Why Is the Republican Party (The Grand Old Party - GOP) Deserving of My Grand Contempt?

Mainly for two reasons: Subjecting US sovereignty to foreign interference, and to the power of special interests.  And, in the process, downgrading the majesty of the Office of the US President, for ideological reasons of the evangelical right wing.

Now to evidentiary details:

Starting with the downgrading of the majesty of the Office of the President.  It is impossible not to link between the constant attacks on Obama and his being black.  Racism in the US is a cancer in that body politic since the introduction of slavery.  Cures that have been developed, especially with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, have dealt with the outward symptoms, not with the roots.

Yes the Voting Rights Act was signed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.  But today, several States, called "red States" for being under Republican administrations, are chipping off at those rights.  Measures intended to make it ever harder for minorities (Blacks and Latinos) to exercise those rights.  The alarm bells sounded as of 2008.  The percentage of whites eligible to vote in the presidential elections, won by Obama that year, was 66% of the aggregate voters.  Guess what?  Same percentage of Black and Latino voters who rushed to the polling stations to have a man of color win.

This trend had to be obstructed, so reasoned the GOP in several states.  How could this be done without the appearance of violating the law?  Under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  It is called the supremacy clause.

This is "The United States," 50 of them; a federal system, where the states have all powers except for a few.  The few powers of the federal government are: to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce, and others.  Those "other" powers are listed.  Whatever is not listed, belongs to the states.

As stated above, voting rights are governed by the 1965 Act.  But how to exercise those rights is decided by the states.  In order to make that exercise difficult, regardless of the principle of "equality before the law," the "red" states have been very busy:  Gerrymandering of electoral districts, intended to unfairly secure disproportionate influence at elections for non-minorities.  Shortening the hours for voting.  Placing polling stations at geographically far locations.  Requiring photo identification cards.  Closing polling stations on Sunday.

Yet this is the heart of the democratic process.  A process which the US is eager to have other countries adopt.  Vigorously calling for "respect for the right of dissent."

Such roll back of minority rights is not a mere assertion of states rights.  To understand its dimension in full must include the rejection by the neo-racists of the President.  Never has a US President been more subjected to personal slurs and affronts by the right, the Tea party, the evangelists and Republicans.  The list is endless and truly disgusting.  More importantly, un-American.

Here are samples, and attribution to specific Republicans in search of nomination for the presidency in 2016:

• Marco Rubio: "The President has no class."
• Donald Trump: "I don't know who he is."
• Lindsey Graham: "I don't know whether he is Christian."
• Scott Walker: "I presume he is, because he says he is."
• Mitch Mc Connell: "We shall make sure that he is a one term President.  (On Obama's inauguration day in January 2009).
• Ted Cruz: "He is the worst President in the history of the United States."
• A congressional member yelling at the President during his delivery of the State of the Union message: "You are a liar."  Obama's restrained response: "Thank you."

How can such affronts to the present occupant of the Oval Office not be demeaning to the majesty of that Office?  How can it not affect the credibility of the U.S. world-wide when its Head-of-State is called names (including, "he is a closet Muslim") as a civil polity?  How can the principle of separation of powers, underpinned by constitutional checks and balances, maintain its efficacy in a system where the Republicans have shut down the federal government earlier.  Now, they are threatening to do the same again.

Obama is also threatened by empty Congressional proposals for impeachment.  Faced with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, he has resorted to using his constitutional instruments in defense of the executive branch.  These are: his resort to issuance of executive orders, and of the use of his veto power.  Yet as a constitutional scholar, he had sought these mechanisms sparingly.

Obama's signature accomplishment of the "Affordable Care Act" was challenged by this Republican Congress more than 40 times.  Extending health insurance to millions of uninsured Americans, largely the poor and the elderly, it has been divisively called by his opponents "The Obama Care Act."  All Republican aspirants to succeed Obama have pledged collapsing that historic Act as of "Day One in the Oval Office."

Same totally negative attitude towards Obama's repeated attempts to fix the broken system of immigration; of tax reform; of bank regulation, of income inequality, of education reform (an area reserved for the states), of gun control, and of reforming the criminal justice system.  

Even the historic trade pact with Asia was about to be killed if not for a brief moment of bipartisan support. In Singapore, Secretary of State Kerry on August 5 voiced the obvious.  "No country can expect its economy to grow simply by buying and selling to its own people."

More glaringly is Congressional blocking of Obama's attempts to close down Guantanamo.  That is where more than a hundred Muslim detainees are still languishing in legal limbo since 9/11.

They are neither charged.  Nor are they released.  Several states of the U.S. do not want them loose in their neighborhood.   And foreign States do not want them either, largely for reasons of radicalization through prolonged incarceration.  An ugly relic of the party of war -the Republican Party, which has lurched into xenophobia since the criminal acts of destruction of 9/11.

Moving along into the area of foreign policy and its reflection on war and peace, one reaches the depth of Republican Party conversion.  From the party of Lincoln, the great emancipator, to the party of endless wars.  Especially in the Middle East.

It is well-known that sovereignty is an essential requirement for the ability of a State to conduct its own foreign policy.  Thus the US Constitution has assigned to the President the following powers: "He shall have the Power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

Clear enough!!  So let us examine the chaotic situation in Congress with regard to a present issue of war and peace in the Middle East.  I am not referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where no sane leadership exists on either side: of Israel, a brutal occupier, with no regard for international law or common sense fairness.  Nor on the side of the Palestinians, forever divided, habitually corrupt, and deeply committed to the falsehood of the UN creating their State for them, rather than the State, when in being, applying for UN membership.

I am examining the Iran nuclear deal where US sovereignty and Obama's commitment to disengaging America from the endless wars in the Muslim world are implicated.

Here we have a deal reflecting the coming together of 6 States with Iran's moderate leadership. A historic agreement, reached after 16 months of arduous negotiations.  Its only goal is to prevent Iran from weaponizing its enriched uranium, and be rewarded with the lifting of sanctions and reintegration into the international community.  Iran said "yes;" Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany said "yes."  The UN Secretary Council, usually a dysfunctional body because of the veto, unanimously said "YES."

Not yet America:  In US Congress, the deal has become the latest version of a football game with no rules. Here are the unbelievable details:

• The majority of both houses cried "foul."  Claimed that Obama was "fleeced" (as per the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)  Even prior to digesting that 159 page report, they were asking for a better deal!!
• Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the great nuclear physicist, Moniz, Secretary of Energy, responded: (a) What is your "better deal;" (b) Your "disapproval" shall be vetoed by the President; (c) scuttling the deal will cause the sanctions regime to unravel; (d) Iran could be then forced to proceed to the development of a nuclear bomb; and (e) America's credibility is in the balance.
• Seventeen Republicans aspiring to occupy the Oval Office in 2017 gave these responses short shrift.  Called the deal "an appeasement" a la Munich in 1938; considered war against Iran a viable option; bought into the Netanyahu alarmist propaganda that the deal was an existential threat, not only to Israel, but to the whole world.

Then came Obama's definitive response to these falsehoods.  In his historic speech at American University in Washington, D.C. on August 5, Obama reminded the Republican Party of its horrific war misadventures in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Against the calls of out-of-control war-crazed John Bolton of "bomb Iran now," the President chuckled in derisive amazement: "Those people were wrong yesterday.  They are wrong today."  The party of war, bereft of any logical response, began to froth at the mouth:

• "The U.S. has become the main supporter of terrorism" -said Senator Ted Cruz;
• "Obama is marching the Israelis to the door of the oven." -said former Governor Mike Huckabee;
• "This is the worst President the U.S. has ever seen." -said Donald Trump.

With money pouring in for daily ads against the deal with Iran, the opposition had two very powerful backers.  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Citizens United" which considered money gifted to electoral candidates as a form of "free speech."  And AIPAC (the American Israeli Political Action Committee).  AIPAC is funding "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran" which is planning to spend $25 million to defeat that historic deal.  Of course there is no likelihood of "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Israel."

As the President met with 20 leaders of Jewish groups to win their support, Netanyahu had a packaged response to Obama's arguments about "no alternative other than war."  In blatant interference in US sovereign decisions, Israeli's Prime Minister called Obama's arguments as "utterly false."

For these reasons, the "Grand Old Party" deserves my grand contempt.  The President of the US is the constitutional manager of America's foreign affairs.  Israel is a foreign power, regardless of the degree of its strategic relationships with the US.  

I have not seen Obama pursuing Israel in regard to ending its colonist settlerism in Palestinian territories.  By the same same token, Israel should have no legitimate business in interfering blatantly in US sovereign decisions regarding what defines America's national interests.

Nothing in the annals of diplomacy is found to permit the Israeli ambassador to America to openly delve into an internal conflict between Congress and the President.  Were it the Ambassador of, say, Turkey (a NATO ally of the US), he or she would have been promptly thrown out as persona non grata.

In his speech on August 5 at American University, the US President reminded the Republican hordes of their lying to the country as they led it to the disastrous war in Iraq.  Without mincing his words, he bluntly chided their unending beating of the war drums.  Said he: "Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."

But AIPAC's director of communication, Marshall Wittman, responded to President Obama on the same day.  Lying through his teeth, he said: "To remove any misinformation or confusion, AIPAC took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war."

Then, parroting his real Master's Voice (Netanyahu's), he felt obliged to insult the American President in nearly the same words.  So Wittman added: "This is an entirely false and misleading argument."  This is not mere lobbying.  This is being "an agent of a foreign power -Israel."

Watching the first televised Republican debate among the 17 Republican aspirants for the presidential office on August 6, I turned off that miserable show with one impression: Truly pathetic!!  Felt even sorrier for America when Michele Bachman, standing on the sidelines, was interviewed.

Though she was not one of the 17, Bachman seemed to speak for all of them in regard to the Iran deal.  Her insane solution was: "Bomb Iran now because the window of opportunity is fast closing."  Bachman, the queen of Islamophobia in the U.S. had claimed that God speaks to her!!

Does she have a private God who also communicates with other select Republican war lords like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld?  Two unindicted war criminals, afraid to leave the US for fear of being bagged to the Hague to stand trial before the International Criminal Court.

Isn't America's sovereignty worthy of support?!

In the avalanche of these acrimonious diatribes, it is uplifting to discover some sane voices.  Particularly those issuing from American Jewish leaders.  In a letter to the Editor of the New York Times of August 7, one such voice said: "I believe that Netanyahu's address to American Jews on Tuesday (August 4) and his in person speech to Congress in March were wholly inappropriate, insulting to the American president and people, and constituted an intrusion by a foreign leader into American domestic politics."

The author of that letter added: "It is up to the United States to make a decision on this deal on its merits."  Well said, Mr. Seymour Reich, former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Is America's sovereignty for sale?  

What we have in America today is nothing other than a power grab by Congress of presidential prerogatives; a distortion by money and lobbyists of the popular will through fair national elections, and the demeaning spectacle of a foreign power jumping over the high fence of American sovereignty to subvert an international deal seen by the Obama Administration as in the best interest of the American people and of world peace. Let each State define by itself, and for itself, the requirements of its own security.

Yes, American sovereignty matters!!

Islamophobia Degenerating Into Anti-Islamism: An Advocacy By Ayaan Hirsi Ali For "Reforming" Islam Through Editing the Quran!!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a young woman; an ex-Muslim; an ex-Somali.  A victim of Somali tribalism: genital mutilation, and an escapee from a pre-arranged marriage.  Her pain, we understand.  But her advocacy is Islamophobia that has crossed even the line of the most vehement anti-Islamist.

Her understanding of Islam is framed through her tribal experiences.  Islam, as a faith, has nothing to do with Ayaan.  Yet, in the West, she has become the poster child of virulent anti-Islamism.  Blaming what her tribe did to her on the religion of others.  1.5 billion Muslims.  For she has never met that faith, face to face.  Has never met young Egyptian women pilots.  Has never met Saudi women lawyers.  Nor Lebanese beauties who sing and dance.

Has never comprehended the Quranic vocabulary: The word "Read" means "Learn;" the term "Ayah" (verse) does not mean the words; it means "evidence" or "proof."  She is not an Islamic scholar.  Unfortunately she made the West see the rich Islamic culture through the parched land of her ignorance.

Because of predisposition to Islamophobia, the West has been using her as an excuse.  In return, she has used western pulpits to vent her grievance.  She has been regaled by membership in the Dutch Parliament.  And now she is described in the prestigious US magazine, Foreign Affairs

as "a public intellectual."  Presently occupying a post of distinction at Harvard as a Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government.  Her writings, whether of books or articles, such as the recent one in Foreign Affairs (July/August 2015), are celebrated.  Yet their context and content are part of the oxygen that jihadism is gasping for. 

Emboldened by that misplaced attention, Ayaan has embarked on a journey for which her anti-Islamism is her only guide.

Calling for world peace through reformation of Islam.  How?  By editing the Quran.  She must know from her Somali wretched days that under Islamic dogma, the Quran is taken as the word of God.  It is not authored.  It is revealed.  This has to do with faith.  And faith is non-negotiable.

Moreover, the Quran and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad are subject to interpretation by Muslim qualified scholars.  In order to meet changing circumstances.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no faqih.  Otherwise she would have known that neither genital mutilation nor pre-arranged marriages are to be found in the Quran.

She had renounced Islam.  No big deal.  Contrary to Pakistani's anti-apostasy laws, Islam accepts apostasy.  It accepts Ayaan's decision to opt out.  The Quran says: "Surely those who disbelieve...cannot harm God in any way" (Chapter 47; verse 32).

So, Ayaan: if you are out of the game, stay out of the game.  Your pontification about "reforming" Islam through editing its primary pillar, the Qura, leads to a one-way street:  recruitment of idiots to fight for ISIS, endangering global security.

Here are the Ayaan arguments in her article in Foreign Affairs entitled "A Problem From Heaven," she starts off by: "We have a problem -not a problem from hell, but one that claims to come from heaven."  Believe what you wish Ayaan.  "In faith, there is no compulsion,"  so says the Quran -the Bible of Islam.  So why poke your stick into a hornets nest leading to more human tragedies?  Unless it is your way of victimization for validation.

• She is critical of Obama's statement before the UN General Assembly last September.  Why?  Because the U.S. President stated that "Islam teaches peace."  Well, Obama had voiced a fact. Islam means "the submission to God's will;" advocates peace; and accepts every faith, revealed or non-revealed.  What is the basis?  Tawheed (the Oneness of God).  Tawheed means that there is no special God for every faith.  In fact the God that you, Ayaan, think that you have abandoned is the same one which you have now espoused.
• She claims to be a "Muslim dissident."  How far from the truth.  And she is unaware of her own contradiction as she reports: "A few, including myself, have been forced by experience to conclude that we cannot continue to be believers.  Yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam's future."  
• I cannot find your "few."  The "few" is you.  And being "an unbeliever" by your choice is an automatic disqualification for an engagement "in the debate about Islam's future."  Reason: You cannot reform what you don't understand.  A pitchfork marauder like you, Ayaan, has no audience.  The Arab adage says: "You cannot give what you don't have."
• Ayaan then moves to the heart of her thesis.  A thesis of hallucination bred out not from the Quran and the Hadith (Muhammad's verified words and conduct.)  But from her own personal nightmare in Somalia.  Somalia the capital of Al-Shabab -a franchise of global terrorism.

First: In her misdirection, she attacks these two pillars of Islam: The Quran and the Sunna.  Saying: "the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge much less repudiate the theological warrants for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts."

Second: She also attacks Al-Azhar.  Citing one source in a statement published in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard in March 2015.  Her source, Sufyan Al-Omari blames Al-Azhar for the rise of ISIS.  He, as quoted by a very receptive Ayaan, says: "The Islamic State does not fall from the sky...The texts to which (ISIS) appeals for support are exactly what we learnt at Al-Azhar.  The difference is that (ISIS) truly puts the texts into practice."

Third:  She quotes individuals whom she describes as "Islamic thinkers" as dreaming of "a version of their religion that no longer exalts holy war, martyrdom, and life in the hereafter."

Fourth: Ayaan cites an Iraqi cleric as arguing that "the Koran was created by the Prophet Muhammad, but was driven by Allah" (Whatever "driven" means).  This, she says, was part of a report from "the Middle East Media Research Institute.  In that report, Ayaan's source "proposes a modifiable religious ruling based on fiqh al-maqasid, or the juris prudence of the meaning."

Fifth:  She calls for US intervention in support of those bogus claims.  In her words in that article, she makes this ludicrous appeal: "American presidents and Secretaries of State need not give lectures on the finer points of Islamic orthodoxy.  But it is not too much to ask them to support Islamic reform and make the fate of Muslim dissidents and reformers part of their negotiations with allies such as Saudi Arabia and foes such as Iran alike."

Now for my rebuttal.

• The U.S. Government, especially since 9/11, has committed to the advocacy that America was not at war with Islam, but with terrorism which wears a false mask emblazoned with the word "Islamic" on it.  In view of this sane policy, no intervention in religious beliefs by America could be envisioned.  This is particularly so in the light of the US constitutional provision for separation between State and church.
• Ayaan's call for US intervention in the core of Islamic faith and beliefs is based on the wrong analogy.  For she, in her article, refers to the impact of Radio Free Europe, an American medium, on the collapse of the USSR.  She is obviously oblivious of the difference between the Muslim world and the world of communism.  With the exception of the bands of terrorists, from Al-Qaeda to ISIS, the Muslim community of 57 States has never threatened US security.  The USSR did.  Two vastly different situations.
• A recent report in the New York Times headlined: "Most U.S. Attacks Are Homegrown And Not Jihadist."  And the Christian Century of May 27, 2015, in its review of a new book entitled Europe and the Islamic World concluded as follows: "Readers will come away from the book profoundly suspicious of simplistic narratives about Muslim aggression and endless jihad.  Ideally, they will also be skeptical of any claims about what Islam does, as opposed to particular States or communities."
• It is clear that Ayaan anti-Islamism, aside from deriving from her tribal experience now elevated to a whole industry, does not know:  That the term holy war is a crusader term, never an Islamic term.  That jihad in Islamic jurisprudence means "personal self-improvement" and "self-defense."  That in Islam, there is no aggressive war waged beyond your borders.  That self-sacrifice is forbidden by the very terms of the Quran.  That those terms equate between male and female.  And that Islam bestowed on women the right to choose their spouses, the right to own property, and the right to unilaterally divorce an abusive husband.
• The list of misconceptions, intentional or out of ignorance, can go on and on.  But her attack on the texts of the Quran and the Hadith are so outrageous and uninformed.  They have the imprint of total insensitivity that I should leave the rebuttal to someone else.  As so could be found below.

To the credit of Foreign Affairs, Ayaan's article was followed by another, authored by William Mc Cants, Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.  Mc Cants, in his opening paragraph, states: "Hirsi Ali is profoundly wrong when she argues that Islamic Scripture causes Muslim terrorism and thus that the U.S. government should fund Muslim dissidents to reform Islam."

Appropriately Mc Cants article is entitled: "Islamic Scripture Is Not the Problem."

Ayaan also attacks Al-Azhar.  If she were "a public intellectual," and concerned about her so-called Islamic reform, she seems not to know, or chooses to ignore, that the Religious Revolution advocated by El-Sisi is spearheaded by Al-Azhar.  In this context, it should be noted that Al-Azhar's document of August, 2011 remains a primary framework for that revolution.  One of its eleven principles provides as follows: "Islam does not recognize a State solely based on religion."  The Coptic Church has fully endorsed that document.  Witness the disbarment by Egyptian authorities of Imams who use their mosques as arenas for jihadi preaching.

As for the essential role of interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence, Ayaan does not even once refer to "ijtihad."  It is the application of the mind to the text.  One of its primary products is that public interest trumps.  It is called "Fiqh Al-Maslahah."

In my research in 2006 for the American Bar Association, I found that there is 80% commonality between Islamic jurisprudence and the U.S. Constitution.  I teach the subject as a law professor in New York City.  My late Al-Azhari father has blessed my marriage to a Catholic American woman.  He was on sound grounds.  Islam fully acknowledges diversity and the full right of others to their creed.

It is a shame that Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not accord the same diversity to her former Muslim co-religionists.  For she does not realize that Allahu Akbar is not a war scream as per ISIS.  It means "we are all equal before God."

Hirsi Ali's ignorance is not surprising.  She has made of it a real industry.  In her authorship of that book entitled "Infidel" -an incredible diatribe against Islam, she does not realize that the term does not mean "a Non-Muslim."  It means "a person who has no values."  An apt characterization of Ayaan and her campaign.  Her primary beneficiaries are the ISIS franchises.  They use her arguments against Islam as a war cry for jihadi recruitment.  In this regard, you, Ayaan are one of their enablers. 

Ayaan:  I judge you by your words.  By analysing them, I find you to be intellectually depraved.  You call for Islamic reformation a la reformation undertaken by Martin Luther.  His was a rebellion against central authority which made of faith a trade in the indulgences.  And a return to the holy scriptures.  Islam is a different setting.  There are no payment for coupon to go to paradise; no central authority, and a full adherence to text, modifiable by ijtihad (by common sense and changing circumstances).

Then you call yourself a "Muslim dissident."  But you have already opted out of Islam.  Enjoy your conversion.  Who cares?  The Quran says: "Whoever wishes to believe, let it be.  And whoever wishes to disbelieve, let it be."  Terming yourself a dissident is an obfuscation.  For dissidence does not mean anti-Islamism which has become your mission and your industry.

Your call for US intervention in support of your ridiculous theory is a clear call for cultural imperialism.  This means endless wars.  But you describe it as a path to peace.  How obscene!!

Through your ignorance about and antipathy about Islam, you regard Sharia as a frozen unevolved legal system.  A threat to individual human rights and friendly relations among nations.  Utterly insane.  With the exception of few Islamic States, the legal system is a hybrid.  Sharia plus legislated law.  The former is a family law jurisdiction.  The latter is everything else.

The poor treatment of women in Somalia has nothing to do with Islam.  It has to do with arcane practices elevated to the levels of law by ignorant imams.

The Quran and Hadith call for shura (consultations), which is institutionalized in today's parliaments.  Those two pillars of Islam call for the removal of an unjust ruler.  The only limitation is avoidance of mayhem (FITNA) resulting from such populist action.

The judicial system, in Islamic jurisprudence, encourages the judge to be defendant oriented.  Punishment for a proven guilt does not follow the literality of the Quran.  It is modifiable by legislated law.

Ayaan: Under your misguided notions, you look upon the Quran as if it was a textbook in need of revision.  Nearly two billion Muslims regard it as revealed.  It is a faith, regardless of poor Islamic practices.  A heavenly road map which all modern legal systems respect.

So enjoy your notoriety.  I pity those who, at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, sit to hear you expound on your anti-Islamism.  The only winners are those in the ranks of murderous terrorism who take your attacks on Islam as a justification for their conviction that Islam is under attack.  

You have elevated your personal vendetta against Islam to the level of an international cause.  The Hirsi Ali cause is a hopeless one.  It exists only in her tribally traumatized head.

From the foregoing, you, Hirsi Ali, could see the depth of my rejection of what you stand for.  Denigration of Islam and stirring up of inter-faith conflict.  

Yet there is one thing that you have said correctly.  Unintentionally.  You titled one of your books "Infidel."  This is because you have adopted the western error that "infidel" means "non-Muslim."  It doesn't mean this at all.  In Islamic jurisprudence, "infidel" means "a person who has no values."  Without realization, you have chosen the correct term.  An omnibus description of yourself.

The Muslims abide by this verse from the Quran:  "So woe to those who write the scripture with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' to trade with it for a pitiful price!" (Chapter 2, verse 79).  This is the Muslim faith.  And Pope Francis said it all when he declared that freedom of expression does not include attacking the faith of others.

In the Global War On Jihadism, May God Save Egypt Also From Its So-Called Journalism

I asked a veteran guru of Egyptian journalism, Mr. Galal Dowidar, formerly the editor of Al-Akhbar of Cairo.  "Why is today's standard so debased?"  His answer was: "After the two revolutions of January and June, they have no material."  An honest and crisp response.

Now that anti-terrorism has been declared by Prime Minister Mahlab as war, it is time for another revolution.  A Public Information Revolution.  Based on an enforceable code.  Its aim is to create a credible civilian face for the Sinai war.  Its components are:  In depth research; credible evidence; deep penetration of Egyptian society; teach-ins on anti-jihadism; recruiting youth as intern reporters; putting national security ahead of the ingrained Egyptian desire to be funny; and becoming a tool of mass mobilization.  Other components: When to publish.  And when to shut up.

The army, the police, other security institutions, the judiciary, the executive of all branches, Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church, and all other educational institutions are all participants in weeding out terrorism.

For the Information Revolution is primarily an ideological response to the massive online rubbish spewing out daily from the Brotherhood/ISIS franchises.  In essence, those cabals are reminders of the "Wizard of Oz."   Fear is artificially generated by a mad person turning the wheel of panic.  From behind the black curtain of a mythical caliphate.

With selected targets, foreign or laundered internal funds, captured war materiel, and video games reflecting barbarism, they have aimed at employing fear hypnosis.  Encircled from the outside and from within, the jihadists keep alive the myth of invincibility.

They have no future.  Terrorism has never established a State.  Anywhere, Islamic or non-Islamic.  Putting up a sign and receiving endorsements (they call these Baiaa) are mere props for the theater of the absurd.  Butcherism combined with "jihadi fornication" are in-stock tools.  For them, Islam is a convenient cover for genocide.

Assassinating Egypt's Attorney-General Hisham Barakat.  Detonating deadly charges against the Sinai army defenders.  Using Bedouin grievances as incentives.  These are all proof of one verity: Jihadi forces of various stripes, including the Brotherhood, have coalesced.  Making of the holy month of Ramadan, a month of blood, not of charity.  Fomenting a Sunni/Shii split, a Muslim/Coptic conflict, or a Bedouin/nationalist cleavage.  All of these are the tools of dead-enders.

A case in point is the recent attack in Kuwait on the Mosque of Imam Jaafar Al-Ssadeq.  The Emir of Kuwait, descendant of nation-builders, has the appropriate response.  He prayed at the scene of the crime.

In the Arab homelands, national borders shall always stand tall.  Even if the national entity is geographically split.  As in Syria, or Yemen.  Statelets shall be defined by their future borders.

40,000 tweets by ISIS on a daily basis are no indicator of longevity.  It is only "the Wizard of Oz" syndrome.  Turning his sound machine to frighten Scarecrow and Tin Man.  But not Dorothy or her little dog Toto!!

So the Sinai war, being the Egyptian front on the global war on terror, urgently needs a reformed Egyptian journalism.  Those journalists should either shape up or ship out.  The list of examples of their banality and triteness is endless.

Claiming that El-Sisi is not a decisive decision-maker.  I don't work for him.  I am a mere employee of her majesty the truth.  A volunteer for "the Strong State," the New Egypt.  Thus I feel the sting of what is published in the newspaper "Al-Masriyoon."  It claims: "El-Sisi declarations about terrorism are contradictory."  They should know better.  The fight against jihadism is a daily changing nasty affair.  The Head of State is entitled to reflect that changing reality.

Claiming that every statement by El-Sisi should be fully-documented.  Time, place and manner.  Al-Watan newspaper downgrades El-Sisi declaration after the Sinai massacre of July 1.  He has said: "The armed forces shall conduct these attacks...The perpetrators shall know that Egyptian blood is not cheap."  What is wrong with that?  But Al-Watan finds fault with El-Sisi words.  "Nobody knows where El-Sisi said that and when?"  Is this the main issue?

Claiming that the new anti-terror law which is yet to be promulgated is obnoxious as it restricts freedom of expression.  All because of one article (Article 33) which is now being re-examined.  Al-Ahram newspaper writes: "This is a call for ignoring human rights.  It is contrary to the aims of the anti-terror campaign."  Oh, really?  In times of war, security considerations trump.  The great American emancipator, President Lincoln, suspended parts of the US Constitution.  The American civil war, in which 850,000 American troops perished, was on.  The survival of the U.S. was at stake.  And the slave owners were being assisted by Great Britain.  The same situation with the Brotherhood in Egypt being bolstered from abroad.  And the new Egyptian law is intended to replace the existing State of Emergency laws.

Claiming that the Sinai armies are not entitled to exhibit the bodies of the dead terrorists.  "Al Maqal" newspaper decries that action as "triumphalism unbecoming of the armed forces."  Amazing.  How about the jihadi daily massive of barbaric butcherism to keep us all hiding like rabbits in our holes?  The burning alive of the Jordanian pilot, Moaz Al-Kasasbeh, in a cage should sear the mind of humanity for a long time.  Telecast by ISIS repeatedly.

Claiming that the Government is derelict in divulging how the weapons of the jihadis have penetrated Egypt.  So "Al-Masri Al-Youm" writes: "Every Egyptian is entitled to know how these weapons entered Egypt; what kinds of weapons; and when have these weapons arrived?"  Then it adds: "Apparently all who raise these questions are attacked as unpatriotic."  But the whole world knows that the events in Libya and in Gaza have created points of entry for these weapons.  Does that newspaper put the priority at investigations of the weaponization of the present war, when the State institutions, including the judiciary, are overburdened with all types of investigations?  And haven't the armed forces bombed the Libyan borders and created a "cordon sanitaire" at the Gaza/Sinai borders?  Doesn't the whole world know that today Egypt is buying from us ultra-modern surviellance equipment?  Where is that technology going to be placed?  At the Libyan border!!  For decoration?  No!!  For border protection on the west (Libya).

Claiming that the State should not use the term "liquidation" in its anti-terror statements.  "Al-Shorook" newspaper writes: "The State establishes justice not vengeance and revenge."  Well!!  What is the difference between "containment, degrading, and ending jihadism," and "liquidation?"  Is this a war of combat for rescuing the homeland or a war of words?

The list goes on and on.  Ad nauseam.  Some of the same commentators described the status of journalism in Egypt as "the public information chaos."  Amen!!  Time for an "Information Revolution."  If it is a war, it should be fought like a war.  On all fronts.  By all means.  Akin to general mobilization.  May God save Egypt from jihadism and its inane journalism!!

The shallowness of present-day journalism in Egypt makes me over-nostalgic to its golden age.  Established in the 19th century by Lebanese Christians, it was the home of great essayists.  One of them was our neighbor in Sharqia Province -Zaki Abdel-Qader.  A few years later it was Ahmed Bahaul-Din and the twins, Ali and Mustafa Amin.  How about Fikry Abaza and El-Zayyat?  Today, these stalwarts are terribly missed.

There is strong evidence that the hallow carping of present-day journalists in Egypt leads the US press to draw absurd conclusions.  One of these is the perpetuation of the myth that the June 30, 2013 Revolution was a coup.  Witness the stupid conclusions in the Egyptian press about El-Sisi donning his military uniform during his visit with the Sinai troops following the treacherous attacks by the ISIS branch called "The Sinai Province."  And remember how Bush Jr. as president, who has never been in military service, was applauded when he donned a military uniform, parading himself on a battleship.  Falsely declaring about the American invasion of Iraq: "Mission Accomplished."

One of the side benefits of the two companion revolutions (January 2011 and June 2013) is that the average Egyptian has found his or her voice.  So did Egypt's journalism.  But with one difference in the case of the latter.  Most of their contributions seem to equate between democracy and a constant barrage against the government.

Credible statistics show that since January 2011, the army and the police in Egypt lost 258 martyred in the course of the war in jihadism in Sinai.  The bloody results of 74 attacks.  Over various periods of post-Mubarak rule.  The SCAF (Supreme Council of Armed Forces) from February 11, 2011 to June 30, 2012.  The Morsi rule, the Mansour rule, and the present El-Sisi rule.

All the while, the New Egypt is a building.  From the expected opening of the Second Suez Canal in early August, to ensuring the safety of its tourists, to combating the income inequality in the land of the Nile.  So enough is enough with spilling of ink to fill empty pages in Egypt's newspapers.

Aside from efforts for economic recovery and anti-terrorism, the main pending issue is the holding of elections for the lower house of parliament.  Egyptian journalism paid scant attention to the march of Egypt toward those parliamentary elections later this year.  The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court has approved the draft bill on electoral districts (a total of 209), paving the way for its promulgation, following presidential approval.  The daily moan and groan is: "Nothing is OK with the New Egypt."  Their monument is a permanent wailing wall.

What a great free ride for the Brotherhood/ISIS/Sinai Province criminal consortium to read that headline in Egypt's so-call press:

"The disappearance of the President from view increases the public's fear of a tsunami of decisions.  The unknown envelopes Egypt.  And fear pervades the majority of its population."

In any country in a state of war, such fear-mongering would have prompted the authorities to prosecute the offending outlet.  The legal grounds are: "Aiding and abetting the State's enemies through falsely and maliciously causing public panic during wartime."

In the Yemen War: It Is Not Sunni vs. Shii!! It Is Tribalism vs. The National State Concept

It could be very confusing.  There is only one way to steer clear from the entanglement of the multiple cobwebs of historical layers.

With this said, let us avoid the facile characterization of the Yemen war.  Sunni vs. Shii reflects a mental fatigue which tries to quickly package Islam as two kinds.  Sunni and Shii is like having two sons, Omar and Ali.  Or two daughters, Aisha and Fatima.  The resilience of Islam lies in its simplicity, together with its unreserved acceptance of other faiths.  Strange?  Not at all.  The Jihadi dictionary has infected our understanding of Islam and of Islamic jurisprudence.

Back to the war in Yemen.  Utter confusion about its genesis.  Not only in official policies.  But also in media confirmation of the errors of these policies.  This is especially so in Arab media, which in most cases lack research, public opinion polls, presence at the fields of battle, and writing creativity which asserts the truth of opinion, not the durability of ascertained facts.

What we have in Yemen today is what we had in Yemen yesterday.  The tribal flag flies higher than the national flag.

I was in Yemen from 1999 to 2001.  Commissioned by both the World Bank and the Government of Yemen to do a field study.  It was on legal and judicial reform and how to enhance the capacity of the two twin areas.  The study was done; some of its recommendations were implemented.

It is impossible to judge the pulse of any polity or political environment, especially without physical field experiences.  Get the pulse of the patient, not from a chart.  But from being physically with the patient -with the subject.

So in order to bestow credibility on my arguments below, in regard to the present Yemen war, I feel the need to cite other field experiences with Arab areas of armed conflict.

In Algeria during the war of independence in the early sixties, as UN spokesman.  In Syria, in 1962, to assess for the UN the status of the United Arab Republic.  In July of that year, I predicted collapse.  In September it did collapse.  In 1964 in Gaza, to assess the status of peace-keeping under the command of my able Indian friend, general Rikhe.

In the mid-70's, lecturing at New York University on counter-insurgency.  And much later, commissioned by the U.N. Security Council in 2006 for a mission in Darfour, the Sudan.

Why is this personal recitation of relevance to the present war in Yemen?  It confirms a non-changing fact about inter-Arab conflicts.  Lack of recognition of their cultural under-pinnings.

In most Arab areas, war and politics reflect various shades of tribalism.  The cohesive national State (the Egyptian model) is still on the way.  Let us look at Yemen:

• The movement of the Houthis is a North vs. South.  Shii v. Sunni is pure rubbish.  Islam does not come in two flavors or two packages: One marked Sunni; the other marked Shii.  Imam Ali, on whom I am now authoring a book in Arabic, was neither Sunni nor Shii.  He was simply the First Muslim; the foster child of his cousin, the Prophet Muhammad. 
• The South (Aden) is progressive.  The North (Sanaa) is a museum for the middle ages.
• In the south, you find women judges on the bench.  In the north, you cannot serve litigation papers on someone.  There are no addresses outside of Sanaa.  To help the Yemeni prosecutorial system, I recommended a simple system for the problem of serving court notices:  Provide bicycles or donkeys for the server, and a guide from the tribal area.  It worked.
• In the north, the Emirates built up the Supreme Court in Sanaa, with "Lady Justice" symbol on top.  It was shot down by a Kalashnikov held up to its head by a tribesman.  He did not like a judgment issued against him.
• In the south, I found courts ruling for a Spanish mother to have her son back.  His father, a German, had kidnapped him and fled to Aden after pretending to adopt Islam.  Some one had told him: If you adopt Islam, no court in an Islamic country would ever rule for the return of a son to his Christian mother.  The court ruled against the so so Muslim father, stating: "Dad adopted Islam as a cover for a crime!!"  The Spanish mother returned back to Spain clutching the hand of her son.
• From the north, Yemenis immigrate to Saudi Arabia for work, handing their passports to a Saudi "Kafeel."  Without the consent of that Kafeel, the worker cannot leave, even if the employer is oppressive.  In the south, there are syndicates and labor unions.  Protecting fair employer-worker contractual relationships.  Observing the rules of the UN-related International Labor Organization (ILO).
• In the north, Al-Qaeda thrives.  It, like ISIS, lives by the oxygen of tribalism and unevolved sunnism.  In the south, your identity, as a southern Yemeni national, trumps Islamism in case of conflict.

Yemenis, until recently, have been the most preferred laborers in Saudi Arabia.  They are not only neighbors.  They are very focused workers.  The Bin Laden Construction Company, now based in Saudi Arabia, had its origin in Hadramaut, southern Yemen.  The souring of relationships between Saudi Arabia and Yemen is due to political, not religious reasons.

Where does Egypt stand in the face of these controversies?

Riyadh had opposed Nasser's intervention in the Yemen revolt against the imamate in 1962.  It was the gravest mistake of the Nasser rule -the use of Egypt's huge armed forces to prop up a nascent republic.  It signalled the beginning of the decline of Nasserism, which became more of a memory than a movement.

For millennia, Egypt has been a security State.  Stability is its base.  Just look at the Pyramids: twin symbols for State and for stability.  A basic premise for understanding Egypt.  A premise grossly misunderstood by the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in their collapse.

Within this unalterable framework, the call by President El-Sisi for Egypt becoming "a strong State" resonates with the country's cherished history.

The present buildup of the Egyptian navy reflects a basic concern for the security of the very long Egyptian coastline.  Stretching from El-Salloum near the Libyan border, to Rafah on the Mediterranean, then looping south to the Sudanese border on the Red Sea.

By this August, with the inauguration of the second Suez Canal, 85% of the world trade between the Americas, Europe and Afro-Asia will transit Egypt.  Transit fees are expected to surpass tourism revenue. 

The exit from the southern Red Sea to the Indian ocean is at Aden (Bab El-Mandab).  Threatening it, whether by the Houthis or other parties, is a security threat to the Suez expanded regime.  An unacceptable challenge to Egypt's transitioning to prosperity.  This is a primary reason for Egypt being in the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia.  The aim is to slow down the Houthis surge beyond Sanaa to Aden and Al-Hodaiyedah, both ports on the southern Red Sea.

But there shall be no Egyptian footprint in Yemen.  Not again!!  And the framework for the new Arab defense force, which is being constructed by the League of Arab States, is both defensive and voluntary.  The new axis between Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf, as led by Saudi Arabia, is a reflection, not of ideology, but of common defense interests.  Its present front is Yemen.  Its other fronts are left to be managed by each Arab country on its own.

The Houthis, Shiis of the north, are not Iran's agents.  Nor are the Sunnis of Aden Saudi catpaws.  The two parts of Yemen were united through war in 1994.  They were never united in one common nationalism.

Saleh, ruled over a republic held together by the equivalent of scotch tape.  A dictator (a Shii) who played the sectarian game for his own end -dictator forever.  With the help of the hurricane of the Arab Spring.  The Gulf Cooperation Council mediated his peaceful departure, and a successor, Hadi (a southern Sunni) was installed in his place.

But leaving Saleh in Yemen was a big mistake.  The snake moves.  Saleh, was still moving to undo what he had ostensibly accepted.  So the Houthi resurgence was propelled by: southern agitation for separation; the Iran/Saudi Arabia rivalry for preeminence in the Gulf; the general chaos of the sputtering Arab Spring in Syria, and Libya; and the rise of the fiction of Sunni vs. Shii, resuscitated by the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In Tehran, there is a false sense of triumphalism.  Very short-sighted. The same spirit pervades the Ordogan regime in Turkey, presumably on behalf of Sunni Islam.  That is until the Kurds, now in the Turkish parliament, put the brakes on Ordoganism.  Its retreat has begun.  Or so it seems!! 

In the Middle East, there are crazy notions amounting to what I may call "religious imperialism;" ethnic imperialism; and ideological imperialism.

Examples of "religious imperialism" are the calls for internationalizing Mecca and Medina.  These are iconic cities within Saudi territory wherein lies the holiest of Islamic shrines.  Same calls by Iran in respect of Karbala, Najaf and Kufa. Iraqi territory wherein lies holy Islamic locations, especially revered by the Shiis.  

"Ethnic imperialism" was manifest in Saddam laying false claims to "Khozistan" (Arabistan), Iranian territory.  Iraqi maps of the 1980s showed the boundaries of Iraq jumping over the Gulf into that Abadan area of Iran.

"Ideological hegemony" applies to Turkey's support of the murderous ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The mother lode of jihadism in Egypt and beyond.

So what are the lessons to be learnt from the present Yemen war?

• The war is not a Sunni vs. Shii conflict.  It is the tribalized north versus the politically-developed south.
• Regardless of the outcome of that war, Yemen is most likely to split again into Yemen and Southern Yemen.
• The Arab coalition of the willing is a reassertion of Arabism vs. Iranian and Turkish transnational assertions.
• Thus talk and policy are now about "The Arab Nation." Unified militarily on a voluntary basis, and culturally, as a riposte to both Turkish and Iranian espousal of causes which go beyond their geographic boundaries.

The Houthis are not putting their Arabism as a door mat for Tehran.  Like in Afghanistan, the Houthis find in endless war a tenured contract.  If they lose today, there will always be a tomorrow.  Tribalism shall always be alive and well in Yemen's great strategically-located geographic space.

The Youssef Al-Qaradawi Phenomena As Measured By the Scales of Egyptophobia

How can one person represent more than one phenomenon, so as to become phenomena?  It is possible if you are Youssef Al-Qaradawi.  No title of Sheikh.  He does not live up to that lofty standard.  Sheikh means Islamic scholar.

He is a graduate of Al-Azhar, the citadel of moderate Islam.  Now expelled from its ranks.  He was born in Egypt, thus an Egyptian citizen by birth.  But has now been denied that citizenship.  He is supposed to be a man of faith and peace.  Yet he is on the lam, hiding from the arm of Egyptian laws on terrorism and tucked away in Qatar.  In fact, he was recently tried in absentia in Egypt and is now under a death sentence.

What happened?  In late 2012, during the one year of Islamic oppressive rule in Egypt, he was offered the rare accolade of preaching from the pulpit of Al-Azhar.  A true Muslim Brotherhood voice of doom.  When the Egyptian masses rose up in a companion revolution on June 30, 2013, Youssef Al-Qaradawi, once more, fled into the open arms of Qatar.  Another pair of open arms were awaiting this turbaned man of 85 years of age -his Moroccan bride, who is six decades his junior.

Youssef Al-Qaradawi heads a shell organization, "The Global Union of Muslim Scholars" (GUMS).  I could not find GUMS origins, nor where it was chartered, nor its organigram, nor its mission statement.  Nor how Youssef Al-Qaradawi has become the head of that shadowy corporation.  What I found was a Qaradawi call for violence in Egypt to avenge the deposition of the Morsi regime in July 2013.

The Qaradawi call for insurrection was adorned by its inclusion in a public manifesto.  Outwardly impressive.  Practically hollow.  Bearing the signatures of what is claimed to be 150 "scholars and preachers."  What does this Qaradawi manifesto call for?

"Revenge should be enacted.  Against all decision-makers; judges; army and police officers and other personnel; all those who issue fatwas (religious interpretation of the Quran and of Muhammad traditions); media people; politicians."  Not many were left off that death list.

In the name of GUMS, the crazy Qaradawi manifesto has a no escape clause.  It even adds on: "And everyone who might have participated, or conspired or abetted in the..."

Here the manifesto dips below the belt.  In it, there is also the standard charge of "defiling the honor of women, spilling of innocent blood, and snuffing the lives of their victims without legal sanction of Sharia."  The non-Sheikh Al-Qaradawi resorts to the scare tactic of: All of you secularists are going to hell!!

Advocating for mayhem in Egypt is the heart of that manifesto issued in late May 2015.  Posted on the Internet as "Nida Al-Kinaneh" by Qaradawi's blood brothers, that "Nida" could be translated in two ways: "The Call from Paradise," or "The Call for Egypt."  Take your pick.  Its presumed 150 scholars from 20 countries (what happened to the rest of the membership of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 57 States?) grandly tweets: "This is our faith.  These are our scholars."  I am a bit relieved that he called his cabal "our" not "your" scholars.

The "faith" and "the scholarship" of Al-Qaradawi GUMS call El-Sisi Administration the "result of a military coup in Egypt in 2013."  This administration, the Qaradawi manifesto claims, is "a criminal gang which, by deposing the Morsi rule, subverted the popular will of the Nation."

Now which "Nation" is Al-Qaradawi talking about?  And what rule of Islamic jurisprudence is he calling on?  And on what legal Islamic premise is he basing his idiotic fatwa on?  And what credibility does he have, being a well paid agent by a foreign power -Qatar?

•  Like his parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaradawi regards Egypt, not as a sovereign State.  But as an Emirate within the broad expanse of the Muslim Nation of 1.5 billion people.
• Like ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra and Boko Haram, national borders do not exist.  To them, Islam is a nationality whose precepts are defined in terms of excluding all other faiths.  The Copts of Egypt; Christians of Lebanon; Jews of Morocco; Indians of Pakistan, have no equal rights in these Muslim societies.  Why?  They are non-Muslims!!
• So are the Shiis.  Whether in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Lebanon, or Egypt.  "Sunnism Uber Alles."  "Sunnism is above all." a historic Nazi odious call.
• How about the will of 35 million Egyptians who rose up on June 30, 2013 demanding an end to the Islamic dictatorship (a veritable coup) of the Brotherhood?  No, says Al-Qaradawi and his cohorts.  Only the call from the Muslim Brotherhood minarets are the authentic voice of the people.

So historically secular Egypt had to strike back.

• The Minister for Religious Affairs, Dr. Mokhtar Gomaa, called for adding GUMS and its putative president, Youssef Al-Qaradawi to the list of terrorist organizations.  A justifiable addition to the listing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization."
• The Egyptian Fatwa Administration described the Qaradawi manifesto as "a desperate attempt to destabilize Egypt."  Its "Observatory of Extremism" cited that call for a coup in Egypt as "FASAD."  Translated from the Arabic as "corruption."  But in Islamic jurisprudence, FASAD is the Number One criminal offense.
• Condemnation of FASAD occurs in 50 verses in the Quran.  Spread over no less than 25 Chapters in a total of 114 Chapters.  "The Observatory" cited several of these verses accusing Al-Qaradawi and his cabal of FASAD.
• Including: "... do not work corruption on the earth, after it has been set right.  This is better for you if you are believers." (Chapter VII; Verse 85).  The weight of Quranic condemnation of FASAD is seen from making it tantamount to "insurrection" and "mayhem."

From an Islamic perspective, these are the acids that dissolve the social contract between government and society.  Thus the Quran assigns for it capital punishment as a deterrent.

At this juncture, the war within the Muslim world is on several fronts.  It is between Islam as a faith and Islam as a cover for hate and terrorism.  Calling the latter "extreme Islam" is a misnomer.  It is a labelling error.  Akin to calling the crusaders "extreme Christianity."

There is no such thing.  Crusaderism was an acute military-religious conflict.  Raising the Cross, a symbol of love, in the way ISIS raises the black banner emblazoned with "God Is Great and Muhammad Is His Prophet."  A flag of butcherism, barbarity and a hocus-pocus Caliphate.  With Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi, a thug from Anbar, as its head.

The terrorist phalanxes have an ideological auxiliary.  In the latter category falls Al-Qaradawi and his minions of GUMS (The Global Union of Muslim Scholars).  Their danger to world peace and to Islam is more lasting.  Because it is an insidious slow-acting weapon of brainwashing.  With the Goebbels effect of recruitment.  You can bomb ISIS.  You cannot cleanse sick minds by military means.

Al-Qaradawi is now being confronted in Egypt head-on by "the Religious Revolution."  Called for by El-Sisi with implementation by Al-Azhar.  The Arab summit of Sharm El-Sheikh of late March 2015 provided a historic endorsement.

The battle against Al-Qaradawi "Helter-Skelter" (with nominal apology to madman Charlie Manson) has begun.  Its starting point is logical -revamping textbooks.  All references to exclusion of "the other," and to defining Jihad as a broad lawless battle by self-appointed free lancers are being expunged.

By the end of May, Al-Azhar, together with the Egyptian ministries of Education and Religious Affairs (AWKAF), joined by specialists in various fields, were ready to welcome El-Sisi.  It was on May 27, 2015 that Al-Azhar's Rector, Imam Ahmed Al-Taiyeb, was ready to share with the Egyptian President the blue print for the counter-attack against ISIS, its franchises and its enablers like Qaradawi and his GUMS.

For the first time we now have 13 recommendations for that counter-attack.  They begin by the defining "the Religious Discourse."  It says: "Its cleansing from superstitions and misconceptions which are counter the mission of Islam: Its tolerance, humanity, common sense, care for the common interest of humanity in accordance with changing circumstances.  In service of country without infringement of other faiths or beliefs of established moral codes."

No wonder that Leon Pannetta, former US CIA Director and Defense Secretary, had this to say in Cairo on May 28, 2015: "Having met with President El-Sisi and members of the cabinet, I regard all efforts to support Egypt's counter-terrorism efforts are deserving of unremitting support."  

So, Mr. Al-Qaradawi, get a life.  You and GUMS, in your vain attempts to gum-up the new "Religious Revolution," are heading for the garbage can of history.  So is your Egyptophobia.

Like in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Qaradawi ideology seems to fit better with a theme song in an Egyptian comic TV soap opera.  Zohra, a beautiful young Tunisian woman, is the screen name of its star.  In the title role of "Zohra and Her Five Husbands."  Per my translation, the first verses bemoan Zohra's fate:

"Going through the ocean of my life; dreaming of finding a landing!!  

And see the day of deliverance;  from afar a distant line!!   

From the day of wading in the ocean of life; have never found safety!! 

All my life episodes; start with ecstasy!! 

But never even once; their ending is not a catastrophe."

Studying American-Arab Relationships From Unexpected Angles. This Time It Is the American Supreme Court on Jerusalem

America is complex.  Because it speaks with thousands of voices.  Voices that come from myriad of sources.  Not necessarily from the Oval office or the Pentagon or the State Department.  Voices also from the American street.

Because I live and work in America, I study American-Arab relationships.  Especially those with one-third of the Arab world which call themselves Egypt.  One or two hours a day of such study are enough.  I have other things to do.

Consequently, I was struck by a most important piece of news on June 9.  The thundering voice of the U.S. Supreme Court on the explosive question of Jerusalem.  I am a member of the Bar of that august Court.  But was unaware of the case against Secretary of State John Kerry which reached the Court through an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Zivotofsky on behalf of their son Menachem.

These are American Israeli citizens, who wanted the U.S. passport of their son, who was born 13 years ago in Jerusalem, to reflect Menachem's place of birth.  They wanted that passport notation to say "Place of Birth: Israel."  And the American Supreme Court, by a majority of 6 to 3, said "No."  Answering why, is the heart of this blog posting.  It also reveals the importance of systematic study of American-Arab relationships, especially from unexpected angles.  For the sake of knowledge.  And knowledge is power.

The case Zivotofsky v. Kerry is all about the power of the U.S. President, under the Constitution, to recognize foreign governments.  In defiance of that presidential power, Congress in 2003 had adopted a politically-based law.

That law instructed the State Department to "record the place of birth as Israel" in the passports of American children born in Jerusalem.  Of course providing that their parents requested that designation.  That is in spite the fact that since Ben Gurion declared Israel a State in 1948, no American president has ever issued a declaration acknowledging any country's sovereignty over Jerusalem.

This is evidenced by the fact that the U.S. embassy for Israel is still located in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem.  That was the principal argument before the Supreme Court by the U.S. Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, in the case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

The Solicitor General characterized the neutrality of the U.S. Government in regard to the status of Jerusalem as "prudent."  Why?  Because the issue has been "the most vexing and volatile and difficult diplomatic issue that this nation has faced for decades."

For listing "Israel" as the place of a birth which happened in Jerusalem would have negative effects for the system of governance in the U.S.  The most important would be subjecting the Presidential powers of foreign States recognition to a Congressional act violative of those powers.

This is the heart of the U.S. Constitutional system -separation of powers.  The status of Jerusalem and the U.S. recognition of Israel as a State are two separate issues in which the powers of the President are supreme.  Recognition of the State of Israel is an active application of presidential power.  Recognition of Jerusalem as "Israel" is a negative application of that power.

For that reason, U.S. neutrality toward the status of Jerusalem has nothing to do with America's strategic relationships with the State of Israel.  A unique distinction which the Arabs, especially in Ramallah, should comprehend.  Mixing between these issues is like mixing palm dates with desert pebbles.

Looking at the arguments of the Supreme Court's majority of 6 to 3 is immensely instructive for issue-spotting and issue-analysis.

• The Court is divided between liberals and conservatives.  The liberal wing consists of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kegan (the last three are women).  In this judgment, that liberal wing was joined by Justice Kennedy (known as the swing vote; he wrote the opinion).  Unexpectedly, those 5 votes were joined by Justice Thomas, a die-hard conservative.  The dissenting justices were Roberts, the Chief Justice, Scalia and Alito.  
• In support of dismissing the Zivotofsky's claim, the six justices affirmed that "the power of recognition" rested exclusively with the President.  It cited Article II of the Constitution, case precedents, and historical practice "from the first administration (of George Washington) going forward."
• That was not all.  The Court also struck down the provocative law of 2003.  By doing so, the Supreme Court stressed another related principle that had to do with the unity of "the American Nation."  It said that:

(i) the president has "the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations and governments;"

(ii) the President alone could "receive ambassadors," an indication of recognition of the sovereignty of the sending State; and

(iii) only the President could have "the characteristic of unity at all times" as it was "necessary for the Nation to speak with one voice with respect to recognition."

That is the beauty of the separation of powers.  It should also be noted that the judicial power in the Zivotofsky decision did accomplish a historic task: shredding the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FRAA).  Here the Court, while not in any way deciding the future status of Jerusalem or the territorial outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict, blocked the back door for a creeping recognition that Israel and Jerusalem were one single issue.

There is a plaintive tone in Chief Justice Roberts' opposition to the Zivotofsky decision.  He said: "Today's opposition is a first.  Never before has this Court accepted a president's direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs." 

Of course that is indicative of the tilt to the right in the highest court in America.  For here again, Roberts is acting as a spokesman for what President Woodrow Wilson was warning against: Congressional government.

The majority found fault with that position.  It upheld the argument for exclusive presidential powers in the conduct of foreign affairs.  That was the constitutional side of the coin.

Relying on long practice since 1948, the Executive, in its brief, told the Court: US policy since Harry Truman's presidency "has been to recognize no State as having sovereignty over Jerusalem,  leaving the issue to be decided by negotiation between the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute."

At this point, I go back to what this blog advocates: Studying American-Arab relationships, not only from the conventional angles.  But also from the unexpected ones.  Here are examples of what the Arabs have so far ignored as sources of knowledge about America.  A country which is in constant change:

• In early June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the right of a Muslim woman to wear her hijab in public.  This is contrary to the legal position adopted by major European countries.  Zahra Sheema, a Pakistani lawyer of 25 years of age was denied a job by the company Abercrombie and Fitch.  The Court ruled that that company had violated a federal ban on religious discrimination.  The decision, said the New York Times "elevated the profile of Muslim women and the challenges some face when they choose to cover their heads as a sign of piety."
• The primary issue in the presidential elections of 2016 are the inequality of economic fortunes within American society.  It goes by the name of "the income gap."  The democrats are accusing the republicans of focusing on the top 1% of the population (the super rich).  The republicans are countering by saying that the democrats are class-minded and are dividing the nation.  They call Obama "the divisive President."
• Hillary Clinton is shifting to the left as she battles for the Oval Office.  This is while all of the slate of 18 republican hopefuls are appealing to their base in white conservative and evangelical circles.
• America is fast becoming a nation where 45% of its population are minorities from non-white countries.  Wouldn't be smart for the Arabs to learn how to influence America through cultivating positive relationships with the mother countries from which those minorities have hailed?
• The free trade agreement, on which Obama had worked so hard, was defeated today in Congress (June 12).  Not by his opponents, the republicans, but by his own party -the democrats.  A big defeat for the president for whom June 12 was a bad day.  It was due to fears from the labor unions, the back bone of the democratic party.  This is a major defeat for globalization and the shift toward Asia inflicted by U.S. Congress.  Ironically, it was the democrats who had originally lobbied for that bill called the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill!!  Thus it makes sense for those studying U.S.-Arab relations to study those relations not only from the top level of American decision-makers.  But also from the grass roots level -the labor unions.  The America of today is a super power which is largely focused on JOBS!!  Not different from Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.
• Of course the new Egypt should take note, for whatever it is worth, of the U.S. administration's report on Egypt to Congress dated June 8.  While ignoring the long history of American support for the Mubarak regime, the report represents the new Egypt from a dogmatic angle.  It says, without due reference to Egypt's war on terror, "the overall trajectory for rights and democracy has been negative."
• But the same report presents also a pragmatic facet of the new Egypt.  It credits Egypt with beginning to overhaul its economy "by cutting subsidies, increasing taxes and improving the business climate including for U.S. businesses."
• So the Egyptian media, rather than howling about "intervention in our internal affairs," should also analyze that routine statutory report from its most unexpected angle!!  What is that?  It is that "Egypt's success or failure impacts the prospects of peace, stability, democracy and economic growth across the Middle East."  The very language of that report.

Time for the Arabs to study their relationships with America from its unexpected angles.  As I said above, "America is complex."  A reason why I like what Ambassador Abdel-Raouf El-Reedy has recently advocated in an article in Al-Ahram newspaper.

That experienced diplomat and scholar, the honorary chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, has called for the formation of study groups to track the arguments and the developments of the on-coming competition for the Oval Office between democrats and republicans.  An angle which should take the Arab thinking about America "out of the box."

Income inequality and student loans (a trillion dollars) in America, not the sanctions on Russia, shall hold sway in the competition between the party of war (the republicans) and the party for "the little people" (the democrats). The republicans are expected to lose.  They have no policy on economic opportunity.  The old party of Lincoln is now the party of the rich.  And republican Senator John McCain, that old war horse, is now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  With an annual military budget of more than $600 billions.  In a country tired of war.

McCain, a former prisoner of war, is opposing Obama's advocacy of closing Guantanamo.  If only closed minds came with closed mouths!!

No reason under the sun for me to vote in 2016 for a republican president.  The competition is now intensifying.  In my mailbox, I find an electioneering pamphlet from the democratic party.  It is titled "Will the Koch Brothers' billions decide the next election?  It's up to you!"

This is an allusion to another unexpected angle for studying America.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that money is free speech.  The case was Citizens United.  A terrible setback for democracy.  For it allowed the rich to pour unlimited funds in support of their favored electoral candidates.  The American rich is pouring zillions of dollars to support the party of the rich -the Republican Party.

As an American citizen, I choose to remain unattached to either party.  But my vote in 2016 shall go to Hillary.  And as an Egyptian, I voted in 2014 for El-Sisi.  Nice to have the best of the two worlds.  Two worlds which should get to know each other in more effective ways.  Particularly from unexpected angles.

On The Freedom of Speech, There Are Two Models: Pope Francis and Pamela Geller

What a broad spectrum!!  Between Pope Francis (Sky Above), and Pamela Geller (Mud Below).  The two levels have to do with faith.  The Islamic faith in the sanctity of Muhammad.  And the Zionist faith in the sanctity of obfuscation.

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in January, Pope Francis was asked by reporters about his views.  Seventeen people were killed at the satirical home of that magazine by two deranged Muslim brothers.  Avenging the satirical cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.  So the Pope was asked about his views: "Isn't the freedom of expression deserving of protection?"

Here is Pope Francis' balanced response: "Freedom of expression is a basic human right.  But it had to be exercised without insulting the faith of others."  His Holiness did not stop at that.  He is an Argentine, the first Latin American to be elected Pope.  So in a gaucho (Argentine cowboy) style, he felt the need to be clear.

So he said: "If a friend of mine speaks ill of my mother, he should be prepared to get a punch from me."  Then, in his white papal robes, he gestured with a closed fist as if he was delivering that punch.

To the startled reporters, Francis went on to amplify: "This is natural.  It is unacceptable to provoke others by insulting their beliefs.  There are lots of people who speak ill of other religions.  They are provocateurs."

We now turn to a provocateur par excellence.  Pamela Geller, a committed Zionist, with millions of dollars to spend on making Muslims and Arabs "savages."  That was her chosen epithet.  In all cars in the New York City subway system, a hate campaign was launched in 2014.

Posters placed by Geller for millions of subway riders to read.  The posters, in effect, proclaimed: "If there is a conflict between the civilized and the savage, support the civilized.  Support Israel."

The Muslim community tried hard to get the administration of Michael Bloomberg, the then Mayor of New York City, to get these hate posters removed.  But in vain.

The New York City executive claimed that that was "protected speech."  It is not.  And it is not I who is judging it as "unprotected speech."  It is the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law that say so.  The theory of "speech regulation based on content" is abundantly clear.

That non-controverted constitutional theory imposes speech regulation under the principle of public law and order.  Thus regulation comes in through the door of "Inciting Imminent Lawless Action."  Its legal  formulation is as follows:

"Speech can be burdened if it creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.  It must be shown that imminent illegal conduct is likely, and that the speaker intended to cause it."

Pamela Geller is calling Arabs and Muslims and others opposed to Israeli practices "savage."  In both fact and effect, she has intentionally engaged in "inciting imminent lawless action," and got away with it.  Her unprotected speech is not only "unconstitutional." It is an anti-American act which exposes the country to retaliation.

But "non-adjudicated felons" like Pam Geller have a habit of revisiting the scene of their crimes.  In early May of this year, Geller did just that.  Propelled by her millions of dollars, she struck again.  Goading Muslim extremists in the U.S. and abroad, she ventured into Texas.  This is a State where one of its two Senators, Ted Cruz, a Republican now running for President in 2016, is calling for having U.S. troops re-invade Iraq.

Using her freedom to engage in unprotected speech, Geller took her organization "The American Freedom Defense Initiative" (AFDI) to Garland, Texas.  Described by The New York Times as "an anti-Islam organization based in New York," the Geller organization was organizing an anti-Islamic event.  It included a contest for the best caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, with a $10,000 top prize.

Now with Pam Geller back to her criminal forays, so were two irate Muslims who, on May 3, shot at a security officer guarding the Curtis Culwell Center.  That is where the Muhammad vilification event was held by AFDI.  Both assailants were shot and killed by Garland police officers in response.  Material evidence of what Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative can accomplish in the service of unprotected hate speech.

Our age is one of rage.  Facts are few; knowledge is even less; and comprehension is dulled by retrograde educational systems, especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

In the midst of these overwhelming contradictions, especially as regards to freedom of expression, let us take a tally of these contradictions.  Learning begins with a listing of easily recognizable episodes.  And episodes are more assimilable when put in contrasting positions.

• Geller calls the Arabs and the Muslims "savages."  And Hamas denies Israel the mere right of existence.
• Netanyahu has just appointed Dore Gold to his ultra-right cabinet.  Born in Connecticut, USA, Gold's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs opposes Israeli withdrawal form the occupied West Bank.  Saeb Erekat, the so-called "Chief Palestinian negotiator" calls that appointment "an internal Israeli matter."  How muted can you get?
• Compare Erekat's utterance with those of Israeli pundits denouncing those appointments as "farcical or worse."  In the meantime, one of Gold's six published books is entitled: Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.  Isn't occupation a casus belli?
• The New York Muslims could not assert a legal claim against Geller's Islamophobic campaign.  Yet The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) instituted in August 2013 a suit against the New York Police Department (NYPD) on behalf of Muslims.  The suit challenged the constitutionality of the NYPD "Muslim Surveillance Program."
• Compare this action on behalf of Muslims, with Geller's mouthing off about Islam.  She shrieks on TV shows that "Islam is the problem," and "stand up for free speech."
• As a committed ideologue, Geller does not differentiate between ISIS and the broad demographics of Muslims.  Closer home where she stands, she does not differentiate between Judaism, a recognizable faith, and Zionism, a political ideology of assertive territorial claims.  In late May, the new Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely counseled the diplomatic corps.  He advised that they "should use the Bible as a tool for telling the world that the entire land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River belongs to the Jews." (The New York Times, May 26, 2015)
• Mixing faith with politics puts such declarations at par with those of Muslim extremists and committed terrorists.  The new Egypt is engaged in a new revolution, a "Religious Revolution."  Under the leadership of Al-Azhar, the term "jihad" is being redefined in textbooks.  In accordance with the notion of accepting the other.  Israel's new leadership is opting for a greater Israel dressed in a religious garb.

In today's world of rage and non-sensical assumptions, only the course of putting yourself in the shoes of the other shall ultimately prevail.  Hate mongers, and those who do not see the other in their midst as equals and deserving, are doomed to failure.

That is why Pope Francis represents "The Sky Above," while Pamela Geller stands for "The Mud Below."  No wonder that the Holy See has just recognized "The State of Palestine."  For Francis is a peace recruiter.  Geller is a jihadi enabler.

Other jihadi enablers, though perhaps unwittingly, are:

• Netanyahu's advocacy of the elimination of the 2-State solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
• Republicans campaigning for the US presidency, calling for "slipping a State of Palestine into Egyptian territory;"
• The Likud characterization of criticism of Israeli practices in the occupied territories as efforts for the delegitimation of Israel;
• Hamas denial of the right of Israel to exist within agreed borders;
• The holocaust deniers.  They are worse than history fabricatiors.  Because they are blind to a human calamity which, among other things, changed the entire history of the Middle East and beyond.

As in the mold of Pam Geller, such calls are grist for the ISIS mill of barbarism and obfuscation.  In spite of the chaos now gripping the Middle East, the use of religion for political ends, or as a cover for hate, shall have very limited shelf life.