Syrian bishop says government must crush the uprising

By John Pontifex

The Syrian government must resist the uprising – and has the people's backing in quelling forces seeking "destabilisation and Islamisation" – according to one of the country's most respected Catholic bishops.

In a strongly worded defence of President Bashar al-Assad's response to the protests and instability, Bishop Antoine Audo accused the media including the BBC and Al Jazeera of "unobjective" reporting, unfairly criticising the Syrian regime.

The Jesuit, who is the Chaldean Catholic Bishop of Aleppo, went on to warn that if Assad's government was overthrown, it would cause widespread instability, a breakdown of basic services such as electricity, increased poverty and a drive towards Islamisation.

Speaking from Aleppo in an interview with Aid to the Church in Need, Bishop Audo said: "The fanatics speak about freedom and democracy for Syria but this is not their goal.

"They want to divide the Arab countries, control them, seize petrol and sell arms. They seek destabilisation and Islamisation."

"Syria must resist – will resist. 80 percent of the people are behind the government, as are all the Christians."

Bishop Audo warned that if President Assad was ousted, Syria would suffer the problems of Iraq post Saddam Hussein with a widespread breakdown of law and order.

"We do not want to become like Iraq. We don't want insecurity and Islamisation and have the threat of Islamists coming to power."

"Syria has a secular orientation. There is freedom. We have a lot of positive things in our country."

The bishop was speaking after reports today (Monday, 13th June) of a third refugee camp being set up on the border between Turkey and Syria amid no sign of an end to the violence and instability dating back to the end of January.

The Syrian government has been strongly criticised for a hard-line military response to the uprising amid reports that the security forces have killed hundreds of protestors and injured many more.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Syria's armed retaliation against protestors as "unacceptable".

But the bishop stressed the scale of violence against Assad's regime, saying how more than 100 police were killed within a few days and added that the government had a right to defend itself.

He said: "In some media organisations, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, there is an orchestration to deform the face of Syria to say the government does not respect human rights and so on."

"The government respects people who respect law and order. Syria has a lot of enemies and the government has to defend itself and the country."

"There is a war of information against Syria. The media reporting is unobjective. We have to defend the truth as Syrians and as Chaldeans."

Stressing how the violence was centred on the country's borders, especially in the north overlooking Turkey, he said that for most people in the Aleppo area, there was relative calm.

But he did warn of increasing poverty, transport and other communications problems and described growing unemployment.

He said: "Generally, life in Aleppo is very normal. Everything is continuing but there is less work and transportation is poor."

In a reference to the country's 1.5 million Christians, he said: "Our situation as Christian faithful is not really any different from other communities. We want peace and security."

"We do not want war and violence and we very much hope that in the next few weeks the situation will be better."

Aid to the Church in Need has worked with Bishop Audo to provide long-standing emergency aid for thousands of Christian refugees arriving in Syria from Iraq.

Source: Aid to the Church in Need

Syria's religious pluralism at stake

Syria is in turmoil. Inspired by uprisings in other Arab countries, Syrian protestors have taken to the streets and denounced the autocratic rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Protests have spread to several cities, and it is estimated by the UN that at least 1,100 people have been killed by the security forces.

What is particularly sad about this is that Syria has for long been a beacon of religious pluralism and freedom in a largely intolerant region. Syria has many minorities. Arab Sunnis are the majority but other Muslim sects form a sizeable portion of the population. A further 8-10% of the people are Christian. In recent years many Iraqi Christian refugees have fled to Syria in the wake of bloody persecution in their homeland.

The government and security forces are dominated by the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam. This is largely a legacy of French colonial rule. In order to keep Sunni nationalism in check the French co-opted the services of the Alawite community, promoting them to high positions in government and the military. The Alawites went from being a despised downtrodden minority to rulers of their country – a fact deeply despised by the Sunni majority.

Although the Assad regime is authoritarian it has been good for the Christians and other minorities. The regime has kept in check the influence of militant Islamists. Christians are able to worship and practice their faith without much interference, although evangelisation among Muslims is strongly discouraged. A return to Sunni majority rule could lead to their violent suppression and, in the worst case, a sectarian bloodbath similar to that in Iraq. This is why many Christians in Syria have largely stayed away from protests. They are afraid of what may replace the secular Baathist regime.

In a letter to Western leaders, the Syria-based head of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, Patriarch Gregorios III, appealed for them to "ask the heads of state of Arab countries to work for real development... But don't encourage revolutions". He said:

“The situation has deteriorated into organised crime, robbery, fear, terror being spread, rumours of threats to churches... Fundamentalist groups are threatening citizens and wanting to create ‘Islamic Emirates'... Christians especially are very fragile in the face of crises and bloody revolutions! Christians will be the first victims of these revolutions, especially in Syria. A new wave of emigration will follow immediately.”

Thus far external powers have not called for regime change like they have in Libya. This is because by and large the main players – Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and America – prefer to see Assad remain in power than face the more destabilising consequences of regime change in a highly sensitive area. It is true that Syria has provided some support for terrorist groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas but, as Reva Bhalla of STRATFOR says, regime change could potentially lead to greater support for such groups:

“It is not a coincidence that Israel, with which Syria shares a strong and mutual antipathy, has been largely silent over the Syrian unrest. Already unnerved by what may be in store for Egypt’s political future, Israel has a deep fear of the unknown regarding the Syrians. How, for example, would a conservative Sunni government in Damascus conduct its foreign policy? The real virtue of the Syrian regime lies in its predictability: The al Assad government, highly conscious of its military inferiority to Israel, is far more interested in maintaining its hegemony in Lebanon than in picking fights with Israel. While the al Assad government is a significant patron to Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, among other groups it manages within its Islamist militant supply chain, its support for such groups is also to some extent negotiable, as illustrated most recently by the fruits of Turkey’s negotiations with Damascus in containing Palestinian militant activity and in Syria’s ongoing, albeit strained, negotiations with Saudi Arabia over keeping Hezbollah in check. Israel’s view of Syria is a classic example of the benefits of dealing with the devil you do know rather than the devil you don’t.”

The Assad regime is certainly coming under increasing strain, but for the time being it is holding together. Considering that Alawites were once second-class citizens less than a century ago, there is a deep-seated fear of a reversal of Alawite power. For that reason the Alawites are sticking together.

Only time will tell of course what will happen in Syria. My wife’s best friend is a Christian lady from Syria. She never fails to impress us with her strong religious faith and good Christian values. She is understandably worried about the safety of her family members and the fate of her homeland. Syria is a beautiful country steeped in history where the ruins of Crusader castles and citadels still dot the landscape. It would be a tragedy if the religious pluralism that has existed there for many years descends into sectarian violence. Please pray that this doesn’t happen and that all communities in Syria continue to live peacefully together.

India's unwanted girls

India’s 2011 census shows a worrying trend in the number of girls under the age of 6. There are now 914 girls under the age of 6 to every 1,000 boys. This is worse than the figure ten years ago when the ratio was 927 to 1,000. The picture is varied across the country but the siutation in the north generally worse than in the south. Haryana is at the bottom with a ratio of 830 to 1,0000 followed by Punjab with 846 to 1000.

There are many reasons to explain this trend including female infanticide, abuse and neglect of girl children, but the main reason is sex selective abortions. A study in the British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates that up to 12.1 million girls were aborted in India over the last three decades. This happened despite a 1996 law banning the use of ultrasound screening or other testing for the sex of the unborn child.

Researchers found that wealthier or more educated women were more likely to abort girls because they could afford to pay for sex tests and abortions. They also found that families who already had one girl were more likely to abort a second child if they knew the unborn child was female. Ranjana Kumari, director of the Centre for Social Research, said the findings were “worrisome and threatening” because “we always believed when people are rich and educated they will be more socially aware but that is not the case.”

Cultural prejudice

The problem is not confined to Indians in India. Journalist and author Lady Kishwar Desai last year pointed to statistics from the University of Oxford that showed almost 100 baby girls were “disappearing” from British Indian families every year.

The statistics clearly point to a significant cultural preference among Indians for baby boys. Why is this the case? The main reason is dowry. Although outlawed by the Indian government in 1961 the practice remains rampant, affecting all religious communities, rich and poor alike. There are other reasons for having boys too: they are bread winners; they are expected to look after their parents in old age; they often inherit their parents’ property; they carry forward their parents’ family name; and in the case of Hindus, they are allowed to light their parents’ funeral pyres.

Lady Desai, who was born in Amabala in Northern India, said: “Jewellery, cash, cars, even houses – the value of the dowry an Indian girl’s family must pay to the family of her future husband can run to tens of thousands of pounds.”

“Marrying off one daughter can be expensive, but two, three… that can be ruinous”, she said.

She said that estimates varied as to how many Indian women are now ‘missing’ but “Female foeticide, gendercide – call it what you will – it’s a terrible and chilling statistic”. It is certainly is.

Worsening trend

Unless the deep cultural prejudice against having baby girls is dealt with I do not think the situation is likely to improve. We will inevitably see more and more female foetuses being aborted each year in India. Not only is this the wilful execution of unborn children but it is an affront to the value of a girl’s life. I have to agree with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who called this a “national shame”. Government laws by themselves will not solve the problem as they have thus far proved ineffective in dealing with the issue. What really needs to happen is social transformation, but the question is: is that really possible?

Bible study meeting: Matthew 25

I belong to a bible study group connected with a local Catholic church. We meet every fortnight to discuss a particular chapter in the bible. We are currently making our way through the Gospel of Matthew. Yesterday evening we met to discuss Matthew 25.

In this chapter Jesus explains what God expects from us and the final judgement using simple parables. Jesus is such a master storyteller. I love the way He explains difficult, obscure concepts in a simple way so that the lay people around Him understand.

The first parable in Matthew 25 involves ten bridesmaids, five of whom are wise and five of whom are foolish. The wise bridesmaids took oil for their lamps while the foolish ones did not. It was a custom in ancient Israel for the groom to come to get his bride at a time of his choosing. All the bridesmaids fell asleep because the groom was delayed, but when he did turn up the foolish bridesmaids were forced to go away and buy oil, only to return and find they had been locked out of the marriage feast. The lesson here is that we should never be complacent in our spiritual life; we must be vigilant and strive to grow in faith always, so that when the final judgement comes we prove worthy of being admitted to the heavenly banquet.

The second parable is about talents. A businessman leaves town and entrusts his money with his three workers. To each worker he gives different amounts depending on their ability. There are no strings attached, but this is clearly a test to see how well the workers use their master's money. Two of the workers, by industrious trading, doubled the amounts they each received. The third, a man who was very prudent, carefully hid his money and made no gain. When the master returns he rewards the first two for their enterprise, but the third is condemned for doing nothing. In a similar fashion, God gives us different talents and abilities that He expects us to make use of. Some people are obviously more gifted than others, but that is not important. We have all been given sufficient talents from God by which we can work together for our common good. The emphasis here is clearly on community.

Finally, the third parable is about helping others and the final judgement. When the time comes, the goat (the bad) will be separated from the sheep (the good). The good will be are richly rewarded while the bad will be punished for their misdeeds. God will judge us not only for the wrong we have done but also for what we have failed to do. It is important that we help others who are not so fortunate as us because that demonstrates real compassion.

We had a good discussion ably aided by Fr John who is a priest from Nigeria. It was my turn to moderate this time, which meant I had to select the opening hymn, the prayers and control the flow of the meeting. I finished with a closing prayer, which drew upon Matthew 25 as well as my own personal experiences. Here is my prayer:

Dear Lord,

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to meet today and reflect on the Word of God. Let your Word always be the guiding light in our lives. Help us to grow in faith, using the trials and tribulations that come our way to turn to God instead of turning away from Him. Thank you for the many talents you have given us Lord; let us make use of them wisely. Help us to lead holy lives, always striving to do good and helping others.

Amen.

Arab spring or Christian autumn?

The dominant reaction in the West to the spread of revolution was one of enthusiasm; some commentators even spoke of an “Arab spring” in North Africa and the Middle East. It was widely believed that the resulting political changes would be for the better, leading to the establishment of real freedom for the region’s peoples – including its Christian minorities – and of Western-style democracy. An important reason for this optimism was the apparently secular character of the revolts: they appeared to have little or no religious dimension, and certainly not to be Islamic revolutions on the Iranian model.

If this were so, the uprisings would indeed be good news for the Christians of these nations. For years they have suffered discrimination in many areas of life, restrictions on their freedoms by the authorities, and outright violence from the Muslim majorities. If the twilight of the old regimes really did herald the dawn of freedom, Christians could hope at last to take their place as equal members of society and to practise and share their faith in peace and safety.

Sadly, however, the widespread positive response to recent events in misplaced, even naïve. North African and Middle Eastern concepts of freedom and democracy, shaped by centuries of Islamic domination, are simply not the same as Western ones. So, for example, when political leaders commit themselves to “support freedom,” they do not intend to include religious freedom in this, and their Muslim audiences do not understand them to do so.

Nor can religion be separated from politics in any Muslim context, where the two are inseparably connected. For most of the people involved in them, the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings are not “secular” revolutions; they are profoundly religious events, waiting to be led by the strongest religious players.

The best organised and funded groups among the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt are the Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who are aiming to play a leading role in the future government of their countries. There is already significant evidence of their growing influence in the post-revolutionary fervour:

The return of Islamist leaders Rashid al-Ghannoushi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi to Tunisia and Egypt respectively, amidst great public enthusiasm; the latter led a million people in prayer in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

The appointment of an Islamist judge to head the committee drawing up Egypt’s new constitution.

The sudden and sharp upsurge in anti-Christian violence in Egypt, involving not only Islamist militants but also the Egyptian authorities.

The outcome of recent events in North Africa and the Middle East is impossible to predict with confidence at this stage. But the essentially religious character of political events in Tunisia and Egypt, and the presence there of powerful Islamist groups, raises grave concerns for the future of Christian communities in those countries. If Islamism does seize control of the various revolutions, whether slowly or suddenly, it will impose a much stricter Islamic character on politics and society, threatening the very survival of Christianity across the region.

Please pray that the Arab spring does not become a Christian autumn.

Source: Barnabus Fund

Trip to Portugal

It was with some excitement that I travelled to Portugal in south western Europe with my wife and daughter last week. Our main purpose was to visit the famous Marian shrine of Fatima where, in 1917, the Virgin Mary appeared to three Portuguese shepherd children and up to 70,000 people witnessed the famous Miracle of the Sun. After landing in Lisbon we travelled by bus to Fatima, about 110km north of Lisbon.

The Basilica of Our Lady of Fatima was a beautiful neoclassical building with a tall spire, on top of which stood a golden crown and a cross. The crown of course symbolised the building’s Marian connection. On one side, in front of the basilica, was an open-air chapel called the Chapel of Apparitions, built on the site where the apparitions took place. A statue of the Virgin Mary, enclosed in a glass case, marked the exact spot where she appeared. There was a unique sense of peace and calm here. One could easily spend a long time sitting on one of the wooden benches quietly praying and meditating.

We attended the International Rosary and International Mass, much of which was said in Portuguese. Nevertheless, we were happy to join in these special celebrations that take place on the 13th day of every month. There must have been a few hundred people for the Rosary and even more for the mass. The mass was celebrated in the new Church of the Most Holy Trinity, a rather plain looking building with an enormous seating capacity of around 9,000. The majority of pilgrims seemed to be Portuguese.

In the heat of an afternoon sun, we walked the Stations of the Cross just outside Fatima. This took us to the village of Valinhos where the Angel of Peace appeared to the children and prepared them for their meeting with Mary. This place was quite wild, covered mainly by shrubs and trees. Then we walked into the small village of Aljustrel where the children lived. The children’s homes had been carefully preserved over the years, and we were struck by how small and simple they were. That three peasant children, from such an isolated and humble setting, could be chosen by God for His divine purpose demonstrated to us how very often the values of heaven are contrary to those on earth.

From Fatima we headed south, past some of Portugal’s renowned vineyards, to the bustling city of Santarem. From the main bus station, we cut across the gardens and walked along narrow cobbled roads to the Church of the Holy Miracle (Igreja do Santissimo Milagre), home to a 13th century eucharistic miracle. An elderly guide in the church took us behind the altar to view the blessed sacrament, carefully preserved since the 13th century. The story surrounding this miracle involving a spurned wife, an unfaithful husband and a Jewish sorceress is quite an interesting one. I had some questions to ask, but unfortunately our church guide knew little English; so I was unable to get the answers that I sought. Nevertheless I took comfort in the knowledge that I visited this famous pilgrimage site which St Francis Xavier also visited before he left for India.

Finally we toured Lisbon, Portugal’s capital city. Although not as big as London or Paris, we felt the lifestyles of people here were not much different to those in other Western European capitals. This was a totally different world from the little village of Aljustrel. Situated on hilly terrain, Lisbon has many tall coloured buildings, tree-lined streets, mosaic pavements, smart cafes, and bright yellow trams. A half day guided tour took us to the main attractions in the city including Belem Tower, Jeronimos Manastery, Monument to the Discoveries, the Coaches Musuem and Alfama. In the Jeronimos Manastery we saw the final resting place of Vasco da Gama, the famous Portuguese explorer, who in 1498 landed in Kappad near Calicut, India. We also visited St Anthony’s Church, built on the birthplace of the great saint, as well as Lisbon Cathedral.

We enjoyed our short visit to Portugal and in particular Fatima. Unlike that other famous Marian shrine, Lourdes, Fatima is not as commercialised. Here one does not feel overwhelmed by a multitude of shops, restaurants, cafés and hotels. The setting is actually quite prayerful. We were glad to partake in the celebrations as well as spend time quietly praying. I got the impression that the events in Fatima in 1917 had made a deep impact in the country, and because of that there was still some respect for religion in this overwhelmingly Catholic European nation.

Although relatively small, Portugal is a charming country where there is much to see and do. There is variation from north to south, the north being more green, hilly and industrious. The weather during our tour was gloriously sunny, sometimes a bit too sunny for our liking. We enjoyed tasting Portuguese food including a common type of egg pastry called pastel de Belém. We found the Portuguese people fairly mellow and well mannered; some were quite friendly. Unfortunately very few of them knew English, and as we knew little Portuguese, communication was sometimes a bit tricky. Fortunately everything went smoothly and we had no major problems.

Ultimately it was the message of Fatima that brought us to Portugal, a message that continues to spread around the world. I believe the purpose of the apparitions there was to help people grow more in faith, hope and love. And what better way to do this than imitate the Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

It’s the oil, stupid

Something Colonel Gadhafi said on Tuesday seemed to be tipping point for a Western push for military action in Libya. He said: “We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us...Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms.” In other words, if Gadhafi was to stay in power, Libyan oil would no longer go to Europe but to BRIC (Brazil, China, Russia, India) countries instead.

Currently no less than 85% of Libya’s oil is sold to European Union (EU) countries. Libya is the largest oil economy in Africa with at least 46.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. That is 3.5% of global output. It has the potential to dramatically increase its daily output of oil and cost of production is very low at roughly $1.00 per barrel. All of this makes Libyan oil extremely attractive.

It’s interesting to note which countries voted in favour of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution approving “all necessary measures,” including imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution was passed with 10 members, including the US, France, the UK and Lebanon, voting in favour and five — Russia, China (both permanent members with veto rights), Brazil, Germany and India — abstaining. Brazil and Germany had voiced their scepticism about military action; but in the case of Russia, India and China other (energy) motivations may have been at play.

It seems pretty obvious to me that oil did play a major role in the decision for Western intervention in Libya. Added to this are concerns about Libya being a major gateway for African migrants to get into Europe. Then there are those US/EU arms firms who likely to profiteer too. But the case for war has been sold as a humanitarian mission to help the beleaguered people of Libya being oppressed by Gadhafi. What about military intervention in Bahrain where the current Sunni ruling elite, along with their Saudi allies, are brutally cracking down on the local Shia population? The difference is Bahrain is ruled by a pro-western Sunni regime, which is home to the US Fifth Fleet, while in Libya everything is up for grabs.

There are major risks associated with implementing a no-fly zone, and it has every chance of backfiring. The big unknown is what Gadhafi will do. His minister of defence has already warned that all aerial and naval traffic in the Mediterranean is at risk, and every civilian and military target is fair game.

STRATFOR, a leading global intelligence company based in the US, warned that “war as a humanitarian action should be undertaken only with the clear understanding that in the end it might cause more suffering than the civil war. It should also be undertaken with the clear understanding that the inhabitants might prove less than grateful, and the rest of the world would not applaud nearly as much as might be liked — and would be faster to condemn the occupier when things went wrong. Indeed, the recently formed opposition council based out of Benghazi — the same group that is leading the calls from eastern Libya for foreign airstrikes against Gadhafi’s air force — has explicitly warned against any military intervention involving troops on the ground.”

There’s something eerily reminiscent of Iraq here. What is ostensibly sold as a humanitarian mission has the underlying signs of strategic interests being the real issue. There is the possibility that things may not go according to plan, which could lead to civilian casualities and a very unstable situation in Libya – something the West may learn to rue.