Roadsigns On the New Autobahn To and From Tehran

That autobahn to Tehran has been inaugurated. Not only through mountains of hurdles. But also through other higher cliffs of enmity. Primarily between Washington and Tehran. This enmity between the two had its first roots in the CIA. Acting as a parallel US government, the CIA was instrumental in toppling the Iranian popular democratic regime of Muhammad Mossadeq in 1953. Brought the Shah back from Rome to rule with a westernized but iron fist.

The cause of that outside intervention was one: oil. The Anglo-Iranian oil company was nationalized. After the Shah was sacked in 1979, America to Iran became "the Great Satan." And Iran, with Ruhollah Khomeini heading an Islamic Republic became to Washington a "state supporting terrorism."

The gulf between the two was so poisonous, that it hardened into a creed. So for nearly four decades, punctuated in the 1980's by Saddam attacking Iran with US and Arab support, Iran was made an outcast.

But the international wheel of fortune never stops turning. Khomeini failed to export his austere form of Shia papacy to the Gulf. He assumed the title of "Imam," while converting the Shia scholars (ulama) into a ruling class. The cleavage created between the ulama of Karbala, Iraq, and some of the ulama of Qom, Iran, became greater.

And in 1981 the Khomeini brand of Shiism further alienated the demographically largest Arab State, Egypt. Egypt whose capital, Cairo, and its historic citadel of Islamic learning, Al-Azhar, were built by Shiis. That was more than 1000 years ago when the Fatimidis ruled supreme. Before they were replaced by Saladin -a Kurd and a Sunni.

Yet "the conversion" of Egypt to Sunnism has remained formalistic. Egyptian reverence for the House of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Bait) is a shared quality between historic Persia and historic Egypt. Two States, going back into history for thousands of years, could not be easily alienated from one another.

But Khomeini gave that historic bridge a shock. Upon Sadat's assassination, Tehran named one of its main thoroughfares after his assassin. Sadat had granted the Shah asylum, and concluded a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. The rift fossilized.

Now fast forward to the new Iran. With the moderate President Hassan Rouhani, and the new Egypt, with the pragmatic President El-Sisi. Sanctions were imposed on Iran by both the the US and the UN for its nuclear portfolio. But Egypt has never been in favor of sanctions. Except for those imposed on apartheid South Africa. Even during the Libya of Qaddafi, Egypt led the charge, choreographed by Nabil El-Arabi at the UN Security Council, for lifting those sanctions. Egypt, upon signing its peace treaty with Israel, had the bitter taste of regional isolation.

But reformers, like Rouhani, read the pulse of his nation as desirous to rejoin the international community. In US-educated Jawad Zarif as foreign minister, Rouhani found a superb negotiator. "Get us out of sanctions, and in with the world." So the decision was made to allay international fears from the perception of an Iran armed with an atom bomb.

Over more than two years, negotiations between Tehran and the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany proceeded along a bumpy road of reaching an accord on the nuclear file. In July 2015, the energy of diplomacy, unleashed, won the day. The sword of demagoguery, unsheathed, was blunted.

And by late January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency testified that Iran has carried out its side of that historic bargain. Even before that awaited certification was made public, non-American business representatives were descending upon Tehran to be signed up. The autobahn to Tehran was now agog with international traffic.

But the season of disruption was not yet over. Sheikh Al-Nimr, a Saudi Shii leader was judicially, but injudiciously, executed. Incensed, the Tehran mobs attacked the Saudi Embassy in Tehran.

That attack on those diplomatically-protected premises, was condemned by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's highest leader. He was joined by Mohammad Javad Zarif who lamented: "This was an act that we were not proud of... I think our Saudi neighbors need to realize that confrontation is in the interest of nobody."

But the shrill voices of confrontation were not to be easily stifled. Especially in America. That is where the Republican Party keeps on emitting the piercing sounds of hostility toward Tehran. Their voice was amplified by Foreign Affairs of January-February 2016. "Time to Get Tough on Iran," shrieked the title of a pugnacious article by Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, and Ray Takeyh.

Their thesis is that "the Islamic Republic is not a conventional State making pragmatic estimates of its national interests, but a revolutionary regime." The shrill then gets louder. "Iran is an exceptionally dangerous State -to its neighbors, to close US allies such as Israel, and to the broader stability of the Middle East." And: "The agreement recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium and eventually to industralize that capacity."

Well, Iran does not require an international agreement to recognize its sovereign right to enrich uranium under IAEA guidelines. It is also a State which has now proved its pragmatism by demonstrating its readiness to rejoin the world community.

In regard to its Arab neighbors, the Syrian issue for Iran, cannot be framed only in a Shii vs. Sunni context. Regime change by outside intervention is anathema to Iran. Since 1953, it had a bitter taste to that proud nation.

This was plainly manifest in its tough stands during negotiations on its nuclear file. The result was a win-win result for all parties. Even American critics of Iran such as Nicholas Burns, a US former under-secretary of State, saw in it a historic shift. He described it as "a potential turning point in the modern history of the Middle East." In his op ed page in the New York Times of January 19, he also interjected: "But Iran remains a powerful adversary of America across nearly all the conflicts of the Middle East."

True, though reflecting a sweeping conclusion. Belied by the present negotiations on a political exit from the Syrian quagmire. Such an exit cannot be found without the cooperation of Tehran and Moscow.

Unfortunately, the language of Nicholas Burns is mirrored by the language about Iran used by Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister. In the New York Times of January 20, 2016, Adel Al-Jubeir vehemently asserted that "The world is watching Iran for signs of change, hoping it will evolve from a rogue revolutionary State into a respectable member of the international community." 

On various levels, that is utterly wrong:

• Within Iran there is more give and take between the rulers and the ruled than in Saudi Arabia;
• His claim that Iran "helps the Islamic State flourish" is patently bogus;
• So is his reliance on "We are not the country designated a State sponsor of terrorism. Iran is." Mr. Al-Jubeir should be aware of the politicization of such designations, and the reasons for selectively applying them;
• It is in the nature of exercising national sovereignty for Al-Jubeir to warn: "Saudi Arabia will not allow Iran to undermine our security or the security of our allies." In the context of sovereign equality, the same argument should also be marshaled by Iran.

The fact remains that both Riyadh and Tehran are engaged in an unseemly ideological battle world-wide. Riyadh supports Sunnism; and Tehran supports Shiism.

Petrowealth has been liberally employed by the two antagonistic capitals in the illiberal cause of splitting Islam in two genres. A fiction that has no Islamic jurisprudential basis whatsoever. There is no Sunni Islam, nor Shii Islam.

However, within this seemingly endless battle for the soul of Islam, one finds roots of that ailment: the super imposition by both capitals of their brand of Islam on the affairs of State. Reason why Al-Azhar's position should be applauded as it declares that "Islam does not recognize a State based solely on religion."

One of the many problems with faith and State in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the absence of analytical reasoning. An ignorance that leads to direct copying from others without due scrutiny. This is a black hole that is exemplified by an article in Arabic in Al-Ahram, the official newspaper of Egypt. Hani Imarah, an op ed page writer, states in it without evidence that "Iran, like cancer, has expanded for tens of years in the Arab body." Where? When? He does not say.

This is imagination born of ignorance. As such, impossible to prove. Unless relying upon unofficial Iranian hot air talk about controlling Arab capitals. The New Egypt deserves better media. Egypt, by its culture and civilization, should immerse itself in repairing the gulf between Iran and the western shores of the Gulf.

Obviously, Iran could not be comfortable with decades of cooperation between the intelligence services of Riyadh and Washington, D.C. That relationship heightens Tehran's mistrust of both. Even after blessing the Iran nuclear deal, the Iranian supreme leader warned against placing trust in America. It was a message which can only be read in Riyadh as also aiming at the Kingdom. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

A restored Cairo/Tehran entente would be the most suitable vehicle for that political and religious reconciliation. My present research for a book in English on the Sunni-Shii rift finds no evidence of an Islamic religious foundation for that fiction.

And as we speed along the autobahn to Tehran, let us forget about a non-substantiated fatwa by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. He recently declared that "chess is the work of Satan." On what basis did that gentleman anchor his fatwa? The Quran refers to "Satan's handiwork" in the context of "intoxicants and gambling and idol worship and fortune telling" (Chapter V/90). None of the above applies to chess.

A fatwa is only a non-binding opinion on a matter of religion. Sheikh Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Your fatwa doesn't advance the cause of Islam. A faith that values science and ijtihad (application of common sense to the text). Your fatwa can only contribute to Islamophobia. As does your banning of dance, music and gender equality.

Chess is a cerebral game of strategy and mental agility. Originally developed in Persia. The grand civilization which has hugely contributed to Islam through emphasis on science, math, and technology. Iran's nuclear advances are a natural by-product.

The New York Times of January 29, 2016 states:

"Despite lingering animosities and the United States' designation of Iran as a sponsor of terrorist groups, European governments and corporations have made it clear that economic opportunity is going to trump concerns over human rights, security and politics for now."

Tehran is now bringing in the Airbus manufacturer to deliver 118 of new aircraft. President Rouhani is consorting not only with Italian and French leaders but also with Pope Francis. A very welcome dividend of peace secured through the dignity of equality of sovereignty between nations. Another cold war seems to be coming to an end.

America The Durable!! Why? Its System Has Several Backup Systems!!

They sing "Oh Beautiful America...!!" I write: "Oh Durable America." Lived in it and learnt from it as an Egyptian American since 1952. Without losing sight of the rich and diverse culture I came from. That was Egypt the beautiful of pre-1952. Which I see it returning in the durable form of the post-Islamist regime of 2012-2013.

What makes America durable? Its system has more than one back-up system. You can almost touch that durability in Obama's last State of the Union message. Delivered with passion to a joint session of Congress on January 12, 2016. Delivered to the Democrats who rose up to their feet repeatedly to cheer him.

Also delivered to the Republicans who largely remained seated out of political distancing. The variables in those reactions did not seem to trouble the first black president of the U.S.A.

Where does that durability lie?

Its Constitution has lasted for more than 200 years. Albeit with 27 Amendments. "We the People" in its Preamble means what it says. All the people in America, whether citizens, residents, newly-arrived immigrants, or visitors. Underpinning the hallowed principle of "quality before the law." Infractions like Guantanamo are a glaring exception. But technically, Guantanamo is not American sovereign soil. It is a stain on the fabric. Not the fabric itself.

Its separation of powers. Yet not really separate. But overlapping for balance. Congress is the federal legislature. But it has executive powers such as in treaty-making. And judicial powers, such as in appointing federal judges including to the Supreme Court. The Executive, in turn, has powers to veto legislation, unless that veto is over-ridden by a super majority in Congress. The federal judiciary, the creation of both the Executive which nominates, and Congress which affirms or denies, has the task of judging. Among other things, the constitutionality of laws. And other disputes.

All of this represents the Olympic circles - overlapping to represent unity of action, focus on purpose, and toning down of the tendencies of the other two circles of power. The durability of the American system is enhanced by its built-in checks and balances.

But this is not the end of the checks and balances labyrinth. Full of intricate passageways. Difficult at times to navigate, but once comprehended, its rationale is luminous. The federal government is one of limited powers.

Limitation here does not spell weakness. You can read it as delimitation. There are essentially two governments in the U.S. One federal, to keep the fifty states together - "The United States." And one for each state. These states are sovereign in exercising powers over issues not specified for handling by the federal government.

How does this duality enhance the durability? The 10th Amendment of the Constitution provides for the regulation of that relationship between Washington, D.C. and the capitals of all States. D.C. specifically has the power to declare war, collect taxes, and regulate interstate commerce. A truck travelling from New York to New Jersey is engaged in interstate commerce once it crosses the George Washington bridge.

Everything else is within each state's power to regulate. Nearly everything, because if there is conflict between federal and state in a matter affecting other states, Washington wins. So the American union continues to strive for what the Constitution's preamble calls "a more perfect union." 

With a view to delimitation of powers between the federal government and the states, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the states in matters directly affecting the people. Family relations, internal state commerce, and local law enforcement fall, under that ruling, within state jurisdiction.

Licenses for marriage, or grants of divorce, or a will are state-based. Attorneys are authorized to practise law by the state. Yet they can practice in any other state (as I do) upon declaring or proving in the court of "the other state," where they are licensed.

At the state level, law enforcement is carried out not only by state courts. But also by the "police power" of the state which extends to the national guard (originally state militias). These forces are also available to the federal government at times of national emergencies. "Federalization" of these forces is another power to be exercised by the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution is the last of the ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights. That Bill begins with the much debated First Amendment which introduces basic provisions including those affecting the state and religion. Because of its centrality to the durability of the American system, it bears quoting:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note that that Amendment, as regards religion, does not establish a state religion; but allows for "the free exercise" of what any American may regard as a religion. (An interesting point of commonality between the U.S. Constitution and Islamic Law. For Sharia does not establish a faith and a State. It establishes a faith and a community).

Also note that new rights are continually created by the Supreme Court, such as the right to have an abortion. Thus changing circumstances are accommodated without having to resort to the nearly-impossible procedure of amending the Constitution. The "Law of the Land" is whatever is federally legislated, or is integrated through treaties approved by the Senate and signed by the President. These are other forms of back-up systems whose flexibility is intended as a means for durability.

The above is obviously not the entire or even the rigorously academic presentation of all aspects of the durability of the American system. This is because these features are always open to challenge through both interpretation and the evolution of globalization.

Nonetheless it is my way of highlighting what makes America sail relatively smoothly through various types of crises. A brief look at the State of the Union message delivered by Obama on January 12, 2016 sheds further light on how America navigates its status as a durable super power.

But before doing so, let us sum up and supplement the above as regards federal powers.

First: The union is held together by a Constitution which keeps on evolving through interpretation. (In the Muslim world, it is called ijtihad: evolving a rule where the text is unclear, or does not exist). Every exercise of federal power must be traced to the Constitution.

Second: There are constitutional and self-imposed limitations on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. This is the theory of "strict necessity." Political questions will not be decided by the courts.

Third: The "We the People" is in action constantly, at all levels of government. That is from the federal, to the state, to even the smallest community. (The water authority in Suffolk County, New York State where I live, is a form of local government. Its school system is supported largely by taxes paid by us residents. Even if we have no children attending those schools).

Fourth: "We the People" is the basis for voting, for the organization of political parties (both the Democrats and the Republicans, plus splinter groups). Demographically, it continues to grow and diversify through birth and immigration.

Fifth: If there is a conflict between a congressional act and a valid treaty, it is resolved by the order of adoption. The last in time prevails. (The Iran nuclear deal is not a treaty).

Sixth: Under executive privilege/immunity, the President has a privilege to keep certain communications secret. National Security secrets are given deference by the courts. From that flows the State Department rulings on matters of foreign affairs. Also given judicial deference by the judiciary; and

Seventh: The U.S. may sue any of the fifty states without its consent. But public policy forbids a state from suing the U.S. without its consent. That is unless Congress passes legislation that permits the U.S. to be sued by a state in given situations. On the other hand, one state may sue another state without its consent. The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in a state v. another state litigation.

In his last State of the Union message, Obama declared:

• "We will build... We do not give up... Government is a shared responsibility." 
• America's power is credible, he asserted. Debunking the view expressed in the Wall Street Journal to the effect that 70% of Americans think that the U.S. "is moving in the wrong direction." (So do most of the Egyptians without cause in regard to their country now recovering from 65 years of stagnation).
• Obama defined his legacy in the context of economic recovery (from the ravages of wars of choice); health insurance for all; opening to Cuba, Iran and to Pacific trade; energy self-sufficiency; criminal justice reform; environment and climate change measures; support for the middle and lower classes; and equal pay for equal work.
• He attacked the politics of fear; islamophobia; curtailment of voting rights; gun ownership without proper control (a Second Amendment problem).
• Declared his determination to close Guantanamo; and laughed at those peddling the fiction that ISIS poses a direct threat to the U.S. "Just ask Bin Laden!!" he challenged the nay-sayers. Called on congress to grant him authorization to "use the military against ISIS." Not satisfied with a coalition of 60 states and 10,000 air strikes;
• He presented America's priorities in four points: How to provide every American with equality of opportunity; how to make technology work for America; how to keep America safe; how to align U.S. policies with "what is best in us, not with what is the worst."

This is America the durable. Its durability is anchored on constant change, constant innovation; "the spirit of discovery," Obama called it.

"The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth," Obama intoned. Predicted instability in the Middle East and southern Asia for a long time to come.

Now for a general comparison between the American system and its Egyptian counterpart. A broad brush, without elaboration. With the usual pitfalls of any comparative presentation:

(1) On Exceptionalism: In their different ways, both the Americans and the Egyptian peoples consider their countries, in its environs, "exceptional."

(2) On Their Constitutions: America amends (27 Amendments); Egypt starts anew -without too many variations. Its first Constitution of 1923 was fine. But the lore of opening a new page is an Egyptian constitutional trait.

(3) On Obama and El-Sisi as President: In America, Obama is the first Afro-American to occupy the White House. In Egypt, El-Sisi is the first President with a military background to occupy "Al-Itihadiyyah" after open and fair popular elections.

(4) On Congress and Parliament: The first Egyptian parliament was held in 1860s. Less than a hundred years following the first U.S. Congress. The present Egyptian Parliament has just been convened in fulfilment of the Road Map of 2013.

(5) On Diversity: America prides itself on it. A nation of immigrants. In Egypt, once the secularists prevailed over the Islamists as of June 30, 2013, diversity was restored. In terms of Muslim/Christian harmony; women in high places; and other areas guaranteed by the 2014 secularist Constitution.

(6) On Foreign Policy: Both America and Egypt are pivoting in new directions. America towards the Asia/Pacific area. Egypt towards a balance between east, attention to the Gulf, and south, attention to the greater Nile region. Now what Egypt needs is to open up to Iran. America has done it through the nuclear deal.

(7) On the Armed Forces: Hallowed in both countries as bulwarks of security, sovereignty, and national pride. The essential differences are compulsory draft in Egypt, and the existence of national guards in every one of the 50 American states.

(8) On Religion and the State: The defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2013 signaled the end of the lurch towards the islamization of the State. Keeping religion out of politics is constitutionally guaranteed in both countries.

(9) On the Media: In Egypt, media analysis is largely not supported by facts. In America, analysis is largely devoid of on in-depth knowledge of the Egyptian/Arab street.

(10) On Love of Country: Nearly the same in both countries. Different tributes. In America "God Save the United States of America." In Egypt "Tahya Misr" (Long Live Egypt).

(11) On War: Both countries now value staying out of war adventures. Result of war has been now seen in both Washington and Cairo as destructive of nation-building at home.

(12) On Terrorism: The fight is one. Different fronts. Different means. Same goal.

The durability of America relies on multiple back-up systems. In Egypt, the back-up system is a long continuous history going back to the days of the Pharaohs!! 

Happy 5th Anniversary for the Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011. It ushered in the New Egypt. Where Tomorrow Starts Today.

It Is Truly Uncommon!! But Between ISIS and Trump, There Are Certain Things In Common!!

Incredible. The super rich Trump and the super rich ISIS. In America, the Donald is running for President, so far as a Republican. In Syria and Iraq, Al-Baghdadi is running as a terrorist for the Caliphate.

In America, Trump has 14 other competitors saying "he is no good." In Syria and Iraq, there is a fractured international coalition, saying "ISIS is no good." But Trump has his own plane, his own helicopter. ISIS has its own tunnels and human shields to protect its forces from the coalition's air strikes.

Since June 2015, all American pundits assured their audiences that the Trump bubble would soon burst. But the Trump "bubble," if it is a bubble, has now expanded. Became a tent for its adherents. Same with ISIS. Predictions of its disappearance soon proved pre-mature. Like the Mark Twain famous saying: "News of my demise are greatly exaggerated."

But the real commonality between Trump and ISIS is akin to a domain previously reserved for the Nazi propagandist Goebbels. The big lie technique. The bravado!! The blustering swaggering conduct. The pretense of bravery. The slate of being foolhardy.

Here are the elements in common between those two phenomena: Trump and ISIS, the inhabitants of fool's paradise. Gleaned over a period of time from what they say.

• "I'll Make America Great Again." Says Trump. "I'll Make Islam Great Again!!" Says ISIS. But how? "When I become President, I shall make our military so powerful, so strong, nobody shall dare mess with us." In Trump's words. "We shall fight on either to victory or to martyrdom." Declares the ISIS propaganda machine.
• "I, Donald J. Trump, hereby call for banning all Muslims from entering America. See what happened in Paris, in California." Trump intones. Great fodder for the ISIS propaganda department. Picked up by an affiliate -Al-Shabab in Somalia and Kenya. A video on Trump played over and over and over again. Affiliates of ISIS rush in with reinforcements. Declaring that all non-Muslims hate Islam. Islam, they claim, is at war. Especially with America.
• And Trump is ready to oblige. "Obama is a Muslim. He is not even born in America. Obama is Kenyan. I'm not at all sure who he is. But one thing I know: He is the worst President in the history of this country," Declared Trump. Al-Baghdadi of ISIS and his goons are ready to recruit, especially from among Muslims in Europe and America. "We call on all Muslims to come to the Islamic State. That is where you will be safe. Will be respected." An inducement beamed by all social media controlled by ISIS. A million tweets daily, luring the disaffected to the dungeons of ISIS. To its dark underground vaults.
• "If we want to defeat ISIS, let us take all oil in the Middle East. You take the oil, you defund ISIS." Implores Trump. "Arab oil is Muslim oil. It belongs in Bait Al-Mal (The Islamic Exchequer). Our natural and national resources. It is to be sold to fund jihad." An ISIS stance whereby oil flows for sale through Turkey. Black gold, not under Trump's thumb. But under ISIS control.
• On the stump, and to the wild cheers of supporters in Burlington, Vermont, Trump declares that Iran is a mortal enemy. "The worst deal was the Iran nuclear deal. They get $150 billion from US (in fact it is Iran's money), and keep their nuclear program as well. We are very stupid." And thousands of Vermont citizens go wild. Cheering repeatedly: "Trump!! Trump!! Trump!!" ISIS is also on board there. But from a different angle. "Shii Iran is the enemy of all Sunnis. They want to take over the gulf. The Saudis cannot stop Iran. But ISIS can." Blares unthinkingly the bullhorns of ISIS.
• "Yes, yes..." cried Trump. "Iran has taken over Iraq. It now controls the second largest oil reserves in the world. Next only to Saudi Arabia. So now they are fixing their gaze on Saudi Arabia. That Kingdom is Iran's next victim. And Washington will do nothing about the Ayatollahs." From Trump's declarations. Again ISIS is on board. "Jihadism is the answer. Shiism is apostasy. We are the troops of true Islam." An ISIS propaganda tack. Used for legitimating their barbarism. Their butchery.
• "What? A guy over there is protesting?! Take him out. He does not belong here. He is nobody. Kick him out. But keep his jacket. Don't give him his coat. It is 10 degrees below zero outside. Yes. Keep his coat." So orders Trump his security bouncers. ISIS has its goons as well. They do not kick their opponents out. They need them as human shields, as female comfort for their operatives (fornication jihad), or for huge ransoms if allowed to migrate. ISIS does not keep the coats of their opponents. They keep their heads. Severed from their bodies.
• "I fund my own campaign." So says Trump. "I am smart, rich, and I am not part of the establishment. I don't know what 'political correctness' is all about." Trump's political ID. ISIS, too, is proud of its self-sufficiency. Tired of the establishment. To them Islamic scholars are the "Sultan's scholars." Hirelings for authority. Persons who serve for hire. Especially for purely mercenary motives.
• "My rallies are attended by thousands upon thousands. From all kinds of classes. They love me. Because I am successful, independent. Even ashamed of my own Republican party. My Republican opponents?! Ha!! They are falling down one by one. They have no energy. Look at Jeb Bush. He is a loser. I opposed the war on Iraq." Well, guess what?! So claims ISIS regarding its opponents. Whether Sunnis or Shiis. The stridency of ISIS is getting louder, especially when they are losing ground. "God is on our side!!" Shout the ISIS media. "Our energy is unlimited. The war on Iraq was a war on Islam. Also for oil." An ISIS persistent claim.
• Both Trump and ISIS are presently surfing the same dark waves. Waves of discontent, resentment, frustration, and lack of education and opportunity. 
• And the hordes of each of the two, Trump and ISIS, are hungry for non-sensical rhetoric (the old art of empty oratory) pleasing to the ear, non-penetrating of closed minds.
• Anti-feminism is also a common denominator between Trump and ISIS. Admittedly not in the same degree or on the same grounds. For Trump, a woman TV anchor, when tough in questioning him, "has blood oozing from her everywhere." And Hillary Clinton, the anticipated Democratic rival of Trump for the presidency "cannot be a commander-in-chief. She lacks stamina" -declared the Donald of multiple divorces. For ISIS, women are not equal to men. They belong behind the niqab (covering the entire face, except for the eyes). This is Sharia -claims the ISIS platform. Forgetting that women sat with the Prophet Muhammad at his decision-making councils. And at times, their advice prevailed over his.
• Both Trump and ISIS claim total fidelity to God. Though God is one, one for all faiths, Trump, in a play towards the evangelicals of Iowa declares "I am a true Christian, a protestant." 
• Of course, for ISIS, Islam is a trade. It is a bargaining chip -used to demonize Christians, Jews, and all other religions. Even non-sympathetic Sunnis are mortal enemies to ISIS. For both Trump and ISIS, God is an item for sale. A stock in trade. 
• A final crazy refrain from Don Quixote, now back to life as Don Trump. "I'll bomb everywhere!! I don't care." This is what ISIS does. Same threatening language. As they manipulate social media in the most insane social ways.
• Both Trump and ISIS have also one feature in common: They both are headed toward failure. Their calls are false; their cause is transient; their adversaries are closing on; their rhetoric shall soon be forgotten; their promises are unattainable.

Their advocacy is reminiscent of the fearsome Wizard of Oz. -An empty shell. At the end of it, comes the famous call: "There is no place like home." 

Home is a sane America. And a sane Muslim world. Neither one is an enemy of the other. Trump's towers are not real towers. And Al-Baghdadi caliphate is only a mirage. The commonality between the two is merely transitory.

America Now Says: "Old Ways of Military Intervention Don't Pay!!"

Its first President and liberator has said it. "No entangling alliances," It was George Washington's wise counsel to the U.S. More than 200 years later, another great American general, an Afro-American, also said it. Colin Powell as Secretary of State said: "Before we get militarily involved, we must have an exit strategy."

But then America lost its way. Duped by the war lords into attacking Iraq in 2003. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, coalesced around the idea of war on Iraq would be a bonanza for the U.S. Intelligence assessments were tampered with. Expert reports were commissioned to produce desired conclusions. First: that Saddam was in league with Al-Qaeda. Second: Saddam's lie about possessing weapons of mass destruction should be manipulated.

Results: Colin Powell appeared before the UN Security Council advocating the necessity of war on Iraq. Presenting false evidence, a pack of lies given to him by the CIA, on Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Lies within lies. America attacked. When those WMD could not be found, the war lords had a stupid answer: "We shall eventually find them." None could be found.

So from 2003 to 2011, when US troops had to leave Iraq (a raging Sunni rebellion, and Maliki's refusal to extend American military stay), Iraq was left earth-scorched. Rampant sectarianism; destroyed infra-structure; non-trained Iraqi army; and calls by Vice President Biden for splitting Iraq in 3 statelets.

The voids were quickly filled. In Erbil, Kurdistan, with oil emerging to challenge Baghdad. Musab Al-Zarqawi, a thuggish jihadi in Anbar split from Al-Qaeda. After his liquidation by an American predator air strike, his successor was a more brutal thug - Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

With Syria in flames, as of March 2011, against Bashar, ISIS, now split from Al-Qaeda, acquired a new "capital." Raqqa in northeastern Syria, became an ISIS hub. A hub with oil, money, propaganda, and welcoming Sunni allies in Anbari Iraq.

And with a huge arsenal of American war materiel left behind, the highly trained Saddam's war generals found a new employer: ISIS. Mosul, the second largest Iraqi city, a ripe low hanging fruit, fell to ISIS. Nearly without a shot being fired.

America did not create ISIS. But America's war on Iraq did. As ISIS gained foreign recruits, nearly 3000 from Europe and America, it finds its criminal jihadis ready to strike. Inside and outside of the Arab world. Paris and San Bernardino, California were wake-up calls for America. One jihadi-directed; the other jihadi-inspired. Same result.

And as America packages its commercial products, so does it engage in collective punishment. Branding Muslims as potential jihadis. Producing calls from seekers of the US presidency in 2016, such as Donald Trump, for sanctioning 1.6 billion Muslims. Demented claims that "Islam Is Jihadism."

A lunacy gone too far -as declared especially by Republicans. A dilemma between going too far, and protecting America from Jihadism. So now we have the pendulum swinging again towards a middle ground.

• Tightening visa requirements with regard to applicants from mostly Muslim countries;
• Acknowledging that American intervention abroad negates the wisdom of "no entangling alliances;"
• Abandoning the myth of "nation-building" abroad, as a formula proving "non-working" in both Iraq and Afghanistan;
• Tacit approval of the Obama doctrine on Middle East conflicts -basically no American ground troops fighting those wars. The locals should do it;
• Focusing on nation-building in America: the economy; jobs; banking regulation; health care; the middle class needs. And a focus on technology, including a smaller but highly tech armed forces.

Now we have in America a civilian side to the Obama doctrine. "No nation-Building" abroad is complementary to no military footprint in the Middle East. Leading from behind militarily. A laserbeam focus on internal American issues. Including gun control through executive action.

In essence, the "civilianization" of the Obama military doctrine. Of course it has its opponents among the Republican neo-conservatives, the Tea Party, the evangelicals, and the war lords of the Bush Jr. administration.

Which side will win? I am betting on the success of those who espouse "no-intervention." The exigencies of the economy and the cost of monitoring jihadism through intelligence-sharing, mainly with NATO allies are crucial factors.

What does this mean to the Arab and Muslim worlds?

• Dictatorships are not a problem for America. They are the problem of the locals;
• Human rights throughout the world should be respected. But they should not be defended by the force of American arms;
• In fact the consequences of the fall from power of Saddam and Qaddafi are now being re-interpreted in America. "America would have been safer from jihadism if Saddam and Qaddafi were still in power. They were America's first lines of defense. Terrible dictators for Iraqis and Libyans. But America's safety is American's concern."
• Music to the ears of Bashar, the Syrian killer. But to the present American thinking: "Better Bashar than the unknown."

A near perfect alignment with American attempts to work with Russia, Iran and Turkey. And if Riyadh is upset, so be it.

It is now common knowledge that outside intervention is costly to the intervener in both blood and treasure. This is while those losses are usually compounded by uncertainties: Would the intervener gain at home from the intervention abroad? Of course Russia's intervention in the Syrian war by conventional weapons guarantees Moscow no net benefits.

By contrast, America's caution in regard to that very complex war arena carries with it its own benefits. Obama's Republican detractors are left in the dust howling: "Obama is weak." 

How can he be weak when he has turned the negatives of American footprint intervention into a positive? Primarily through enhanced arms sales to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Let the natives fight their wars with American arms, under multibillion dollar sales, supplies, continuous modernization, and constant training.

On this issue, the annual report by the Congressional Research Services, a division of the Library of Congress, has astounding revelations. It reports that the U.S. now controls over half of the global arms trade.

This is great economic, strategic and political news. Their delivery to Congress seems to command symbolic, if not statutory, timing. With an imaginary ribbon on top, that annual report came to Congress at Christmas, 2015.

American weapons receipts rose to $36.2 billion in 2014 from $26.7 billion the year before. A jump of 35%. Even as the lucrative weapons market was adversely affected by the free fall in oil prices. Russia was a distant second (only $10.2 billion in arms sale); Sweden was third ($5.5 billion); France was fourth ($4.4 billion); and China was fifth ($2.2 billion).

Connecting the dots, you would find a logical relation between America's opting to stay out of direct intervention, while enhancing its lucrative arms sales.

In a lecture at the American University in Cairo (AUC), delivered on October 18, 2015, I presented "The Obama Doctrine on Middle East conflicts." Its heart was the avoidance of intervention. But its main background was the calamitous American war adventurism in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Calamitous for the following reasons:

• Its faulty motivation was 9/11. But Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the perpetrator of that heinous crime;
• The Bush Jr. presidency was largely in the grip of four war mongers: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith. This gang of four set aside sober CIA analysis. Replaced it by fabricated reports on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction;
• As said above, that fabricated intelligence was fed to the UN Security Council. In February 2003. Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, presented imaginary evidence on biological weapons. A total lie; the war mongers called those fabrications "alternative intelligence;"
• With massive US military force slamming into Iraq in March 2003, Baghdad fell in less than 3 weeks. Saddam and his two sons fled. Later to be found and killed;
• Within weeks after Saddam, Iraq was in total chaos. Symbolized by a young Iraqi student crying: "My destiny is lost;"
• Yet Rumsfeld gloated in his press conferences that "America brought freedom to Iraq. And freedom is untidy."
• Paul Bremmer was dispatched to Iraq in May 2003. A total idiot who presided over de-Baathification and over the firing of a mighty Iraqi army, largely officered by Sunnis; he knew no Arabic; he had no inkling about Arab/Iraqi tribal culture;
• The Sunni massive rebellion in the north against the occupation, was the incubator of ISIS that in 2014 controlled one-third of Iraq, including Mosul.
• Said Richard Clarke, a former US presidential advisor on anti-terrorism: "If there was no American invasion, no ISIS would have emerged;" and
• Aside from ISIS, the Iraq war resulted in the death of 150,000 Iraqis and 5,000 Americans; in the massive loss of trillions of dollars; in entrenching sectarianism which is now tearing Iraq apart; and in the flood of migrants heading toward the West.

Not one of the gang of four perpetrators of that calamitous war, named above, even apologized for their actions. Actions which may be considered war crimes.

America's war on Iraq was aptly described by Fareed Zakaria, on CNN on December 27, 2015: "The Long Road to Hell." The Bush Jr. administration was drunk with power.

Now sits in the Oval Office, "a sober president," Obama, who now has laid a firm foundation for non-intervention. The cherished calm, relatively speaking, after a war-infected hurricane period.

This new commitment is also expected to catapult into the Oval Office, the first woman president -Hillary Clinton. Even calamities, like the war on Iraq, could become historical game-changers.

As for the New Egypt, these consequences are largely of no direct consequence. Except for more American respect for "the Strong State." The victory in Egypt of the secularists over the Islamists of "Al-Noor," in the recent Egyptian parliamentary elections should augur well for a refurbished Cairo-Washington reconnection.

History seems to be on the side of this evolution. To America of today, fluidity of alliances with Middle Eastern States is the norm. The magnetism of Middle Eastern oil is now gone as a glue to such alliances. Selectivity and temporariness of these old alliances are now dictated by two factors operating in the New America: Need and cost.

The deal with Iran on the nuclear file is pervasively instructive: Delay the day of a nuclear Iran at the cost of making Saudi Arabia jittery. And punish an Iranian challenge of missile development which will not be stopping it (President Rouhani is pushing for more). Yet America is bound to release $55 billion to Iran, which is Iranian money deposited in non-American banks. And continue to support Riyadh's war on Yemen!!

These are highly nuanced American foreign policies which may be difficult for Riyadh to absorb. A situation which gives Riyadh palpitations, but offers Washington internally some relief from the onus of an association with a State which greets the New Year with the execution of 26 persons accused, without evidentiary support, of terrorism.

Reflecting this pervasive trend toward avoidance by America of intervention in Middle East conflicts is to be found also in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress in December 2015.

The bill allocated for the Pentagon $58.7 billion to continue fighting ISIS. But mainly only from the air. With Congress thereby abdicating its exclusive constitutional responsibility to declare war, the White House is left to implement the Obama doctrine of war avoidance.

It is not that Obama is weak. He draws more strength from being in his last year as President. No more worries regarding re-election. His executive pen is at the ready. Even in regard to closing Guantanamo. It is Congress that is weakened by its partisan conflicts. And ideological paralysis.

Happy New Year To All Readers!!

A Crazy Call For America To Sanction The New Egypt

Hard to believe, but true. A Michael Wahid Hanna writes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that Egypt is "an unreliable partner" of the U.S.

His crazy call for sanctioning the New Egypt comes wrapped in Egyptophobia. As a "Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation" and "an adjunct at New York University School of Law," Hanna has plenty of room to hallucinate in that article titled "Time to Rethink Relations."

How? Primarily through "lowering the total of the annual amount (of U.S. military aid) from $1.3 billion to around $500 million." For what reason? "To alter Egypt's negative trajectory" through "expressing U.S. displeasure with the status quo."

But what "status quo" is that Michael Wahid Hanna referring to? The Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel concluded in 1979 and is still observed by the two sides. That is in spite of the howling hurricane of the so-called Arab Spring.

How would tampering by America, who is the guarantor of that peace between Israel and one-third of the Arab world which calls itself Egypt, affect that historic peace? Hanna skirts that crucial issue of cause and effect. He offers no gems of wisdom on that matter. That is not his concern. His concern is to drum up Egyptophobia at whatever cost. Hanna's demons cannot be silenced.

Suppose Washington, D.C. acts on Michael Wahid Hanna's muddled day dreams of sanctioning the New Egypt. Where would those fictitious savings garnered from U.S. military aid go?

Ah!! Our Michael has a plan for where those illegal cuts go. He howls his solution. "The United States should consider diverting future military assistance to more reliable allies" in the area. Like whom, Michael? "Such as Jordan."

And supposed Jordan, a valiant Arab sister State of Egypt, but with a fraction of the size of the Egyptian military, cannot absorb those savings? Then to who else, Mr. Hanna?

"To partners that need help far more urgently than Egypt, such as Iraq." Did you say "Iraq," Mr. Hanna? Where is that? Hasn't Iraq, outside of Kurdistan, spurned a security arrangement with America, in order to accommodate Iran?

OK!! Details trouble Wahid Hanna. So he shifts directions in the same breath. Which directions: "Or to States in the region that are transitioning to democracy more successfully, such as Tunisia."

Oh, my God, Michael!! You make me a bit dizzy by your zigs and zags all over the Arab area. Of course Egypt wishes Tunisia, her sister Arab State, well. But I must admit to my slow thinking. Where is the Tunisian successful transitioning to democracy? Hasn't a prolonged state of emergency been declared in Tunisia by President El-Sibsi (not to be confused with the name of El-Sisi of Egypt)?

Now we reach the root cause of what ails the brain of Michael Wahid Hanna about Egypt of June 30, 2013. The ouster of the diabolic Muslim Brotherhood from power. Not by the army supported by popular demand, as our Hanna, with a defective bull horn, is screaming his head off. But by popular demand supported by the army. The Egyptians, 35 million of them, were the prime movers. The army simply protected them!!

Please Michael. Those, like you and your friend, David Kirkpatrick, another Egyptphobe writing in the New York Times, are not "aficionados" of history. So it behooves you not to try to revise it.

Mr. Hanna: You begin your 7 page article in Foreign Affairs of November/December 2015 by a provocative paragraph. In it, you make a bogus claim stating: "There are no longer any compelling reasons for Washington to sustain especially close ties with Cairo."

Then you compound that mystery by unabashedly saying without any proof: "What was once a powerfully symbolic alliance with clear advantages for both sides has become a nakedly transactional relationship." Sir: Are there any alliances which are not transactional? Name just one, if you can.

In America, we teach in law and political science that alliances are predicated upon mutuality of interest. That alliances are generally based on parity of sovereignty. That alliances need to be perceived, and are in fact of mutual benefit to the two sides. That is unless they are based on duress. In this case, they are colonial contracts between an imperial power and its protectorate.

So where do you draw your learning about alliances, Mr. Hanna? And how do you substantiate your naked claim that the Cairo/Washington, D.C. present relationship "benefits the Egyptians more than the Americans?" Nuts!!

If that is the case, and it is imaginary, or at best a hypothetical case, why does the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, keep on having a stop in Egypt a near permanent feature of his shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East? Even to the point of attending recently in Sharm El-Sheikh, a mammoth Economic Conference organized by President El-Sisi!!

Let us now look for even a scintilla of logic to justify any of your claims, Michael, in that issue of Foreign Affairs.

You, seemingly inexpertly in the art of logical argumentation and presentation, lump disjointedly three different issues. A compounded and an inarticulate compendium of situations affecting the New Egypt with which you contemptuously deal. Here it comes:

"After a popular uprising followed by an authoritarian relapse in Cairo, and with the peace process moribund, and jihadism now a chronic condition, the U.S. - Egyptian relationship has become an anachronism that distorts American policy in the region."

Allow me to help out in disentangling the disparate elements of that overburdened paragraphic sentence.

• Your charge of authoritarianism is totally unfounded. El-Sisi became president through open and fair elections held in June 2014; his elevation came in accordance with a Constitution adopted in a popular referendum held that year; and the consensual Road Map has now been implemented by a free and open popular elections. 
• In those elections, the Islamist party of "Al-Noor" suffered defeat, and the secularists, as evidenced by "The Free Egyptians" party of the Coptic entrepreneur Naguib Sawiris, triumphed. So if you happen to be an Egyptian Copt, as your name leads me to suspect, you should be dancing in the aisle.
• Where do you find "the peace process moribund?" I hope that you know some Latin to realize that "moribund" comes from the Latin "moribundus," meaning "at the point of death." In fact Hamas and its terror-supported organizations such as "The Friends of Beit Al-Maqdis," has kept Egypt in their cross-hairs. Their declared reason: Cooperation with Israel through blocking the terrorists attempts to transfer the conflict with Israel from Gaza to Sinai. A well-known ISIS tactic.
• As for jihadism being "now a chronic condition," you are right, Mr. Hanna. But only on the surface. Making jihadism a chronic condition attaching only to Egypt is an insult to the innocent victims of jihadism in Paris, Brussels, California, Turkey, Mali, Russia, Syria and Iraq.
• And how is that situation causing "the U.S. - Egyptian relationship" become a factor that "distorts American policy in the region?" Your claim has an appropriate term in American contract law. It goes by the name of "nudum factum." Meaning bereft of facts justifying your claim. To elaborate: A bare contract or agreement that amounts to merely a naked promise. Sorry, Michael, your argument has no leg to stand upon.

Of course, Mr. Hanna, there is a distinct possibility that you, with your senior position at "The Century Foundation," are not keen on the facts of this Century. Otherwise  how are the following known facts "distorting American policy in the region?" The reverse is the only reality:

• Allowing American military aircraft to fly over Egyptian airspace;
• Egyptian provision to U.S. naval ships of fast track access to the Two Suez Canals;
• Provision by Cairo of diplomatic support for American regional policies, with regard to the Gulf region;
• Egyptian American resumed joint military exercises;
• Provision of eight F-16 U.S. aircraft to the Egyptian air force;
• Continued training of Egyptian elements of the armed forces in the U.S.;
• Military Egyptian involvement with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and the U.S. in the present conflict in Yemen;
• The U.S. opening to Egypt of the alliance with other Arab States in combating ISIS; 
• The recognition, in fact the praise, of Egypt's massive contribution to the fight against ISIS on two priority fronts, Sinai and the Libyan border;
• The expected stationing of the two Egyptian aircraft carriers recently purchased by Egyptian funds from France at the Libyan border and opposite the troubled Gaza coastline near the northern terminus to the Suez Canals.

The list can go on and on. Including the involvement by Egypt of U.S. energy companies in the exploration of the newly discovered natural gas reserves in the Western Desert and the Delta.

Mr. Hanna: Please get it in your head that what we have today is a new Middle East where America, through the Obama doctrine on Middle East conflicts, wants the Arabs to take care of their defense needs.

You must be comatose when you allege in your article that "Egypt has an interest in pursuing counter terrorism for its own reasons." Anti-jihadism has eliminated your outdated fiction of each State should combat jihadism only for "its own reasons." Jihadism knows no boundaries. So should anti-jihadism.

And if anti-jihadism requires "a religious counter-attack," where would you find the rich ideological resources for that lethal weapon in places which are better than Al-Azhar of more than a thousand years?

Could you also please help me understand this foolish assertion of yours: "In short, the regional landscape has been transformed, and Egypt has been left behind. Egypt is no longer an influential regional player. Instead, it is a problem to be managed." Is it because Egypt is turning from chaos to the strong State? A problem to be managed?! I haven't heard that term since the publication of my book in 1971 on "decolonization."

How laughable!! The only problem to hopefully be managed is your Egyptophobia. Compounded by your approbation of the reign of Islamic hegemony in Egypt for one year (2012-2013) by the Muslim Brotherhood.

You seem to regard Egyptian sovereignty as either for sale, or as a legitimate target for unilateral U.S. sanctions.  Whatever you believe, you, Michael Wahid Hanna, are on the wrong side of history.

And were you to find a magic cure for your myopia, you would see that a focus on internal affairs following upheavals, is not equivalent to becoming a marginal player either regionally or globally. Both America, following its five losing wars, and Egypt, following four years of upheavals preceded by 32 years of stagnation, are doing the same. Each of them are rebuilding their infrastructure, creating jobs, improving their educational systems. All acts of fusion of internal energy. Because national salvation begins from within.

So keep on whistling in the wind, Michael!! You wouldn't even get the benefit of an echo chamber!!

Reason: From your writings and your responses to Egyptophobes in The New York Times, you have stayed the course of the equivalent of "Uncle Tom" in regard to the New Egypt. Under the guise of freedom of expression, you seem to have made of your anti-Egyptian phobias a lucrative industry. Your neo-colonialism revival is sure to fail.

Michael Wahid Hanna: You have a bullhorn and an audience. Instruments which you are using in support of your merchantilist approach to the New Egypt. But please note an undisputed fact regarding your success in spreading mythology about Egypt -a rising strong State. You are operating in a Post-Fact America.

In North America, Two Outlooks on Muslims: Canada is Kinder , America is Weary!!

His appearance at the airport in Toronto in December carried an entire message. Young photogenic Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hugging the Syrian refugees. Putting warm jackets on their backs. Declaring to them and to the whole world: "Welcome to Canada. You are at home now!!" They, have reached a safe harbor.

Contrast this to the bluster of America's Trump. He, a fool, does not speak for America. But he is the poster idiot of a mean America. And no one in the Republican establishment dealt harshly with his profane calls for: A database for American citizens who happen to be Muslims; a non-return to America of those citizens; a total ban on the entry of other Muslims to America, even for study or family reunification.

Trump (or Chump) glories in anti-Islamism. And in anti-Latinos. And in anti-women. And in anti-peace. His mantra, which is a call for an American Sparta, is "Make America Great Again." 

A demented buffoon who is exposing America to the wrath of 1.6 Billion Muslims. Daring to fight the world from fictitious citadels called "The Trump Towers." Punching the air with his fists, saying: "I am rich" -a stupid qualification for ruling a super-power.

Now to Canada. That is where you find its Prime Minister on hand at the Toronto airport welcoming Syrian refugees. But that was one aspect of Canada's kinder outlook on Muslims and non-Muslims. Fleeing their countries westward in search for safety.

That phenomenon was best described by Obama. Standing on December 15 in Washington, D.C. delivering an address at a citizenship ceremony, he graphically summed up the migrants dilemma. He likened Syrians fleeing the civil war in their native country to the Jews who fled the Nazis.

But in America these words do not compare to actions and public campaigns in Canada. A gulf of differences between two outlooks.

For in Canada:

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau keeps on repeating: "Extending the sins of the Islamic State group to all Muslims is irresponsible,"
• He also adds: "There shouldn't be a contradiction between what it takes to keep us safe and what it takes to keep us Canadian.;"
• At the provincial level, political leaders, like Andrea Horwath calls on the Ontario government to face up to racial issues. This is to be accomplished through action on legislation providing for setting up a secretariat to conduct public education and research on racism.
• The hallmark of schools in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is extra help provided by teachers to immigrant children. These are traumatized kids of very diverse backgrounds;
• During the Christmas season, front page newspaper articles project the beginning of the healing process for new immigrant arrivals. Photos are splashed for toddlers lighting prayer candles at the St. Mary Armenian Apostolic Church;
• A chorus of hundreds of children of different faiths singing the greeting extended to the Prophet Muhammad by the residents of Medina upon his arrival, fleeing persecution in Mecca 1437 years ago;
• The Canadian Government, through its Minister of Immigration, keeps on increasing the figures of migrants from Islamic lands fleeing into the welcoming arms of non-Muslim western countries.
• By contrast, Saudi Arabia which prides itself on being the Custodian of the holiest of Islamic shrines in Mecca and Medina, had an obtuse response to this humanitarian calamity. Its foreign minister's response was: "Many Saudis are married to Syrian women." Four million Syrians have fled their war-ravaged country since its slide into civil war in 2011.
• During the Canadian elections of October 2015, the majority of Canadian voters showed their disgust for what the Toronto Star of December 15, 2015 described in graphic terms. It attributed the defeat of the conservative government of Stephen Harper to Canada's "own version of ugly Muslim-baiting by politicians desperate for votes."
• One of the top columnists of the same newspaper had his column in the same issue headlined: "Would Trump flourish here? Unlikely." The columnist Irvin Studin explained why. Here is what he opined:
• "The recent call by US presidential candidate Donald Trump for the wholesale exclusion of Muslims from entry into the United States can only give thinking Canadians some degree of comfort that our founders created Canada, in constitutional terms, as the negation of the American project."

Of course, in America, the Trump voice is rather negated by liberal editorial writings in The New York Times. In its issue of December 5, 2015, one such editorial was titled: "Fear Ignorance, Not Muslims." Following the San Bernardino massacre, the editorial commented as follows:

"Wherever the investigation leads, Americans must guard against overreacting, and subdue the panicked reflex of distrust and hatred towards the Americans among us who are Muslims. This has been a problem at least since 9/11 and will remain one as long as ignorance about Islam remains deep and widespread."

Wise words. But American public opinion continues to give the lunacy of Trump thumbs up. No less than 65% of Americans recently polled supported Trump's advocacy for a ban on Muslims. This is not only unconstitutional under several US constitutional provisions. It is also a clear violation of international law principles dealing with "freedom of movement" as a human right.

But here we must keep in mind the individual instances in Canada of a bias against some Muslims. Reference here is made to putting a woman teacher on leave for wearing the hijab.

That teacher undoubtedly believes that hijab is decreed by the Quran for Muslim females. She is wrong, as such an injunction cannot be textually proven by the Quran to be an obligation. The most charitable description of the hijab phenomenon is to say that only after the Khomeini Islamic revolution in 1979 was that fad elevated to a fareedha (obligation).

This issue is ironically further compounded by brutal enforcement in Wahhabi lands by a religious police called, for obfuscation: "The Volunteers" (Al-Mottaween). Storm troops with canes ready to strike without legal sanction.

These are lands which are divorced from the spirit of Islam as a faith continually evolving to accommodate changing circumstances. Particularly in regard to integration with legislated laws and customary practices in countries to which Muslims emigrate. This is the essence of what the Quran states 21 times as HEKMAH (the reasoning based on common sense).

We all recall how The Muslim Brotherhood, during its fascist one year rule in Egypt (2012-2013) terrorized the Copts. A lesson which the New Egypt, under El-Sisi, is not likely to forget anytime soon. It was a violation of the DNA of historic Egypt of 7000 years as a State.

Thus in regard to anti-Islamism, the issue is multi-faceted. Both Muslims as well as non-Muslims still have a way to go before mutual accommodation.

But the efforts at such accommodation seem to be more manageable, more promising, in Canada than in the U.S.A.

A Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to All!

In the Voice of the Baby of the San Bernardino Killers

Mom and Dad

Wherever You Both Are Now 

Maybe In a Bad Place

After You Killed the Innocent

oooo

You Left Me With Grandma 

Who Awaited Your Joyous Return

To Pick Me Up, Change Me

And Feed Me

oooo

But You Never Did

Only Your Images

On the Somber TV

When You Moved Among the Living

oooo

Why Did You Do It?

All That San Bernardino Killing

Of Moms and Dads

Whose Families Are In Mourning

oooo

Your Names Are Deceptive

For Rizwan Means God's Blessing

And Malik Is One Name

For God Almighty

oooo

Neither Malik Nor Rizwan

Shall Be On Your Side

Especially That Farook

Means Separating Right From Wrong

oooo

These Are Muslim Names

Intended To Glorify

The Oneness of God

Whom You Have Grossly Deceived

oooo

I See All Those Faces

Whose Bodies are Lifeless

Cause You Acted As Life-Enders

While We Worship Life-Givers

oooo

Life-Givers Like Robert, Bennetta

Aurora, Sierra, and Shannon

And Daniel, Damian, and Tin

And Nicholas, Yvette and Michel

oooo

They Trusted You, Your Co-Workers

As Did America, the Giver,

Treated You As All Others

Your Faith Was No Problem

oooo

Where is Pakistan

And Where Is Saudi Arabia

I Only Know The USA

As My Birthplace, My Birthright

oooo

My Home Where When I Grow

I Can Be Equal To Men

I Can Learn and Endear

All Others Under Our Flag

oooo

Now With Your Victims Gone

To A Place Better Than Yours

I Am Here Left Behind

Baring The Shame of Being Yours

oooo

Of What Can I Be Proud

With Whom Shall I Play

Your Pictures Are Not Glorified

Your Faith is Tainted

oooo

Those Flowers, Those Candles

Those Moans Of The Injured

Those Vigils Are But Cursing You

And Blurring My Future

oooo

I Did Nothing Except Being Born

To Parents With a Pact

A Pact With Those Far Away

From The Sacred Bond of Mercy

oooo

Your ISIS, Your Bullets

Your Guns, Your Grenades

Have Taken Over My Space

Space of Toys, Love and Light

oooo

How Dark It Is To Peer

Into A Future I Don't Know

Filled Of Fog and Doubt

About Whatever Follows Thereafter

oooo

On Your Epitaph, 

What Shall I Place

Your Inscription On A Tomb

Would It Be Like A Curse

Of All Jihadis Like You

oooo

And What Should I Be Called

The Unloved Issue Of Killers 

Who Turned Their Blooded Backs

On Those Who Gave Them Life