The New Religious Revolution: Countering Jihadism, Al-Azhar Strikes Back

Sharia coupled with ijtihad (reason applied to text) are of tremendous lethal power. Against jihadism: ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Nusra Front, the Friends of Beit Al-Maqdis and Boko Haram. These are the forces of evil which have for long manipulated a legitimate longing. It is the longing of 1.7 Billion Muslims to join the world caravan, moving toward technological progress while keeping the values of faith. Every faith.

Yet that longing needs a voice. An institutional voice. A voice that does not simply say that Islam is a faith of tolerance. Because Islam, though simple to understand, could be confusing to comprehend. Especially for a western mind. And we are all now living the age of rage, of the non-state actors, of Trumpism which puts force ahead of reason.

To find that voice which could effectively counter jihadism, I peer over the horizon from New York City, looking eastward for a distance of 7000 miles. Over that horizon, I could imagine seeing the 4 minarets of Al-Azhar. A mosque and a university of more than 1000 years. That is where my late father studied, and brought up his family on the love for Al-Azhar. Why?

It has a universal message for all. Taught Islam in all its stripes, mainly Sunni and Shii. Has always been the focus of Egyptian nationalism and universal interaction. That is where the idea of American Senator Fulbright originated in the 14th century when African Emperor Mansa Musa of the Mali Empire decided on a bold course. Students studying abroad at Al-Azhar and funded by the seat of the Empire in Timbuktu. I shared that history with Senator Fulbright of Arkansas at Columbia University in 1954. He was greeting me as a Fulbright scholar. Was enchanted by the fact that his idea originated in Africa, and entered it in the Congressional record.

So the link between Al-Azhar and Africa is long and deep. Reason why its present Rector, Dr. Ahmed El-Taiyeb, a Sorbonne graduate, chose Abuja, the Nigerian capital, to address the terror catastrophe of Boko Haram. A hideous term, meaning: "Western learning is unislamic."

A total negation of what Islam (faith and knowledge) has stood for since the 7th century. Except during dark ages, not of the Crusaders (that was a passing episode); but of the Ottoman Empire. An Empire which suffered from a split personality: diversity of religions, but glorification of Turkish culture, and avoidance of modernization.

In Nigeria, El-Taiyeb's voice could reverberate through the great continent where Egyptian civilization, born 7000 years ago, was the first African civilization. And is still enduring. Threatened only by jihadism of which Boko Haram and Al-Shabab and the ISIS franchises are standard bearers.

The booming voice of Al-Azhar, uttered by its Grand Imam, who was hosted by Nigerian president, Buhari (A Muslim from Northern Nigeria) carried multiple messages. All of which are anti-jihadi. As his first salvo, he called jihadists "wrong-doers," as he quoted from the Quran: "And do not think that God is unaware of what the wrongdoers do. He only puts them in respite until a Day when eyes shall stare." (Chapter 14/Verse 42).

Referring to the wayward jihadis (calling themselves Muslim extremists is giving into their high jacking of the mantle of Islam) as wrongdoers, he went on to turn the table on them. He intoned:

• "They have placed Islam unjustly in the defendant's box; tarnishing its image; besmirching its exalted status, by blood letting, head-cutting on TV screens -a barbarism unknown before in history."

For what end? And who is behind this anti-Islamic insanity? The Rector of Al-Azhar provided his Nigerian audience (Muslims, Christians, and others) with his hypothesis.

• "Search for who is the beneficiary of this mischief, standing solidly behind these crimes in the name of Islam. It is those who fund it, those who provide it with arms and other war material; those who help these groups in planning; and those who provide them with a false cover of legitimacy."

How about the stance of Islam from non-Muslims? After all, the Al-Azhar Rector was standing on the soil of a country of nearly 200 millions, of whom there is about 60% Muslims in the north. An African economy measured as Number one in all of Africa, followed by Egypt, then followed by South Africa. That is the great African triangle (Cairo/Abuja/Pretoria), rounded up in the east by a fourth historic capital Addis -Ababa (Ethiopia).

In that regard, Al-Azhar, through the voice of Dr. El-Taiyeb is heard to say: "If we are to exit these bloody crises which inflict our world from end to end, and whose victims are largely the poor and uneducated in every faith and creed, we have to chart a new course..."

"A course which begins by a question: Is the relationship between Islam and other religions based on tension, suspicion, and foreboding? No!! In the Quran, Islam is not only the name of a certain faith. Islam is the name of a common faith which all believers, from whatever faith, subscribe to."

El-Taiyeb's evidence? "The Quran described Abraham as a Muslim. That was thousands of years before Muhammad's message. The Quran spoke of Ismail and Isaac as they raised the foundation of the first place of worship saying: Our Lord: lead us to submit to Your Will and raise from our offspring a nation which will submit to Your Will." (Chapter 2/Verse 128).

Here the emphasis by Al-Azhar is on the connotation of the term "Muslim." Meaning those who submit to the will of the Creator. It is not restrictive, as the jihadis in their ignorance advocate, to the world of Islam alone. An important distinction, of an ideological nature in the ideological war on jihadism.

Now to the stance of the Quran on other holy books. El-Taiyeb provides a definitive response: Equal respect and parallel veneration. Citing the Quranic text on the Torah where it says: "It was We who revealed the Law to Moses: therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed, as in Islam, to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law." (Chapter V, verse 44).

Followed by Quranic continuity on the New Testament. "And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God." (Chapter V, Verse 46).

As if in a Heavenly Club of God's messengers, whose membership is premised on co-equality, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar cites the Prophet Muhammad as per his authenticated tradition. By that Muhammedan tradition, the Prophet of Islam has declared: "I am the most rightful inheritor of Jesus. In this world and in the hereafter. The Messengers are brothers. Born to different Mothers. But having one faith." 

What an apt riposte, a quick counterstrike, to the dark heart of the jihadis who claim that the only true religion for mankind is Islam. Embellished by the wickedness and the viciousness of the ridiculous claim of "Reserved only for Sunni Muslims." Thus wiping out the verity that in Islam, there is no Sunni vs. Shii. Except in the minds of those who use faith as a mechanism for control.

In that historic speech in Abuja, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Shareef does not limit the circle of respect and authenticity to "the revealed religions" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). For more than half of humanity abide by Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

El-Taiyeb goes on to clarify the reason for the Quranic silence on all these faiths. He says: "These were religions not known to the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula nearly 1500 years ago. Yet they are included within the spacious tent of the Quran in regard to respect and equal treatment expected of every Muslim towards the  adherents of these faiths."

That inclusiveness is manifest in the Quranic instruction for justice and amity towards "the adherents of every faith, every creed, and every philosophy which do not aggress against Muslims in Muslim lands." The very words of Imam El-Taiyeb in Abuja. Words which he bolsters by the primary source of Islamic Law, the Quran.

Thus he quotes: "God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loveth those who are just." (Chapter 60, Verse 8).

The above material covers only half of the Abuja speech by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Shareef. Space limitation of this blog posting does not allow for its comprehensive coverage. So in the remaining space, let us deal with the following conclusions:

• Jihadism is not Islam. Calling their criminal activities "militant Islam" is a misnomer. The word "Islam," if joined to their self-made name, would be a misconception which indirectly advances their criminal cause;
• Jihadi activity has nothing to do whatsoever with the true Islamic meaning of jihad. Jihad, in Islam, is of two kinds, both of which are legitimate. The first is internal: self-policing to avoid following one's base urges; the second is self-defense, permitted under all kinds of law, including international law.
• The unity between faiths, as stressed by Imam Ahmed El-Taiyeb, is a cardinal tenet of Islam. The principle of "TAWHEED," "Onness," applies in two directions: The "Onness" of the Creator; and the "Onness" between every faith and other faiths. The first type is vertical; the second is horizontal -universal.

It is noteworthy that the fear from Islam is not only the consequence of ignorance of its precepts, and of its lingua franca, Arabic. It is also, the consequence of its criminal enemies, "the jihadists."

Ironically jihadism which had inflicted on our world 9/11 and beyond, has its unwitting Muslim auxiliaries. Here are examples:

• In Switzerland, students shaking the hand of their teacher upon entering or exiting the classroom is a tradition. At a school in the small town of Therwil, two Syrian immigrant brothers refused to shake their female teacher's hand. Igniting a national outrage. The cantonal board of education decided against those errant students. The Swiss acted properly. But the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland opposed that ruling.
• In 2009, the Swiss, in a national referendum, voted to ban the construction of minarets. Reason: A Saudi sued the municipality where he resided for preventing him for building there the tallest minaret in the world. Because of his refusal to abide by Swiss zoning laws regarding the height of any construction, a total ban was issued. Once again, the Swiss edict was correct.
• Fear from "creeping Islamization" in all of Europe, to which millions of Muslims, fleeing from Muslim lands, is understandably rampant. In Germany, nearly one million migrants arrived in 2015. The government of Angela Merkel, against all odds, proposed an integration law this week. Its purpose is to give those immigrants a quid pro quo: something for something. A path to full employment, but a requirement to learn German, and accept local laws and customs.
• And why not? We all remember, how in New Year's eve, a group of Muslim hooligans went on a rampage in Frankfurt and elsewhere. Groping German women, in violation of every law, religious or secular, and of every custom having to do with privacy and the sanctity of the individual. Hundreds of culprits are being readied now for ejection from their hard won sanctuaries.

The gulf between the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world remains vast. Of course, as Ambassador Seyed Hussein Mousavian, the Irani scholar at Princeton is correct. In late 2015, he posited in a famous article in the American Huffington Post that targeting Muslims is the real threat to peace. Mousavian made that assertion months before the ideological anti-Islamic tsunami of Donald Trump, now the assured nominee of the Republican Party for the American presidency.

But the fact remains that polls indicate that 7 of the top 10 countries which view America most unfavorably are Muslim countries. It is obvious that the US/Israel strategic alliance plays a considerable role in that unfavorability. But this is not the full picture.

The issues of faith and politics cross one another at dangerous angles. Including the misunderstanding of Islam. By non-Muslims and those who call themselves Muslims, as in the case of the jihadis.

But at least, on the religious ramparts, there stands a sentinel called Al-Azhar Al-Shareef. Whose head, Ahmed Al-Taiyeb is now engaged in a shuttle of global efforts of enlightened clarification: FAITH IS ONE!!

A message which he has recently carried to Germany, followed by Nigeria, followed by the Vatican, and lastly to France.

This is where he had internalized at this Alma Mater, the Sorbonne motto of all France: Liberte; Egalite; Fraternite. With a universal application. The most effective wooden stake being plunged in the heart of Drakula -a name which is most befitting the so-called jihadis of today.

"There Is No Virtue In Ignorance" -So Said Obama Referring to Trump

He said it on Sunday, May 15. At a commencement speech at Rutgers University, New Jersey. That is where I earned a Master's degree in 1954 in History and Political Science. A great preparation for later higher degrees in International Law and International Organization. More importantly, Rutgers taught me how to do research; how religion and politics intersect; and how to learn about American economic history, as you assist in teaching it. One of my real Alma Maters!!

So here is a possibility for a con man like Donald Trump to assume America's presidency. If he does, a Trump presidency may signal total lunacy in foreign policy. This would not collapse America. America, the home of continuous innovation, through education and selective immigration, is not collapsable. It reinvents itself. Like the generation of electricity constantly in a car by simply using it to motor it forward.

Though America is now an angry place, that anger brews on the bottom. The middle and the top keep on inventing. Thus keeping the anger without much effect on global competitiveness. Just read a book by Robert Gordon, professor of economics at Northwestern University. His book, titled "The Rise and Fall of American Growth," has been dubbed "the most important book on economics this year."

I am digressing from Trump's ignorance. Ignorance in many areas, especially in foreign policy, the subject of this blog posting. In order to return back to it following couple of paragraphs. On American inventiveness, Gordon describes the period from 1870 to 1970 as "the golden age." Why?

"It was a period when the foundation of the modern world was laid. Electricity, flush toilets, central heating, cars, planes, radio, vaccines, clean water, and antibiotics." All of which and more are innovations which transformed living and working conditions."

Yet that brilliant author empirically did not prove the "Fall of American Growth." He advanced no proof that is capable of being verified by observation or experience. Standing alone, a theory is no proof.

This is a turn in this conversation at which I pivot back to Trump as a totally ignorant voice, at most in foreign policy. Worse than ignorant. Dangerous. Why?

Forget for a moment about his lack of details. Or his flip flops!! Just examine his few policy positions, which he keeps on reinterpreting to his hypnotized large audiences.

With his mantra "Making America Great Again," he looks upon that greatness only from the prism of brutal power.

• Pledging a major buildup of the military;
• Swift destruction of the "Islamic State;"
• Rejection of trade deals;
• Arming Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons;
• Disbanding, then putting together again, NATO;
• Calling on allies to pay for their own defense;
• Announcing his intention to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal;
• Forcing Mexico to pay for his planned construction of a wall on its border with the US;
• Calling for a take-over by force of Middle Eastern oil;
• Insulting China daily for "ripping off America," while praising Putin's policy of force;
• Advocating America's renunciation of its debts to other nations, and
• Looking upon 1.7 billion Muslims as potential terrorists. Thus banning their entry into America "until we figure out what the hell is going on."

Trump is a real estate mogul. A broker. With no experience whatsoever in foreign policy. Has never before run for any public office. Simply tapping into the veins of rage of blue collar Americans, and left behind Americans. Manipulating the vacuum created by the fissures in the Republican Party between conservatives, Evangelists, America's Firsters, isolationists, and nativists.

Tendencies now bubbling on the surface of the American vast landscape. Where each of the fifty states, especially under the administration of Obama, the first black American President, is prone to asserting state rights. Over federal rights. Texas of today is not the only state which threatens secession from the union. It's constitution provides for that possibility.

And a Congress hobbled by inaction for deep divisions between a Republican majority and a Democratic minority; a President who is obstructed in the halls of Congress from moving most legislation forward or even securing a hearing for his nominee for the Supreme Court. Plus a Supreme Court, missing its full count of 9 Justices, three conservative Justices, one "swing" Justice (Kennedy), and four liberal Justices.

Throughout all these fissures, thrive the likes of Trump. Fissures, including an electoral system where the vote of the average citizen has to go through a more politically privileged "candidate," whose ultimate vote decides who shall be president.

Let us see how the outside world regards those Trump's policy positions. Positions which he now flips politically by softening them as "suggestions." From the country with the most enduring special relationship with America, the UK. Its Prime Minister, David Cameron calls them "ignorant." That is the Prime Minister of a major U.S. ally whose House of Commons has debated preventing Trump from entering the U.K.

Mexico's president had much stronger words. The Russians watched with amusement. The Gulf Arabs scurried diplomatically for explanations.

However, the Chinese had the final laugh. One of their intellectuals, Jiayang Fan described: "The appeal of Trump in China." He said: "Mao's worldview has found curious potency in the mouth of the Republican candidate, who shares his knack for polemical excess and xenophobic paranoia."

Not to be undone, an American humorist by the name of Aaron James has just published "The little book with Yuuuuge answers" (No H in "huge" -a la Trump's habitual exaggeration. With a title fitting Trump's common language: "Assholes -A Theory of Donald Trump." In the first word of that title, the head of Donald J. Trump replaced the letter "O."

Aside from Trump's ignorance in foreign policy, his lying about himself goes beyond being a narcissist. Ego centrism in the extreme. Witness his description of himself as "self made." 

A patently bogus claim. Pretending to be an Abraham Lincoln, the facts stare him in the face. The Donald had his business career launched by a $100 million from his father. Lincoln had to flee from his own slavery at the hands of his own father. That father rented out young Abraham to rural neighbors in Indiana. (See Sidney Blumental's book, A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln). From self-deliverance, Lincoln went on to deliverance of his nation from slavery through a brutal civil war.

Another bogus claim by Trump. On the matter of taxation, Trump unabashedly flaunted his crookedness as an American citizen. For the past 60 years, every aspirant to the presidency has released his tax returns to the public. Reason: transparency showing that a would-be president abides by the same rules as everyone else. But Trump refuses to divulge his tax returns. A Wall Street executive, Steven Rattner, has quoted Trump as saying: "I fight like hell to pay as little as possible." This bold admission stands out in contrast to Trump saying: "There is nothing to learn from (tax returns)!!"

Same bogus claim on the question of his respect for women and gender equality. In a seminal front page, continuing to a center-fold, the New York Times of Sunday, May 15, all but denuded Trump from one of his principal lies. His dealings with Miss USA contestants that "he has long fixated on and evaluated women's looks." Some other quotes and revelations gleaned from 50 interviews, conducted over 6 weeks:

• On his public treatment of women: "degrading;"
• "unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form;"
• "unsettling workplace conduct;"
• "contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man;"
• "Trump had the power, and the women did not;"
• "Mr. Trump frequently sought assurances -at times from strangers -that the women in his life were beautiful."
• About his own daughter, Ivanka, he asked: "Don't you think my daughter's hot? She's hot, right?" At that time, Ivanka was only 16. 

Nonetheless, Trump, as per The New York Times, "sees himself as a promoter of women." In an interview with the same newspaper, Trump "described himself as a champion of women, someone who took pride in hiring them."

A delusional who aspires to be America's President and Commander-in-Chief. On April 27 claiming: "America is going to be strong again; America is going to be great again. We're going to finally have a coherent foreign policy, based on American interests and the interests of our allies." Commented the New York Times in one word: "Discrepancies."

In his forthcoming confrontation with Hillary Clinton, he again uses the feminist card. But, as usual, in a lopsided way. He proclaims: "Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she would get 5 percent of the vote."

For Trump, war is global, has no borders. Thus Trump has evoked a mountain of negative comments.

Summed up in the following remarks denying Trump a legitimate claim to becoming a safe Commander In Chief:

• "When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail;"
• "And when one's experience is limited to real estate deals, everything looks like a lease negotiation."
• "For someone who claims he is ready to lead the free world, that is inexcusable."

All these derisive comments were not limited to mainstream American press. They were the gist of recent testimony before the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, headed by a Republican, Senator Corker of Tennessee. The same party which is threatened by a Trump take-a man who was a former Democrat!! 

Trump's derangement knows no end. A distemper magnified falsely into foreign policy. Seeking the headlines, he pays a televised visit to Henry Kissinger -the father of foreign interventionism. And holding an olive branch to North Korea by declaring that he could win them over by one phone call.

As he closes the gap in American polls with his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, I can imagine lots of foreign ministries closing the file on constructive discourse with Washington, D.C. Except for those who see in Trump's occupancy of the Oval Office an opportunity to ally themselves with his lunacy.

Nothing that Trump has said could outmatch his idiotic buffoonery in the tragic case of the disappearance of EgyptAir flight MS 804 over the Mediterranean. Upon its happening, he was the only voice to declare it "an act of Islamic terrorism." For him, it is a waste of time to await the results of expert investigation. It seems that no human event, including simultaneous and tragic death, is but an occasion for cheap political exploitation.

Judging by the moronic conduct of Trump, it is no surprise that the title of the best recently-published book on the America of the age of Trump is: "The Fractured Republic," by Yuval Levin.

An apt diagnosis of a period of bluster and saber rattling in an America where even Congress has only 16% of approval rating. "There is no virtue in ignorance." How apt!!

Attacks On The New Egypt Are Not Only By Terrorists But Also By Egyptian Journalists

A mirror case is that of the Saudi islands of Tiran and Sanafir. For it mirrors a malaise in Egyptian media, as they lie or obfuscate under a new cover. That is the cover of the "freedom of expression." Also known as "the freedom of the press," born in the vortex of the two companion revolutions: January 25, 2011 and June 30, 2013.

There are limits to every freedom, and frameworks for every right. The freedom context is of two layers: the lower is that of the individual; the higher is that of the community. No freedom can be without limits. And no expression is to be protected regardless of its contents. The very term "protected speech" indicates that there are limits to that freedom.

In regard to Tiran and Sanafir, that reasonable limitation on the freedom of expression has been massively breached. The perpetrators are the very journalists who are required to observe it. For the following reasons:

• Journalism is a public trust. Its role is to investigate, and report accurately. Because those requirements are the bases for their licenses.
• In return, the State has the duty to protect the public from being infected by biased national journalism. No State, especially the New Egypt, which is transitioning from dictatorship (military from 1952-2011; then Islamist from 2012-2013), can move forward, with its media thriving on the business of lying to the public.
• That explains why the media, in any orderly society, try to police itself. Self-policing for that profession goes by the name of "the code of professional honor." Whatever exists in Egypt of today has not been manifest in the case of Tiran and Sanafir.

Without citing again the names of Egyptian writers, as I did in the prior blog posting, it is necessary to cite here the themes of the Egyptian media in regard to this critical national, regional, and international case.

Samples of the provocative themes adopted by a media that lacks the honor of its profession are the following:

• "Oppression shall not create a successful regime;"
• "Freedoms in Egypt are in retreat following two revolutions;"
• "The Journalists Syndicate is subjected by the Interior Ministry to increasing violations against its members;"
• "Rumors regarding disaffection within the Armed Forces because of returning the islands to Saudi Arabia;"
• "Saudi Arabia is reembarking upon cooperation with Israel in joint projects in the whole region;"
• "Is there a threat to the Suez Canal resulting from returning the two islands to Saudi Arabia?;"
• "Has the Egyptian Saudi joint committee on the islands taken these issues into account?;"
• "Why has the Saudi flag been flown in many parts of Cairo on the national occasion of April 25, commemorating the liberation of Sinai?;"
• "Why has the Shura (consultative) Council in Saudi Arabia approved the delimitation of the Egyptian/Saudi boundaries on the very day of Egyptian commemoration of the liberation of Sinai?;"
• "The angry Egyptian youth shall not return from their demonstrations without getting definitive assurances that Egyptian territory has not been surrendered;" and
• "The purpose of demonstrations is to exercise the freedom of expression" on the Friday called "Land Day."

None of the above provocative themes propagated by a dishonorable Egyptian media can be legally described as "protected speech." None of the above can be immunized from State sanctions against media engaged in destabilization. All the above is an amalgam of:

• Attacks on the legitimacy of the post-Islamist presidency and governance;
• Calls for outright mobocracy intended to undo the painful progress of Egypt towards normalcy;
• A total misunderstanding, in fact proverbial ignorance, of the meaning of freedom;
• Incitement to disaffection, including defection in the armed forces, the only historical cohesive national institution in Egypt;
• Impugning the motives, intent, and measures adopted by Riyadh and Cairo for some degree of economic integration, and for cooperation with the Gulf States;
• Crying "wolf," in a a sordid attempt to link unlinkable elements in the rightful return of Tiran and Sanafir to their sovereign, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; and
• Outright, stupid, and vain interference in the internal affairs of a proud, benevolent sister State -Saudi Arabia.

Such shameful reporting, which in every respect lacks fact-checking, serving the public and national interest, does underline the national need for:

• Reviewing the legitimacy of those licenses issued by the State and/or the syndicate, enabling those journalists to openly become "agents provocateurs;"
• Upholding the recently-enacted regulations regarding public demonstrations;
• Linking between the war against terrorism in Sinai and at the Libyan borders to the internal calls for hooliganism and violence. Spewed by Egyptian media which find in the new freedom a hospitable environment for subversion; and
• Realization that the failed attempts by the so-called Muslim Brotherhood to change Egypt's DNA as a secular State might find in today's Egyptian media a needed oxygen for their revival.

Thus a bundle of central questions emerges out of the illegal efforts by Egyptian media to claim Saudi territory as a part of the national Egyptian patrimony. These questions are:

• Isn't it treasonous to conspire publicly against a New Egypt under a secular constitution of 2014? No doubt!!
• Is yelling "Fire, Fire" mischievously in a crowded theater, causing sta
• mpede and death, an exercise of the freedom of speech? Of course Not!!
• Has there been any damage to the image of a stable Egypt resulting from these hallucinating journalistic accusations of territorial surrender? Yes, indeed!!
• Is the State entitled, and is in fact duty bound, to put an end by legal means, to this charade of a contrived cold war on El-Sisi administration? Absolutely!!
• Under what human rights theories should Cairo act to bury that campaign of vilification and mob-arousal by voices which would have never found their vocal chords under Nasser? None, as far as I know.

Both theories of human rights law and humanitarian law intersect when the destiny of the State is in question, as a result of foreign threat or internal dangers. There can be no foreign tutelage over human rights -a domestic issue.

We haven't even touched upon the issue of aid to Egypt from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. All benefactors by the billions of dollars for funding of Sinai and other projects. Those Gulf allies of the New Egypt, in March 2015 have each offered $4 billion in investments in Egypt.

Respect by Egypt of the Saudi/Egyptian agreement of 1950 for the temporary administration by Egypt of Tiran and Sanafir has nothing to do with Arab aid. The nay-sayers make that idiotic linkage.

In rebuttal, I, as a defense attorney who is still in active practise, posit this hypothetical:

If Egypt is in the practise of giving up territory for financial aid, then I must pose this question: Why not give up, say, Marsa Matrouh, to America's fifth fleet for the annual $1.3 Billion allocated by Washington to Cairo since the signing of the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty of 1979?

While April witnessed the Egyptian media false campaign for the Egyptianization of the Saudi islands in the Gulf of Aqaba, May 1st registered more grievous stances by the same outlets.

On that day, the police pursued two journalists against whom judicial subpoenas had been issued for acts contravening the law. That hot pursuit led the pursuing officers into the headquarters of the Journalists Syndicate in downtown Cairo. From the circumstance, it was obvious that the fleeing suspects were under the false impression that that building afforded them, immunity from the long arm of the law.

Following that lawful arrest, the council of the Journalists Syndicate, issued on May 4 a collective protest against what that group characterized as "an invasion." 

It labelled that lawful police action as a dictatorial attempt by the Ministry of Interior to muzzle the press. Most of the newspapers called for the resignation of the Interior Minister. Some even called for an apology by President El-Sisi. And the editorials throughout the first week of May were nothing but a parade of public incitement to open revolt.

• The President of the Supreme Council of Journalism, Galal Aref: "Press freedom is an inherent right for every citizen. The invasion of our Syndicate building was an attack on basic freedoms."
• The CEO of Dar Al-Tahrir Establishment, Muhammed Abu-Alhadeed: "Fabricating such provocation of the press by the regime can only mean that a big event for destabilizing Egypt shall occur on June 30 -" (the third anniversary of the second revolution which brought about the elections leading to El-Sisi becoming President).
• The CEO of Al-Ahali newspaper, Nabil Zaki: "should we expect the reinstatement of the police State which the Egyptians, through two revolutions, have demolished?"
• The CEO of Al-Wafd, Wagdy Zain: "The actions by the Interior Ministry cannot be understood except as intending to undermine the presidency."
• The CEO of Al-Masriyoon, Mahmoud Sultan: "How could the President convene a meeting with the Military High Command instead of rushing to meet with the Journalists Syndicate on the crime of invading its HQ?"

These are not low-level press stringers. These, as well as others who spoke in the same vein, are top executives of important press outlets.

The shrill voices which have attempted to rewrite international law in claiming two Saudi islands for Egypt, are the same voices who, out of ignorance of the law of immunities, are bestowing immunity on that building as if it were a foreign embassy.

Immunity is generally defined as an exemption from prosecution. And "hot pursuit" by the State for the apprehension of two suspects fleeing from a lawful warrant is integral to the police powers of any sovereign State.

The ugly face of ignorance with regard to the freedom of expression in the New Egypt has been unveiled. Unveiled in early April in the issue of Tiran and Sanafir, and again unveiled in early May in the issue of the two journalists escapees. Amr Badr and Mahmoud Al-Saqqa. In a false pretense to immunity. And in between those fatal dates, there are numerous violations of the recently-enacted law regulatory of public demonstrations.

Under all laws, aiding a fugitive, as happened by the Journalists Syndicate, is criminalized. This comes under the two legal theories of obstruction of justice and co-conspiracy.

Egyptian media have encouraged those violations by depicting Tiran and Sanafir as a sell-out by El-Sisi to King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Those demonstrations, though sparsely attended, depicted the demonstrations regulation as infringing the freedom of expression.

In all countries where The Rule of Law governs, there is a basic framework for public demonstrations. In law schools in the US, we explain that framework in three words: Time, Place and Manner.

The licensing authority specifies the time (limited); the place to be away from access to public institutions; and the manner never to be destruction and hooliganism.

On that basis, those who advocate endless demonstrations, anywhere, and to do anything are scofflaws and anarchists.

Up till now, the real problem for the New Egypt with respect to the freedom of expression could be traced to the absence of real media. It seems that the role of the Egyptian media in the creation of an informed public opinion's gone.

Now there is little left for the New Egypt to safeguard its gains but to fashion a Code of Honor for its indigenous media. Including the requirement to learn, think, and think again before you put pen to paper. For freedom cannot exist without limitations defined by law and practise.

The world news headline: "French police attack demonstrations against regressive labor law. Commented an Egyptian lady scholar, Dr. Nadia Elshazly, quoting Alex Lantier:

"No outcry from the world media, nor any of the human rights organizations, against the French law which regulates demonstrations."

Truth of the matter is this: Journalism is an honorable profession. But in the New Egypt, it has become a profession devoid of honor!!