Where Has the Majesty of Law Gone? Contributing To the Pain of Nine-Eleven By Abra-Cadabra Legislation!!

This measure, JASTA, which caused Obama to veto, and caused Congress to over-ride it, is practically a legal hoax!! We are talking law, not politics. Defending the majesty of law. Not the criminality of 9/11 by 19 crazy jihadis of whom 15 claimed to hold Saudi passports. Led by an Egyptian who drank vodka before guiding his band of misfits into the killing of 3000 innocent civilians. Including 600 Muslims.

A hoax (from hocus) is to trick others into believing or accepting as genuine something false and preposterous. That act of Congress, now law, fits that criteria, but with dangerous global ramifications. This abra-cadabra measure demeans not only the term law, but also the U.S. Senate. Why? Totally unenforceable. Any suit based on it, if ever, shall automatically fall in the category of vexatious litigation.

As an international lawyer who has no business relationship with the Government of Saudi Arabia, I have never accepted to litigate a case in which I cannot find my way to a probative proof. The law of evidence, as well as criminal law, require a nexus, a causality, between the accused and the criminalized act. In this regard, how can that requisite be satisfied?

Where is the magic which can link between the Government of Saudi Arabia and a specific and proven instruction or direction to that band of crazies? Telling them "Go and attack America!!" Even if by some magic, a litigant, in this case a family member who lost his/her beloved on that horrible day could find a member of the Saudi governmental hierarchy who is implicated, the corporation or authority, namely the Government, cannot be proven liable.

And suppose an American litigant might claim someday that funding of terrorism have at times been traced to a charitable foundation in Saudi Arabia. You still, as an attorney for the American plaintiff, have to prove in an American court that that foundation is a government front.

And let us say that you are able to prove that with documentation whose veracity and authenticity can be established (the foundation is acting on behalf of the Government). How are you going to serve process on such a presumed defendant, and haul them from Saudi Arabia to an American court of law with appropriate jurisdiction. Kidnap them?

In addition, how can the rightful claims of the Saudi Government that its sovereign land has also been attacked by the same maniacal ideology, be handheld? Is the American plaintiff's attorney going to say: "We are only concerned about America's victims of terror?" The argument that terror is a global phenomenon, and that America and Saudi Arabia are partners in fighting it would be enough to debunk the plaintiff's argument establishing a credible cause of action.

This is a sad day for US Congress as it legislates, not only for a patently magical (thus losing) case. But also for its ultimate effect on the respect of the Rule of Law. As well as of the respect owed by Congress to the Executive in matters of foreign affairs.

This is politics at its worst, painting America, once again, into a corner. Especially when Guantanamo is still open with Muslim detainees who, since 2002, have been neither charged nor released. Except for Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. Only one!!

With terrorism becoming a global phenomenon, so is the growth of the concept of universal jurisdiction. A judge in Spain (Judge Jarson) was able to subpoena Pinochet, a former president of Chile, for human rights abuses affecting Spanish citizens. But Pinochet at the time of that action was no longer head of State. Was a mere senator, seeking medical attention in London.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established on the basis of the Rome Charter of 1998, has become the image of ineffectiveness. That is although it acts on the same principle: universal jurisdiction. Its woes stem from its complicated procedures; the lack of an agreement between it and the U.N. Security Council; the inclination to focus more on African officials than on others.

To all of this mix, add the fact that the U.S. has not yet become a member of the ICC. Here again the law against Saudi official culpability in terrorism is weakened by the U.S. non-ICC status.

And since the U.S. is committed to the principle that no outside authority could legislate for the U.S., so is the position of all sovereign States around the world. State sovereignty remains supreme.

Along the same line of legal reasoning, the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity shields sovereigns from the reach of foreign courts. You cannot impel a foreign sovereign to appear before a court unless that sovereign agrees to waive that immunity. Such a waiver happens once in a while in cases of diplomats committing an unlawful act while in foreign jurisdictions. Even in such cases, the capital of that erring diplomat could bring him home because the offended government would exercise the right to have him/her recalled.

No Saudi Government shall ever surrender that principle of international law, particularly when it is wrongly targeted for what is clearly an offense in which it has no role.

In fact the late King Fahd rebuffed the efforts of Osama Bin Laden in 1990 when that Saudi national offered to defend the Kingdom from the aggressive moves of Saddam against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

It is ironic that it was Chief Justice John Marshall, of the US Supreme Court who, in 1812, was the first to authoritatively render the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. (The Case of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon).

Note that foreign sovereign immunity does not deny plaintiffs all relief. It only shuts them out of their own national courts. The families of the victims of 9/11 may legally avail themselves of the Saudi judicial or diplomatic channels. A decidedly non-promising prospect.

The American law now known as "The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)" unhappily, shall not help the families of the 9/11 victims to find either solace or closure. Congressional machinations in this troublesome presidential election year could only advance the search by those legislators to keep their congressional seats.

Any attorney representing the Saudi Government could find plenty of ammunition in the report of the independent American commission which found no evidence of Saudi Government involvement of any kind or form. Obviously any Saudi holder of American assets or accounts shall have to consider the danger of an illegal seizure of such accounts.

With this law, the US global presences (military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, educational..etc) are now in danger of counter litigation all over the world. The European Union has warned that if JASTA is passed, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity.

As a starter, Riyadh has not only vehemently denied any involvement in 9/11. It has threatened to take counter-measures of various kinds.

The fabric of international law, especially in the area of sovereign immunity, the corner stone of the law of treaties, is now being subjected to wear and tear. Even US laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) needs now to be revisited.

The cautionary approach taken by the co-sponsors of that impossible to enforce act, (Senator Schumer of New York and Senator Corker of Tennessee), shall effect no damage containment.

Said Corker: "I do want to say I don't think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation... I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote."

So, I ask Senator Corker in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "Sir!! Then why co-sponsor it and vote for it?" It was President Jackson who hailed from Tennessee who objected to a ruling by Chief Justice Marshall. Jackson uttered an objection which we, as students of American constitutional law, memorized. He in effect said: "John Marshall made his ruling. Let him enforce it." Senator Corker: What cannot be enforced, should not be legislated.

9/11, for Saudi Arabia and the whole world was no "Act of State." So "the effect principle" (the effect of a sovereign act on another sovereignty) has no place here. JASTA is nothing more than the politicization of law. This is why I can't find any majesty in that legal hoax.

Hitting Saudi Arabia, while seeking its cooperation in anti-jihadism, and at Obama, by rendering his veto ineffective, and at the entire fabric of the principle of friendly relations among nations, are nothing but legitimating the charge against America of becoming a super power with an ineffective rudder to its ship of State. JASTA is born with a boomerang destined to hurt these United States.

The Romans, through Latin, were way ahead of the U.S. Congress. They bequeathed to us, lawyers, an exit from bad laws. Phrased it in these words: "Modus et conventio vincunt legem." (Custom and agreement overrule the law.)

Sadly, the exit here is to ignore that silly JASTA. A law which tantalizes but shall not deliver. Which prompted the Saudi Crown Prince to declare in Ankara, Turkey, on September 29: "Our Lands are being targeted. Up with our defenses."

The Goring of America's Governance By Trump's Bullying Arrogance!!

What a super weird phenomenon. That out of control bully called Donald J. Trump!! The more he lies, the more he is believed by his public which glorifies under-education. And the greater the manifestations of his shallowness in all matters, domestic or foreign, the louder he shouts "Make America Great Again."

Trump has positions on every issue. But what he adopts today, he changes tomorrow. When called on the flip flops, he assures his audiences that the reporting is to blame. Or he hires voices, civil and military, to explain the absence of coherence. They call such hired guns surrogates. A surrogate is a substitute, a deputy. Originally referring to the grantor of a marriage license. But that surrogateship is subject to unpredictable firing. So the surrogates, when boxed in by a media question, have found a firewall. They respond: "Ask him."

Donald Trump's vocabulary is rotative. His verbiage galaxy gravitates to a non-changing vocabulary. The words "disaster," "terrible," "stupid," "crooked," "dishonest," "liar," "hell," "trust me," "sit down," "get him out," "phony," and "loser," gush out constantly from his mouth. With lips pierced forward, and hands gesturing, and a face dripping of bullying arrogance.

His journey of 16 months in presidential politics has proved disastrous for this only super power, called the United States. Like a raging bull charging in all directions, he has gored both the union and the concept of "State." A practiced con man for two decades as a real estate tycoon turned entertainer, he has sensed an opening for coveting the "oval office." To Trump, governing and deal-making have the same modus operandi. So he proclaims to rapturous applause that "no body can make deals like Trump."

But America has a complex system. Many governments, from a municipal water authority to the state legislature, in every one of the fifty states. With a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. And with delicate checks and balances prescribed in the Constitution. And with an electoral system where voting for a president does not automatically elect that president. There is an electoral college, changing demographics, varying state rules for validating the right to vote, and a competition limited largely to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Yes there is a durable Constitution which has survived unscathed for 240 years, which a defined yet overlapping jurisdictions for the three branches of government -Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. But the definition of "a person" has now been enlarged by a Supreme Court decision (in the case of Citizens United) to consider money as also endowed with a voice. Under the elastic theory of the freedom of expression. Thus donations to candidates for office are regarded, by that unhappy decision, as a variant of "freedom of expression." On top of all of that, the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants everyone the right to bear arms.

Yet America's governance is not akin to a Trump deal for running a casino or building a "Trump Tower." The Donald does not see it that way.

For him "Make America Great Again" is like another project where success depends on being a super-tough negotiator. Ready to bamboozle the other side by either staring them down, walking out of the room, or offering enticements which may not be kept.

This Trumpism has created a cancerous lack of trust by the average citizen in how America is run. An issue which I now predict, whether Trump wins or loses the presidency, shall contaminate faith in America's institutions. The bond of trust between the government and the governed has been impaired. Not necessarily for all time. That instinctive faith in America's exceptionalism, equality before the law, and the generational advancement towards a continuum of improvement, is fading.

Born to wealth, Trump has been a life-long practitioner of using others as temporary tools. His upbringing has never led to feeling the pain of the downtrodden. His real estate dealings, largely dependent on gaming the system of taxation and finance, are not conductive to giving. But to taking, under the guise of giving. His chances for military service, community service, volunteering for involvement with society for uplifting purposes, were either avoided or evaded. Not thought of as worthy of his time.

Trump's time has come to ride a wave of American unease about globalization, immigration, job outsourcing out of America, and the shrinkage of the whites demographics. By 2030, the whites shall be 45% of the entire population. Having a black president in the White House forced the racial issue to the surface. Or to the belief that if a black man can be president, "so can I," a wealthy white deal-maker.

"I alone can fix it" is a Trump campaign slogan. Not conducive to learning from the experts. In fact, intended to downgrade experience in favor of "gut feeling." Politicians embedded in Congress, practicing the art of political longevity, gave a bad name to "politician," "political correctness," "the ways of Washington," and "business as usual." A circular argument: "If I am not doing well, the government is responsible." So shrinking government, while despising it, has become the lifeblood of the Trump corpus of non-ideas for combative conservatism.

Topping all of this, is the fear from jihadism, which has splintered. Causing the conventional ways of defense and offense to become irrelevant. One single terrorist act anywhere stokes the fires of rage, helplessness, and the need for brutalizing responses.

So for month after month after month, Trump has been at it. Goring the American system to satisfy the political circus. A circus which he has been found to respond to his need for self-adoration -narcissism. Thus arose the populist call for change -any change. Trump's disconnected thoughts have been broadcast nearly constantly. Had Trump been forced to pay for that free publicity, the cost would have been $2 Billions.

The truth of the matter is that there is no end to the range of the Trumpist rage. He strikes in every direction. Here follow selections. Limited here to the Executive, described by Trump's wayward movement as rigged and broken.

• About President Obama as a citizen: He is illegitimate. Why Donald? He is probably born out of the U.S. Trump has thus acknowledged to be the profane author of "the Birther Movement." In spite of his recent admission to the contrary as a price for gaining Afro-American support.
• About Obama's professional credentials: Trump claims that Obama's education at Harvard may be untrue.
• About Obama's record as President: "Weak;" "the worst President in the history of America."
• About Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State: "If elected to the presidency, she will be the continuation of the disastrous Obama years."
• On Hillary's fitness for the Oval Office: "She has a poor judgment;" "influenced by donations by the millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation;" "a liar;" "exposed our national security to danger through her emails on a personal server." For Trump, it is always "Crooked Hillary."
• On Hillary's advisors: "She brought in Huma Abidin, possibly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, to guide her decision-making."
• On Founding ISIS: "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS."
• How about Secretary of State, John Kerry?: Donald claims that he would make better deals than John Kerry. "Kerry left the negotiations room where the Iran nuclear deal was being negotiated to ride a bicycle." A characterization by a lunatic with zero experience in foreign affairs.
• On foreign affairs: "Wouldn't be nice to bring Russia in with us to fight ISIS?;" "Putin of Russia is a better president than Obama. He is strong; ours is indecisive." "I'll nullify the Iran nuclear deal on day one of my presidency."
• On military matters: Donald would replace the present generals by "my own generals;" "I'll make our military so strong that nobody would dare mess with us;" "Why do we have nuclear arms if we don't use them?;" "NATO is obsolete."
• On terrorism: Trump arrogantly claims to know more about ISIS "than the Generals." He claims to have a secret plan to deal with ISIS. A charlatan who avoided by subterfuge any form of military service, or for this matter, any national service.

And on and on, Trump projects "the tough guy" image. Without the benefit of any facts. Yet his blatant racism regarding blacks, Muslims, Latino has gone on for a year and a half unchecked. Nicholas Kristof, in a column in the New York Times of September 8, 2016, sums up the idiocy of Trumpism. Such an admirable summation is difficult to ignore quoting from with elaboration:

• "Whether in his youth, in his business career or in his personal life, Trump's story is that of a shallow egoist who uses those around him;"
• "He made a mess of his personal life and has been repeatedly accused of racism, of cheating people, of lying, of stiffing charities;"
• "His life is a vacuum of principle, and he never seems to have stood up for anything larger than himself;" and
• "Over seven decades, there's one continuing theme to his life story: This is a narcissist who has no core. The lights are on, but no one's home."

The Republican party, the party of Lincoln, has largely been hijacked by that con man, Donald J. Trump. What remains has been badly splintered. This election for US president is undoubtedly the most important in our lifetime.

Those in America who feel either angry, left behind, or disadvantaged, are flocking to the banner of Trumpism. If elected to the Oval office, the consequences for America and the world cannot be predicted. The only prediction is that the trust between the citizen in the US and his or her government is, as of now, shaken to its roots. "The system must be changed" has been a Trump advocacy. "Trust Me," Trump keeps on repeating. Though his whole history is a tattered record of lying and cheating.

Serious damage has also been visited upon the quality of political discourse. Expletives have been liberally used. Incitement to violence by Trump against his detractors has become common place.

We now have a debased language, expressing misfacts, propagated through his Nazi-like rallies, proclaiming the end of the American orderly system of governance. A reminder of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic. In favor of "America First," dressed up in a racist vestments, brandishing the fear of "soon we shall have no country."

In all certainty, that bully, win or lose, shall benefit. If he loses, as I pray he would, Trump will relaunch his biggest "reality show." Blaming that loss on conspiracies. And if he wins, the consequences cannot be but ominous.

Mr. Trump: Here are reasons for my assessment: Your lying about your contacts with Russia for personal gain; your appearance on the Kremlin TV to denigrate Obama, and American foreign policy; your threat to nullify American defense commitments and trade agreements; your boasting about readiness to use nuclear arms against European allies; and your insane claim to single-handedly "Make America Great Again."

Furthermore, you have:

• Called for packing the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who will tilt that institution further to the right;
• Mocked the disabled, falsely claimed seeing Muslims celebrating in New Jersey the criminal destruction of the World Trade Center; denigrated women for their menstrual period;
• Attacked the media for fact-checking, and for calling you on your barrage of lies;
• Tweeted obscenities and was convulsively rattled for getting opposing tweets in return;
• Fabricated your health record by claiming that you are the healthiest person who have ever run for office; though refusing to divulge a credible health record;
• Insinuated that those with guns might remove Hillary from the scene;
• Thought that Saddam and Qaddafi should have stayed in place to fight terrorism;
• Continuously calling for an American grab of Arab oil fields by the force of arms;
• Called for punishing women for seeking abortion;
• Declared as a policy priority the deportation of eleven million undocumented immigrants now living in the U.S.;
• Called for arming Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea with nuclear weapons;
• Advocated the legality of water boarding as a means of extracting confessions from terrorist suspects;
• Insisted on calling criminal jihadists "Islamic terrorists," though they, by their crimes, have opted out of Islam. Even when such criminal acts are committed by American citizens who happen to claim being Muslims;
• Kept on calling or insinuating that President Obama is "a closet Muslim." Which is patently an Islamophobic lie. Mr. Trump: Islam is a faith not a disease. What drips from your mouth in regard to Islam is what ISIS loves to exploit.

It was a Muslim immigrant (Mr. Khizr Khan) who had lost his son, a US army officer killed in a battle in Iraq, who publicly impugned your credentials as a patriot. On national TV, he challenged you on two main fronts: Your knowledge deficit regarding the U.S. Constitution, and your moral deficit regarding sacrificing for your country.

Holding aloft a copy of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Khan intoned: "Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?" Then slammed you down on your narcissism, saying "Have you ever sacrificed anything or anyone?" 

Your retort manifested your ignorance of the meaning of sacrifice. For you responded by parading your record as a builder. Khan meant nation-building. You, being alien to community giving, thought of hiring labor to construct "Trump Towers" as sacrifice for your nation. What an imbecile!!

Khan lost his son in the war on Iraq. Your sons from 3 marriages stand safe in shiny suits, ready to inherit your ill-gotten gains. Reason to support the return by America to compulsory military service. Might be a factor in slowing down congressional penchant for endless wars.

You are still adamantly refusing to divulge your tax returns, raising suspicions about whether you have even paid any taxes since 2008. Justifiable suspicions as you bragged about gaming the system and exploiting loopholes.

Your so-called charitable foundation is a means of enriching your "deplorable" self, causing the New York Attorney General to begin investigating it. And the case against the fraud called "Trump University" is going forward. Regardless of your racist attacks on the federal judge who presides over it. Calling that judge biased because of "his Mexican ancestry."

Sir, how can you expect this electorate to believe in your oft-repeated call on the public "Believe Me."  It is a steep climb for anyone, but your own core crowd of "America Firsters," to believe in you as a possible occupant of the Oval office. 

You, Donald Trump, has received last week a dishonorable mention on the world stage. It was issued by none other than the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Raad Al-Hussein of Jordan. He slammed you down as among the politicians who "peddle fear to exploit economic hardship and social tension."

Another deeply negative assessment of you, Mr. Trump, was voiced in emails by General Colin Powell of the U.S. Without mincing his words, he described you as "a national disgrace and an international pariah."

In the same vein, the US Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) responded to Trump's racism. Honoring in Washington, D.C. both Obama and Hillary Clinton on September 17, the CBC spokesmen let loose on Trump all kinds of epithets. Called him "a racist," "a bigot," a "fraud." It was payback time for Trump's constant humiliation of America's first black president.

At that ceremony telecast on CNN internationally, Obama urged black voters to give him a befitting send-off. "Vote for the continuation of my legacy," he urged his audience -meaning voting for Hillary. The symbiotic relationship between Trump and the "Alt Right" (extreme right) would undoubtedly, in a Trump presidency, destroy the Obama legacy.

That call for American "national action now" (Obama's words at that farewell ceremony) reverberated south of the border, and north of the border.

In Mexico, Trump's call for a wall along the southern border was met with derision. In his lunatic characterization of the Mexicans as "rapists" and "drug dealers," he was advocating an ideology of hate "of the other." That Trump wall "should be paid for by Mexico," he hallucinated publicly. The proud Mexicans poured on their president torrents of criticism for inviting Donald to Mexico City. Combining those attacks with laughter as they called on crazy Trump to "Come and Get it!!"

In Canada, while I was in Toronto this past August, I raised this question at formal dinners. "What would Canada do if Trump occupied the Oval Office?" Their confident answer was: "We shall welcome American immigrants into our midst to help Canada keep on building!!"

Mr. Trump: Calling you "unfit for the presidency" is an understatement. You, a prospective war criminal and a war lord, pose a clear and present danger to America and the world; might ignite either endless wars or a civil war in this great land; and make America not "Great Again," but an America ruled by a gun-toting mobocracy. 

Concluding by a statement unambiguously disqualifying Trump from the occupancy of the Oval Office. Uttered by Jennifer Granholm, the former Governor of the State of Michigan. Said she: "Trump is a con man. Completely unacceptable. Trying now to con America into believing that he can be President!!"

Ask Not What's Wrong With Islam - Ask What's Wrong With Its Understanding!!

Bernard Lowis was dead wrong by asking: "What Went Wrong With Islam." So was his disciple, the Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an Islamophobe whose last of four books is entitled: "Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now." Both of them, in my view as a specialist in Islam, have missed a central fact. Islam, as a faith, is constantly self-renewing through interpretation.

This is called "The Tafseer (interpretation) Jurisdiction." Thus between the two unalterable bases for Islamic Law (Sharia), namely the Quran, and the Hadith (the latter for the ascertainable utterances and conduct of the Prophet Muhammad), stands Tafseer.

In other words, Tafseer, otherwise meaning ijtihad (the application of common sense to the text) is akin to the soft tissue between the vertebrae of Islam's backbone. That soft tissue prevents the pain of one bone colliding with another.

Tafseer, an element in the formulation of fatwas (a non-binding opinion on a matter of religion), functions also if there is no text. It is called "The Non-Text Jurisdiction." It is an extrapolation of a rule from precedent.

To illustrate: If I am asked: "What would a Muslim astronaut in outer space face while praying?" My response would be "His Mecca is where his capsule rotates." Now where do I base my fatwa on? Outer space is its own universe. Not unlike the vast desert of the Empty Quarter in southern Arabia, on a cloudy day, with no compass to point to Mecca. That astronaut, let us call him Ali (meaning the ever-high) and his co-religious Ahmed (another name for Muhammad) stand in the same footing. With no shoes, but with faith.

Understanding Islam should begin by the realization of the following facts about Islamic practice: Islam equates between all faiths; no one has the authority to call another "an apostate;" gender equality is ensured; the law of inheritance is supplemented by legislation; ritual and human transactions are separate one from another; "modesty" in female appearance does not necessarily mean a "niqab"

It also calls for the realization that: jihad is self-defense and self-policing against debased urges; and the Caliphates ended 1400 years ago with the bloody termination of the reign of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, Muhammad's cousin.

As to the vocabulary of Islam and its law (Sharia), the following words and terms do not even exist: "sword;" "holy war." The word "Muslim" does not refer only to adherents of Islam. It denotes any human being who submits his/her will to that of the Creator. And "Allahu Akbar," is not a battle cry. It means "all humans are equal before the One Creator."

In Islam, judges are to be defendant-oriented; adultery is made impossible to prove. (It requires four witnesses to be present); and women have the same rights and obligations as those for men. Self-sacrifice is abhorred; all places of worship are to be protected and revered; dictatorships should be toppled; and worship should be made easier, not an oppression chore.

Above all, intent is a basic determinant of culpability; corruption is to be tackled by both law and improved life conditions; and dialogue is a means to clearing up misunderstandings.

There is no Sunni Islam and Shii Islam. There is one faith, with a variety of contrasting practices; the State authority should be respected; and local laws should be the norm for regulating the conduct of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Contrast the above list which I have kept to bare essentials with the following modes of departure by Muslims. And of incomprehension by non-Muslims:

• Does jihad mean the killing of the innocent or of the non-Muslim? Of course not.
• Are these crimes against humanity to be funded by the so-called charitable foundations in the Muslim world? No!! Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime makes the supporter complicit in perpetrating those heinous crimes.
• Doesn't the Quran state in Chapter V/32: "We prescribed to the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless it be for retaliation or because of spreading corruption on earth, it would be as if he had killed all mankind ...?" It does.
• Is retaliation or evaluation of corruption a justification for any Muslim to take the law in his/her hand for the purpose of injuring another? No. This is called "self-help," not sanctioned by any law unless the person is cornered at their home and has no duty to retreat.
• Is murderous jihadism justified by past colonial maladministration? No. Decolonization, UN membership, and bilateral treaties have all put an end to the prolongation of these past grievances. And acceptance of foreign aid puts an end to the myth that there is no statute of limitations to those past misdeeds.
• In light of the above, there is no "collective punishment" in Islam as a faith, or in Sharia (Islamic Law) as a legal system. Back to the Quran: "God does not impose on any soul a burden greater than it can bear; it receives every good that it earns, and it suffers every evil that it earns..." (Chapter II/286).
• More on point: "While He is the Lord of all things, every soul is accountable for itself; no bearer of burdens bears the burden of another..." (Chapter VI/164).

There is an urgent need to reform the thinking of Muslims about their own faith. Anecdotal evidence shows that the majority of Muslims have not read the 114 Chapters (Suras) of the Quran. I am not boasting, but I am stating a personal fact. I have read those chapters nineteen times. I am now on reading number 20. The more you read, the more you discover. And this discovery is aided by the vast spectrum of interpretations.

But the context of my readings is already framed by one Islamic adage: "God desires ease for you and not hardship." (Chapter II/185) The theme of "ease" is repeated in the Quran 39 times. No mention of theocracy. No mention of a caliphate -a human invention, not a religiously mandated system of governance. 

In the Quran, I found no reference to virgins awaiting in heaven those who kill themselves or others. Found no reference to proselytization. But found the need for explanation (DAWA). DAWA for harmonious interaction among all humans. So is it by sword that some marauding Muslims advocate for their faith? Here I let the Quran answer those misguided thugs: "Call mankind to the way of your Lord with wisdom and sound advice..." (Chapter XVI/125).

Even Muhammad was admonished in the Quran to steer away from arrogance in his call for faith. The Quran asserts as follows: "It was by God's Mercy that you were kind to them; had you been harsh and hard of heart, they would have dispersed from around you... And consult them in the matter, and when you reach a decision, place your trust in God..." (Chapter III/159).

On the other hand, the non-Muslim world should also reform its outlook on Islam and Sharia. It takes two to tango!! Unwittingly, that sector of humanity has unwittingly adopted the jihadi interpretation of Islam and its values as mouthed by the enemies of humanity. Evidence here abounds. Examples:

• that Islam is a faith of the sword;
• that the war on terror should be waged by a ban on Muslim immigrants;
• that the niqab is mandated by the Islamic faith;
• that the stoning for adultery, and the beheadings, and the severence of limbs, are all within the judicial sentencing mandated by Islam;
• that Muslims understand only force to cause them to submit;
• that dictatorship is the way of Islamic governance;
• that Sharia is meant to be spread world-wide to replace legislation;
• that Islamization is a global blueprint;
• that the Muslim world supports, outwardly or inwardly terrorism; and 
• that western knowledge and teaching are non-Islamic.

All of the above is utter nonsense. Islamophobia is caused by both ignorant Muslims and ignorant non-Muslims. The two sides seem to be spoiling for endless war. It is not going to happen. But anxiety about it have caused 38 States of the 50 American States either to ban Sharia or its mention in their courts.

Books authored by ex-Muslims, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, stand for those non-sensical misconceptions. On the dust jacket of her book "Heretic," she posits provocative questions, basically of the red herring type. She says "When a Muslim see you reading this book and says, 'I am offended, my feelings are hurt,' your reply should be: 'What matters more? Your sacred text? Or the life of this book's author?'"

Ayaan: those who threaten you for your book have not read their book (the Qura). Neither have you, as you selectively picked certain verses from the Quran. Selections which have not been encapsulated into legislation. Except in retrograde theocracies, or in your unhappy land where Somali tribal experiences are the norm. Like genital mutilation which you suffered.

Sharia does not enter that dark realm of genital mutilation. And modern legislation in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, has criminalized it. A prime example of correcting by man-made law the tribal seepage in monotheism. In your country of birth, women enslavement is common. But you have found undeserved fame for falsely claiming that the face of the Muslim world can only be seen through one narrow and ancient window. That of Somalia which is now a horribly failed State.

In the social sciences, including law, we always say that faith is non-negotiable. But Hirsi does not seem to comprehend that basic axiom. One of her calls is for the need to re-write the Quran!! Well, Ayaan, were you to ever fathom the meaning of faith, you might realize that Islam's dogma is premised upon one central belief: The Quran is the word of God. Therefore you need, if you ever could, to ask God (in Arabic, Allah) to produce your desired "amendments." If you succed, give me a call!!

My dwelling on the perception gap between the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds does not encompass the entire problem. For perceptions are expressed in words in various languages.

Here we have a real dilemma. The Muslim world at the mass level does not converse or read or write in Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish. These, in addition to Arabic, are the UN-official languages. The reverse is true regarding non-Muslims in regard to Arabic.

Closing the gap needs a global linguistic remedy. 9/11 was hugely condemned by the Muslim world. Yet that condemnation did not register. On the contrary, it was misconstrued. Considered silence translated into a quiet approval.

All the above is not an advocacy for Islam. It is an advocacy for overcoming the ills of this age of rage, symbolized by Trumpism, and by its reaction to jihadism through a redirection of the global conversation regardnig faith and governance.

Mixing faith with governance has proved to be a combustible mix. Each of them should be observed as separate. With governance looking upon faith as a system of values, not a blue print for regulating human affairs. 

The hereafter should be left to the hereafter. Meaning: live and let live. And if you can't, then "Get a Life!!"

Not by Walls But by Integration - Canada Builds a Strong Nation

These are reflections on my 64th annual anniversary. It was on August 27, 1952 that I sailed from Alexandria, Egypt, as a Fulbright scholar to New York City, my first journey outside of the land of the Nile.  A journey by sea of 21 days aboard the Ex Cambion of the then famed American Lines.

Born to an Islamic scholar, and a mother who traced her lineage to Imam Al-Hassan Ibn Imam Ali, the cousin of the prophet Muhammad, I turned to my turbaned father seeking one last advice before boarding that beautiful vessel. In his ear, I whispered: "How should I live in America, and how to maintain my classic Arabic language?"

His answer was: "Live as they live." As to classic Arabic, I shall mail to you a copy of the speeches of Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb. Entitled "The Path To Eloquence." It is, after the Quran, the highest form of the Arabic language.

That fatherly counsel held me in good stead for 64 years in North America. It liberated me from the strictures of my life in Egypt, and opened the door to my initial UN employment- chief of the Arabic Language Section, UN radio. I married a Catholic wife, still my beloved spouse for 46 years, and became an honorary member, since 1974, of a Jewish reform temple, in Great Neck, Long Island. And after early retirement from the UN, I now, aside from law practice, teach "Islamic Law and Global Security" at Fordham University. A Jesuit institution, I am also adjunct professor at St. Francis College.

Thus, in America, I kept on observing my Azhari father’s advice: "live as they live" a part of the American model of "the melting pot,"  the fusion of several cultures within the pot of Americanism. Not a bad model for a nation of immigrants to whose flag I swore allegiance. This is although it does not recognize my duality of citizenship, both Egyptian and American. To me, no conflict. You can be a brother and a cousin at the same time.

Yet, my abhorrence of the alarming statements of an ignoramus like Donald Trump calling for a Muslim ban and a wall against Latin immigration, inspired me to look at the Canadian model of "integration," not of " fusion." A model akin to the UN system which allows all employees to travel to their countries of origin. The rationale is simple: observe the UN Charter through service to the entire membership, but keep your civilisation roots intact. Put in other words, integrate your culture within the broader context of multiplicity.

This is the essence of Canadian nation-building. Not by walls and nativism/ chauvinism. But by the creation of a two-way cultural highway: from the country of origin to Canada, and from Canada, the values of harmonious diversity.

These are not mere empty words about the higher-value Canadian model. It is a model reflected fully in government deeds and the public square realities. Both fitting neatly the alphabet of globalization in this puzzling age of rage. No dysfunctional Trumpist ideology of faith tests, Nazi-like reliance on vigilantism, no cozying up to strong-arm dictatorships.

Just witness Canada’s welcome of new comers from areas like Syria and Iraq. Witness Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Canadian airports. Putting warm jackets on the backs of immigrant children. Watch him dance at a Philippino cultural festival. On August 20, that young and photogenic P.M.. whose father I served at the UN, being enthusiastically welcomed in Toronto at the "Taste of Manila."  The Toronto Star reported on the chants of onlookers "Justin, Justin." Declared the PM that differences were a source of strength that makes communities stronger.

Or watch the arrivals at the Lester Pearson airport in Toronto, standing by the curbside at Terminial One of Air Canada. And observe the greeters and the greeted: Somalis, Syrian, Bangladeshis and others. A tower of Babylon, speaking happily in a multitude of languages, hugging each other outwardly, and hugging the Canadian model of integration under their colorful shirts, Sikh turbans, or Muslim veils.

Or observe the provincial and federal support of non-governmental organizations engaged in the on-going Canadian enterprise of integration at all levels. Bolstored by free education, health insurance, and freedom of expression.

And when a cultural hurdle arises, the Canadians have no hesitation to seek advice. Such as when some Syrian refugees balked at eating Canadian food. Reason: an ill-placed fear that utensils were used in eating pork products, a culinary prohibition in Islam. So I was asked to provide an opinion (a fatwa-like explanation). In response, I wrote that water was a purifier. Washing those utensils made them wholesome. Veracious eating began in earnest. The Canadian model of nation-building through integration also has a substantial security side-effect. It is countering the lunatic ideology of Jihadisim. Confronting, and eventually decimating the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram, are not by the force of arms alone. Ideology is an in dispensable supportive weapon. For Islamic Law (Sharia) properly defines "Allahu Akbar" not as a battle cry.  Its legal meaning is "all humans are equal before God, regardless of faith."

A true reflection of the Canadian model in an all-encompassing secular sense!! It is not by walls but by integration, Canada builds a strong nation.