the international community.

George Mitchell’s new book, A Path to Peace, is a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the history of the conflict, with some proposed solutions. But Mitchell’s ideas contain little that is new.

The fact is that neither side wants a settlement bad enough to make major concessions. Until such time that one or both sides become desperate, it is unlikely any agreement will be reached.

For the present, the Palestinians are stuck with their current situation of control by an opposing government. Justice is not in the cards for the Palestinian people.

Iraq’s constitution describes its government as an Islamic, democratic, federal parliamentary republic. The political situation in Iraq is not to the point of stability such that definitive comments can be made as to the justice system as a whole. The country is still torn by sectarian strife, principally between Sunni and Shia elements. Justice is, therefore, highly regionalized.

Mosul is still under ISIL control, and the population remaining there has little hope for justice of any kind.

The country as a whole continues to operate on a system of revenge justice. Until such time as restorative justice can be implemented, minimal improvements are expected.

Finally, the Kurdish portion of the population finds themselves outside the kin of justice.

At best, justice in Iraq is a work in progress, and the outcome is uncertain.

Poor little Yemen! The least of the Arabs, or so their Arab brothers believe.

Little water, little oil, too many children, few jobs, and now under attack by their northern neighbor.

The country has no unified government that is accountable for all the citizens. Justice is an abstract concept for Yemen, for they have no means to achieve it.

I have no idea not how their court system functions at the present time.

Aid organizations have mostly left the country because of the very real safety concerns.

News organizations issue few reports of local news.

I would love to hear from aid organizations or embedded reporters.

In July 2013 the Egyptian military under Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi took over the government from the country’s freely elected President Mohamed Morsy. The military’s promise was to restore order and safety to the country.

The overthrow put Egypt’s military back in full control of the country, a de facto arrangement which has existed for many years. The military has financial interests in most aspects of the Egyptian economy, and they profit from their control.

Freedom of speech has essentially been reduced to nothing. Human Rights Watch has condemned the actions of the Al-Sisi government. Reporters, novelists, and citizens who have spoken out have been killed or jailed. All of this has been done in the name of preserving peace.

The one minor bright spot has been the military’s protection of the Christian minority, a policy also followed under the Mubarak regime.

Western democracies have ignored the internal actions of the Al-Sisi government in the name preserving international relations.

The title above is followed by a question mark for a reason. The question mark is there because I am not sure if justice is even a consideration for the Kingdom.

The King of Saudi Arabia is the head of the government, and all decisions are taken by him after consultation with the royal family. The Quran is the constitution of the country and the basis of its system of Sharia law.

The royal family has complete control over the distribution of wealth, and only the vast oil wealth of the country assures an adequate amount of funds for the average citizen.

Saudi Arabia is currently at war with Yemen, a country without sufficient means of defense save for the contribution of Iran. Thus, the conflict is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Many expatriate workers are present in Saudi Arabia, and they have little recourse in the system of Saudi law. Like Kuwait, they are in Saudi Arabia by the their own choice.

Some degree of political corruption is the rule among royal family members, often persisting under the term “wasta,” an Arabic word roughly meaning influence. This is accepted as the norm.

The position of women in the country is restricted. All women must have a male guardian. They are not permitted to drive.

The issue of justice for the people of Saudi Arabia is simply not on the table.

In comparison to other Middle East countries,  justice issues are relatively minor. Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy with a royal family and an elected, unicameral parliament. In practice the royal family has the final say-so over every issue. The emir has disbanded the parliament on numerous occasions. However, the benign proclivity of the royal family has been a protection for the citizens.

There are three issues: distribution of wealth, religious freedom, and treatment of ex-patriot workers.

The financial resources of Kuwait are immense, and the Emir generally distributes the wealth among the citizens. Complaints from citizens are relatively rare (but there are potential penalties for criticizing the royal family). There are lacunae of problems, particularly with the health service , but once again, these are few. The criticism here is that citizens have no voice in the use of Kuwait’s wealth.

The issue of religious freedom is complex. The constitution guarantees religious freedom, but there are articles of law that abridge this freedom. One who renounces Islam (apostasy) may have their marriage annulled and cannot inherit family property. The charge of blasphemy may be brought by anyone, and the penalty may be fine and imprisonment. On occasion the parliament has passed laws invoking the death penalty for conversion from Islam to Christianity, but the Emir has thrown out such penalties. The fact is that there is no true religious freedom in Kuwait for Kuwaiti citizens.

The treatment of ex-patriot workers from the developing world often reaches news reports. These workers are underpaid by local standards and often physically mistreated. Their recourse through the legal system is limited. Still, one must admit that they are in Kuwait by their own choice.

The overall fact is that the rule of law in Kuwait cannot be depended upon by the average citizen. In contrast to the common law system of justice, Kuwait legal jurisprudence is not controlled by precedent. Thus, a decision in one instance may not be replicated in the next instance.