Does Islam Belong to Germany? - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

• "Former German President Christian Wulff said: 'Islam belongs to Germany.' That is true. This is also my opinion." — Chancellor Angela Merkel, January 12, 2015.
• "Angela Merkel's statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies." — Thilo Sarrazin, renowned former central banker and a member of the Social Democrats, January 20, 2015.
• "Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat." — Alexander Gauland, AfD party leader for Brandenburg, April 17, 2016.
• "An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with Sharia judges." — AfD Manifesto.
• "Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam." — Henryk Broder, German journalist, May 16, 2016.

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of Germans said that Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening after Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany in 2015.

The poll has opened yet another chapter in the decade-long debate over the phrase, "Islam belongs to Germany." The words were first uttered in September 2006 — at the time there were 3.5 million Muslims in Germany, compared to nearly six million today — by then Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Speaking ahead of the first-ever German-Islam Conference, the first institutionalized dialogue between representatives of the German government and of Muslims in Germany, Schäuble said: "Islam is a part of Germany and a part of Europe. Islam is a part of our present and a part of our future. Muslims are welcome in Germany."

The phrase was repeated in October 2010 by Germany's then president, Christian Wulff, during a keynote speech to mark the 20th anniversary of German reunification. Wulff proclaimed that "Islam belongs to Germany" because millions of Muslims now live there:

"Christianity doubtless belongs Germany. Judaism belongs unequivocally to Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But now Islam also belongs to Germany (Der Islam gehört inzwischen auch zu Deutschland)."

Wulff then quoted the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who in his West-Eastern Diwan (West–östlicher Divan, 1819) wrote: "He who knows himself and others will understand: East and West are no longer separable."

Since then, a debate has raged over the increasingly contentious question of Muslim immigration, integration and the role of Islam in German society. The University of Bonn launched a research project entitled, "How much Islam belongs to Germany?" The Konrad Adenauer Foundation published a paper: "Which Islam belongs to Germany?" According to the head of the Lutheran Church in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, only "Democratic Islam" belongs to Germany.

What follows is an abridged historical review of the phrase "Islam belongs to Germany."

March 3, 2011. In his first press conference as German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich said that Islam does not belong to Germany: "To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history at any point." He added that Muslim immigrants should respect the "Western Christian origin of our culture." His comments set off a firestorm of criticism from the guardians of German multiculturalism.

March 4, 2011. Wolfgang Bosbach, of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), defended Friedrich: "I like politicians who say what they think. Islam is part of the reality of Germany, but it is not part of German identity."

March 5, 2011. Alexander Dobrindt, the General Secretary of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's CDU, said: "Of course there are Muslims in Germany. But Islam is not part of the German mainstream culture (Leitkultur)." CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said: "Islam has not shaped our society in the past and it does not do so today. Therefore, Islam does not belong to Germany."

May 31, 2012. The new German President, Joachim Gauck, distanced himself from Wulff's comments: "The reality is that many Muslims live in our country. I would have simply said that the Muslims who live here belong to Germany." He added: "Where has Islam shaped Europe? Did Islam experience the Enlightenment, or even a Reformation?"

January 12, 2015. Chancellor Angela Merkel, during a meeting in Berlin with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, declared: "Former German President Christian Wulff said: 'Islam belongs to Germany.' That is true. This is also my opinion." She stressed the need to "strengthen the dialogue between religions because there is still too much ignorance."

January 13, 2015. Hans-Peter Friedrich, the former interior minister, challenged Merkel's claim that Islam belongs to Germany:

"The Muslims who live in this country, who are committed to this country, belong to Germany, no question. There is nothing to deny and nothing to relativize. But I can see nowhere that Islam belongs to Germany. Islam is not a formative, constitutive element of the identity of our country.
"The issue revolves around the question of what is constitutive, of what makes the identity of this country. And the identity of this country, developed over centuries, is not Islam but a Christian culture, based on Christian and Jewish roots.
"Islam is not a defining element of the identity of this country. Anyone who travels through Germany can see this. They can see churches and paintings, they can listen to music that comes from many centuries of ecclesial roots; they can see art and architecture which are marked by Christianity.
"Whether Islam will be a defining element of Europe or Germany in centuries from now, only time will tell."

January 20, 2015. Thilo Sarrazin, a renowned former German central banker and a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) who has been warning Germans for years about the consequences of mass migration, criticized Merkel:

"When the Chancellor says she is of the opinion that Islam is part of Europe's tradition and culture, she is mistaken. When Angela Merkel says that Muslims should enjoy full citizenship in Germany and will be welcome if they integrate, her statement is true, although banal."

He said that Islam "with all its radical, violent manifestations" arrived in Germany only in the last 40 years due to "unplanned and uncontrolled mass immigration into German society." He added: "In addition, Angela Merkel's statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies."

June 30, 2015. Merkel, speaking in Berlin after an Iftar, an evening meal that breaks the daily fast during Ramadan, declared: "It is indisputably obvious that Islam now belongs to Germany."

September 21, 2015. Edmund Stoiber, the Honorary Chairman of Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) said: "I cannot accept the phrase, 'Islam belongs to Germany.' Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not. Islam is not a core element of German culture and has not shaped our intellectual history and tradition."

April 17, 2016. Beatrix von Storch, the Deputy Chairperson of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the third-most popular political party in Germany, said: "Many Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not belong to Germany. Islam is at base a political ideology that is not compatible with the German Constitution."

Alexander Gauland, the leader of the AfD in Brandenburg, elaborated: "Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat."

May 1, 2016. The AfD adopted a manifesto calling for curbs to migration and restrictions on Islam. The document calls for a ban on minarets, Muslim calls to prayer and full-face veils:

"Islam does not belong to Germany. The AfD views the spread of Islam and the growing number of Muslims in Germany as a great danger for our country, our society and our system of values. An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with sharia judges. The AfD wants to prevent Muslims from radicalizing and turning to violent Salafism and religious terrorism."

May 5, 2016. CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said that Christian Wulff's choice of words in 2010 were "well-intentioned but imprecise." He said that while Muslims belong to Germany, Islam certainly does not: "Germany has not been historically or culturally shaped by Islam." According to Kauder, Islam has many manifestations, "some of which we can never accept in Germany." He added: "For us, religion is never above the state." He said that religious freedom is not unlimited, but is restrained by the German Constitution.
May 16, 2016. The German journalist Henryk Broder wrote:

"Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam. The 'Euro-Islam' desired by many is a chimera, as was 'Euro-communism' during the Cold War.
"This would significantly facilitate peaceful coexistence on a firm foundation. It would also be the end of all debates — about the equality of men and women, marriage for all, headscarves in the civil service, the separation of power in politics, separation of church and state, caricatures and satires. We would save a lot of time and could turn to the really relevant questions. For example: Was Jesus the first Muslim?"

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that "Islam belongs to Germany."

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

Source:  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8392/islam-belongs-to-germany

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Global Consequences of Obama’s Denial - Ron Jager

by Ron Jager

The phenomenon of Trump as a contender for the American Presidency is a direct result of the anger so common today among the American people.

Denial is defined as a psychological defense mechanism, and was postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

One would think that by now, after the Boston Marathon, after Fort Hood, after San Bernardino, after Orlando, after Paris, after Belgium, after 120 years of Islamic terror against the Jewish State, President Obama’s denial and refusal to call a spade a spade – namely that radical Islam is the number one generator of terror throughout the world -- would end. But it hasn’t, Obama continues to live in a world of denial.

For Obama, his denial in naming radical Islam stems from a deeply buried primal shame and rejection of the very Islam that he refuses to hold accountable for the world wide terror we are experiencing. During Obama’s formative years as a child and young adolescent, his upbringing and first hand exposure to Islam has left deep unconscious emotional scars that explain Obama’s inability to confront reality and convey an understanding of Islam that the American public would understand. For the most part Obama has left America and most likely the rest of the Western World confused and angry.

The phenomenon of Trump as a contender for the American Presidency is a direct result of the anger so common today among the American people. Obama’s denial is not limited to radical Islam, his denial concerning immigration and the clear and present danger that unrestricted immigration poses to the American public is part and parcel of Obama’s persona and emotional makeup. For Obama, intertwining his own personal identity with issues that normally would be open for debate has created a situation that if you question his viewpoint on radical Islam or question his viewpoint on unrestricted immigration, than you are essentially questioning whether there is something wrong with Obama himself. Obama would have us live in a world in which he is OK and we’re not.

The tsunami of anger that we hear everywhere is a direct result of the dissonance that Obama has created, supported by the media, between the reality that we know and the manner in which it is falsely portrayed and denied by Obama. Whereever one goes and whatever one hears, lurking behind is a giant wave of anger. Young and old, Republicans and Democrats, all denominations, you hear nothing but anger and resentment.

There is a widespread feeling of anger among the American public that Obama’s denial has rendered impotent the American government and her national defense agencies such as the FBI in controlling the spread of radical Islam and the spread of extremism and terror. There is a widespread feeling that America in the 21^st Century is out of control, with Obama and his blind denial in the driver’s seat. The resurgence of anti-Semitism everywhere, the emerging alliances of the extreme left and radical Islam, the revival of the far right, are all symptoms and reactions to Obama’s denial of the dangers that Islam poses to Western societies. As Islamic terror has become more deadly and more emboldened, the anger felt by Americans has become deeper and darker.  

Obama’s denial has destroyed the Middle East, resulting in millions upon millions of Muslims flooding all of Europe. Obama’s denial has now destroyed the European Union, with Britain’s exit from the European Union only the first stage of the domino effect that Europe will experience in the coming years. Obama’s denial causes nations and even civilizations to fall apart, with anarchy lurking just around the corner.

The result of Obama’s denial and psychological confusion in the minds of the American public have weakened the public’s resiliency while empowering those Muslims embracing the ideologies of radical Islam, Islamic State, and other terrorist organizations. This is an undisputed fact that is also denied by Obama and his administration. A remarkable article by David Hazony, The Mind of the President, in The Tower takes this further, detailing how Obama indeed thinks he knows better than we do. In a section titled "It Must Be Hard to Know Everything," Hazony writes:

Yet the failure to appreciate the human spirit in politics is not just a bug of Obama’s psychology; it’s a feature of his worldview. It is a flaw in the vision itself, a view of human history that has long been rendered foolish by history itself. This view sees an end to war that comes from overcoming underlying “real problems”—irrationality, tribalism, ignorance, pride, religion, attachment to the past—all of which will eventually be overridden through education and systems of governance based on international law, trade, and multilateralism. And since reason teaches that people should just get along, we don’t need antiquated concepts of the warrior spirit, bravery, loyalty, or the classic calculus of power, credibility, and deterrence.

Obama plans on winning the war against terrorism through denial. Obama has denied American exceptionalism, denied America’s status as the worlds only Superpower, has denied the need to sustain deterrence and project America’s strength abroad. Obama’s denial has empowered radical Islam causing a massive shift of national resources throughout the world to combat radical Islam rather than combat poverty and sickness throughout the developed and undeveloped world. This is Obama’s world, this is Obama’s legacy, and this is the world of denial that Obama inhabits.

Ron Jager, a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., served as a field mental health officer. Prior to retiring in 2005, served as the Commander of the Central Psychiatric Military Clinic for Reserve Soldiers at Tel-Hashomer. Since retiring from active duty, he provides consultancy services to NGO’s implementing Psycho trauma and Psycho education programs to communities in the North and South of Israel. Today Ron is a strategic advisor at the Office of the Chief Foreign Envoy of Judea and Samaria    To contact: medconf@netvision.net.il

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_global_consequences_of_obamas_denial_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Israeli-Turkish Rapprochement - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

Who exactly does it benefit?

Less than a week after Turkey and Israel resumed full diplomatic, commercial and security relations, terrorists most likely affiliated with the Islamic State struck the Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, killing 42 people.  Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin condemned the attack and offered assistance to Turkey.  Rivlin wrote to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan saying, “This cowardly, murderous act is an example of the most vitriolic hatred the like of which we are sadly seeing across our region, and the entire world today.” Rivlin added, “I take this opportunity to welcome the chance to renew our good relationship especially because our strengthened dialogue will greatly aid in our efforts against this threat, (of terrorism-JP), and because it sends a strong message to the terrorists that we stand united against hatred.”  It is yet to be seen whether Erdogan will similarly condemn Palestinian terrorists who murdered a 13-year old Israeli girl this week while asleep in her bed.

Israel and Turkey reached an agreement last Sunday (June 26, 2016) in Rome to restore full ties between the two countries.  This ended six years of hostility between erstwhile friendly states. The deal includes Israeli payment of $20 million in compensation to families of the Mavi Marmara who died in the confrontation with Israel Naval commandos, and it allows Turkey to send aid shipments via Israel’s Ashdod port.  Back in 2013, Prime Minister Netanyahu called on then Prime Minister Erdogan at the urging of President Obama, and apologized for the loss of Turkish lives on the Mavi Marmara.

Responding to critics of the agreement, PM Netanyahu assured Israelis that the blockade on the Gaza Strip will remain in place.  Netanyahu added that under the deal struck with Turkey, Ankara is committed to prevent terrorism and financing of terrorism against Israel from its territory.  The families of Israeli soldiers whose dead bodies are in the hands of Hamas, and the families of the two Israeli civilians held by Hamas wanted the agreement to include Turkey’s commitment to work on the return home of Israelis both dead and alive.

Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim announced that the deal will enable Turkey to deliver aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, and it plans to build a power station and desalination plant in Gaza.  Yildirim added, “To this end, our first ship loaded with 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza will leave for Israel’s Ashdod port on Friday.”

Turkey, one may recall, suspended military and intelligence cooperation with Israel and reduced its diplomatic ties with the Jewish state as a result of the death of nine Turkish citizens in May, 2010 aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara.  The Gaza flotilla, organized by the ‘Free Gaza Movement’ and supported by radical leftist anti-Israel NGO’s, meant to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which is controlled by the terrorist group Hamas.  Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister at the time, Daniel Ayalon, described the Free Gaza movement as “an outrageous provocation.”  Ayalon added, “The organizers are well known for their ties with global Jihad, al-Qaeda and Hamas, and they have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror.” The UN Secretary General’s report on the Gaza Flotilla concluded that Israel was within its right to use force, and found the blockade of Gaza to be legal.

Given President Erdogan’s previous anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel expressions (“Zionism is a crime against humanity”), it is unlikely that he has suddenly changed his inherent prejudice.  The reasons for him to have agreed to the rapprochement has more to do with the geo-political situation surrounding both Turkey and Israel.  Both are faced with common enemies emanating from the Syrian conflict, namely the Islamic State, Bashar Assad and his Shiite allies, Iran and Hezbollah.  In addition, Turkey, much like Israel, is worried about Iran’s assertive military and political posture.  What’s more, the growing tension between Turkey and Russia, following the downing of a Russian jet, has made Erdogan feel somewhat friendless and isolated.  Moreover, Russia has been one of Turkey’s major trading partners. 

Israel didn’t have to apologize to Turkey for the clear act of provocation committed by the Mavi Marmara incident.  The Islamist Turks on the Mavi Marmara used violence against the Israeli commandos who sought to give them a warning, and shot their assailants in self-defense.  In terms of national pride, it is clearly Erdogan and Turkey who won on that score.  Israel has both apologized for the aggression on the ship, and the provocation created by the Turkish-led Free Gaza Movement. 

Yet, despite this unwarranted “moral” victory, Erdogan’s primary goal to break the Gaza blockade has not been achieved.  While Israel will process Turkish humanitarian aid through the port of Ashdod to the people of Gaza, Israel will not allow war material, or any tools that might be used for tunnel building to get through to Gaza.  That amounts to an Israeli victory.

Regional stability will benefit both Israel and Turkey while cooperation in the realm of military and intelligence might be a most helpful step in this direction.  For Israel, adding such cooperation with Turkey to the existing understanding with Egypt and Jordan, and with encouragement from the Saudis, will provide for a stronger force resisting the growing Shiite menace from Iran, and its Shiite allies in Lebanon and Iraq.  It might also have some positive repercussions on the Syrian conflict.  Turkey’s difficulties in obtaining certain weapon systems from the U.S. and other western powers would be ameliorated by the purchase of drones and other weapon systems from Israel.

Another significant benefit of the renewed relationship between Turkey and Israel is in the economic sphere.  The potential export of Israeli natural gas to Turkey is most meaningful especially for the Israeli economy, but also for Turkey.  Ankara has been purchasing over 50% of its gas supply from Russia. The recent tension between Russia and Turkey (they have been historical rival) as a result of being on different sides of the Syrian conflict, has created a problem for Turkey.  A commercial deal for gas sales between Israel and Turkey would diversify Turkey’s energy supply, and would positively impact on the relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem in other major areas as well. Experts now believe that in 2017, a gas deal between the two countries is likely to be signed. In addition to Israel and Turkey, the U.S. and Western powers will benefit from this renewed relationship.  It will strengthen the forces of stability in the region, which is a clear American interest.

The renewed relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem mustn’t however, impede on Israel’s close relationship with the Kurds.  Israel should continue strengthening its traditional positive relations with the Kurds, just as Turkey is likely to continue its support for the Palestinians and Hamas in particular.  Israel must support an independent Kurdistan just as Turkey supports an independent Palestine.

In conclusion, the deal struck last Sunday in Rome is beneficial to both Israel and Turkey, as well as to the stability of the region.  For Israel, no unacceptable condition have been imposed, yet the security and economic potential as a result of the deal, are most promising.  For Turkey, in addition to security and economic benefits, Erdogan can boast a moral victory as a result of Israel’s apology and compensation.  For Ankara and Jerusalem, the deal is a diplomatic boost for both nations. 

Joseph Puder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263389/israeli-turkish-rapprochement-joseph-puder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hamas terrorists reveal: Terror tunnels inside moques - Ido Ben Porat

by Ido Ben Porat

Terrorists arrested smuggling tens of thousands of Euros from Gaza for Hamas terror activity in Judea and Samaria in their shoes.

Two terrorists from the Gaza Strip have been arrested for smuggling cash earmarked for Hamas activities in Judea and Samaria - in their shoes.

The two are Faiz Attar (65) of Beit Lahia, and Itallah Sarhan of Jabalia. Both towns are in the Gaza Strip

Attar was arrested last week after it was discovered that he was using his transit permit - issued for work purposes - to act as a courier for cash to fund the terrorism activities of Hamas in Judea and Samaria. The money was hidden in specially designed shoes. He was able to complete the transfer several times, with the total sum of money smuggled amounting to tens of thousands of Euros.

A Shin Bet investigation found that Attar's family has ties with Hamas, taking part in operations against IDF forces and digging of terror tunnels. Attar's sons have also hosted Hamas meetings in his house.

The investigation also turned up information regarding tunnel entrances - some of which are located under residential buildings, housing many innocent civilians who have no ties to terror groups, and mosques - and missile launch pads located near residential buildings, endangering the civilian population. 

The second terrorist, Sarhan, was arrested last month at the Erez crossing while trying to smuggle 10,000 Euro in his shoes for Hamas in Judea and Samaria. 

Sarhan, who received his transit permit only two weeks before his arrest, recounted under questioning that he was approached by a Hamas policeman working the Gazan side of the crossing on his, Sarhan's, first day of leaving the Gaza strip. The Hamas man tried to interest him in smuggling cash into Judea and Samaria 

 After Sarhan expressed his willingness to cooperate, the Hamas policeman introduced him to other Hamas terrorism operatives who paid him in advance for his services, supplied him with specially fitted shoes in which the money was hidden, and pledged to provide him with support should he be caught.

Sarhan had already completed a transfer the day before he was arrested. It became clear during the investigation that he knew that the money was intended for funding Hamas activities. The Shin Bet also discovered that Sarhan has been working as a truck driver for a company that clears away dirt from terror tunnel digging sites run by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

As a result of this work, Sarhan had seen many of the tunnels. He provided Israeli security agencies with much information, including the location of the tunnels, the extent of the progress made in each tunnel, and identity of the terror group behind each tunnel. 

The Shin Bet have noted that the information obtained in this investigation shows once again how willing Hamas are to make cynical use of Israel's decision to allow people to cross out of the Gaza Strip in order to help them financially. 

"Hamas uses the bearers of these permits to promote terrorist activity and thus harms the civilian population of Gaza", Shin Bet representatives commented. 

"Israel allows thousands of Gaza residents to cross into Israeli territory monthly, for humanitarian, medical, and other reasons. The terror groups take advantage of this for illegal purposes including the transfer of funds for terror. This is a serious issue which will be dealt with severely."


Ido Ben Porat

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214532#.V3vJsqKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Major anti-regime demo in Iran calls for Syria withdrawal - Ari Soffer

by Ari Soffer

In rare act of defiance, thousands in Esfahan took to the streets on Al Quds Day - not to oppose Israel, but their own government.

Last Friday Iran, and its supporters around the world, marked Al Quds Day, the annual day of Israel-hatred established by the Islamic Republic's founder Ayatollah Khomeini.

The mass rallies, featuring calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel, the United States and Great Britain, as well as support for the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, were widely and proudly circulated by Iranian state media.

But in the city of Esfahan, south of the Iranian capital Tehran, another large protest was taking place which Iranian authorities preferred to ignore, for obvious reasons.

Footage obtained by Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya network - and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) - shows thousands of Iranians protesting against the regime on Al Quds Day in the city, which is the capital of Esfahan Province.

The marchers voiced their frustration over the Iranian regime's continued, costly deployment in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, and called on the government to instead use its resources on improving everyday life in Iran.

Demonstrators can be heard chanting "Think about us! Leave Syria!" and "Support us Iranians!"

Scores of Iranian soldiers - including senior commanders - have been killed or wounded fighting Syrian rebels as well as the ISIS jihadist group in Syria and Iraq, and Tehran has poured huge amounts of money into its efforts to prop up the Assad regime and gain a stronger foothold in Iraq, in great part via the establishment of a number of powerful Shia Islamist militias in both countries.

In both countries, however, a bloody stalemate prevails, leaving many Iranian frustrated over their theocratic government's continued investment there at a time when ordinary Iranians are still struggling to make ends meet.


Ari Soffer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214533#.V3vHI6Kzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Ramadan Piece: The "Other" Islam - Salim Mansur

by Salim Mansur

Thoughtful Muslims, for nearly a century before the demise of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Caliphate, had been writing about the need for an Islamic reform

• Abrahamic monotheism as represented in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, precedes and stands apart from politics as an ethical vision that transcends history. It was a vision which invited people to embrace their common humanity as created and gifted by one omnipotent deity, and to follow a revealed code of ethics for righteous living, holding the promise of peace with an end to interminable conflicts that divided people into warring tribes.
• Thoughtful Muslims, for nearly a century before the demise of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Caliphate, had been writing about the need for an Islamic reform. Europe's cultural advancement following the Reformation and Enlightenment held up a mirror for the Islamic world to follow in similar direction to similar ends. There was a consensus among Muslims that Islam was not intrinsically opposed to the modern world, and a readiness to follow in the footsteps of the West.
• This is the "other" Islam. This is submission to truth, whose most righteous exemplar was Abraham when his faith was tested by his Deity, according to the Hebrew Bible, to sacrifice his son. And this is the faith of Sufis who took Muhammad's message to people in places far removed from the desert confines of Arabia. It is simply, as the Qur'an reminds (30:30), deen al-fitrah, the natural religion, or inclination, of man to know his Creator. There is no return of this "other" Islam; it never went missing.

The cover of the January 1976 issue of Commentary magazine announced its main story, "The Return of Islam," by Bernard Lewis. The year of publication coincided with the coming end of the fourteenth century of Islam, and the anticipation of a new Islamic century beginning in 1979. Forty years later this essay by Lewis, widely recognized and respected as the most eminent scholar on the Middle East and Islam alive today, came to be celebrated as the first warning of the coming upheaval inside the world of Islam.

Lewis's essay was a corrective to viewing the Middle East and its people, Arabs and Muslims, in terms of Western values. "Modern Western man," wrote Lewis, "being unable for the most part to assign a dominant and central place to religion in his own affairs, found himself unable to conceive that any other peoples in any other place could have done so... [or to] admit that an entire civilization can have religion as its primary loyalty." This meant, Lewis continued, the "inability, political, journalistic, and scholarly alike, to recognize the importance of the factor of religion in the current affairs of the Muslim world".

Recent events have proven that Lewis was correct in pointing to this critical flaw in much of Western understanding of Islam and Muslims. But the title of the essay was unfortunate and misleading; there was no "return of Islam" for Muslims, since at no point in Islamic or Muslim history had Islam been missing, or dormant.

Instead of the "return of Islam," it was the return of political Islam, or Islamism. Lewis's essay was a timely review of Muslim history in terms of political Islam. But political Islam is but one facet of Islam. It is a recurring mistake to see political Islam as the defining feature of Islam that obscures Islam's spiritual dimension, which is more vital than the coarse authoritarian features of political Islam.

In antiquity, politics was inseparable from religion. It might be said that politics was the handmaiden of religion. A ruler among people in ancient times was a chief priest, or a demigod. This feature of the ancient world in which religion and politics were bound together could be described as "theopolitics", and Islam was as much influenced in its history by theopolitics as were Judaism and Christianity.

Lewis wrote:

"The three major Middle Eastern religions are significantly different in their relations with the state and their attitudes to political power. Judaism was associated with the state and was disentangled from it; its new encounter with the state at the present time raises problems which are still unresolved. Christianity, during the first formative centuries of its existence, was separate from and indeed antagonistic to the state with which it only later became involved. Islam from the lifetime of its founder was the state, and the identity of religion and government is indelibly stamped on the memories and awareness of the faithful from their own sacred writings, history, and experience."

A lot of history is compressed in this passage, and so some misreading of that history is inevitable. Lewis went on to discuss Islam as being entwined with political Islam since its inception. "Islam was associated with power from the very beginning," wrote Lewis, "from the first formative years of the Prophet and his immediate successors." Consequently, in Islam "religion is not, as it is in Christendom, one sector or segment of life, regulating some matters while others are excluded; it is concerned with the whole of life—not a limited but a total jurisdiction."

The problem with Lewis's view of Islam is that he uncritically accepted the theology of political Islam. This theology was constructed during the three centuries after the Prophet Muhammad when, in the course of events between the seventh and the tenth century of the Common Era, Arabs came to rule a vast empire. It was consistent with the temper of late antiquity, and it put a stamp on Islam ever since that most Muslims have accepted without questioning.

Abrahamic monotheism as represented in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, however, precedes and stands apart from politics as an ethical vision that transcends history. It was a vision which invited people to embrace their common humanity as created and gifted by one omnipotent deity, and to follow a revealed code of ethics for righteous living, holding the promise of peace with an end to interminable conflicts that divided people into warring tribes.

It was the resistance of pagans and polytheists to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at their origins that compelled their early followers in the course of their respective histories to seek in politics protection for their religious beliefs. In Judaism and Islam, the founders -- Moses and Muhammad -- combined in their personalities the roles of prophet, warrior, and statesman. The life of Jesus, in this respect, was different.

In Moses's case, he never entered the promised land, and it was left to his successors to eventually found a state for the Jews. In the instance of Muhammad, there is the question that has divided Muslims ever since his death: was his prophetic mission primarily to establish an Islamic state that would define, for Muslims for all times, Islam as the ideal arrangement in which religion and politics were one and indivisible?

The answer to this question was surrounded in controversy right from the moment of the Prophet's last illness before his death. The controversy over his succession, and what such succession meant, tore apart the immediate followers of the Prophet, and incited tribal warfare, fratricide and schisms that since then have provided the backdrop to Muslims in respect to their own understanding and practice of Islam as religion and politics.

Islam as the Abrahamic vision of man's relation with God was supplanted by the theology of political Islam. The process began in the midst of the Prophet's last illness and accelerated with his death. The majority Sunni sect in Islam coalesced around the view that the immediate successors of the Prophet, elected or chosen, ought to be the closest companions of Muhammad, and their rulings in the formative stage of Muslim history became the standard by which subsequent generations of Muslims innovated the requirements of ruling an empire.

Those Muslims who dissented from the majority view represented by Sunni Islam were the Shi'a, or the party of Ali. Ali was a cousin of the Prophet, raised from his childhood in the Prophet's household and, hence, the closest companion of Muhammad. Ali was also the Prophet's son-in-law by marriage to Fatima, his only surviving child. The Shi'a Muslims believed Ali was the designated successor of the Prophet because of their familial ties, but he was forcefully denied the succession by those who usurped it immediately following the Prophet's demise. Shi'a Islam evolved as the main minority sect with its own theopolitics within Islam.

The first Muslims were Arabs of the desert, the Bedouins, among whom Muhammad was born. Their tribalism persisted despite the Prophet's warnings and it shaped Islam from the first hour of the post-Prophetic history. Sectarianism within Islam was the unavoidable outcome of clan and tribal conflicts among the first Muslims, and the Sunni-Shi'a divide became the main cleavage as a result, setting the template of further divisions as sects proliferated over time in the history of Islam.

Less than a century after the Prophet's death in 632 C.E., his followers, the Bedouin Arabs, became the rulers of an empire that stretched from the Iberian Peninsula in the West to the Indus River in the East. There was nothing in the Qur'an, or in the traditions of the Prophet, to instruct these Arabs on the mechanics of administrating an empire. They took to imitating the rulers of Persia, whom they defeated, and adopted the administrative manuals of both Byzantine and Persian officialdom to rule the lands and peoples they conquered. And in order to provide legitimacy in the name of Islam to Arab rule in Damascus and later in Baghdad, the ulema (religious scholars) worked out the details of law and society, the Sharia, derived from the Qur'an and the Prophetic traditions.

The origin of Islamic culture and civilization lies in the empire that Bedouin Arabs, through the force of arms, established in a very short period. This was also the origin of political Islam, which came to represent the dominant face of Islam as theopolitics.

The fight that erupted, with the news of the Prophet's demise, among his closest companions over succession related to temporal power that the Prophet had exercised, and not his role as a Messenger of God (Rasul Allah). This fight culminated in 680 C.E. with the defeat of the Prophet's grandson, Husayn, killed and decapitated in the field of Kerbala, close to the banks of the Euphrates in Iraq, by the army sent out by Yazid I, the Ummayad Caliph of the rapidly expanding Islamic empire.

The event in Kerbala was a watershed in the history of Islam. Ethnic Arabs, recently converted to Islam, delivered Husayn's cruel end. Ever since, this crime, as sordid as the crucifixion of Jesus, has stained Muslim history with the mark of Cain.

After Kerbala, it could no longer be said that Islam, as Abrahamic monotheism, guided politics ethically along the path of justice and mercy. Instead, the politics that surfaced upon the death of the Prophet hardened after the killing of Husayn, and politics henceforth came to define Islam as faith, culture, and society.

In the Battle of Kerbala, depicted in Abbas Al-Musavi's painting, Husayn, the son of Ali and grandson of Muhammad, was killed along with his family and all his followers by the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate. It was the most crucial moment in the split between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. (Image source: Brooklyn Museum)

The Ummayads in Damascus, the imperial capital, were the first dynastic rulers among Arabs in Islamic history. The founder of the dynasty, Muawiyyah, seized power following the murder of Ali, the fourth Caliph and the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet. With the Ummayads the institution of the Caliphate, which was an innovation to fill the void of leadership among the Arabs in Medina following Muhammad's death, adopted the pomp and pageantry of the Persian and Byzantine rulers. The Caliphate, from that first century of Islamic history until its abolition in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was the embodiment of Oriental Despotism.

Those Muslims who witnessed the tribal conflicts erupt after the Prophet's demise and recoiled in revulsion from politics turned inward in seeking union with the divine mystery, as mentioned in the Qur'an. They sought solace in the spiritual dimension of Islam and emulated the Prophetic tradition of withdrawal from the world through prayer and meditation. They became the founders of the Sufi, or mystical, tradition in Islam. This was the "other" face of Islam, distinct from political Islam.

The physical expansion of the Islamic empire was carried forth by the armies of the Caliphs. But the spread of Islam as a faith tradition was a slow process, carried forth by Sufi missionaries belonging to various fraternal orders and independent of political rulers of the world of Islam.

There is a world of difference in conversion brought about at the point of sword of conquering armies, and conversion that results from the communion of hearts and minds among people. The latter is more genuine and transformative than the former in every religion. The Qur'an itself -- verse 49:13 -- warned the Prophet that the acceptance of Islam by the Arabs of the desert was one of submission in the face of defeat, and that belief had not entered their hearts. This verse might be read as forewarning of crimes Muslims would commit through history in the cause of political Islam, beginning with the killing of Husayn in Kerbala.

Political Islam from its outset was an inquisition. It began with Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, when he subverted the Islamic principle stated in the Qur'an -- "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) -- and declared war on those Arab tribes who withheld their loyalty from him following the death of the Prophet. The "Ridda Wars," or the "Wars of Apostasy," launched by Abu Bakr inaugurated political Islam, and since then, the precedent he set for Muslim-on-Muslim violence has plagued Islamic history into our times.

The role of the a'lem (pl. ulema; religious scholars) was instrumental in the making of political Islam. The ulema provided legitimacy to the Ummayad Caliphs in Damascus in the period of intra-tribal conflicts that had led to the killings of the three Caliphs (Umar, Uthman, and Ali) after Abu Bakr and then the massacre in the field of Kerbala.

The consensus of the ulema -- accepted by those who eventually came to represent the majority Sunni Muslims (the word "Sunni" derived from Sunna, meaning following the path or tradition of the Prophet) -- was that political and social order however provided and maintained was preferable to fitnah (disorder). This consensus provided doctrinal legitimacy to the Caliphs. In return, the Caliphs recognized the special function of the religious scholars and jurists in the drafting, codification, and implementation of Sharia, or Islamic laws.

As a result of this bargain between men wielding swords and men wielding pens, the foundational arrangement of political Islam was firmly established. It was an arrangement consistent with the thinking prevalent in antiquity that religion (deen in Arabic) prescribed the totality of human affairs. This meant, as it was understood by the ulema in the formative period of Islamic history, that the primary function of state and government (dawlat in Arabic) was the establishment of the rule of Sharia. As Ann K.S. Lambton in her study, State and Government in Medieval Islam (1981), observed:

"The law precedes the state and is immutable at all times and under all conditions. The state is there to carry out the law. To disobey a law or to neglect a law is not simply to infringe a rule of the social order: it is an act of religious disobedience, a sin, and as such involves a religious penalty."

Once the bricks and mortar of political Islam were set in the making of the Islamic civilization, Islam as the official doctrine of the state and empire clearly demarcated the norm as prescribed in the Sharia and made the ulema its official guardians. The Islamic state was a nearly perfect embodiment of a closed totalitarian system designed by men towards the end of the first millennium of the Common Era, and any suggestion of change or adoption of new idea in matters of either religion or politics was condemned as bid'ah (heresy deserving punishment).

But Muslim dissidents who viewed the doctrine of political Islam, or what might also be referred to as "official" Islam, as an aberration, went underground and kept the "other" Islam free from the shackles of politics. Beneath the hardened features of political Islam, the "other" Islam of Sufis provided solace to Muslims by tending to their humanity in the light of God's most favoured attributes of mercy and compassion.

The "other" Islam, unlike political Islam, is not bound by time and space. It is directed to man's inner yearnings for that which is eternal. It plunges in search of the inner meaning of the Qur'an as the Word of God, and the assuredness that God's mercy is not denied to any of His creations. The Qur'an states, "We are nearer to man than his jugular vein" (50:16), reassuring man that he is not alone and God is not some distant uncaring deity.

Whereas the defining characteristic of political Islam was religion inseparable from politics, in "other" Islam politics was the corruption of religion and the dissolution of belief. Hence, from the perspective of "other" Islam, the Sharia as the corpus of Islamic laws codified by the ulema and sanctioned by the Caliphs was a poor, even corrupt, representation of the divine Sharia (in Arabic, a "path") imprinted in the hearts of all believers as the path to acquiring God's infinite grace.

ii.

Political Islam and the Islamic civilization it inaugurated was time-bound as a theopolitical system constructed in a certain historical period or context. It was a construct of late antiquity and the early medieval era. Since it was a fixed and closed system, it was invariably given to decay and dissolution.

During the Middle Ages, the Islamic civilization flourished just as other civilizations had. As Abdus Salam (1926-1996) -- a physicist of Indo-Pakistani origin and the first Muslim scientist awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979 -- observed in one of his lectures, the world of Islam and the world of Christianity (Europe) were more or less at a similar stage of development around the middle of the seventeenth century.

The evidence of this relative equality of the two civilizations, Salam suggested, could be seen in their technological achievements represented by the two monuments, the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, and St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England, completed about the same time. Some two decades later, Salam observed,

"there was also created -- and this time only in the West -- a third monument, a monument still greater in its eventual import for humanity's future. This was Newton's Principia, published in 1687."

Newton's monument had no counterpart in India, or anywhere else in the Muslim world.

The Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, led by men of astounding intellect from Leonardo da Vinci to Galileo and Newton, propelled Europe out of the medieval age into the making of the modern world. But Islamic civilization, held together by political Islam, descended into a death spiral. A century after Newton published his major work, the Ottoman Empire was turning irreversibly into a pale shadow of a civilization that once had threatened the powers of Europe at the gates of Vienna.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington by the Islamist terrorists of al Qaeda, Bernard Lewis published What Went Wrong? (2002). It was Lewis's effort to answer why, and how, the world of Islam had failed to accommodate the imperatives of the modern world.

"In most of the arts and sciences of civilization, medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependent of the Islamic world," wrote Lewis.

"And then, suddenly, the relationship changed. Even before the Renaissance, Europeans were beginning to make significant progress in the civilized arts. With the advent of the New Learning, they advanced by leaps and bounds, leaving the scientific and technological and eventually the cultural heritage of the Islamic world far behind them."

The civilizational success of political Islam in late antiquity and the early medieval era ironically carried within it the seeds of its own decline and demise. World War I eventually put an end to the anachronism that the Ottoman Empire had become, and the abolition of the Caliphate was a formal effort to bury political Islam for good.

Thoughtful Muslims, for nearly a century before the demise of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Caliphate, had been thinking and writing about the need for an Islamic reform. Europe's cultural advancement following the Reformation and Enlightenment held up a mirror for the Islamic world to follow in similar direction to similar ends.

In India under British rule, for instance, there were a significant number of Muslims who painfully recognized the malaise of Islamic societies and offered remedy for their advancement into the modern world. Among them the notable were Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98), the founder of the Aligarh University; Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928), jurist and historian; and Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), poet and philosopher.

One of the most important works was published in 1925 by Ali Abd al-Raziq (1888-1966), an Egyptian scholar and jurist at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. In his seminal work, titled al-Islam wa 'Usul al-Hukm (Islam and the Fundamentals of Authority), al-Raziq pointed out that there was no basis in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (traditions) of the Prophet for the institution of the Caliphate.

Al-Raziq was not someone from outside the ranks of the ulema, or a lay scholar unfamiliar with the intricacies of Islamic jurisprudence and theology in the construction of Sharia. He was a student of Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) at al-Azhar, when Abduh had been appointed the Grand Mufti of Egypt.

Al-Raziq's main contention was based on the distinction between spiritual and temporal authority. He indicated that the confusion among Muslims in the period after the Prophet arose from their inability to distinguish between the Apostolic role of Muhammad and the authority he derived as the Messenger of God (Rasul Allah), and the Caliphate as a temporal institution. Al Raziq wrote:

"Muhammad was but an apostle, sent on behalf of a religious summons, one pertaining entirely to religion and unmarred by any taint of monarchy or of summons to a political state; and he possessed neither kingly rule nor government, and he was not charged with the task of founding a kingdom in the political sense, as this word and its synonyms are generally understood."

Al-Raziq was denounced by his peers. He was made to appear before the Council of the Greatest Ulema of Al-Azhar to hear the judgment against him, as his license to teach and practice law was revoked. Egypt was then ruled under Britain's supervision, which likely saved al-Raziq from even more severe punishment.

But al-Raziq had stripped away the argument of traditional Islam on the sanctity of the Caliphate, and with it went the idea of Sharia being sacred. In the half-century following the abolition of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal, Muslims under European rule gained their independence as new states emerged in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world of Islam.

This period in the middle decades of the last century was a period of intense expectations on the part of Muslims for progress in their living conditions. A massive effort was invested to make the transition from the world of pre-Newtonian knowledge and learning to the modern world of science, industry and democracy.

There was a consensus among the rich and the poor that Islam was not intrinsically opposed to the modern world. There was a readiness among Muslims to follow in the footsteps of the West.

This consensus was reflected in a well-known and widely circulated aphorism attributed to Muhammad Abduh. On returning to Cairo from a visit to Europe, Abduh told his students, "I travelled in the West and found Islam, but no Muslims; I have returned to the East and find Muslims, but not Islam."

The transition into the modern world, however, proved immensely complex and difficult. Europe's transition had required several generations and a couple of centuries to break away from the feudal age into the modern age. The resistance from those invested in the ancien arrangements of society and culture was immense, and wars that followed were fierce.

Something similar to the European experience was unavoidable for Muslims in their effort to break from the hold of their traditional culture. And not unlike the wars in Europe, wars within the world of Islam since the 1970s are symptoms of the Muslim struggle to transit into the modern world.

iii.

The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 was the formal announcement of political Islam's death. But it refused to die, even as it was laid to rest. Its twitching was felt in the deep dark interior of the world of Islam, in remote and unwelcome places such as Nejd inside Arabia.

Here in Nejd, the medieval theology of Ibn Taymiyyah had struck roots. It had impressed an eighteenth-century itinerant preacher in the region, Abdul Wahhab (1703-92), who turned Ibn Taymiyyah's extremist thinking into an even more rigid and austere doctrine, hostile to all things inimical to the Bedouin tribal culture of his time and environment.

Abdul Wahhab's version of political Islam impressed a local tribal chief, and the marriage of convenience between the preacher and the tribal leader gave birth to the first Saudi state in the interior of Arabia. But when it sent tribal warriors to raid towns inside the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, it provoked the Caliph of Islam in Istanbul, on whose orders this nascent state of the Wahhabi ruler was destroyed.

But the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire provided the conditions for the rebirth of the Saudi state as a kingdom under Abdul Aziz ibn Saud in the 1920s. Fortune, in the guise of great power politics, smiled upon him. He seized the support offered by the British, in return for influence in a region of strategic importance. The discovery of oil made the Saudi kingdom a prize to be protected by the Western powers, first Britain and later the United States, with far reaching consequences for the rest of the world, and even more so for the world of Islam and Muslims.

Any modernizing revolution is hugely disruptive. The movement from one stage of social development to another is not linear; it is, instead, filled with zigzags and reversals at every stage of the process toward an uncertain future.

When a people, however, pushes back against this process of change in their midst, or seeks to abort it, this reactionary effort pins its hopes on longing for an idealized past. The Newtonian revolution and the emergence of modern Europe made political Islam anachronistic. Wahhabism, as the official doctrine of the Saudi kingdom, was much more than a return of the most extreme version of political Islam in the early decades of the last century. It was, and remains, a demented effort of the most backward people within the world of Islam to remain culturally tied to antiquity, or jahiliyya (the age of ignorance), which Islam at its origin derided and rejected.

Political Islam in whatever version -- Wahhabism, Khomeinism, Ikhwanism (the Muslim Brotherhood) and their derivatives -- has no answer for Muslims on how to make their historic transition into the modern world. It can continue to rage against the modern world until its civilized inhabitants, including Muslims, have had enough of its destructiveness and obliterate it.

Then that vision of Abrahamic monotheism, which Muhammad was mysteriously directed to deliver to his people, will be emancipated from political Islam.

This message Muhammad was given admonished Arabs for their lack of faith, provided them with ethics for living honorably, told them in no uncertain term that the God of Abraham made no distinction among nations and people who believe in Him, and that on the Day of Final Reckoning, they need have no fear if they strive in doing what is right.

This is the "other" Islam. This is submission to truth, whose most righteous exemplar was Abraham when his faith was tested by his Deity, according to the Hebrew Bible, to sacrifice his son. And this is the faith of Sufis who took Muhammad's message to people in places far removed from the desert confines of Arabia. It is simply, as the Qur'an reminds (30:30), deen al-fitrah, the natural religion, or inclination, of man to know his Creator. There is no return of this "other" Islam; it never went missing.
 

 

Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of "Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim" and "Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism."

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8387/islam-history

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Queue forming as nations lining up to sign trade pacts with post-Brexit Britain - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Quite contrary to Obama’s prediction, there is a bit of a land rush underway as trading powers are eager to negotiate trade deals with the fifth largest economy in the world

President Obama’s infamous remark that Britain would go to the “back of the queue” in negotiating trade deals if it voted for Brexit has rank among the most foolish diplomatic initiatives in presidential history. Not only did it spark resentment in Britain that helped the Brexit vote, it is turning out to spectacularly incorrect. Quite contrary to Obama’s prediction, there is a bit of a land rush underway as trading powers are eager to negotiate trade deals with the fifth largest economy in the world, now liberated from its continental overlords. The UK Express reports:

Australia, Canada, South Korea, India and Mexico are all understood to be keen to get around the negotiating table as soon as possible and American politicians are also eager to strike a deal.

In an effort to overcome Obama’s ineptness:

US House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan is calling for urgent talks on new trade agreements to ensure “a smooth” relationship after Brexit, despite the warnings from President Barack Obama that Britain would go the back of the queue in the event of a leave vote.
Mr Ryan, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate and one of the party’s most senior politicians, said: “Obviously it takes time to do something like this but I think it is something we should be working on.
“We should begin discussions with Great Britain to ease concerns so that we do have a smooth trade relationship with Great Britain, because they are our indispensable ally.”

With its trade ties to its Commonwealth, and its history as a global trader, Britain is a very attractive partner for trade negotiations. The real problem it may face in the near future is finding enough experienced negotiators to handle all the discussions that lie ahead.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/queue_forming_as_nations_lining_up_to_sign_trade_pacts_with_postbrexit_britain.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Arab water theft leaves Jewish towns high and dry - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

Mekorot water company says bulk of water shortages in Judea and Samaria towns due to Palestinian Authority's illegal water connections.

A week after MK Bezalel Smotrich (Jewish Home) called for an investigation into the ongoing water shortage afflicting Jewish communities in Samaria, the Knesset subcommittee on Civil Affairs and Security in Judea and Samaria held deliberations on the matter, revealing that more than half of the shortfall in the area’s water supply is due to rampant theft in the Palestinian Authority.

Meeting on Monday at the behest of subcommittee chair Motti Yogev (Jewish Home), members heard testimony from local council heads, the Mekorot water company, local farmers, and a representative of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

Yogev noted that the water shortage in Samaria affected both Israelis and Palestinian Authority residents, and blamed the Civil Administration for failing to find a solution.

“The authorities have dried up the residents of Judea and Samaria, Jews and Arabs alike,” said Yogev. “The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Water Authority have known for many years what needs to be done, but it has yet to be done.”

The Mekorot water company informed the subcommittee that demand in Samaria had grown to 58,000-60,000 cubic meters of water per day, but that the existing infrastructure was capable of bringing only 51,000 cubic meters a day, resulting in a shortfall of some 7,000-9,000 cubic meters a day.

In light of this shortage, Mekorot has cut the quantity of water provided to every community – Jewish and Arab – by 15%, leaving towns perched on hilltops without sufficient water pressure to reach many homes, particularly on days of heavy usage.

During testimony to the subcommittee, it was revealed that of the 7,000-9,000 cubic meter daily shortfall, at least 5,000 cubic meters were due to illegal water hookups in the Palestinian Authority, siphoning off roughly 10% of the total supply.

“We must fight the thefts aggressively, as they are a major cause of the current crisis,” said Alex Kushnir, Director of the Water Authority.

Kushnir noted, however, that hitherto, little has been done to curb the illegal water connections.

“To date, no indictments have been filed against water thieves.”

COGAT Deputy, Brigadier General Guy Goldstein claimed the agency’s hands were tied, saying that a decision from the joint regional water committee, which the Palestinian Authority holds veto power over, was needed.

“We operate only in accordance with the government`s instructions. There needs to be a diplomatic decision for the entire region that will make it clear to the Water Authority how to plan and provide solutions.”


David Rosenberg

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214536#.V3vl7aKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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