Replies

This a comment from The Guardian site:

I’m curious. Which other regime has stewardship of the most important site of a religion, the visit to which is a religious requirement, and routinely lets thousands upon thousands of visitors march through what is a essentially a meat grinder, then refuses to take responsibility? Especially after acquiring that site via conquest because of its religious importance?

Mind you, I’m not saying other oppressive regimes don’t take away your photos and refuse to acknowledge disasters. But the point is North Korea etc. don’t contain a site believers *must* visit, as far as I know. You can just decide to not go.
Similarly, it’s not a yearly occurrence for hundreds to die at, say, the Vatican.

Now, I’m an atheist and I think the entire concept of required pilgrimage is insane, but if I ruled a country which attracted the deluded by the thousands, I’d make sure they are as safe as possible so they keep paying me, bring their families and ideally go more than once in a lifetime. Instead, SA is relying solely on the fact that these people *cannot* decide to just not go. It’s not an option at all. That is the nature of their religious belief, if held sincerely. It’s called submission, and if you fail at it by not attempting the pilgrimage although you are physically and financially able, you have failed at submitting to your god.
The Saudi business model is “there are millions of people who must come here, so let’s milk that cash cow with as little investment as possible.”

So, which country is holding the holiest site of a major religion hostage and routinely glosses over the deaths of pilgrims who are required to go there? I know of no major religion other than Islam that *requires* such a pilgrimage in the first place.