Sunday, June 17, 2018

Europe: Ramadan Roundup, 2018 - Soeren Kern

​


by Soeren Kern

Following is a brief summary of a few Ramadan-related occurrences in several European countries:

  • In France, the government, which previously vowed to reduce foreign influences on the practice of Islam in the country, approved visas for 300 imams from Algeria and Morocco to lead Ramadan services in French mosques.
  • "Every message, no matter how poisonous the message is, should have the right to be expressed." — Ahmed Aboutaleb, Mayor of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • "The Turkish minister of foreign affairs tried to teach me a lesson about my Islamic identity. It is going too far if a foreign state, which is far away, tries to teach the mayor of Rotterdam about Dutch law and how I should apply it." — Ahmed Aboutaleb, Mayor of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Muslims across Europe are marking the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month, which in 2018 was observed between May 17 and June 15, in accordance with the Islamic lunar calendar.

Ramadan, a major topic for public discussion in Europe this year, received considerable media coverage, a reflection of Islam's rising influence.

Muslim leaders sought to leverage the media attention to showcase Ramadan — a time when Muslims abstain from eating and drinking between sunrise and sunset, to commemorate, according to Islamic tradition, the revelation of the Quran to Mohammed — as the peaceful nature of Islam in Europe.

European multiculturalists, normally strict enforcers of secularism when it comes to Christianity, made great efforts to draw up guidelines, issue instructions and carve out special privileges to ensure that Muslims were not offended by non-Muslims during the festival.

Breaking with the past, however, a growing number of European politicians publicly spoke out against Ramadan, especially regarding the adverse effects of prolonged fasting on school-aged children. The backlash, evidenced by the emergence of politically incorrect political parties in Europe, appears to reflect a growing wariness of runaway multiculturalism and the steady erosion of Western values.

Following is a brief summary of a few Ramadan-related occurrences in several European countries:

In Austria, the Secretary General of the Austrian People's Party, Karl Nehammer, called for a ban on fasting for school-age children. He said that he had received "innumerable" reports from teachers about the welfare of children during Ramadan. "If religious rituals, regardless of religion, endanger the health of children, this is clearly going too far," Nehammer said. "If religion is placed above the welfare of the child, that must stop."

The Islamic Religious Community in Austria (Islamischen Glaubensgemeinschaft in Österreich, IGGiÖ) accused Nehammer of trying to "ban" Ramadan. IGGiÖ spokeswoman Carla Amina Baghajati described Nehammer's comments as "offensive and humiliating" and, in a twist of logic, claimed that Nehammer was actually pushing Muslim children toward Islamic fundamentalism:
"This leads to a dangerous alienation in society. Children and adolescents especially feel this enemy policy. They are in danger of deliberately turning away from local society and becoming even more susceptible to radical ideas."
Peter Kusstatscher, director of HTL Villach, the largest school in Austria, said that Ramadan itself was radicalizing some Muslim students: "You now notice how they radicalize themselves in the subject matter of Islam and radically live out their beliefs." He described an incident where a Muslim student insulted a female classmate because she was wearing make-up during Ramadan. "Of course, we intervened because this was not about showing tolerance towards a religious community," he said.

In Belgium, Saint John's Catholic church in Brussels hosted an iftar dinner — a meal after sunset during the month of Ramadan. "What we are doing tonight is an extraordinary symbol of the power that comes from common initiatives like this," said Catholic priest Jacques Hanon. "We want to show a strength that lies in responding to setbacks, fears, violence, hatred and discrimination together."

The chairman of the Islamic communities in Brussels, Lahcen Hammouche, said:
"We have chosen this moment of the holy month of Ramadan, the month of sharing and forgiveness, to celebrate and share with churches of all faiths and all cultures, to show that Muslims are not all terrorists and that we are all capable and must have a good coexistence among religions and other philosophies."
Hammouche did not say whether Belgian mosques would reciprocate by celebrating Christian holidays at their facilities.

In Cyprus, the Department of Public Works announced that it had fast-tracked the taxpayer-funded renovation of a mosque in Paphos so that it would be available for use during Ramadan:
"Despite delays in the project, the Department of Public Works, respecting the request of the Muslim community to secure a comfortable and safe site in order for them to exercise their religious rights and given that it was not possible to find another site managed to get the contractor to go ahead with construction work in the mosque so that it may be completed and used with safety during Ramadan."
In Denmark, Integration Minister Inger Støjberg called on practicing Muslims to take a vacation during Ramadan to avoid negatively impacting the rest of society. In an opinion article published by the Danish newspaper BT, she wrote:
"We must address the problems that Ramadan presents us in the present. Undeniably, the demands of a modern and efficient society such as that of Denmark are quite different from those in Mecca during the time of Mohammed....
"It can be very dangerous for all of us if the bus driver neither eats nor drinks during the whole day, and of course one does not perform at the same level at the factory or at the hospital if you do not eat and drink during daylight hours for a whole month.
"I respect that Muslims want to practice their religion and traditions, but I think religion is a private matter and that it is necessary for us to ensure that it does not become a social issue. I do not want to deprive Danish Muslims of the opportunity to cultivate their religion and religious holidays, but I would encourage them to go on vacation during the month of Ramadan so that it does not adversely affect the rest of the Danish society."
In France, the government, which previously vowed to reduce foreign influences on the practice of Islam in the country, approved visas for 300 imams from Algeria and Morocco to lead Ramadan services in French mosques. The move sparked a backlash from across the political spectrum. "To ask Algeria and Morocco to send us imams during the month of Ramadan is unacceptable," said the former Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who has pledged to "cut all bridges" between Muslims in France and "third countries."

The leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, said that "it is unacceptable that the Ministry of the Interior organizes the arrival of 300 foreign imams in our country for Ramadan; it is a violation of the principle of secularism (laïcité)." Her former ally in the 2017 presidential race, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, demanded that foreign imams be required to swear an "oath of loyalty to France and the Republic."

Elsewhere in France, in Chambourcy, the managers of a Carrefour hypermarket complied with Muslim demands to remove Israeli dates from the store's "Ramadan department." Customers complained that the presence of Israeli products was "an affront to Muslim customers."

Europe 1 radio reported that Ramadan was a "commercial bonanza" for French retailers. Mimoun Ennebati, the head of a French Muslim association, said that "a priori, large distributors do not want to offend a certain clientele" during Ramadan. He estimated that practicing Muslims increase their spending by 30% during the month of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, in Mantes-la-Jolie, a suburb of Paris, a 42-year-old man was charged with manslaughter after shaking his five-month-old daughter to death. The man, confessing to the crime, said: "I was observing Ramadan and without eating, my nerves were on edge."

In Germany, Martin Sichert, a lawmaker from the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), called for Muslim doctors, nurses, pilots, bus and train drivers to be banned from working during Ramadan if they are fasting. "What patient should have to be operated on by a surgeon who has not had anything to drink for 12 hours?" asked Sichert, a member of the parliamentary committee for labor and social issues. "Why should people have to be transported around by other people who might face concentration problems and dehydration because they have been fasting for hours?"

Family Minister Franziska Giffey warned that "strict interpretations" about fasting were having an adverse impact on Muslim students: "Children need to drink and eat regularly, otherwise they can no longer pay attention in class or work together in physical education." She also said there was growing peer pressure to observe the fast during Ramadan: "There should be no discrimination, no matter if someone is fasting or not."

Heinz-Peter Meidinger, president of the German Teachers Union (Deutsche Lehrerverband), expressed concern that "a lot of students now take the fast very seriously." He complained that Muslim parents increasingly were pressuring teachers to reschedule exams until after Ramadan. This delay, he said, was having a negative impact on non-Muslim students.

In Landshut, Bavaria, Christian politicians and clergy walked out of an inter-cultural Ramadan festival after Quranic verses were sung in Arabic, rather than in German, as initially promised. "Singing the Quran in Arabic is incompatible with the goals of successful integration," said Thomas Haslinger, the district chairman of the Christian Social Union in Landshut.

Meanwhile, Deutschlandfunk, a German public radio station, in a segment about Ramadan, claimed that "Ramadan is an old German custom that has been around here longer than Oktoberfest." Author Eren Güvercin added: "Islamic religious practice has long since found its home in Germany. And we German Muslims are looking forward to Ramadan in our Germany. Nobody can deny that to us."

In Greece, hundreds of Arab and Kurdish asylum seekers clashed in a dispute over the Ramadan fast at the Moria Refugee Camp, on the island of Lesbos. Mohammed Khalil, a 19-year-old Kurdish migrant from Syria explained: "The fight began when some Arab youths started to fight with Kurds over fasting.... Some Arabs from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Algeria came and said Rojava [Syrian Kurdistan] Kurds are infidels and are not allowed to fast. Then the fight started. The refugee Arabs left and later returned with reinforcements. A bloody fight ensued."

In Iceland, where the sun at this time of the year rises at 3am and sets at midnight, Muslims observed the Ramadan fast according to Mecca time, where the sun sets at around 7pm, to avoid having to fast for 20 hours or more. Ahmad Seddeeq, an imam at the Islamic cultural center of Iceland who is originally from Egypt, said it was easier to fast in a cool climate: "I have done this for years, and I find it more difficult in my country, where it is 40 to 45 degrees Celsius (104-113F)."

In Italy, students at the Albert Einstein high school in Turin rescheduled a class dinner until after 10pm so that Reda Herradi, a 17-year-old Italian-Moroccan classmate, could attend. Local newspapers praised "the most beautiful side of integration, when young people of Italian origin and others of foreign origin, Catholics and Muslims, spend their days in contact with each other." Luisa Mondo, a mother of one of the students said: "What is striking is the naturalness of it all. In a heterogeneous and multi-ethnic neighborhood, a group of teenagers taught us what true integration is." In the comments section, readers pointed out that this was not an example of "true integration," but rather one of "reverse integration" in which the Italian hosts integrated themselves into the culture of the foreigner.

Also in Turin, 35,000 Muslims gathered in Dora Park to mark Eid al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan: "Record turnout: this year we had to enlarge the prayer area on the sides of the pavilion to welcome the faithful. Many young people and women," said Ismail Sikder, head of the Dar As-Salaam mosque and organizer of the event. After a series of congratulation speeches by Catholic clergy and local politicians, Monica Cerutti, Councillor for the Piedmont region, announced a taxpayer-funded program to provide cost-free circumcisions for Muslim boys. "This is a concrete example, but there are many other points of encounter and relationship between the Piedmont region and the Muslim community," said Cerutti. The free circumcisions are being offered after the death of a boy from Ghana who bled to death after a home circumcision.

Also in Turin, a 40-year-old Moroccan man was arrested after he kicked and punched his wife for not respecting Ramadan. The woman reported her husband after "a night of terror in which he also poured a bucket of water on her mattress to keep her awake," police said.

In Cascina (Pisa), Mayor Susanna Ceccardi approved a request by the Senegalese community to celebrate Eid al-Fitr at a municipal gymnasium, but only after that community "firmly condemned" all acts of violence produced by Islamic fundamentalism. "According to [Italian journalist] Oriana Fallaci, for whom we will name a square next Monday at Cascina, 'freedom is a duty before a right,'" said Ceccardi. "This municipal administration demands a clear stance on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism, without equivocation." Ceccardi also repeated her opposition to the construction of mosques in Italy:
"Our position has not changed: we are absolutely against the construction of mosques in our country, because as of today there are no guarantees that the exercise of the Islamic religion does not create problems of public security and not hide terrorist activities."
In Cagliari, the capital of Sardinia, a school offered a special menu consisting of traditional Arabic dishes, including couscous, humus and chorba, to mark the end of Ramadan. A spokesperson from the anti-immigration Sardinian Social Movement said: "We hope that students will also have the opportunity to opt for the ordinary menu. It would be absurd to subject all students to a diet designed specifically to meet the religious needs of a minority of students."

In Trent, Imam Aboulkheir Breigheche addressed hundreds of Muslims who gathered to mark Eid al-Fitr:
"The message we want to send today, at the end of this Ramadan festival, is that this community of Islamic faith, made up of people of all origins, is a solid and numerous community that wants to keep its own religious and cultural traditions, so as to make it possible for the next generation to grow in a balanced way."
In Palermo, Mayor Leoluca Orlando said: "The conclusion of Ramadan is a particularly significant moment for all Muslims, a moment of sharing and reflection that links this community in a very strong way to Palermo and its thousand-year intercultural and multicultural tradition."

Meanwhile, more than 5,000 Muslims gathered to celebrate Eid al-Fitr in Florence; 3,000 in Piacenza, and many more in Bari, Bologna, Brescia, Cosenza, Genoa, Lodi, Monfalcone, Naples, Rome, Trent, Trieste, Vasto and Venice, among other cities.

In the Netherlands, Tofik Dibi, a Dutch-Moroccan former Member of Parliament, tweeted an image of a sharpshooter with the words: "This is me when you have a drink at an outside terrace during Ramadan." He later said he was annoyed by the angry reactions to his tweet: "My inbox has turned into a sewer because drama queens are trying to distort my Ramadan joke."

In Rotterdam, Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb defended a decision to allow a group called Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West (Pegida) to protest against Ramadan outside a mosque in the port city. "Every message, no matter how poisonous the message is, should have the right to be expressed," Aboutaleb said.

Pegida had planned to hold "pork barbecues" outside several mosques across the country but the demonstrations were banned in Utrecht, The Hague, Arnhem and Gouda. Aboutaleb had approved the protest but a bus carrying about 20 Pegida supporters turned back after several hundred people had gathered for a counter-demonstration.

Turkey's EU Affairs Minister, Ömer Çelik, criticized Aboutaleb:
"On Thursday, at the time of the breaking of Ramadan fast, members of this fascist organization will hold a barbeque party in front of Rotterdam's Laleli Mosque and they will roast pigs on spits.
"Granting legal permission to such an immoral activity is a deficiency of morality. Other municipalities in the Netherlands did not allow Pegida to roast pigs in front of mosques at the fast-breaking time. However, Ahmet Aboutaleb, Mayor of Rotterdam, who is of Moroccan origin, thinks that this activity of Pegida is not against the law. Such a gross tragedy!"
Aboutaleb replied: "The Turkish minister of foreign affairs tried to teach me a lesson about my Islamic identity. It is going too far if a foreign state, which is far away, tries to teach the mayor of Rotterdam about Dutch law and how I should apply it."

In The Hague, Muslim youths were believed to be behind several attacks on a Hindu temple in the Schilderswijk district. The temple has often been the target of vandalism during Ramadan: "We are harassed by young people not only during Ramadan, but also during our own religious festivities," said Siddharth Ramdhani, a temple spokesman.

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola Netherlands shared a new advertisement on its Facebook page to fight prejudices during Ramadan. The video shows a young Muslim woman who resists temptation during the final hours of fasting before sunset, when a non-Muslim passerby in a tracksuit offers her a Coca-Cola. The Muslim woman refuses to accept the drink, because sunset has not yet arrived. The non-Muslim woman waits with her for the sun to set so they can drink from the iconic bottle together. The video ends with the slogan: "What unites us is greater than what divides us."

In Spain, where Madrid Mayor Manuela Carmena eliminated or replaced numerous Catholic symbols and traditions, and in 2017 rebranded Christmas as a neo-pagan "Festival of the Cultures" (Feria de las Culturas), eight districts of the city hosted more than 20 cultural events to celebrate Ramadan.

The program, called "Nights of Ramadan" (Noches de Ramadán), and paid for by Spanish taxpayers, was aimed at "bringing the Ramadan religious festival closer to the citizens of Madrid."

In Switzerland, the Child and Youth Health Department sent a letter to the principals of all secondary schools in Geneva advising them on the physical effects of fasting on students and providing recommendations for addressing problems such as hypoglycemia or dehydration. In the interests of "promoting the integration of everyone," the letter also urged teachers to show tolerance for Muslim students by reducing the physical efforts required of them and by rescheduling camps or study trips until after the end of Ramadan.

The letter provoked a fierce backlash from local politicians, who accused the state of "adapting the curriculum and school activities to the Islamic calendar." Jean Romain, president of the Grand Council (legislature) of Geneva, said that the letter was "appalling" because the law clearly requires schools to follow secularism: "The department's management is not doing its job.... Religions must neither legislate nor regulate the public domain. We have adopted a law on secularism, apply it!"

In St. Gallen, schools reported a surge in truancy during Ramadan and also in requests for special treatment for Muslim students. "In our opinion, observance of Ramadan is not compulsory for children and adolescents," said Headmaster Hannes Schwarz, who added that primary school students are now fasting in Switzerland. A Zurich primary teacher, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "I have second graders who are fasting. They talk about it, they think it's cool and they encourage each other." Islam expert Saïda Keller-Messahli said she was concerned about how strictly Muslim children were adhering to fasting: "In Europe, Ramadan is interpreted much more strictly than in Muslim countries."

In the United Kingdom, Paigham Mustafa, a Scots-Muslim writer, was threatened with death after he wrote in a Facebook post that fasting between dawn and dusk during the month of Ramadan is not decreed by the Quran. In a series of threatening messages under the post, one critic said: "Shut up or else you will get your head chopped off...shut up or else you will be beheaded...shut up you kafir [disbeliever] dog... you will get beheaded... we will kill you kafir." A separate message sent privately by another critic said: "Quran says kill people like you. You deserve to be killed. We will kill you." Mustafa replied: "I think it is important to emphasize that it is not Islam that I am against. I simply want to make people aware of those rituals that are not in the Quran. I did not say that it is wrong to fast, but ritual fasting is not decreed." Mustafa and his family were offered police protection.

In London, Southwark Cathedral hosted an iftar dinner — a meal after sunset during the month of Ramadan — as part of the program of events to mark the anniversary of the London Bridge attack. The Bishop of Southwark, Christopher Chessun, spoke about "a city of peace" and "a community of peace" before inviting those gathered at the cathedral to exchange a sign of peace with one another. A local community activist, Amir Eden, said: "This event is another opportunity to bring people together, of different religions and of no particular religion, to celebrate our love and compassion for each other."


In London, Southwark Cathedral hosted an iftar dinner — a meal after sunset during the month of Ramadan — as part of the program of events to mark the anniversary of the London Bridge attack. (Garry Knight/Wikimedia Commons)

In Dalston, east London, religious advisers at the Masjid Ramadan mosque announced that bitcoin, the cryptocurrency, is halal (permissible according to Islamic law) for Ramadan donations if it is "transacted in a lawful manner." The mosque, also known as Shacklewell Lane Mosque, said it would accept donations in two different cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ethereum. Zayd al Khair, a religious adviser at the mosque, said:
"Any money or currency is neither halal, permissible, nor haram, impermissible. Guidance is about the value which it represents. If money is transacted in a lawful manner then it is halal. We do not always know the source of cash donations, but we take these in good faith too."
In Kent, the International Glaucoma Association (IGA) warned Muslim glaucoma patients not to stop taking eye drop medication during Ramadan because stopping drops even for a short period of time could cause permanent loss of vision. Some Muslims stopped using their eye drops during Ramadan, believing that using them would break their fast. IGA Development Manager Subhash Suthar advised patients to use caution when using eye drops so that the fluid stays in the eye and does not drain into the throat and thereby violate the fast.

In Keighley, fire chiefs urged Muslims observing Ramadan to be vigilant and guard against fire risks in the home. Chris Kirby, the West Yorkshire brigade's area manager for fire safety, said: "Ramadan is a time of great importance for Muslims but it is also a time during which everyone should be extra vigilant when cooking, especially if they're feeling fatigued by the end of a full day of fasting."

Back in London, Metro, the United Kingdom's highest circulation newspaper, published instructions for Muslims to fail to keep the fast. An article — "How much is Fidya and Kaffarah for Ramadan 2018?" — stated:
"No matter how hard you try while fasting, sometimes life happens. Instead of feeling terrible about this, there are ways to show your dedication instead of simply fasting. Two of these are Fidya and Kaffarah.
"Fidya is a payment to charity if you cannot fast during Ramadan.... You're supposed to pay it before you miss a fast, or before Ramadan if you know you can't participate for the whole month. It's calculated by working out mudd, which is an offering of one meal to someone who can't afford one.
"Two mudd is equal to one Fidya payment. This year, that's been calculated by the Human Relief Foundation at £4, or £120 for the whole of Ramadan. Muslim Aid puts it at £5, or £150 for the whole month. Islam Freedom recommend a £3 payment per day.
"Kaffarah is a similar idea but is payable if you intentionally miss a fast. However, understandably, Kaffarah is a lot more. If you intentionally break fast, you must either pay enough to feed 60 people (60 mudd) or fast for 60 continuous extra days for each day you missed Ramadan as penance. That's £240 at HRF for Kaffarah, so it's certainly better to avoid breaking fast. If you choose to donate to a different charity, it's £300 with Muslim Aid, or £180 with Islam Freedom."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.  Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12519/ramadan-europe

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Salute to Two Intellectual Giants: Bernard Lewis and Richard Pipes - Lawrence A. Franklin

​


by Lawrence A. Franklin

It is appropriate for all free men and women to honor two scholars who helped preserve Western Civilization from totalitarian aggression. Both became American by choice.

  • Richard Pipes heaped scorn on those who romanticized Russian revolutionaries, whom he viewed as mere Bolshevik thugs who raised funds through a string of bank robberies and blackmail plots.
  • Bernard Lewis had the intellectual courage to navigate the third rail of relations between the Islam and the West.
  • Let us hope that those whom Professor Lewis enlightened will be equal to the task of defeating the ongoing challenge of what many see as the third totalitarian wave of religious triumphalism, just as Professor Pipes was equal to the task in combating Soviet totalitarianism.
It is appropriate for all free men and women to honor two scholars who helped preserve Western Civilization from totalitarian aggression. Both became American by choice.

Sadly, both, one British, one Polish, died this May.

Bernard Lewis and Richard Pipes, both veterans of World War II, risked their lives against the modern world's first wave of authoritarianism, Nazi fascism. Their bold and far-sighted analyses of new threats to liberty were driven by the totalitarian ideologies of Soviet Communism and Islamic triumphalism, and received the expected condemnation from acolytes of these enfolding systems.


Bernard Lewis (left) and Richard Pipes. (Image sources: Lewis - Levan Ramishvili/Flickr; Pipes - Mariusz Kubik/Wikimedia Commons)

Richard Pipes, prominent Harvard academic, testified to the barren ideology of Marxist-Leninism by boldly calling the October Revolution of November 7, 1917, a classic coup d'état executed by the Bolsheviks. He argued that the Bolsheviks acquired popularity through deceptive promises of bread to urban workers, peace to soldiers and land to peasants.[1] Professor Pipes's counsel about the Russian threat to the Free World made him a despised figure among some of his liberal colleagues, some of whom welcomed the Soviet Union's apparent embrace of Marxist principles.

Pipes, however, a Pole and a Jew, was probably sensitive to Russia's historical penchant for expansion. Because of Russia's acquisitiveness, Poland, more than once, disappeared from the map of Europe.

Countless Jews were victims of Russia's pogroms over the centuries. Pipes also cut through pious cant lauding the Soviet Union's socialist experiment. Rather, he firmly asserted the affinities between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Tsarist Russia's authoritarianism.

Pipes did not merely base his analysis of Soviet Communism on his own scholarship; he referenced eminent Russian philosophers such as Nicolas Berdiaev, who proffered his own judgment of the Bolshevik Revolution: "All of the past is repeating itself and acts only behind new masks."[2] Pipes further leveled his academic guns at the true essence of the Bolshevik Revolution by enumerating unpleasant characteristics common to both Tsarist and Soviet Russia. These included a penchant for autocracy, the absence of private property, the state control of information, and the lack of individual human rights.[3] Pipes heaped scorn on those who romanticized Russian revolutionaries, whom he viewed as mere Bolshevik thugs who raised funds through a string of bank robberies and blackmail plots.[4]

Still another of Pipes's insights was his excoriation of Lenin as the monster that made possible the super-monster Stalin. Lenin, wrote Pipes, initiated the "Red Terror" campaign as early as December 1917,[5] and he personally ordered the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family.[6] Pipes, like the Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, observed that Lenin helped to ensure the arrival of the modern totalitarian terror state. Both Pipes and Solzhenitsyn cite Lenin's creation of the CHEKA, the Russian acronym for the Soviet secret police, giving this Russian Gestapo-like organ license to kill.[7]

To his adopted nation, Pipes gave warning that the Soviet Union intended to envelop the globe, and that it might succeed if the West failed to mobilize all of its resources. Pipes, along with a small band of scholar-patriots, helped President Ronald Reagan to challenge the Soviet Union's aggressive policies. Reagan countered the Soviet Union's attempts to expand its influence in Africa, particularly in Angola and Mozambique. Reagan also targeted Moscow's efforts to gain more footholds in the Third World when the USSR, in cooperation with Cuba, sent advisors and troops to Nicaragua and established a pro-Soviet regime on the Caribbean island of Grenada.

Recognizing that the Soviet appetite was insatiable, Pipes outlined a strategy targeting the vulnerabilities of the "evil empire" which included: the Kremlin's weakening economy, the rise of nationalist sentiment within the USSR, the corruption rife within of the state's bureaucracy and the ossification of its Communist Party leadership.

Bernard Lewis, the other intellectual great, had an influence on public policy in the Middle East matched by no other contemporary scholar. He, more than many others, was prepared to respond to the post- 9/11 questions of most Americans.

Professor Lewis' post 9/11 lectures and policy advice to American leaders addressed questions such as: Why do they hate us so? What is Al-Qaeda? Who is Osama bin Laden? Where will this lead? When will it end? Lewis, after a lifetime of gathering insights on Islam, the Arab world, and the Middle East was always eager to inform the public.

This Princeton professor was no Islam-basher: he extensively praised Islam's creative achievements in art and science during its "Golden Age," the few centuries before Europe's Renaissance.[8] At the same time, he did not shy away from condemning the evils that Islamic caliphates meted out to non-Arab and non-Muslim peoples under their imperial control including devshirme -- the levy of boys from among the Christian population for recruitment into the Ottoman Army and state service.[9]

According to Michael Doran, one of Lewis' most brilliant students, the Princeton Professor's assertion that Osama Bin Laden's interpretation of Islam was authentically tied to the Islamic faith and scripture, invited the fury of Islamic critics.

Professor Lewis also leveled a biting critique towards the Ottoman dynasty's Islamic empire, particularly the period in which the caliphate had begun to lose ground to West European societies as well as to Europe's achievements in experiment and invention. [10] Lewis criticized the arrogance of Islamic rulers who for centuries held the lands of Europe in contempt as weak in warfare and bereft of creative cultural achievement. Lewis noted that Muslims viewed the people to the west and north as barbarians and infidels.[11] He also criticized Muslim elites for seeking scapegoats for the loss of their once premier status by blaming the barbarian Mongol invasions in the 13th century, then European Imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In addition, of course, there were always the Jews to blame.[12] The unwillingness of Muslim societies to accept any responsibility for their global decline helped to produce a posture of victimization, a sentiment which seems prevalent at least among Palestinian Arabs today. It may be difficult for Islamic political and religious leaders to accept any setbacks in light of Allah's will as defined in Koranic scripture that Islam is destined to win the world for Allah.[13]

Consequently, Lewis posed the rhetorical question on the lips of incredulous Muslims of "Who Did This to Us?" rather than "What Went Wrong?".[14]

And setbacks for the Islamic world there were. Lewis outlines the two failed attempts in 1529 and 1683 by the Muslim Turks to capture Vienna, the capital of the Catholic Hapsburg Dynasty of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.[15] After the second abortive attempt in 1683, the Ottoman Turks' drive west lost several battles and petered out. Soon the Turks were forced to deal with the West on equal diplomatic terms for the first time, as they met with Hapsburg negotiators in Carlowitz in October, 1698.[16]

Lewis catalogued several of the particulars leading to the downturn in Islam's fortunes, including: the Ottoman Turks' failure to keep pace with the West in technological innovation, including in weaponry; the West's employment of new transoceanic trade routes; the recovery of East European identity in the face of the Ottoman Empire which occupied much of it for centuries; the reduction in vibrancy of the Turkish elite as well as declining population in Turkey, and the rise of Russian power which competed with the Ottomans for supremacy in the Black Sea region.[17]

Perhaps the most controversial of Bernard Lewis's insights concerns his scholarly commentary in the theological realm, such as his bold analysis in defining the aggressive nature of Jihad and asserting that the Crusades were a response to the predatory behavior by some Muslims against Christian pilgrims, rather than an initiative by the West against Islam. His writings on these topics attracted the criticism of some academics. Lewis had the intellectual courage to navigate the third rail of relations between the Islam and the West.

Lewis claimed that Islamic world was unable to contend with new strengths of the West, such as the continued vibrancy of Christianity; the Islamic world's realization that it no longer could treat world Jewry an object of contemptible weakness; the State of Israel, and the European continent's post-Christian materialist world of Secularism and Modernization, as new assaults on the Islamic faith.[18]

Lewis underscored the depths of Muslim anger at the power of the West's liberalizing message which had invaded the Muslim's family life,[19] upsetting even the traditional roles played by a husband and wife in marriage. Finally and ominously, Lewis predicted an ultimate cataclysmic clash between Christianity and Islam: both religions are global; both continue their expanding realms, and both have universal aspirations.[20]

Let us hope that those whom Professor Lewis enlightened will be equal to the task of defeating the ongoing challenge of what many see as the third totalitarian wave of religious triumphalism, just as Professor Pipes was equal to the task in combating Soviet totalitarianism.
Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

[1] "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" by Richard Pipes. Alfred Knopf: New York, 1995. P. 391.
[2] "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" by Richard Pipes. Alfred Knopf: New York, 1995. P. 396.
[3] P. 397.
[4] P. 108.
[5] P.86.
[6] P.214.
[7] "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution." P. 173.
[8] "What Went Wrong? – Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis. Oxford University Press: New York, 2002. p.6.
[9] The Middle East by Bernard Lewis: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years." by Bernard Lewis. Simon and Schuster: New York, 1995. p. 109.
[10] "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis. p. 20.
[11] "What Went Wrong? – Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis. p.3.
[12] Ibid. pp.152-153.
[13] The Holy Koran, Chapter 9 Verse 30. "Islam Will Triumph in the World." Edited by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Lahore and Ohio. 2002. p. 404.
[14] "What Went Wrong? – Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis. p.152.
[15] "What Went Wrong? – Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response," by Bernard Lewis. p. 17.
[16] "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years." by Bernard Lewis. p. 115.
[17] Ibid. p. 7 and p.15.
[18] "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" by Bernard Lewis Oxford University Press: New York, 2004. p. 329.
[19] Ibid. pp. 320-321.
[20] "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. p. 320.


Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12520/bernard-lewis-richard-pipes

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Saturday, June 16, 2018

FBI IG Report: A Slap On The Wrist - Joseph Klein

​
by Joseph Klein

Highly anticipated report lets Hillary's protectors off easy.




Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has released his 500 plus-page report, which purports to shine a light on the mishandling at top levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State under former President Obama. Such mishandling included violations of Department of Justice standards and FBI protocols. The report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) criticized certain actions and decisions of former FBI Director James Comey, together with those of other senior FBI officials who were involved in the probe, including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Mr. McCabe is already the subject of an earlier criminal referral from the OIG for his alleged unauthorized leaks to the media and lying to federal investigators about his media contacts. Special FBI agent Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page, an attorney who has since left the FBI, were targeted in this report for their blatantly anti-Trump text messages. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also criticized for exercising bad judgment in connection with her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.

Mr. Horowitz’s report focused on process and procedures. The inspector general made clear when he launched his investigation in January 2017 that “his review will not substitute the OIG's judgment for the judgments made by the FBI or the Department regarding the substantive merits of investigative or prosecutive decisions." Moreover, this report did not address whether the Department of Justice or FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain a surveillance order against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, or the government’s reliance on former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified “dossier” in its FISA court application, which the OIG is investigating separately.

In analyzing the highly anticipated OIG report’s conclusions, it is clear that either Mr. Horowitz himself decided to pull his punches or that the final version, which had been reviewed by upper echelons in both the FBI and Justice Department before its public release, emerged in a disappointingly watered-down form. To be sure, the report faulted Comey for deviating from FBI and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State, thereby negatively impacting “the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey, according to the OIG report, “engaged in ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice.”

Starting with Comey’s public announcement on July 5, 2016 criticizing Hillary Clinton and her staff for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” but also announcing that the FBI was “expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,” Comey was taken to task for insubordination and usurping the authority of the attorney general. He “upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions,” the report said.

Comey’s follow-up letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016 were similarly criticized. The first letter informed Congress that agents were reopening their probe into Clinton’s handling of classified material after discovering her e-mails on the laptop of Andrew Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin. This letter was followed on November 6, 2016 by Comey’s statement that the review of the additional information had been completed and that the FBI remained convinced that charges were not appropriate. Comey acted against the advice of senior Justice Department officials in making these disclosures the way he did. The OIG report was highly critical of the FBI’s failure to take immediate action on the Weiner laptop when they first learned about it in late September 2016, rather than waiting another month so close to the election.

The criticisms of Comey's undisciplined behavior was all well and good, but it was reasonable to expect something more than the equivalent of a departmental employee review after nearly a year and a half of investigation. Hillary Clinton’s supporters will no doubt jump on the inspector general’s criticisms of Comey’s handling of the July 5th announcement and subsequent letters as proof that he improperly influenced the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor, even if he did not do so deliberately for political reasons. However, what Comey really did was to give Hillary Clinton a Get Out of Jail Free card.

The fix was in as early as May 2016, well before the FBI interviews of Hillary Clinton and of as many as 17 other key witnesses, when Comey began the process of drafting an exoneration memo. Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case based on the facts developed in the investigation. Indeed, Comey admitted in his book that “we started the Clinton investigation aware that it was unlikely to be a case that career prosecutors at the Department of Justice would prosecute.” 

If putting the cart of exoneration before the horse of investigation were not enough, Comey’s draft statement underwent various language changes over the course of the next two months, including, most importantly, changing the description of Clinton’s handling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” This change was critical because “gross negligence” is specifically the legal term used in stating the statutory requirement in 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) for a finding of criminal conduct. Comey’s substitution of a legally meaningless phrase, “extremely careless,” for the “gross negligence” statutory legal standard he had originally used, had the effect of prejudging the facts in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the edits.

Inspector General Horowitz saw no problem with this pattern of obfuscation regarding the deletion of the legally significant phrase “gross negligence” from Comey’s statement. Mr. Horowitz relied in part on opinions from prosecutors that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton with acting in a manner that rose to a level of criminal gross negligence with respect to sending or receiving e-mails determined to contain classified information. Mr. Horowitz’s report thus concluded, “We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.”  This conclusion defies common sense. Gross negligence is not the same as willful intent, which Comey and his team sought to conflate in exonerating Hillary Clinton before the investigation was concluded. Clinton was fully aware of what she was doing when she set up the private server arrangement in the first place and knowingly used it to send and receive e-mails involving official government business, which by their very nature would be expected to include classified information. It turns out that some of the e-mails were accessed by foreign parties. Hillary lied repeatedly when she first denied there were any classified e-mails on her system and then described some of the e-mails involved in the investigation as having been classified after the fact. As Comey has admitted, several e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received by Clinton. Coupled with her agents’ destruction of thousands of e-mails that had been subpoenaed by Congress, Hillary’s conduct was criminally reckless at the very least, if not constituting willful intent to commit an act she knew was wrongful. Yet Mr. Horowitz saw no reason to doubt the sincerity of Comey's explanations for giving Hillary a free pass.

The failure to at least empanel a grand jury to compel testimony from Hillary Clinton and key witnesses was itself a complete dereliction of duty, which could have only been motivated by a desire to treat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves for improper reasons. Incredibly, however, Mr. Horowitz’s report “found no persuasive evidence… that the outcome of the investigation would have been different had Clinton been subpoenaed before the grand jury.”

Mr. Horowitz also did not deem Comey’s possible perjury in his testimony before Congress to be an appropriate subject for criminal referral. Comey testified that his decision to exonerate Hillary was not made before her interview took place, when for all intents and purposes it was. Mr. Horowitz simply took Comey’s word for what he had meant.

Inspector General Horowitz again emphasized form and process over substance in finding a “troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication” between Comey and Attorney General Lynch ahead of Comey’s July 5 press conference on Clinton and his October 28 letter to Congress. Attorney General Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was discussed in the report, but mostly in the context of how it affected Comey’s decision to go rogue, so to speak, in making his July 5th announcement without prior approval from the Justice Department. As to the substance of Ms. Lynch’s decision to meet with Bill Clinton at all before his wife’s FBI interview, all Mr. Horowitz’s report had to say was that it was “an error in judgment.”

The OIG report also criticized the conduct of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had exchanged text messages sharply critical of Mr. Trump before and after the election, for casting “a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.” The report referenced a text message on August 8, 2016, in which Strzok reassured Page that she need not worry about Donald Trump becoming president. Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.  “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded. Mr. Horowitz wrote that this exchange was “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The inspector general questioned whether Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia collusion investigation over following up on the Clinton e-mail-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias. Ultimately, however, he inexplicably concluded that there was no finding of “documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions” discussed in the OIG report.

Strzok should have been subject to a criminal referral for arguably violating 18 U.S.C. § 595, enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act, prohibiting any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office including the president of the United States. The punishment for violation is a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year or both. Instead,  Strzok's punishment will most likely be limited to disciplinary action and possibly dismissal.

In sum, the long-awaited inspector general report on the FBI’s and Justice Department’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation is as disappointing as the rigged outcome of the e-mail investigation itself.

Joseph Klein

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270466/fbi-ig-report-slap-wrist-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A necessary question for IG Horowitz when he testifies Monday - Ed Timperlake

​


by Ed Timperlake

Politics ultimately will take a back seat to fact-based evidence that will eventually put a lot of individuals in jail


Michael Horowitz, the DOJ inspector general, will testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending his report. He will be praised and attacked for his work product. But the politics ultimately will take a back seat to fact-based evidence that will eventually put a lot of individuals in jail.

This first DOJ I.G. report is, at a minimum, the beginning of the end of many careers. The good news is that the I.G. report has brought many important facts to sunlight. Documented evidence of incredible danger to our Constitution – and perhaps even deeper threats to the well-being of the president – is found in the revelation of the most infamous line ever written in FBI history, re-tweeted by President Trump:

It is now known, thanks to the DOJ I.G. report, that instead of being "redacted," which is a dark line obscuring the text, the line was expunged with no traces in a turn-over of documents to Congress. This alone is evidence of a cabal in the FBI conspiring to obstruct Congress by withholding factual evidence from congressional oversight. Congress is "we the people," and the FBI is actually our creation. So when individuals with badges and guns empowered by the state threaten the future president of the United States, America is on the edge of a serious abyss of becoming a police state.

In a previous American Thinker blog, I suggested that the Secret Service be called in to investigate such a threat implied in "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."


It is not over the line to take Strzok at his word and find out exactly what he means.


I actually have some experience with the now-lost-to-history leadership of the FBI who truly lived by their motto of Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Calling in the Secret Service is not over the top based on my previous knowledge of FBI Counterintelligence teams' responsibilities in picking up credible threats to Americans. My respect for the FBI developed when I was investigating the Russian Mafia.


I went to the NYC Organized Crime Task Force as the House Rules Committee professional staff member assigned to investigate the pernicious influence of off-shore bribes to Clinton, Inc. I traveled to New York to share leads with an interagency law enforcement task force of federal, state, and local individuals all dedicated to taking down Russian organized crime. I was told taking on the Russian mob is very dangerous. A New York reporter writing on "The Money Plane," a cargo plane leaving every week for Moscow, had been targeted for death by the Russian mob. I was also told that the FBI had uncovered the threat and had warned him because it was a real threat to a courageous journalist.


Fast-forward today to the role of some bad actors in the FBI now warning about threats. How many nasty special agents and lawyers in the FBI would have means, motive, and opportunity to turn a blind eye in passing credible threats over to the Secret Service? Even potential of that occurring is a real problem and must be investigated. Assurances of the FBI investigating their own, especially after now having hard evidence of their obstruction in withholding pertinent information from congressional oversight, cannot now be taken for granted.


Having the Secret Service investigate the FBI on all this would send a powerful message to everyone that external diligence is mandatory in cleaning up such a lack of integrity and judgment.


One FBI lawyer texted that he was "devastated" by Trump's election and declared "Viva la Resistance!" and "I never really liked the Republic anyway." The same person became the "primary FBI attorney assigned to [Russian election interference] investigation beginning in early 2017," the I.G. noted.


Congress, meet the "Resistance" that an unknown FBI lawyer has joined in spirit. Words have meaning:



Trump's success confirms the bankruptcy of representative democracy. Rather than using the democratic process as an alibi for inaction, we must show that no election could legitimize his agenda. Neither the Democrats nor any other political party or politician will save us – they just offer a weaker version of the same thing. If there is going to be positive change in this society, we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action.
From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It's time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it – because they do.
Finally, people empowered with badges and guns should be asked by the Secret Service exactly what they mean and whom they plan to shoot. Again, words have meaning.

The agents also suggested in text messages on Election Day that there would be riots if Trump defeated Clinton.
"You think HRC is gonna win right? You think we should get nails and some boards in case she doesn't," Agent 1 wrote.
"She better win… otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns," Agent 5 responded. [Emphasis added.]
I suggest that the senators questioning I.G. Horowitz ask him if he made a referral to the Secret Service, and if not, why not?

Americans should be grateful for the wisdom of our constitutional checks and balances. I am always optimistic that eventually all will be well, or as said in the Space Race, "A-OK!" as a nation, but we are not safe just yet.



Ed Timperlake

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/a_necessary_question_for_ig_horowitz_when_he_testifies_monday.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Report: U.S. withdrawal from UNHRC 'imminent' - Elad Benari



by Elad Benari

Officials say United States could quit United Nations Human Rights Council over its continued anti-Israel bias.

The United States could quit the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) soon, activists and diplomats told the Reuters news agency on Thursday.

According to these sources, talks with the United States over how to reform the UNHRC have failed to meet Washington’s demands.

A U.S. source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the withdrawal appeared to be “imminent” but did not provide further details.

Diplomatic sources said it was not a question of if but of when the United States retreats from the Human Rights Council, which will hold a three-week session beginning on Monday and running through July 6.

A separate U.S. official in Geneva had no information about a looming pull-out during the upcoming talks, saying, “We are still moving ahead with our engagement for the coming session.”

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has repeatedly blasted the UNHRC for its obsession with criticizing Israel. She publicly told the Council a year ago that Washington might leave the body unless a “chronic anti-Israel bias” were removed.

The UNHRC continuously singles out Israel for criticism, while ignoring other conflicts in the region, such as the ongoing bloody civil war in Syria.

Last March, the council passed a series of anti-Israel resolutions, including a motion condemning Israel for its construction in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and urging states and firms to avoid ties with “settlements”.

It later issued a report which offers to “advise and support” efforts to create a “blacklist” database of companies operating in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and eastern Jerusalem, so that the international community could boycott them.

The U.S. boycotted the UNHRC for three years under President George W. Bush before rejoining under Barack Obama in 2009.

Last month, the 47-member forum once again singled out Israel when it voted to establish a Commission of Inquiry to examine possible war crimes committed by Israel during the confrontations on the Gaza border.

The United States and Australia cast the only “no” votes. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, condemned the move, while Haley condemned the vote as “another shameful day for human rights”.


Elad Benari

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/247489

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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