Pages

Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Friday, 5 July 2013

Political Islam and change in Egypt and Syria


"Islam is the solution"
Arab revolutions breaking out since late 2010 were not expected to sail through as soon as power changed hands, says Lebanese affairs bureau chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat Walid Choucair.
Commenting on turbulent political change in Egypt and Syria, he writes in part:
Forsaking authoritarian regimes that spent decades stamping out the popular will and domesticating political life is always fraught with difficulties and pitfalls.
Uprisings against underdevelopment, marginalization, oppression, humiliation, the plunder of national wealth and the taming of state institutions are invariably harrowing.
Egypt’s Muslim Brothers were not the only ones to fail in worming their way to a new regime. Their kinfolk in Tunisia and Morocco and their ilk in Libya did not fair any better.
Their counterparts in Syria have yet to close ranks as they wrestle with the regime.
Egypt’s Muslim Brothers failed to seize the opportunity they got to address their country’s political, economic and social ills. Hence the alliances that ousted them, which brought together the military, religious and cultural establishments, opposition parties and the Tamarrud mass movement.
The irony is: (1) In Egypt, voters gave political Islam the opportunity to rule and then held it to account on public squares for its failures (2) In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad’s forces bombed the squares and the masses crowding them under the guise of fighting political Islam.
In his weekly column for the independent Beirut daily an-Nahar, senior analyst Jihad el-Zein reflects on the quick breakdown of domineering political Islam.
Ushered on by Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, it took fundamentalist Islam about 35 years to rise to power before starting to lose its shine. It noticeably went downhill with the outbreak of internecine strife between Shiite fundamentalism and its Sunni counterpart followed by its post-Arab Spring self-destruct in Tunisia and Egypt.
The slogan “Islam is the solution” championed in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies evaporated posthaste.
The second Egyptian revolution now underway killed off all political hope that Islamist political movements in the Arab world are capable of managing successfully the tough and complex issues facing a nation-state in the contemporary world.
“Islam is the solution” hit a brick wall when millions of Muslims – most of them devout – avowed in different ways in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Iran and elsewhere that they do not want a “religious state” and differentiate between the fate of fundamentalist Islamic movements and Islam as the religion of 1.6 billion people on the planet.
“Globalization” gave rise to the strongest and most violent forms of political Islam.
In his essay “The Spirit of Terrorism,” the late French sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard characterized the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York as a reaction to the technological and political expansion of capitalist globalization rather than a clash between Islam and America.
The same globalization that instigated the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the first place is now knocking it down by various ways and means.
After overhearing some Cairo news coming from the radio in my car, an Egyptian worker at a gas station in [the Beirut district of] Ashrafiyeh, turned to me saying, “The Muslim Brothers strove for 80 years to take over in Egypt… They won’t give up easily.”
True, but the fact is the Brothers failed in their first year at the helm in Egypt because of the intricacies of running state affairs in modern times, especially when issues of state-building and development – including the economy, social welfare, public transport, gas prices and the environment – are for the most part independent of Islam.
Whereas Islam is prospering socially and culturally as a religion across the world, political Islam is in crisis and being challenged in Iran since 2009, Turkey this month and now Egypt.
The death bell is indeed tolling for the “religious state.”

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Iran can’t just gobble up and Shi’ize Egypt


Political analyst Yasser el-Zaatreh, a native of Jericho, has been  freelancing for 27 years. He wrote this think piece in Arabic for Aljazeera.net
File pictures of Morsi and Ahmadinejad
Egyptian leaders are keeping nose to grindstone to mitigate internal disquiet.
They are less focused on recovering Cairo’s Arab and regional clout and role.
So before Egypt overcomes its internal travails, its leadership will find it hard to conjure up a clear Arab and regional vision.
Where events in Syria are concerned, Cairo remains as supportive of the Syrian people as it can be.
President Mohamed Morsi’s Syria statements and Cairo’s backing of the Arab League decision giving Syria’s seat to the Syrian Opposition Coalition corroborate this. The Arab League switch would not have been possible without Egypt’s full backing.
When discussing Egypt’s stance on Syria, we’re talking by implication about the position of Iran, which sees in Bashar al-Assad’s political survival the cornerstone of its strategy in the region.
After all, Iran effectively sacrificed its relations with the best part of the Ummah to preserve this immoral position. And the Islamic Republic’s loss on that matter is immeasurable by strategic standards.
Morsi would not have been supportive of the Syrian opposition had he been anxious to win Iran’s heart and mind.
He is aware that vexing Iran could tempt her to support and fund his opponents, if not tamper with Egypt’s internal security – chiefly in the soft areas of Sinai, where tribal groups and some Islamists are being led to believe they could challenge “Zionists” from that particular frontline.
On his February trip to Egypt for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not meet with Morsi except at Cairo airport, which is where Ahmadinejad offered him oil grants and financial support. Morsi simply ignored the offer.
Likewise, you can’t read much into the bilateral tourism promotion agreement between Egypt and Iran and the normalization of their commercial ties.
By comparison, tourism and commerce links between Turkey and Iran continue to prosper even though the two countries are exchanging blows in Syria and fighting a cold war across the region.
This is not to mention Tehran’s attempts to play the Kurdish card – a no-hoper since Recep Tayyip Erdogan made his historic peace deal with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
While Egypt has yet to resume diplomatic relations with Iran and bilateral tourism and commerce is just beginning, Arab Gulf states and the Islamic Republic share a wide range of diplomatic, tourism and trade links. For instance, hundreds of thousands of Iranians travel to Saudi Arabia annually to perform the Hajj and Umrah. Tens of thousands of Iranians also visit the UAE, Kuwait and Oman.
So can Morsi and his government overlook Egypt’s economic interests and shut out Iran? And is Egypt’s national security so porous as to be easily compromised by Tehran?
This takes us to the preoccupation of many people with Shi’ization (or the “missionary-style” spread of Shiism).
In truth, the obsession with Shi’ization is an insult to the Sunni branch of Islam, depicting it as vulnerable and easily pliable, which is far from being the case.
Inasmuch as Alawites are part of Shiite Islam, did 40-plus years of Alawite rule in Syria convert the country’s Sunni majority to Shiism?
More importantly, was Shiite Iran able to Shi’ize its own Sunni population (of about 10 percent) over the years?
Iran’s occasional dabbling in Shi’ization drives is provocative, featherbrained and futile. But the Arabs’ problem with Iran is far from being sectarian. The problem is political par excellence.
Egypt, it must be said, is a regional heavyweight with an impressive cultural and historical legacy. It is also home to the millennium-old Al-Azhar University, the foremost institution in the Islamic world for the study of Sunni theology and Islamic law, and to Al-Azhar Mosque.
The future will show that whoever thinks Iran can gobble up and Shi’ize Egypt is hallucinating.
Egypt will never fall in Iran’s lap, neither under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood nor under anyone else. Politics, history and the balance of power won’t let this happen.
Let’s stop portraying Iran as an omnipotent sovereign when it is wobbling under the weight of its problems in Syria, in Iraq and at home.
Iran will revert to its original size once Assad is shown the door. The Arab world will then have no problem building good neighborly relations with Tehran as it now has with Ankara.

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The other face of Hezbollah


Former Hezbollah Secretary-General Subhi al-Tufayli on MTV

Former Hezbollah leader Subhi al-Tufayli has accused current leaders of Lebanon’s militant group and Iran of the double crime of fighting alongside the Syrian regime and stoking the fire of a regional Sunni-Shiite war.
He made the accusation in a wide-ranging, two-hour interview on Be Mawdou3ia (Arabic for “Objectively”), a weekly program hosted Monday nights by Walid Abboud on MTV Lebanon.
Tufayli spent nine years studying theology in Najaf and was influenced by the teachings of Ruhollah Khomeini.
He was spokesman for Hezbollah between 1985 and 1989, and became the militant Shiite group’s first Secretary-General from 1989 until 1991.
I excerpted and paraphrased from the interview with Tufayli these Qs and As on Syria:

Abboud: What’s going on at the Syrian-Lebanese border? What’s this tension all about? Why the on-off exchange of fire?
Tufayli: I said previously the war in Syria was taking an alarming turn and that Syria risked biting the dust. I warned of the war’s repercussions on Lebanon. I was trying then to avert a spillover and urging Lebanon’s Sunnis and Shiites to stand together and spare Lebanon the Syria war fallouts. I didn’t imagine we would choose – of our own volition -- to join the sedition in Syria.

Abboud: Who is “we”?
Tufayli: We Lebanese, both Sunnis and Shiites. We elected to join the sedition, which was a very dangerous thing to do. The result can only be catastrophic. I am certain: whoever is behind this does not give a hoot about the future of either the Sunnis or Shiites, or about Lebanon or the region. And here, I would like to interject a word to my meritorious, beloved, pious and righteous sons in Hezbollah…

Abboud: …Do your meritorious sons include the Hezbollah leadership?
Tufayli: I include some of the leaders, yes. I remind the rest that each time some members, some Iranians, tried to put us off-course and have us fight wars here and there against this side or that, we refused and remained focused on Palestine… Today, to put it bluntly, we are fighting in Syria.

Abboud: Who is fighting in Syria?
Tufayli: Hezbollah.

Abboud: Is Hezbollah fighting in Syria, or is it defending or helping Lebanese in villages there?
Tufayli:  It is fighting in Syria.

Abboud: Those in Syria are defending themselves.
Tufayli: I don’t want to hide behind my finger. The Shiites in Syria don’t need someone to defend them. We compromised them and we ensnared them. If they are in danger, we are to blame. We are responsible for any harm befalling any Shiite in Syria. We got them in trouble. We caused them pain. They didn’t need our help or our solidarity. Even today, we can still take the correct steps and desist. By so doing, Syria’s Shiites would be spared Syria’s tragedy.

Abboud: But Hezbollah does not speak of Syria’s Shiites. It speaks of the Lebanese Shiites residing on Syrian territory.
Tufayli: I am referring to both. Moreover, the stones of the shrine (in the Damascus suburbs) of Sayyeda Zeinab do not need our protection. All this is haywire and meant for the naïve. The real aim (of Hezbollah now) is to protect the regime – a tyrannical regime killing its own people. Is it conceivable to see the Syrian people being slaughtered and shelled by all sorts of weapons? Not once did Syria fire a missile – of the types being rained on Aleppo, among other places -- toward Palestine, not even in (the Israel-Hezbollah war of) 2006. To avoid saying it is defending the regime, Hezbollah invented all this rubbish about protecting Shiites, the Lebanese in Syria and the Sayyeda Zeinab shrine. Hezbollah is implicating Syria’s Shiites.
Hezbollah and Iran are accountable for every Shiite life lost in Syria. They are responsible for every house destroyed or tree cut in Syria. We could have spared the Shiites of Syria, Lebanon and the region this hateful sectarian conflict.
We claim to be followers of Imam Hussein and his struggle against injustice. And what we have in Syria are people wanting to rid themselves of an unjust ruler. Our legal, religious, moral and humanitarian duty is to take the side of the oppressed Syrian people. Any other stance is a heinous crime for which we will be held accountable before God.

Abboud: A viewer emailed this question, “Would a Hezbollah fighter killed in Syria be considered a martyr?”
Tufayli: A martyr because he killed Muslim children, because he panicked them, a martyr because he destroyed their homes, a martyr because he is allegedly liberating Palestine? No, such a person is destined to hell, according to the Holy Quran.

Abboud: There’s more now to the Syria war – internal, regional and international factors and talk of an attempt to bring down the Axis of Resistance represented by Syria, Hezbollah and Iran?
Tufayli: What I can say is that a regional Sunni-Shiite conflict would benefit Israel. Our involvement in Syria serves Israel. In addition, neither side will be allowed to win the Syria war. The powers that be and Israel want both sides to end as losers. Their interest is for the Ummah (Islamic nation) to self-destruct -- whether in Lebanon, or Syria or Iraq… The United States wants the regime to continue destroying Syria for now.

Abboud: Are you therefore asking the Iranian leadership to also leave the Syrian regime – its strategic partner – to its fate?
Tufayli: If the price of supporting the Syrian regime is leading to lose Syria, Lebanon and the Ummah, I have to rethink my strategy – unless I am bent on serving Israel’s interests.  I know that Israel today is elated by Hezbollah’s course. Israel would be happy to defend Hezbollah so long as Hezbollah continues to fight in Syria. Who can render Israel a better service?

Abboud: But Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is keeping up his threats to hit Israel hard if it launched any attack.
Tufayli: Israel today is very keen to see Hezbollah fighting in Syria and the Ummah falling to pieces. Khomeini called for unity and not for internecine strife in the name of the Axis of Resistance.

Abboud: If, as you said, Israel is off Hezbollah’s back now, how do you explain Hezbollah sending a drone over Israel (last October)?
Tufayli: You could say it was probably to obscure Hezbollah’s role in Syria – like its jargon about defending Shiites in Syria and the Sayyeda Zeinab shrine.

Saturday, 19 January 2013

Are Turks in Somalia for the hajj or to sell beads?


Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist and author now heading Al Arab News Channel, penned this think piece in Arabic for today’s al-Hayat
Erdogan and his wife Emine in Somalia in August 2011 
Next to us, we Saudis, and within our strategic security sphere, lies a country biting the dust for more than two decades.
Its collapse began when its last “effective” government, which was neither successful nor popularly elected, fell.
Even if that government had survived to this day, it surely would have been swept away by the Arab Spring.
Together with our neighbors in the region, we looked after it on one or two occasions, and then moved away.
Even the Americans ran out on it after a solitary attempt to save it in the wake of the war to liberate Kuwait. At the time, George Bush Sr. may have wanted to show his country was also ready to intervene and help a poverty-stricken Muslim country, unlike oil-rich Kuwait. It turned out to be a bitter American experience.
I am referring to Somalia.
Who wants to help Somalia? Its people are unruly, plagued by differences and internecine strife, and ruled by warlords. Al-Qaeda infested many of its citizens’ minds, adding to miseries and divisions even in single households.
In the end, Somalia became the hotbed of high sea piracy. The world came to shun both the state and its people. Somalis got to be a source of concern for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners after a rise in their illegal immigration across Yemen through a transnational network of organized crime in the smuggling of migrants.
Everyone lost hope in Somalia and no one believed the failed state would recover anytime soon.
Or so it seemed.
There is now a glimmer of hope looming on the horizon.
International organizations now say Somalia is on the mend. Its markets are beginning to recover, together with trade and construction activities. People who visited Somalia of late say there is money moving around in the impoverished country.
So, what happened?
The answer is Turkey and its Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is now the most popular leader there, with Somali mothers and fathers eager to name their newborns “Recep,” “Tayyip” and “Erdogan.”
So what is Turkey doing in Somalia and why? Is it on “a pilgrimage or selling beads” there -- which is a common expression used by Mecca residents well grounded in combining godliness and moneymaking?
One school of thought worth monitoring is known as “Turkey’s moderate Islam,” which combines advocacy with spreading the teachings of religion, economic development and trade.
It is capitalized on by dynamic Turkish businesses in carving out new markets.
There is a Turkish scholar, author and educator named Fethullah Gülen, who founded the Gülen movement that is believed to have 1,000 schools around the world and more than 10 million followers in Turkey alone. He currently lives in self-exile in Pennsylvania.
I was in Turkey some 25 years ago, trying to cover the rise of political Islam, when I first heard his name. But I didn’t get to meet him as he always shunned publicity and the media.
He had left Turkey for the United States when he was committed for trial in 2000 after the leaking of a video urging his followers to “move within the arteries of the system, without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centers. You must wait until such time as you have got all the state power.”
Originally charged with trying to undermine the secularity of the Turkish state, Gülen was acquitted in 2008 but continues to live in seclusion in Pennsylvania.
The Gülen movement is operating in Somalia through aid relief and development agencies, offering young Somali men and women scholarships for religious studies in Turkey. They would eventually replace Somali graduates of hard-line religious schools funded by Gulf charities.
By the time he flew to Somalia in August 2011, Erdogan had arranged for more than 1,200 Somali students to arrive in Turkey on full scholarship to study sciences, engineering, medicine and law at a cost of $70 million.
He then raised from Turkey’s private sector more than $365 in donations to Somalia, over and above his government’s $49 million contribution.
Today, Turkish traders and aid workers move freely across Somalia without needing to worry about being killed or kidnapped.
In contrast, UN and international aid workers remain holed up in their Somali offices or hotel rooms.
Is this happening because Turks, being Muslims, are familiar with the Somali people’s character and norms?
Julia Harte raises the question in her recent article, “Turkey Shocks Africa,” on which I relied to pen this think piece and which I strongly urge you to read.
Or does Turkey have a comprehensive plan – denied by the government – to marry advocacy and trade, thus help Turkish entrepreneurs and businesses gain favor among Somalis?
Or is energy-starved Turkey eyeing opportunities offered by the prospective find of 10 billion barrels of crude oil in Somalia’s northeastern Puntland province?
Alternatively, is Turkey mounting a smart charm offensive to increase its overall exports to Africa, which rose to $10.3 billion last year from $2.1 billion in 2003?
Turkey is now challenging China on African markets, but with a more humane face than the alienating method favored by the Chinese.
Regardless of Turkey’s motives, what happened benefited both the Turks and the Somalis.
And what about us?
It’s wrong to portray the Turks as competitors. They are friends who did what we should have done. It’s therefore good to catch up with them and participate in this benefaction. After all, we spearheaded the concept, “The Hajj…and the sale of beads.”

Monday, 17 September 2012

Syria: Michel Kilo’s public appeal to the Pope


Add caption
Your Holiness, reach out   بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Michel Kilo, the Syrian Christian thinker, writer and human rights activist, penned this appeal to Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of his three-day visit to Lebanon. The appeal, which I rephrased in English, appeared yesterday in Arabic on all4syria.info:

Your Holiness, I wish to address you in the name of God, who Muslims call “the Gracious, the Merciful.”
I am not, Your Holiness, a believer in all what religions put forward. But I believe they preserved the human race by sanctifying human life, which is imprinted with the very image of its Creator.
In my view, the obligation to preserve human life is the greatest of the Divine messages.
Without it, we wouldn’t have witnessed today’s humankind, or lived its inventiveness and achievements. We wouldn’t have formed entities replete with flaws and shortcomings.
Without it too, individuals wouldn’t have sanctified the life granted them by their Creator, who tolerates their thoughtlessness and numerous mistakes because He is “Gracious, Merciful.”
I am, Your Holiness, Syrian, Arab and Christian. I am a citizen in a region that managed, throughout its long and tortuous history, to fuse its human, religious, cultural and political components.
True, the region was not all too familiar with the concept of tolerance. But is still upheld and breathed tolerance hundreds of years before John Locke published his book “A Letter Concerning Toleration.”
I have no doubt in my mind Your Holiness is aware of and thankful that this region coined most terms that founded human civilization. I am referring to terms like religion, abstract thought, numbers, agriculture, domestication of animals, metals melting, statehood, ways to control nature, writing, music, painting and dance…
Your Holiness is also aware that the message of Islam -- the region’s last religion -- recognizes and reveres its two preceding monotheistic faiths, Judaism and Christianity.
Suffice to read Your Holiness what the Quran says of Jesus (Issa) --“And we gave Issa, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit” [Chapter Two, Verse 87] – or Mary -- “And when the Angels said: O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee, and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.” [Chapter Three, Verse 42].
Your Holiness would surely note the difference between these wordings and all that was penned about Jesus and Mary over time.
Your Holiness, as soon as you mention Jesus, a Muslim would immediately and piously say “Issa, peace be upon him.” If you mentioned his mother’s name, the Muslim would solemnly refer to “Maryam, peace be upon her.”
Lastly, Your Holiness is aware that Christianity survived in this Levant, its cradle for over 2000 years. It did so alongside other religions and spiritual persuasions, the most important of which is Islam. And Islam is imbued with some things Christian.
Muslims are akin to Christians in some aspects of their tolerant religion. Otherwise, they would not have respected our presence in their midst, even though their religion prescribes Da’wa or Islamic missionary activity.
But they always believe in God’s mercy, which commits them to be merciful towards God’s creation.
True, this has not always been the case. Equally true, this has mostly been the case in the largest part of history.
Otherwise, how would one explain the continued presence of Christianity in the Levant after the Crusades, which the Muslims called the wars of the Franks simply to avoid defaming the Cross?
And who protected Christianity and Christians after the Franks were routed by Muslim armies that co-opted Christian fighters?
I tell Your Holiness in all frankness that the mutual sense of belonging is what protected both sides.
Didn’t Syrian cities’ Christian welcome with open arms their cousin Muslim forces as they strove to engage the Byzantine Church’s Crusaders? And didn’t a Christian fighting in the Muslim army exclaim during the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah: “I swear by al-Kaaba that I have slain Rustam.”
The Christian fighter was referring to the powerful commander of the large Persian force confronting the Muslim army.
Today, innumerable attempts are being made to sever this historic partnership.
The attempts are mounted by an assortment of Christian and Muslim sides as well as by hardliners and fanatic institutions and organizations that have espoused confessional views.
On the Muslim side, such views are formulated in the most retarded and intransigent parts of the Islamic world. They don’t challenge Christianity only, but primarily nonradical Islam.
In the Christian corner, there are extremist Churches that perceive the Muslim as an enemy with whom they have been forced to live. They don’t see him as a partner or kindred who shares the belief in God and His mercy.
There are clergymen who consider themselves combatants engaged in a belated battle that should have been settled a long time ago. Today, these churchmen are the chief stokers of the fire engulfing the two sides’ believers. The fire they are stoking is no different than the fire stoked by foolhardy Muslims.
The problem is that these clerics are turning their back on Your Holiness, perhaps without you knowing. They are waging their battle under banners they claim are your own. They say you share their views and you are part of a world hostile to Arabs and Muslims. They advocate a ravaging confessional war that has had no place in our Levantine history. They wish for an armed conflict to mirror the inter-Christian wars that once broke out in Europe. They see themselves as fighting on Europe’s side and on the side of Your Holiness and what you represent.
You have, Your Holiness, to restrain them and put them in their place with unequivocal language.
You have to bring them back to their senses, reminding them there is no, -- and will not be -- a Christian-Muslim war.
They have to be told that Christianity does not back any war on anyone, especially not the war the Syrian regime is waging on its people in the name of fighting terrorists. It is an open secret that the regime has always embraced, nurtured and trained terrorists before making common cause with them inside Syria and elsewhere on Arab and Muslim territory.
The Quran orders: “And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden” [Chapter 17, Verse 33].
The Syrian regime’s warplanes are not killing the enemies of Jesus Christ. They are bombing peaceful cities and villages without possibly distinguishing between a terrorist and a child or woman or elderly or youth. This means hundreds of unarmed and innocent civilians are probably killed for every insurgent who took up arms in self-defense against the regime’s oppression and blind violence.
The Syrian regime is not fighting a battle in defense of Christianity to earn the sympathy of Christian Churches and clerics. It is fighting to defend its tyranny, benefits and oppressive and abusive policies while claiming to be secular.
In fact, the regime’s only religion is a cult of personality.
The regime is not fighting a battle to defend Christians either. Christians are under no risk except from the foolishness of some of its Churches and clerics. Such foolishness got them to the stage of blessing and celebrating the killing of children, women and elderly people in the false belief that they are party to a salvation war against terrorism and extremism. They don’t see regime violence as being either terrorist or extremist. It’s also as though a genocidal regime’s victory justifies sacrificing the life of a single human being.
How could such Churches claim to be faithful to Jesus of Nazareth, the greatest opponent of violence in human history?
Return the Church to its senses, Your Holiness.
Remind the Church that what kept Christianity in the Levant after the Franks’ wars was the stand Christians took in support of justice. Together with their Muslim cousins, Levantine Christians faced up to submission. They cannot today tolerate regimes that are incapable of ruling people seeking freedom and democracy without using artillery, tanks and warplanes to suppress them.
The Levant’s Christianity is in great danger, Your Holiness, not because it is threatened by Muslim fundamentalism, but because it is manipulated by Christian fundamentalists and a mentality adopted and practiced by some Christian churchmen. Their inhuman and immoral policies and stances are a betrayal of Jesus of Nazareth.
The visit of Your Holiness could mark a turning point in the history of Christianity and Islam. Don’t participate or approve of the temples’ demolition over the heads of Arab Christians. Stretch out your blessed hand to spare Arab Christians the follies of their Churches and clerics.

Saturday, 15 September 2012

No one's innocent in the film 'Innocence of Muslims'


By Jamal Khashoggi
Khartoum protest from The Guardian
The author is a leading Saudi media figure and one-time editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily al-Watan. He served as media aide to Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud while he was ambassador to the United Kingdom and to the United States. He has been named by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud to head his upcoming AlArab TV news channel. Khashoggi wrote this think piece in Arabic for today’s edition of pan-Arab al-Hayat.
I just finished viewing on YouTube the longish trailer for the movie “Innocence of Muslims,” which is overtly insulting to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and thus caused outrage and waves of violent protests in the Muslim world.
May God forgive whoever tweeted me the link to the trailer on YouTube in the hope I could intervene to have it removed. I wish he didn’t.
In a way, he was inducing viewing of the trailer, much as did the ignorant and dimwits who attacked U.S. embassies in Cairo, Benghazi and elsewhere.
I was extremely angered – or rather disgusted – by the film excerpts. I didn’t think insolence could push anyone on the face of this earth to be so abusive to God’s Messenger and my beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Nevertheless, I won’t join or support calls for any uncontrolled protest, let alone attack an American embassy.
On the contrary, because of my fervent commitment to the beloved Messenger of Allah and his teachings, I urge that all assailants of the foreign embassies and those behind them be severely punished.
We, Muslims, must have the courage to condemn our people’s crime before condemning the crime of our enemies.
Surely, the film is neither the first of its kind, nor the last. A researcher can write a doctoral thesis on the history of abuses by Jewish and Christian individuals against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Islam grappled with Judaism and Christianity – more precisely, with leaders of the two faiths – straightaway. But followers of the two religions deemed budding Islam to be exceptionally tolerant in victory, leading many of them to convert to the Muslim faith. That’s how Islam spread across Bilad al-Sham, Iraq, Egypt and the rest of North Africa.
The continued existence of Christian communities in such a Muslim expanse attests to Islam’s tolerance. Had Islam spread by coercive conversion, an exodus of non-Muslims would have ensued.
The opposite happened in Spain in the late 15th Century, when the victorious Christians offered Muslims the choice of baptism or exile.
The historical face-off that lasted 14 centuries, and was both military and cultural, took twists with attacks on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in books, essays and poems, starting with the Critique of Islam by monk John of Damascus, who died in 749.
John of Damascus’ “critique” derided God’s Messenger as a false prophet and impersonator who plagiarized from the New Testament and the Torah. Much of the venom in his writings is repeated in the film.
Strained relations between Islam and Christianity lasted from the Siege of Damascus in 634 until 9/11 in 2001, if not until this day.
Many in our ranks and in theirs refuse to acknowledge changes in history and the human race. But tackling this complex philosophical issue requires a book, not an article, to address.
The torrents of abuse against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – at times on official papal directives and at others by overzealous fundamentalist monks – were non-stop.
Even enlightened people fell into the Islamophobia trap, people like “reformer” Martin Luther, who led the most renowned disputation movement in Christianity, and Dante, the Italian who disparaged Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in his epic poem The Divine Comedy.
In the 9th Century, Christian activists such as the Martyrs of Cordoba and the “suicides of Andalusia”, insisted on slandering God’s Messenger in public even at the risk of being executed.
This went on unabated until modern times – with The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons controversy, the film “Submission” by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and to cap it all the new film “Innocence of Muslims.”
I reiterate: the vilifiers won’t stop.
Modern day works -- donning the Western cloak of “freedom of expression” – have also defamed Christian and Jewish sanctities, save for the Holocaust. The Holocaust is protected from any misgiving by “laws” smartly introduced by Jews and approved by legislative bodies across the Western world.
The issue of denigrating Islam is not one of creativity and freedom of expression. Most works critical of Islam are politically motivated.
While there is no more a pope at the Vatican directing a monk to write a book satirizing the morality or personality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there is a conservative far-Right that detests foreigners and emigrants and encourages such works.
The latest film is a point in case.
It is the brainchild of an alliance that brought together an Israeli filmmaker, an American producer and extremist Coptic scriptwriters.
Those who put the film together are not innocent. They too have their political agenda. Their unholy alliance to cram the film with unparalleled bad-mouthing of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) knew exactly what they were doing. They deliberately made the film to evoke the reaction they intended.
The other side to the saga concerns the conservative far-Right Muslims, who also hate foreigners and followers of the other religions and sects. They too abhor openness and forgiveness, even within their own societies.
Theirs is a strange mix of cultural, religious and ethnic bigots bent on violence and the use of force. Al-Qaeda represents some of their lot; hence its flag on the perimeters of the U.S. embassy in Cairo last Tuesday.
Politicians in the West often find it difficult to cope with their extremist groups. They can pass laws to restrict or ban them, such as in the case of the Nazi movement. But, in other instances, these politicians find themselves in a situation where they have to cajole national and legitimate far-Right movements, such as France’s National Front.
In his effort to capture the far-Right National Front vote in the presidential runoffs, for example, former President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to get tough on immigration and security. But National Front leader Marine Le Pen’s followers refused to back him.
Our Arab politicians, chiefly in the Arab Spring countries, are repeating Sarkozy’s error by cozying up to extremists in the hope of winning their votes or avoiding their evil.
Either way, the extremists will end up turning against them and biting the hand that feeds them. It’s what they did to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi last Tuesday and to other Arab leaders who thought they could “Dance with Wolves.”