Middle East Scrapbook.

[Brian Peacock]

Saudi Arabia's blockade of Qatar is over – but my father is still in jail for opposing it

The apparent end to the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar and a reconciliation among the states involved prompts the question: when will the Saudi government release the citizens who were caught up in the conflict and imprisoned during the three and a half-year crisis?

In a breakthrough, it was announced on 4 January that Saudi Arabia had opened its land border with Qatar, paving the way for an easing of tensions that had led to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain severing diplomatic and trade ties with Qatar in mid-2017. On 5 January, the annual GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) summit took place in Saudi Arabia’s north-western Al-Ula province. And for the first time since the blockade on Qatar was imposed, the Qatari emir attended.

While reconciliation is a welcome development when it reduces the risk of conflict and harm, it is important to recognise the years-long onslaught on human rights by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt and their razing of established norms of diplomacy, which created the conflict with Qatar in the first place.

Since his rise to the position of Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman has transformed the domestic Saudi socio-political arena beyond recognition, largely for the worse. Due to the arrest and imprisonment of many scholars, activists and journalists, and a dramatic increase in executions, Saudi civil society is being suffocated.

The many prisoners of conscience now languishing in the kingdom’s prisons include my father, Dr Salman Alodah, whose plight is particularly noteworthy and perplexing. With a Twitter following of over 13 million and scholarly publications in various languages read by Muslims all over the globe, Alodah is more than just a reformist scholar of Islamic law. He is known for his embrace of social media platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram in an effort to reach people of all ages and all backgrounds.

Since his arrest in September 2017, Alodah has remained in solitary confinement. What triggered his arrest? A tweet on the Saudi-Qatar rift.

Shortly after the June 2017 announcement of the Saudi-led blockade on Qatar, officials from the royal court ordered Alodah to tweet a message in support of the action. Saudi officials have regularly relied on the religious sector to publicly endorse their policies, but Alodah refused, and argued that reconciliation was better than the path his government had chosen.

Disturbed by increasing regional tensions after the blockade, Alodah obliquely expressed his desire for reconciliation: the English translation of the original Arabic tweet states, “May Allah harmonise between their hearts for the benefit of their peoples.” A few days later, Saudi state security officers arrested him.

After holding him without charge for a year, Saudi authorities filed 37 charges against Alodah when they began his trial in September 2018 in the Specialized Criminal court, the country’s terrorism tribunal, in Riyadh. The charges in the ongoing trial include ordinary activities that in no way describe criminal acts under any body of law in the world, for example, “objecting to the boycott of Qatar” and “visiting Qatar on multiple occasions, including in 2015”.

Whether the reconciliation now between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain on one side and Qatar on the other will be truly harmonious or good-willed is yet to be seen. But at the very least the Saudi government should supplement its positive diplomatic effort with meaningful reforms that reflect an effort to reconcile with its own people. Specifically, this should mean a reversal of Mohammed bin Salman’s policies that have resulted in the imprisonment of many prisoners of conscience, including women’s rights activists, scholars of Islamic law, academics and journalists.

As the blockade of Qatar seemingly comes to an end, it is only fitting that the one who prayed for the parties’ reconciliation also finds that his imprisonment has come to an end.

• Abdullah Alaoudh is the son of Salman Alodah. He is director of research for the Gulf Region at Democracy for the Arab World Now and co-founder of the Saudi National Assembly party; Abderrahmane Amor is a commentator, academic and former staff member of the Bernie Sanders campaign for president

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... man-alodah

[pErvinalia]

Middle East politics is so 2015. US politics is where it's at!

[Hermit]

No mention of why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic relations with Qatar. While I have no sympathy for any of their dictatorial governments, Qatar comes off the worst if the diplomatic severances and economic blockade were in fact caused by Qatar's alleged material support of extremist Islamist organisations.

[JimC]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

[Brian Peacock]

I don't think the region appears to be in such a socially parlous and politically undemocratic state because of Islam, but as history has taught us a religion operating at the level of the state does come in handy if one is inclined to be authoritarian and violently oppressive to maintain power.

[Hermit]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

It looks to me that your generally measured, centrist approach to issues does not include considerations regarding religion. Historical evidence does not suggest that religions are essentially poisonous. Triggered by the spread of the ideas by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment Christianity in Europe has become a great deal less so, and some denominations within various major religions are less poisonous than others. I suggest that the differences between them are more due to how powers-that-be use or abuse them than religious doctrines on their own. I suggest that atheist conceptions can be twisted to become every bit as poisonous.

[Svartalf]

Well, I'll counter that with the fact that the ancient world used a lot of lead and mercury compounds...
the Chinese even believed mercury to be the key to alchemical immortality recipes...

To make it short, you can give it all virtues you want, and even think it's indispensable, until solid proof that it's actually poison starts getting around.

[pErvinalia]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

It looks to me that your generally measured, centrist approach to issues does not include considerations regarding religion. Historical evidence does not suggest that religions are essentially poisonous. Triggered by the spread of the ideas by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment Christianity in Europe has become a great deal less so, and some denominations within various major religions are less poisonous than others. I suggest that the differences between them are more due to how powers-that-be use or abuse them than religious doctrines on their own. I suggest that atheist conceptions can be twisted to become every bit as poisonous.

I don't think basing society on fairy tales leads to good evidence based governance.

[Hermit]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

It looks to me that your generally measured, centrist approach to issues does not include considerations regarding religion. Historical evidence does not suggest that religions are essentially poisonous. Triggered by the spread of the ideas by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment Christianity in Europe has become a great deal less so, and some denominations within various major religions are less poisonous than others. I suggest that the differences between them are more due to how powers-that-be use or abuse them than religious doctrines on their own. I suggest that atheist conceptions can be twisted to become every bit as poisonous.

I don't think basing society on fairy tales leads to good evidence based governance.

Neither do I, but that is a long way from concluding that religion poisons everything.

[Brian Peacock]

I think Hitch's point stands up in the context of his book - which I find considered and thought provoking and have revisited often. Where I depart from the Horsemen is where their arguments start to tell us which groups we should applaud and which we should vilify, and on the basis of that vilification oppress. Harris' argument for nuking Islamic fundamentalists springs to mind.

[JimC]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

It looks to me that your generally measured, centrist approach to issues does not include considerations regarding religion. Historical evidence does not suggest that religions are essentially poisonous. Triggered by the spread of the ideas by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment Christianity in Europe has become a great deal less so, and some denominations within various major religions are less poisonous than others. I suggest that the differences between them are more due to how powers-that-be use or abuse them than religious doctrines on their own. I suggest that atheist conceptions can be twisted to become every bit as poisonous.

A more nuanced version would be that religions that exert control over politics and societies poison everything, as occurred in the past in Europe. Currently in Europe and Oz, plus many other parts of the world, religion is a relatively toothless tiger (with some regretting their loss of teeth, of course...), and is facing a relatively genteel decline, with its poisonous effects so diluted as to be ineffectual. As you said, the enlightenment had its effect. Fine.

But there are many other areas of the world where the insistence of religion to play a major, controlling role in society still remains. We even see that to an extent in the US, where fundamentalist christianity linked itself (rather hypocritically) to the Trump regime. There is little doubt that the intensity of the conflict between India and Pakistan is raised many fold due to religious hatred. Some African countries are infected with that virulent brand of christianity that demonises gays. The list could go on.

Back to the Middle East. I'm not, of course, laying all the blame for its parlous and violent state to religion. The aftermath of colonial rule, the distorting effect of oil wealth (and the corporations behind this) plus strident national movements like Zionism are major players. But all of these are amplified and made more hate-filled by the poison of dominant religions, particularly when competing religions inflame tribal hatreds.

[JimC]

I think Hitch's point stands up in the context of his book - which I find considered and thought provoking and have revisited often. Where I depart from the Horsemen is where their arguments start to tell us which groups we should applaud and which we should vilify, and on the basis of that vilification oppress. Harris' argument for nuking Islamic fundamentalists springs to mind.

Unethical and simply bizarre suggestions on how to deal with the effects of the poison are separate to an analysis of the poison itself. As I tried to explain in the previous post, "religion poisons everything" is a catchy line, and I don't blame Hitchens for using it, but the nuances involve whether religion is a minor player in society or whether it sees itself as a dominant force, and acts in that way.

[Brian Peacock]

I think Hitch's point stands up in the context of his book - which I find considered and thought provoking and have revisited often. Where I depart from the Horsemen is where their arguments start to tell us which groups we should applaud and which we should vilify, and on the basis of that vilification oppress. Harris' argument for nuking Islamic fundamentalists springs to mind.

Unethical and simply bizarre suggestions on how to deal with the effects of the poison are separate to an analysis of the poison itself. As I tried to explain in the previous post, "religion poisons everything" is a catchy line, and I don't blame Hitchens for using it, but the nuances involve whether religion is a minor player in society or whether it sees itself as a dominant force, and acts in that way.

No argument from me on that, or that religion is still a major force in the Middle East.

[Hermit]

A region that exemplifies the claim by Hitchens that "religion poisons everything"...

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

It looks to me that your generally measured, centrist approach to issues does not include considerations regarding religion. Historical evidence does not suggest that religions are essentially poisonous. Triggered by the spread of the ideas by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment Christianity in Europe has become a great deal less so, and some denominations within various major religions are less poisonous than others. I suggest that the differences between them are more due to how powers-that-be use or abuse them than religious doctrines on their own. I suggest that atheist conceptions can be twisted to become every bit as poisonous.

A more nuanced version would be that religions that exert control over politics and societies poison everything, as occurred in the past in Europe. Currently in Europe and Oz, plus many other parts of the world, religion is a relatively toothless tiger (with some regretting their loss of teeth, of course...), and is facing a relatively genteel decline, with its poisonous effects so diluted as to be ineffectual. As you said, the enlightenment had its effect. Fine.

But there are many other areas of the world where the insistence of religion to play a major, controlling role in society still remains. We even see that to an extent in the US, where fundamentalist christianity linked itself (rather hypocritically) to the Trump regime. There is little doubt that the intensity of the conflict between India and Pakistan is raised many fold due to religious hatred. Some African countries are infected with that virulent brand of christianity that demonises gays. The list could go on.

Back to the Middle East. I'm not, of course, laying all the blame for its parlous and violent state to religion. The aftermath of colonial rule, the distorting effect of oil wealth (and the corporations behind this) plus strident national movements like Zionism are major players. But all of these are amplified and made more hate-filled by the poison of dominant religions, particularly when competing religions inflame tribal hatreds.

I agree with what you said here, but you skated straight past the implication of the facts that 1) some religious denominations are far less poisonous than others and 2) a religion can be far less poisonous at one point in time than another. The implication is that the statement "Religion poisons everything" is incapable of explaining either. It is a meaningless catchphrase.

[JimC]

Perhaps, but I would still contend that any religion is at least mildly poisonous, even with its teeth pulled, in that it encourages a fantasy view of reality. Right now, humans need a hard-nosed appreciation of reality (or at least as close as evidence-based science will get us). Nothing else has a chance of letting our species navigate the perils ahead, both to us and the biosphere.

And sure, different religions, and the different eras they operated in have greatly different degrees of poison. But aphorisms, even those that miss nuances have their place...