Monday, June 27, 2016

Syrian Poet Adonis: Unless The Arabs Separate Religion And State, They Will Become Extinct - MEMRI




by MEMRI


In a recent address, Syrian poet Adonis said that it was necessary to change "the infrastructure and culture of society" and not merely the leadership.


In a recent address, Syrian poet Adonis said that it was necessary to change "the infrastructure and culture of society" and not merely the leadership. Speaking at the first convention of the Adhoc organ! ization, a London-based "secularist, modernist, pluralist" international NGO, Adonis called for separation of religion and state, and said that "If these deep-rooted steps are not taken, I think that we Arabs will become extinct… because we have no [unique] identity, and we contribute nothing to the building of the world." The convention, titled "The Roots and Causes of Islamic Violence," was held in Brussels on May 22, and Adonis' address was posted on the YouTube account of the I Think Magazine.
 

Syrian Poet Adonis: "At the advent of Islam, the inter-Islamic war did not cease for 50 years. Three of the founding caliphs were killed during that period. Abu Bakr is said to have died of poisoning, but Omar, Othman, and Ali were kille! d. When three funding caliphs are killed it raises some questions. Afterwards, there was the Battle of the Camel, as you know... What I’m trying to say is that Islam was founded amid blood, violence, and killing."

[...]

"Wahhabism is the movement that inherited this violence, and institutionalized this interpretation in our times. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Muslims who went to Syria – as well as the Muslims living in Syria, Iraq, and all the Arab countries – behave like invaders in the full sense of the word. They allow themselves to take prisoners, to kill, to plunder, and to kill children and elderly people in the most despicable ways. I've seen pictures of children who were not killed by the sword but sawed with a saw. Why? Because they are considered to be worth less than animals.
 
[...]

"We are facing a cultural problem, not just a political one. Since 1950, the Arabs have done nothing but change regimes. They staged revolutions and replaced the authorities – but with each change in leadership or regime, society only collapsed and disintegrated further.

[...]

Capture5530.JPG

"Changing the leadership is meaningless in and of itself. The important thing is to change the infrastructure and culture of society. The only way to d! o so, even if it is not enough... We all know what it is, and we keep saying this: We must start to separate the religious from the political, cultural, and social. The second thing we must do, after the separation of religion and state, is to work on helping ourselves to establish a democracy. Some people talk about Islamic democracy...
[...]

Capture5531.JPG

"Islam and democracy have nothing in common whatsoever. Democracy is a Western-Hellenistic notion. Islam has a different notion, the shura, but this s a joke.... Shura councils were composed of tribal chiefs, who did not represent the common people. So this is a joke. If these deep-rooted steps are not taken, I think that we Arabs will become extinct. We will become extinct as a civilization, because we have no [unique] identity, and we contribute nothing to the building of the world. "

View The Clip


MEMRI

Source:  http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5530.htm

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hillary: Savant of Washington Insider Corruption - Lloyd Marcus




by Lloyd Marcus


As a black guy, it sickens me that so many blacks continue stupidly voting for their greatest Nemesis, Democrats.


One of my brothers concluded, “Being in Washington as long as she has, Hillary Clinton has to have learned something. Therefore, she is probably the most qualified to be president.” From his low-info voter perspective, his assumption sounds reasonable.

As the informed political activist that I am, I wanted to scream, “Are you nuts? Hillary is the Devil!” I was stunned that my brother whom I have been sending my articles for years would ever consider voting for Hillary. Has he not been reading his big brother's articles? But, I digress.

Yes, Hillary has learned quite a lot during her years in Washington.

Hillary has learned how to deceive voters by publicly trashing banks while selling her influence to them; earning $21 million in two years for making twenty-minute speeches. 

Folks, please bear with me while I explain to voters like my brother. Hillary was a senator, the secretary of state, and could become president. Therefore, banks, corporations, foreign governments and businesses want to be on her good side. They want Hillary in their pocket. Paying her a bag of money would be illegal. So they paid her payola via speaker fees of $250,000 and higher for 20-minute speeches.

Hillary is well-schooled in DC insider corruption, becoming a multimillionaire while crushing little people along the way. Though she portrays herself as a champion of women, Hillary's history confirms that she is the complete opposite.

Throughout their marriage, Bill Clinton has been unable to keep it in his pants. Women were coming out of the woodwork going public with affairs and sexual assault allegations against Bill. Hillary headed up the Bimbo Eruption Squad to destroy, intimidate and silence her husband's lovers and victims. 

As the attorney for a child rapist, Hillary got him off. Hillary accused his 12-year-old victim of being a mentally ill slut. His 12-year-old victim said, “Hillary Clinton took me through hell.” 

As Secretary of State, Hillary hung ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff out to dry. With the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, our ambassador feared an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He requested more security from Obama and Hillary. Stevens' request was denied

It was election time. Providing extra security would contradict Obama's storyline that he’d ended terrorism. Ambassador Stevens was tortured to death after a well-planned terrorist attack on our consulate, his body defiled and paraded through the streets. Before the terrorist killed Ambassador Stevens and his staff, we had assets in the area that wanted to intervene. They were told to stand down

Staffer Sean Smith was also killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary is a sociopath. She looked Sean's mom, Pat, in the eye and lied to her. She vowed to get back to Pat with more answers. Hillary also told Pat she would punish the SOB who made the anti-Muslim video that angered the Muslims who carried out the attack and caused the death of her son. Hillary knew the attack had nothing to do with a video. Heartbroken, Pat Smith spoke publicly about Hillary, “She's a proven liar.” 

Hillary has learned how to put her political best interest above American lives. This was exposed in the bestselling book and accompanying movie, 13 Hours, which tells the horrific account of how Americans were left to die in Benghazi.

Hillary has learned how to deceive black voters; insultingly talking down to them by speaking with a black dialect (“I don't feel no ways tired”) and claiming to carry hot sauce in her purse. Oh please!

As a black person, I have always found it repulsive the way Hillary and democrats consistently imply that blacks are mentally inferior. For example: In essence, Hillary and her fellow Dems say it is too hard for simpleminded coloreds to acquire a photo ID. Thus, requiring a photo ID to vote is racist and disenfranchises blacks. This is absurd and extremely insulting. 

Blacks have suffered greatly under Obama, epidemic unemployment and so on. 

Hillary will continue Obama's failed policies, furthering the downward spiral of black Americans: more poverty, more joblessness, more black-on-black crime, more fatherless households and more government dependency and enslavement. As a black guy, it sickens me that so many blacks continue stupidly voting for their greatest Nemesis, Democrats.

Hillary has learned how to create a charity in which only 10% goes to the people she claims to champion. Her Clinton Foundation enabled her to market her influence as secretary of state and her future presidency to foreign governments and businesses; making her and Bill extremely rich. 

Hillary has truly mastered the technique of portraying herself as a champion of various groups while stabbing them in the back. Hillary claims to champion homosexuals while accepting millions from countries that execute homosexuals and enslave women. 

My low-info voter brother's time is consumed coaching kids football and working a full-time job. He gets his news from mainstream media. His only knowledge of Hillary's email scandal is the media and Democrat operative's spin that says evil Republicans are out to get her. My brother does not know that as secretary of state Hillary broke extremely serious national security protocols, putting American lives at risk.Government employees with far lesser violations have been thrown into jail. Hillary has learned that being a Democrat in Washington permits her to arrogantly function outside the law without consequence.

In conclusion, my low-info voter brother is correct about Hillary learning a lot during her many years as a Washington DC insider. For that very reason, we must not allow this vile master of corruption and sociopathic liar anywhere near the People's House. 


Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee
LloydMarcus.com

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/hillary_savant_of_washington_insider_corruption.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How and Why Government Forces You to Finance Illegal Immigration - Michael Bargo, Jr.




by Michael Bargo, Jr.


--if it’s so expensive to live in the U.S., how do people working at low-paid jobs no one else will do afford cars, housing, education, insurance and other expenses necessary for daily living?


As the Supreme Court rejects President Obama’s efforts to issue unconstitutional executive orders with regard to immigration law enforcement, the real issue for American voters is who pays for the benefits illegal immigrants receive. It’s an issue to consider this November.

Illegal immigration was not created by business. Businesses cannot give them drivers licenses, government benefits, or issue unconstitutional executive orders as President Obama has. Only government can get away with those actions. How it forces you to financially support illegal immigrants in the U.S. is the real story.

It costs just as much for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S. as it does for documented immigrants. The price of gasoline is the same, along with food, used cars, and housing. Public education is actually higher for illegal immigrants, up to 50% higher, since illegal immigrants use expensive programs such as English as a Second Language that English-speaking students do not. So the question then becomes, if it’s so expensive to live in the U.S., how do people working at low-paid jobs no one else will do afford cars, housing, education, insurance and other expenses necessary for daily living?

Anyone who states that people earning ten dollars an hour can pay their own way should do a brief review of the expenses of living in the U.S. The Kaiser Health Group states that today it costs $12,000 and more to have one baby. Mexicans make up the majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S., but there are many from Europe and other parts of the world who have overstayed their visas. With regard to family size, it’s important to note that Mexicans today have about twice as many children as white families and one more than black families. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently found that Mexicans are now having slightly smaller families, but regardless of family size, someone has to pay for that $12,000 per child. And, if you are aware of it or not, you are paying for it.

The other big cost is education. In Los Angeles it now costs $25,000 per year to teach one student, more for Hispanics since they use ESL programs. Chicago spends $16,000 per student and New York City $27,000. And these costs don’t include ESL. These three cities are all sanctuary cities that violate Federal law by encouraging illegal immigration. They constantly raise taxes and fees in order to provide illegal immigrants with subsidies for food, housing and education. Since illegal immigrants earn so little money, and are supported by a number of local, state, and Federal programs, you end up being forced to pay for these programs. The Center for Immigration Studies found in 2015 that the average illegal immigrant family receives $6,234 in different benefits, 41% more than native households.

While illegal immigration is based upon violations of the 1996 Immigration Law, there has been a complete lack of obedience to the Constitution in other ways. With regard to financial support the main way the Constitution is violated is through misappropriation of funds, a U.S. Code Title 18 felony.

The money spent on illegal immigrants comes from several main sources. Those ever-higher fees you have to pay for cable TV, utilities, gasoline, property taxes and the other necessities of daily life are in part subsidies for illegal immigration. And much of these higher costs go to pay for the government employees, particularly teacher union members, who are paid to teach the children. It’s a little known but very crucial fact that today one of every four children of school age is Hispanic and their number is the only number growing. If not for illegal immigrant children many school systems would have to cut back on the number of teachers. This also directly impacts their Federal and state subsidies. And since public-school teachers pay union dues, and these union dues are a major source of campaign contributions at local, state, and Federal levels, there is a direct connection between political power and the number of illegal immigrant children.

Recently there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children entering the U.S. illegally through the southern border. The reason for this is that children are the cash cow of public teacher unions. They then act as the foundation of political power. So the extra taxes, fees, and debt created by government to support illegal immigrants is a subsidy of political power. These taxes and fees then force you to support the one party, the Democrat Party, that is the sole beneficiary of all these public sector union campaign contributions.

This is why sanctuary cities and states, particularly those that created sanctuary policy in the beginning, are all run by Democrats. This is technically a violation of your First Amendment right of free speech since SCOTUS has already ruled that campaign contributions are a form of speech. This is another way that illegal immigration violates the Constitution, other than at the direct violation caused by the fact that only Congress has the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Another way government has devised to pay for illegal immigrant is to divert money appropriated for city and state services to illegal immigrants. This creates a shortfall that states and cities make up by issuing  bonds. The explosion of spending on illegal immigrants, as well as the explosion of retirement costs of public sector workers, are the reasons why municipal bond debt has skyrocketed in the past ten years and is now driving some cities and states into bankruptcy. While no state has yet had to confront bankruptcy in Federal court, the passage of time only increases interest costs, it never reduces them.

Public sector union pension costs are also driven by illegal immigration. And in states like Illinois state law puts priority on payments to municipal pensions. These are enforced through state law. So a city that cannot afford its annual pension contributions will have the state declare it is delinquent and can divert state grant money to the pension funds. This is why Chicago’s mayor recently cut back on mental health facilities. Public pensions have, in IL state law, priority even though they say they are devoted to helping children and the disabled.

Other hidden costs are in property taxes. Illinois now has ten cities, including Chicago, where the entire property tax payment goes only to pensions, not services. This lack of revenue prompted Democrats to pass the stimulus programs and Recovery Act. So it ends up in the national debt. The exact amount of national debt created by illegal immigration has yet to be honestly audited.

Should Hillary Clinton become president there is no doubt that she will issue further executive orders to violate Federal law and force you to subsidize more illegal immigrants.


Michael Bargo, Jr.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/how_and_why_government_forces_you_to_finance_illegal_immigration.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New Democratic platform pushes 'Palestinian rights' - Ron Kampeas




by Ron Kampeas


DNC platform tilts platform towards 'Palestinian aspirations' - but falls short of condemning Israel.


JTA – Following efforts by representatives of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee has altered the party’s platform to reflect “Palestinian aspirations”, but rejected language demanding Israel end its “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and halt construction in Jewish communities over the Green Line.

According to an Associated Press report emailed to reporters late Saturday by the Sanders campaign, the platform calls for a two-state solution, but does not frame it purely as an outcome that benefits Israel, as previous platforms have.

It declares that achieving Palestinian statehood would provide “the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity.”

The platform drafting committee of the Democratic National Committee met in cities across the country. The meeting this weekend, which wrapped up the draft and where the Israel-related language was approved, was held in St. Louis. The full platform committee will vote on the draft on July 8-9 in Orlando.

The committee rejected language proposed by James Zogby – a Sanders appointee to the committee and the president of the Arab American Institute – that called for “an end to occupation and illegal settlements”.

Zogby said Sanders, the first Jewish candidate to win major nominating contests, helped draft the rejected language.

According to tweets by Josh Ruebner, the policy director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, who was monitoring in real time the St. Louis meeting of the platform drafting committee, Zogby’s language was defeated around midnight Friday 8-5.

Speaking against Zogby’s language were Wendy Sherman, a former deputy secretary of state and an appointee named by Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Howard Berman, a former California congressman who was named to the committee by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the DNC chairwoman. Advocating for the language was Cornel West, a Sanders appointee and a philosopher who backs the boycott Israel movement.

Keeping out language that could potentially alienate the pro-Israel community was a priority to the Clinton campaign. Earlier this week, Jake Sullivan, her senior foreign policy advisor emailed JTA to say that “Hillary Clinton’s steadfast support for Israel, and the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, are well known. As we have said previously, she remains confident that the party platform will reflect her views.”

Clinton has secured enough delegates to win the first round of voting at the convention in Philadelphia next week. Sanders, unusually for a candidate who is set to lose, was given five spots on the platform drafting committee, a reflection of the strength of his campaign. Clinton named six and Wasserman Schultz the remaining four.

Zogby and another Sanders appointee to the committee who advocates for Palestinian statehood, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., seemed happy with the overall platform, saying Sanders scored wins on his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, break up big banks, and expand social security.

“We got some great stuff in the platform that has never been in there before,” Zogby told AP.

J Street, a left-wing NGO, praised the Israel-related language.

“The new language breaks with the party’s practice of framing its aim of establishing a Palestinian state solely in terms of Israel’s interests,” it said in a statement. “By including parallel acknowledgement of Israeli and Palestinian rights, the party underscores its belief that the only viable resolution to the conflict–a two-state solution–requires recognizing the fates of the two-peoples are intertwined.”


Ron Kampeas

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214102#.V2_crqKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Western Universities: The Best Indoctrination Money Can Buy - Denis MacEoin




by Denis MacEoin



Fundamentalist Islam, backed by vast monetary power, is corrupting our dearest Enlightenment values.

  • The tendency of modern liberals to wring apologies out of governments for the actions of their ancestors, from the slave trade to Orientalist depictions of the peoples of Islam, is a pointless attempt to re-write history. There are, of course, no calls for Muslim governments to apologize for anything from their slave trade to the early Arab conquests.
  • "The ethics of establishing a campus in an authoritarian country are murky, especially when it inhibits free expression." -- Professor Stephen F. Eisenman, Northwestern University (which has a branch in Qatar)
  • Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than 233.5 million pounds sterling from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995 -- the largest source of external funding to UK universities.
  • "Several agreements made between the MEC [Oxford's Middle East Centre] and donors appear to indicate that funders have sought to influence the centre's output and activities." -- Robin Simcox, A Degree of Influence, 2009, p.35
  • One of those "dilemmas" is the influence by teachers across the United States on impressionable students who organize Israel Apartheid Weeks. They join with assorted anti-Semitic demonstrators, condemn Israel for every sin under the sun, and use intimidation against Jewish and Zionist colleagues, but are never told any historical, legal, or political facts by their equally biased faculties.

In asking why Western civilization has been the greatest in history, many point to European and, later, American military power, the strength of the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese empires, their command of the oceans, or the progress brought about through the Industrial Revolution. Today, of course, there is a general trend to picture Western achievements in a uniformly negative light, often for valid reasons, including our use of slavery or the mistreatment of so many Native Americans. This negativity is, however, highly selective. Why, for example, are Western Christian empires considered a blight on mankind while the great many Muslim empires of the past -- which lasted over a much longer period, engaged in the largest and longest-lasting slave trade in history, sought to impose one religion over all others, and placed enormous barriers on rational thought from about the 10th century -- regarded as a blessing?

The greatness of the modern West owes much to those discoverers, conquerors, and traders and to the worldwide enterprises they built -- just as the Islamic empires had their explorers, traders, and international networks (as in the great Sufi orders). Important civilizations were created in both realms: great urban developments, great architecture, the first universities, great poetry, great art, great philosophy, a flurry of scientific and mathematical activity in the Muslim middle ages, and then in the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The tendency of modern liberals to wring apologies out of governments for the actions of their ancestors, from the slave trade to Orientalist depictions of the peoples of Islam, is a pointless attempt to re-write history. There are, of course, no calls for Muslim governments to apologize for anything from their slave trade to the early Arab conquests.

The modern world of the West is a product of a period that created the greatest advances in human history: the Enlightenment. From that era we can date the beginnings of the most important strengths of our modern world. It is these strengths, in spite of the many blessings they have bestowed and their role as buttresses for cohesive societies, that are derided and often attacked from the Islamic sphere as well as by forces within the West. It is not hard to remember what those strengths are: liberal democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, international instruments for the managing of conflict, women's rights, minority rights of all kinds, legislation out of political debate, an abhorrence of tyranny, freedom of thought, belief, and speech, critical inquiry, freedom of the press and other media, secularization that permits freedom of religious worship, and safety for the authors of opinions that dissent.

Of these blessings, the most important would seem the last: freedom of thought, belief, and speech, critical inquiry, freedom of the press and other media, secularization that permits freedom of religious expression, and safety for the authors of dissenting opinions. Without them, none of the others would last. There is also another, closely related to them: academic freedom. The liberation of the universities from the 18th century onwards from restrictions placed on scholars by kings and churches, the use of censorship to maintain the status quo, the blocking of scientific advances by appeals to scripture or the power of the clergy or simple traditionalism[1] and all the other forces of obscurantism, meant a quantum leap, not just in the physical sciences, but in all areas of human understanding, from politics to society to philosophy and to religion and the arts. We owe more than we often imagine to the freedoms of academia: that a teacher or researcher may not be censored, dismissed, or financially ruined for expressing his opinions;[2] that publications, whether books, monographs or entire learned journals, be free to include critical, even controversial content, and that controversy itself, far from being an impediment to a search for truth, is an essential mechanism for that search to take place.

This process did not take hold in the Islamic world, where, as mentioned, rationality was dismissed in favour of faith, from public and scholarly discourse early on.[3] Starting with an internal dispute between rationalists and theologians of a fundamentalist bent, the shift from fairly open enquiry was shut down when the dogma of the Qur'an's "uncreatedness," perfection and infallibility was established. Questioning was a risk to faith; it was safer to avoid hellfire by accepting all aspects of sacred scripture and law without a "wherefore?" or "why?" This doctrine of infallibility and the dangers of reason were promulgated by the most important thinker in the history of Islam, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111). According to this doctrine, God acts at every instant within every atom, destroying and creating as He wills, so that it is impossible to predict just what will happen at any given moment -- thus precluding the need or worth of rational enquiry. It is this conclusion that creates the fatalism which denies any human responsibility for the slightest action or exercise of personal will. An extreme modern statement of this anti-rationalism may be found in comments made by Mukhtar Mukhtar (Muchtar Muchtar), a leader of the Egyptian terrorist organization, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, to the reformist Muslim, Tawfik Hamid: "On the way (to the mosque) Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel".

This is not meant to be some paean to the West and a mockery of Islam: there is a growing threat to Western leadership around the world. The threat is not Islamic terrorism (although that is a real and growing threat, especially in Europe, but increasingly in the United States). The threat is not about growing Muslim demographics (although this is taking its toll in Europe, too). The threat is not even from the rise in influence of Islam across the globe. Those are genuine issues; Western leaders have so far failed adequately to respond to the threats they represent. The clear and present danger here eclipses all the others: it is to the values of the Enlightenment themselves. If not curtailed, this risk could usher in the abandonment of the very intellectual freedoms on which our wider freedoms rest. It is our complicity in the rapid and so far unstoppable growth of direct Islamic (and indeed Islamist) control over whole departments and centers in a burgeoning number of Western universities in Europe and the USA. And it is the encroaching censorship – and criminalization -- of free speech in Europe – and the US. These range from the tactics of intimidation on campus (and, apparently, off) to shut down dissent, to the European Commission issuing a "code of conduct" on May 31, 2016, presumably to close down "hate speech" online, but in practice it is usually those quoting "hate speech" or pointing out dangers, to warn others of them, who are closed down instead.

Do a handful of donations from Muslim governments to a number of European and American universities merit an entire article that starts out with claims that Western civilization is under threat? As a matter of fact, the scale of the donations is far beyond a handful, the universities involved are among the top academies in the world, the money involved is hundreds of billions of dollars, and the targets of Islamic finance are, for the most part, specific and form part of a distinct agenda. Some money may be given to business schools or science departments, but the overwhelming majority goes to support or create large departments and academic centers for Middle East, Islamic, or Arabic Studies. There is a seeming logic in this – aren't extremely rich Muslim states entitled to further the study of their own societies, history, and religion, thereby creating a corps of knowledgeable men and women with the requisite language skills and close familiarity with the subjects they first study then teach or with which they engage as government advisors, civil servants with governments, the UN or international NGOs, think tank members, public experts, media analysts and perhaps politicians? Well, if they observed complete neutrality and left academics to their own counsel, their input would pass as simple generosity or as a contribution to good relations within the international community. What could be nicer? Isn't the Islamic world badly misunderstood in the West, and wouldn't more teaching and research on it and its beliefs be a real boon? And how can someone like myself, who has spent a lifetime studying, teaching and writing about Islamic and Middle Eastern subject think badly of such an endeavour?

One obvious criticism is the sheer scale of the operation, meaning that fundamentalist Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar now effectively exercise a swathe of influence over the way in which Islam and Middle East Studies are taught in key Western universities. The dilemma for the universities is a harbinger of crises to come. Even fairly rich universities such as Harvard and Oxford experience financial difficulties. State funds are often hard or impossible to obtain; academics have to scramble to find funding for their projects, their jobs or their departments.

Universities have responded in a number of ways. One has been to bring in more and more students from abroad, including extremely high numbers from Islamic countries (where the standard of education is almost uniformly poor). ICEF Monitor reports:
"At its inception in 2005, there were just over 3,000 Saudi students in the US, a country that has been the primary destination for KASP-funded students in the years since and that saw its Saudi enrolment swell to just under 60,000 students in 2014/15 (for a nearly 2,000% increase over the last ten years). For the past five years in a row, Saudi Arabia has been the fourth-largest sending country for the US."
There are also large numbers of Saudi students in Canada and the UK.

A second response for a small number of universities has been to open satellite campuses in foreign countries, several in the Gulf. For example, University College London, Heriot-Watt University, New York University and Ireland's Royal College of Surgeons run programs, respectively, in Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Bahrain. Unsurprisingly, these campuses are far from free from external supervision. According to Professor Stephen F. Eisenman of Northwestern University (which has a branch in Qatar), "The ethics of establishing a campus in an authoritarian country are murky, especially when it inhibits free expression, and counts among its allies several oppressive regimes or groups".

Problematic as all this is, it is eclipsed by the impact on the study of the Islamic world in Western universities at home. Starting with the UK alone, Arab News reports:
Over the past decade, Saudi Arabia has been the largest source of donations from Islamic states and royal families to British universities, much of which is devoted to the study of Islam, the Middle East and Arabic literature. A large share of this money went toward establishing Islamic study centers. In 2008, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated £8 million (SR 48.5 million) each to Cambridge and Edinburgh for this purpose, Al-Eqtisadiah business daily reported yesterday. Oxford has been the largest British beneficiary of Saudi support. In 2005, Prince Sultan, the late crown prince, gave £2 million (SR 12 million) to the Ashmolean Museum. In 2001, the King Abdul Aziz Foundation gave £1 million (SR 6.1 million) to the Middle East Center. There are many other donors. Oxford's £75 million (SR 454.6 million) Islamic Studies Center was supported by 12 Muslim countries. Ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, gave £3.1 million (SR 18.8 million) to Cambridge to fund two posts, including a chair of Arabic. Ruler of Sharjah, Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Qassimi, has supported Exeter's Islamic studies center with more than £5 million (SR 30 million) since 2001. Trinity Saint David, part of the University of Wales, has received donations from the ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan.
Here, as well, is a summary of moneys given to U.S. universities, dating back as far as 1976:
The story of the Saudi donations in the United States dates back to 1976, when Riyadh transferred one million dollars to the University of Southern California.
In 1979, Saudi Aramco World magazine published a list of Middle Eastern gifts, including $200,000 from the Saudis to Duke University for a program in Islamic and Arabian development studies; $750,000 from the Libyan government for a chair of Arab culture at Georgetown University; and $250,000 from the United Arab Emirates for a visiting professorship of Arab history, also at Georgetown.
Until that time, Ryadh spent one hundred billion dollars to spread Wahhabism, the most anti-Semitic and extremist version of Islam.
Leading the list of "beneficiaries" is Harvard, with about $30 million. The jewel of the Ivy League received $20 million in 2005 alone.
20 million dollars were donated to the Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas; $5 million to the Center for Middle East Studies at Berkeley, in California; $11 million to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York and a half million dollars to Texas University (the seventh university, in order of size, in the United States); $1 million to Princeton; $5 million dollars to Rutgers University....
Oxford has a research center funded by the Iranian regime, while at Cambridge the funds come from Saudi Arabia, Oman and Iran.
Scholarships and degree programs are the favorite and easiest weapons of the Islamist regimes to influence the Western academies and their freedoms. Eight universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than 233.5 million pounds sterling from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995. The total sum, revealed by Anthony Glees, the director of Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, amounts to the largest source of external funding to UK universities.
Universities that have accepted donations from Saudi royals and other Arab sources include Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the London School of Economics, Exeter, Dundee and City.
In a 2009 study of the funding of strategically important subjects in UK universities, Robin Simcox, then a Research Fellow for the Centre for Social Cohesion, provides detailed tables and longer commentaries on the provision of funds to Arabic and Islamic Studies. A Degree of Influence[4] looks at eleven universities, including some with major centers for Islamic and Middle East Studies, such as Oxford (22 entries), Cambridge, London's School of Oriental and African Studies, Edinburgh, Durham and Exeter. Some of his observations are pertinent. Writing of Oxford's heavily-endowed Middle East Centre, he notes that
"The MEC has received substantial sums of money from sources in the Middle East. The way in which this money has been used means there is a clear risk that donors will seek to influence the output and activities of the MEC. In addition, many large donations to the MEC have been anonymous, creating a lack of transparency. In many cases, Oxford has knowingly accepted money from undemocratic states with poor human rights records.... Several agreements made between the MEC and donors appear to indicate that funders have sought to influence the centre's output and activities."[5]
Of Cambridge, he writes:
"Cambridge University is an example of how funding has had a significant impact upon how the university is run. Recent donations have been attached with conditions that could lead to donors gaining oversight via university Management Committees. While the principal donor's intentions seem honourable, a precedent appears to have been set where wealthy donors can influence the running of an independent academic institution."[6]

Oxford's Middle East Centre "has received substantial sums of money from sources in the Middle East. The way in which this money has been used means there is a clear risk that donors will seek to influence the output and activities of the MEC. -- Robin Simcox, A Degree of Influence. (Image source: Zaha Hadid/Flickr)

What does this unprecedented influence from countries and individuals with low expectations for academic freedom bring to our most revered institutions of learning? There are some positives. The money can allow genuine scholars to lecture or carry out valuable research, to teach languages such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish or Urdu (although not, of course, Hebrew), and to hold conferences open to a wide array of colleagues. All that is to the good, provided academics steer clear of controversy and subjects that upset their donors. In truth, academic freedom is at risk.

What so many fail or prefer not to grasp is that the subventions from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular are part of a much wider pattern. The Saudis for decades have disbursed hundreds of billions of dollars in order to propagate their puritan form of Islam, Wahhabism, across the globe, while building hundreds of mosques, schools, libraries, and Islamic centres, and sending out streams of hardline preachers trained in their seminaries and Islamic universities, to spread their message to Muslims everywhere, creating and financing bodies for Islamic missionary work, recruiting young Muslims to commit to an extreme form of their faith – all to the end of making the Saudi state the key player in the world of Islam and a leader in the propagation of Islam in the West. That is the nature of the doctrine. Deep pockets for academic study in Europe and North America are stitched tightly against their pockets that fund the missionary work and the enforcement of the most fundamentalist form of the Islamic faith.

Another way of looking at it is that earlier this year, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Shaykh Abd al-'Aziz bin-Abdullah al-Shaykh, issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims to play chess. He is far from the first to do so. He justifies the ban by saying, "The game of chess is a waste of time and an opportunity to squander money. It causes enmity and hatred between people". On February 3, 2016, a young Saudi cleric, Shaykh Sa'ad al-'Atiq, appeared on a fatwa advice programme on al-Ahwaz TV, and stated that if people publish pictures on social media sites, someone else may copy them and apply sorcery to them, which will result in the original poster becoming ill with cancer and other diseases. He even says he knows many cases of this. Over the past several years, several people have been beheaded in Saudi Arabia on charges of witchcraft and sorcery.

In May 2016, I read that another Saudi shaykh, Salih bin Fawzan Al Fawzan, a member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars, said that, "taking pictures is prohibited if not for a necessity — not with cats, not with dogs, not with wolves, not with anything". This, of course, is in direct line with the ancient ban on images of living creatures that has had such a marked effect on Islamic art. It is not hard to see that, if this is the height of scholarship in Saudi Arabia, their motives in financing academic study in Western universities may not be as noble as some would like to believe.

The Saudi antipathy to critical, rational, and secular scholarship is surely a warning. More than one Saudi shaykh, including the notorious Grand Mufti Bin Baz, have declared that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around it. Some are still doing so. Of course, better educated Saudis and others will find this laughable; but the fatwa declaring it has become the basis for intense debate among the highly religious.

The moment Western scholarship infringes the sensitivities of the Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis, Bahrainis and others, the barriers go up. Academics are denied visas to attend conferences, criticism of Gulf states is toned down, debate is shifted away from the Gulf monarchies themselves, and, compared to study of other Arab regions, rigorous critiques on subjects in the Gulf, such as political reform, human rights and suppression of dissent are largely excluded. According to Kristian Coates Ulrichsen of Rice University's Baker Institute, "Almost every centre of Middle East studies in the UK is linked somehow to a Gulf backer. It's created dilemmas, especially over the last few years as the threshold for self-tolerance of any dissenting view has got lower".

One of those "dilemmas" is the influence by teachers across the United States on impressionable students who organize Israel Apartheid Weeks. The students join with assorted anti-Semitic demonstrators, condemn Israel for every sin under the sun, and use intimidation against Jewish and Zionist colleagues, but are never told any historical, legal, or political facts by their equally biased faculties. America's Campus Watch monitoring organization keeps a close eye on this sort of abuse by identifying teachers and researchers who go far outside the boundaries of balanced academic discourse to mislead, indoctrinate, and validate student extremists. It exposes professors who make exaggerated claims about Islamophobia or who offer support to terrorist entities such as Hamas. Its steady record of news associated with Middle East Studies provides ample evidence of the distortions now hawked as balanced scholarship.

But for the clearest evidence that Gulf backers cannot be entrusted with the support of Western university studies of Islam and the Middle East, we need not look further than one of the earliest cases of Saudi investment in the field. In 1981, the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education paid for a lectureship at Britain's Newcastle University, to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Department of Religious Studies.[7] The appointee, a non-Muslim British teacher with a solid research record, embarked on an ambitious range of topics designed to give students a wide background in Islamic history and doctrine. Five years later, funding for his post was abruptly ended. The reason was that he included among his courses lectures on Sufism and Shi'ism -- vital subject for any study of Islam, yet, to the Wahhabis, both anathema.

This was bad enough -- academics at neighbouring Durham University's Centre for Middle East and Islamic Studies were vociferous in condemning the action and the reason given for it -- but the Saudis went further. They appointed (unilaterally, without any involvement with an interview by a university board) a Saudi teacher with no qualifications whatsoever in Islamic Studies (his PhD was in English Literature). The department and the university, eager to receive more money, allowed this amateur to teach and examine their students for several years more, after which the post fell by the wayside.

This is one of the most remarkable academic stories of recent history. A dismissal and an appointment based solely upon religious doctrine. But it had its effect. Other academics in the field, receiving or hoping to receive Saudi funding, now had their eyes open: There are topics, however important within the subject, that anyone who wants to keep his job must steer clear of. There are teachers who have research and publication interests in those topics who should not be appointed to Saudi-financed posts. In 1981, the Saudis were dipping their toes in the water. Now they are offshore, swimming in the strong currents.

Fundamentalist Islam, backed by vast monetary power, is corrupting our dearest Enlightenment values. This May, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Muslim body likened to the United Nations, prohibited eleven gay and transgender organizations from attending a conference at the UN on research to end the AIDS epidemic.
"Egypt wrote on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the 193-member general assembly about its decision without citing a reason. Clearly, protecting individuals most affected by the epidemic -- trans people globally are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population -- is not on the agenda."
It has to be assumed that the real reason for this was the deep-seated homophobia within the Muslim world. Potentially life-saving medical advances were blocked because Islam proscribes homosexuality (Qur'an: 77: 80-84).

We cannot continue to live like this. We cannot let hardline Muslims and Muslim states elbow aside their reform-minded brethren and trample on our most essential freedoms. Without the example and standards set up by Western nations, the Muslim world itself will fall into even greater decline, and that will lead to greater violence everywhere. If we owe it to ourselves to resist this onslaught on our values, we also owe it to the Muslim world to protect it from its own resistance to and fear of change.
Dr. Denis MacEoin is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

[1] A process described in appealing detail by Thomas Kuhn in his masterwork The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50th anniversary ed., U. of Chicago Press, 2012.
[2] A disturbing recent example of a Muslim teacher losing his post for reasonable interpretations of Islam is that of Professor Mouhanad Khorchid, who had been a professor of Islamic pedagogy at the University of Münster. In 2013, he published a liberal study of Islam, which was seized on by Germany's largest Muslim organization and condemned by them as a "rejection of the teachings of classical Islam" and an "insult to Muslim identity." For this, he was dismissed from his position at the university. See: Susanne Schröter, 'Opinion: A German Islam must be liberal, self-critical, Deutsche Welle, 23 May, 2026; available online here: http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-a-german-islam-must-be-liberal-self-critical/a-19277619
[3] A readable account of this may be found in Robert Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis, Wilmington, Delaware, 2010.
[4] Robin Simcox, A Degree of Influence: The funding of strategically important subjects in UK universities, Centre for Social Cohesion, London, 2009
[5] A Degree of Influence, p. 35.
[6] Ibid, p. 64
[7] See Daniel Easterman. New Jerusalems, London, 1992, pp.92-93.


Denis MacEoin is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8331/universities-indoctrination

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Top economies ease penalties on Iran over money laundering - AP and Israel Hayom Staff




by AP and Israel Hayom Staff


FATF suspends anti-money laundering measures against Iran for year despite concerns Iran uses financial sector to fund terrorist activities • American officials: FATF move has no effect on U.S. government's Iran-related sanctions.




AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34585

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A victory for patriotism - Dror Eydar




by Dror Eydar


Obama is a symbol of both the radicalization of Western elites, who since the end of World War II have been trying to dissolve the idea of the sovereign nation-state, and the attempt by these elites to impose ideology (euphemistically called "values") on the reality they see, instead of engaging in a thorough examination of reality and the lessons of history.

1.Nationalism won in Britain -- not "fascism," not "xenophobia" and not any of the other pejoratives pseudo-liberals love to apply to anything that counters their beliefs. Yes, pure and simple patriotism is what drove Brexit supporters, the kind of nationalism that leftist-liberal elites in the West in general, and Britain in particular, do not identify with. 

British nationalism preceded Europe. The late historian Adrian Hastings placed the emergence of the buds of this nationalism in the eighth century and the formation of a true English national entity between the ninth and 11th centuries, at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period. So the claims that the pro-Brexit movement was fueled by of "populism" and "empty rhetoric" indicates the critics' own worldview.

2.Fear of foreign migrants was not the main motive behind Brexit, but the unchecked flow of such migrants did serve as a wake-up call. Many of the migrants flooding into Britain refuse to integrate into British society. They do not adopt the culture of their hosts and do not see themselves as committed to the long-standing British ethos. This cultural (and perhaps national) autonomy migrants have created for themselves within Britain has served as a catalyst for the reawakening of natural feelings of patriotism among native Britons -- feelings that elites have been trying to kill in the name of universal ideas.

3.Not surprisingly, and quite entertainingly in fact, much of the Israeli media showed sympathy for the "Remain" camp. Why, you ask, does this have anything to do with us? Let's look at the similarities between the Brexit vote and the last Knesset elections in March 2015. One can see the same media denial of the will of the people, belittlement of patriotic and religious sentiments and adherence to leftist totalitarian thinking (even at the cost of detachment from reality and the people). For Israeli media figures, the aftermath of the Brexit vote was a mini-replay of the dejection they felt after the last Knesset elections.

4.Just a few months ago, U.S. President Barack Obama called on Brits to vote to remain in the European Union. The results of Thursday's referendum showed Obama's complete lack of influence. Obama is a symbol of both the radicalization of Western elites, who since the end of World War II have been trying to dissolve the idea of the sovereign nation-state, and the attempt by these elites to impose ideology (euphemistically called "values") on the reality they see, instead of engaging in a thorough examination of reality and the lessons of history. The drama in the U.K. will have implications on these subjects, too.

5.When it comes to Israel, it is still not clear whether Britain's departure from the EU will be good or bad. Anti-Israel activists on the European continent and inside Britain, who, seeking via a variety of methods (some sophisticated and some less so) to thwart the Jewish people's return to Zion, will not disappear, and will perhaps even get stronger. However, seeing the hostile EU be weakened is not a bad thing. We will wait and see how things develop.


Dror Eydar

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16509

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Brexit and Multiculturalism - Salim Mansur




by Salim Mansur


--the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.”

The people of Britain made their decision by a slim majority of 52 per cent to 48 percent to Leave the EU. After months of heart-wrenching debates and all the leverage that the Remain side with the Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposite, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, could apply, the people decided staying within the EU was not positive for Britain’s future.

The referendum’s outcome throws Britain into a period of economic and political uncertainties that the Remain side vigorously pushed as their main argument for staying within the EU. There will be a lot of soul-searching among the British elites in politics and business, in the media and in the universities, as to why the opponents of the EU prevailed. The referendum results will be minutely analyzed to understand why the British public was not sufficiently persuaded by their party leaders to back the status quo, and why on the other hand a majority of voters put aside their fear of uncertainty in favor of leaving the EU.

But the overarching reason why Britain left the EU, I believe, is plainly and simply understood if political correctness is set aside. A slim majority of the British public, primarily its aging population who remember what Britain was once like not too long ago as society and culture that open immigration policy severely, if not mortally, has undermined, decided that to save what remained of their island kingdom they needed to regain their full political sovereignty instead of losing more of it to the bureaucrats of the EU in Brussels.

Immigration, it bears repeating, and what it together with multiculturalism have done to Britain in incrementally unraveling its very special place in history, over-rode the arguments in favor of remaining in the EU. The peril of open-door immigration was foreseen many years ahead of the decision made to join the European Common Market (the predecessor to the EU) ratified by a referendum held in June 1975.

Nearly half-century ago Enoch Powell, a Conservative MP and a member of the shadow cabinet led by Edward Heath, spoke out on the perils of open immigration that came to be known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

At a Conservative Party gathering in Birmingham on April 20, 1968, Powell warned how unrestricted immigration was inexorably and unalterably changing the nature of British society. What is mostly remembered of Powell’s speech is what was at the time considered inflammatory. But for Powell it was about numbers as he stated, “bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.”

The Birmingham speech ended for Powell a distinguished career in politics as his warnings went unheeded, and he was removed from his position in Heath’s shadow cabinet. In the aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings in London, and concerns over “homegrown terror” from radicalized Muslim immigrants or Muslims of immigrant parents born in Britain, Powell’s warning in retrospect was prophetic for contemporary Britain and the West in general.

In the forty years since Britain joined Europe, immigration from the “Third World” countries of Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean have changed her urban landscape. According to Britain’s 2011 census, the foreign-born population constituted 11.9 per cent of the total population. But the cumulative number of the British public as foreign-born, or children of foreign-born, since at least 1961 makes the total in aggregate numbers or in percentage term substantively greater than the 10 per cent of Britain’s population that Powell had warned could significantly alter the character of the country.

It is not immigration alone of people of non-European ethnicity that has had a cumulative impact on the makeup of contemporary Britain. After joining Europe in 1975 Britain, in common with other Western liberal democracies, adopted the policy of multiculturalism as the basis of meeting the demand for equality with the country becoming increasingly multiethnic due to immigration and open borders.

The policy of multiculturalism is based on the spurious idea that all cultures are equal and, therefore, deserving of equal respect and treatment. In effect, this means that the liberal democratic culture of the host country, since multiculturalism as a policy or doctrine is nonexistent outside of the West, is equal to or no better than nonliberal or illiberal cultures of non-Western societies. Hence, multiculturalism is one of the most insidious assaults on liberal democracy based on the hard-won principle of individual rights and freedoms.

In the United States, among those most notable who warned against multiculturalism was Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in his book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (1991). The vulnerability of liberal democracies arises, however, from the situation that the tools by which liberals have advanced the principles of individual rights and secured them in law are equally available -- and indeed, often provided for by liberals as a matter of principle -- to those who either do not believe in liberal values or subordinate them to collective rights based on the arguments of group identity. The demand by vocal segments of the Muslim community for the acceptance of Sharia provisions by Western governments is, consequently, a logical outcome of multiculturalism adopted as a policy of treating equally people of different cultures within a liberal democracy such as Britain.

Such demands as acceptance of Sharia provisions, which have been incrementally conceded in Britain, might be ridiculous to the majority population of the host country. But for the British elites, the absurdity would be in denying the implicit logic of multiculturalism that they concocted and sold to the people.

The absurdity inherent in multiculturalism might be noted in the example of Bikhu Parekh, appointed to the House Lords in 2000 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair made Parekh, a professor of race relations and of Indian origin, a life peer to secure ethnic Indian votes for the Labour Party. Parekh on his part went on to suggest that Britain should change its name because of the negative connotations for millions of people around the world and, moreover, since Britain has become increasingly multicultural, there remains no justification for it to be British anymore.

Open-door immigration and multiculturalism might also be viewed as the response of Western liberal democracies driven by a sense of guilt for past wrongs. This sense of guilt is uniquely a Western phenomenon, making liberal democracies vulnerable to claims of past injustices made by others, especially non-Westerners who were once ruled by European powers.

The French political philosopher Jean-François Revel observed, “Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it… What distinguishes it is its eagerness to believe in its own guilt and… is zealous in devising arguments to prove the justice of its adversary’s case and to lengthen the already overwhelming list of its own inadequacies.”

In the post-referendum analysis to come of the vote in Britain for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that the issues of immigration and multiculturalism will receive due attention. These are sensitive issues, and there is a legitimate place for politeness -- distinct from political correctness -- when discussing sensitive issues in public.

But if the elites in Britain, and elsewhere in the West are not to get too disconnected from the public, they will need to be honest with themselves and understand how the twin policies of immigration and multiculturalism have divided their societies. It will be a tragic mistake to interpret the vote to leave EU by the British people as a populist and nationalist movement tinged with “white” bigotry.

Instead the Leave vote in this referendum was driven in some measure by the very respectable desire of the British people to demand a halt to the irreversible diluting of their national culture, rich in history and about which they have every right to be genuinely proud, by increasingly conceding to elite-driven policies of immigration and multiculturalism.

To equate a culture that has given to the world Shakespeare and Newton, the Magna Carta and parliamentary democracy, ruled the waves and defended freedom when it was most imperiled, with cultures that practice slavery or gender inequality or impoverishes the human mind, is demeaning. But in the post-9/11 world the British people, though they are not alone, have patiently suffered some living in their midst who take a pathological pleasure in insulting their hospitality, threatening their security, engaging in terrorism and openly espousing causes or doctrines at war against deeply embedded values of freedom and democracy cherished by them.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, described in her book Londonistan how greatly, and not for the better, immigration and multiculturalism have changed her country. It should be a matter of pride and celebration when Sadiq Khan, born to Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, is elected the Mayor of London. This could only have happened in the contemporary West.

But if there comes a moment when immigrants from Pakistan, or India, or Nigeria and elsewhere, such as Bikhu Parekh, on the basis of multiculturalism push to turn large portions of Britain into cultural enclaves of their origins, then the tipping point of tolerance for diversity, or pluralism, on the part of the host population has been reached.

The Leave EU win in the referendum was brought about as a result of the tipping point reached by the people in Britain.


Salim Mansur teaches at Western University in London, Ontario and is the author of award-winning Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/brexit_and_multiculturalism.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget