By Invitation: In January, the Rabbi Was Unable To Go To Al-Azhar, But In May, Al-Azhar Was Able To Go To the Rabbi

When there is a will, there is a way!! Perfectly  applicable to the mutual invitations between Al-Azhar and Rabbi Dr. Robert Widom of Temple Emanuel of Great Neck, New York and Al-Azhar through me.

During my visit in December 2017 with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, I was briefed on the plan for a global conference on Jerusalem that was to be held in Cairo in January of this year. The purpose was to invite me to it, and to have me recommend leaders of other faiths to be guests of Al-Azhar and to speak at that conference. My prompt response was: "I would be honored to come, and to invite my distinguished friend, Rabbi Widom to join." As I sat facing Dr. El-Taiyeb, the enthusiasm for that response was palpable.

But the leader of that great Reform Temple, with which I have been associated as an "honary member" since 1974, had a conflict of appointments. He could not attend, but his support for a non-change of the status of Jerusalem as a shared capital for Israel and a future State of Palestine was well known.

It was Widom's fair-mindedness over the past 44 years of my proximity to him, to his thoughts, and to the congregation of Temple Emanuel, which led me to invite over the years senior Egyptian diplomats to address that congregation.

So from 1980 to nearly 1990, "the pulpit" of Temple Emanuel of Great Neck reverberated by the voices that authoritatively expounded Egypt's outlook on peace in the Middle East. Those voices belonged to the late Dr. Esmat Abdel-Mcguid, and to the then Ambassador Amre Moussa, Ambassador Abdel-Raouf El-Reedy and Ambassador Hussein Hassounna, who spoke at that time in the name of the League of Arab States.

It was that activity on behalf of an Egypt which has been for 7000 years a universal cultural bridge which the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo has never recognized. For in 2007, as I was visiting the country of my birth, I was asked at a public meeting if I would visit Mehdi Akef, the then Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In reality that invitation was a challenge couched in the form of an invitation. I instantly could perceive several pitfalls in such an encounter. Primarily, such a visit could not be of any assistance to the central purpose of my visit at that time to Cairo. I was in the process of gathering ideas and material in preparation for my new seminar at Fordham University School of Law in New York.

The graduate seminar which lasted from 2008 to 2015, was entitled: "Islamic Law and Global Security." My Cairo coordinator was my late beloved friend Dr. Mahmoud Mahfouz, former Health Minister.

Upon entering the offices of Mehdi Akef, who was surrounded by a dozen of his top lieutenants, Akef immediately shot an arrow across the bow of the conference. He asked me: "Do you speak to the Jews?"

As I learnt at the UN and through litigation as an attorney, an odd question belies an odd perception. And an odd perception, however offensive it might be, calls for a determined counter offensive. "Supreme Guide," I responded, "I am an honorary member at Temple Emanuel at a New York suburb. And why don't I interact with the Jews, any Jews, for the sake of mutual understanding in the Middle East. This is especially critical following 2 peace treaties between Israel and two Arab States: Egypt and Jordan." Then a call to the Noon prayer offered me the chance of a quick exit.

It is such an obscurantist mind which has plagued the Muslim Brotherhood throughout its history since it began in 1928. That is even after its assumption of supreme power in Egypt from 2012 to 2013 under a misfit by the name of President Muhammad Morsi (now an Ex).

Now back to my comfort zone: my speaking on May 11 at Temple Emanuel, during religious services. It was on "The New Religious Islamic Revolution." That is the title of my recent book, authored as Trump was undeservedly elected President of the US and inaugurated in January 2017.

Trump and his base have disastrously converted Islamophobia in America in a war on Islam. Trump's first National Security Advisor, General Flynn, has declared that Islam was "a cancer," and not a religion but "a political ideology." 

Such malicious characterization, which was followed up by Trump's successive executive orders banning citizens of seven Islamic countries from US entry, was a clear signal on what was to come. The new American administration was victim of seeing Islam through the criminal eyes and acts of jihadis.

That circumstance was enough reason for me not only to write that book in response. It was also enough reason to dedicate the book to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, and to Al-Azhar itself, from which my late father had graduated.

Appearing at Temple Emanuel on the evening of May 11 was in essence Al-Azhar going to the Temple. The road of interfaith communication does not only run through the advocacy by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif of "The New Islamic Religious Revolution." That road also collides with the retrograde thesis of Sam Huntington in his book on "clash of civilizations."

At my presentation before the enthusiastic congregation at the Temple, I set forth before them the primary sources of my book, published by Amazon, in December 2017. These were the very words voiced by Dr. El-Taiyeb, in 2016 and 2017, before the European Parliament in Berlin, and in France, Russia, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates. And in Cairo before leaders of the youths of Rohynga of Myanmar.

That torch held aloft by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, a graduate of the Sorbonne (Paris), as a trail blazer. His utterances were the essence of ideological attacks on ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other criminal franchises. For those terrorists sought in vain to present Islam as a high dam separating Islam from the world of enlightenment.

Expressing that universalism at the Temple seems to have hit the mark: The Temple had arranged for me a reception after my speech featuring tens of copies of my book for sale. It was the first time for me as an author of more than a dozen of books to be in the role of signing copies of that book to a long line of Jewish purchasers of a book stating in English the very theme of the Islamic Revolution -namely: In faith, all of humanity is one.

And this is how I began that presentation at Temple Emanuel:

"I kept on drafting, then redrafting my remarks for us tonight: The topic of "the oneness of faith" has multi-layered meanings. It encompasses the existential question of "what is faith." Is it allegiance to duty or a person? Is it fidelity to one's promises? Is it sincerity of intentions? Is it belief and trust in and loyalty to God? Is it a firm belief in something for which there is no material proof?

We were born to think. And if you think, you have to believe that others think also -thoughts that crystallize in complex beliefs which we call faith. And all the questions which introduced my remarks are, in their totality, facets of faith."

A credible advocacy of a global cause needs an articulation in a language with which the global audience is familiar. Good English is a vehicle, so is good Arabic. Except that what is said in the Arab and Muslim worlds in classical Arabic has to be imported to America in classical English.

Otherwise the great culture of universalism shall always remain hidden from view. Not only by geography. But also by recognition that effective interpretation of words and concepts are truly the sinews of global understanding.

In this historic search for universal understanding, Al-Azhar and Temple Emanuel are but one as vehicles of interfaith.

The Historic Abandonment: The Present US Department of Justice Neither Defends Nor Enforces Civil Rights

The American Declaration of Independence (1776) was the promise. The U.S. Constitution (1787) was the fulfillment. The soul of both documents has always been ordered liberty. Expressed differently, Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986) said it best: "Ever since people began living in tribes and villages, they have had to balance order with liberty. Individual freedom had to be weighed against the need for security of all."

Today's Department of Justice must be measured by these concepts. For these measurements have made America, until the age of Trump, a unique environment. That uniqueness stemmed from the creation of energies and talents of a diverse population of an ever-changing America.

Regretfully no more. The present Department of Justice, under the stewardship of Attorney General Jeff Sessions has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned its central mission. It no longer defends nor enforces civil rights. Though Trump has peddled his regime as one of "law and order," the facts on the ground prove that the reality exists outside "law and order." 

No legal argument can prove this point like the recently-published book entitled "Fascism" by Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State. That book shall be reviewed in a future posting of this blog. Other good books have been recently published along the same theme of Trump's failure to govern this great union of 50 States effectively.

The global effect of that failure? America can no longer be a global guide to other sovereign States in the pivotal area of concern of the world of today -namely human rights. What compounds this dilemma are the constant attacks by President Trump against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its head, Jeff Sessions. Trump labels DOJ and Sessions as "Disgraceful."

In these thoughtless attacks by a President on his own cabinet member, Sessions, lies an irony. The U.S. President sees in DOJ a role which has never been intended for the executive branch of the US Government. Since its establishment, DOJ has been regarded as an independent cabinet department which is immunized from interference by the White House.

But not under Trump. He, with no prior experience in government, has regarded DOJ as existing for his own personal legal protection. This thinking has been evidenced by the first and only conversation between president-elect Trump and the then outgoing President Obama. This conversation has been reported as follows: Trump, referring to Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder, is reported to have extolled to Obama: how effectively has Holder protected Obama. The surprised Obama responded: Holder was not there to protect me. He was there to protect the American people.

So as the legal challenges to his presidency multiply, including the ongoing investigations into Russia's role in electing Trump president of the U.S., Trump has continually manifested his disgust with the Mueller investigations. These are focused on the alleged Trumpian obstruction of justice and possible collusion with Russia in Trump elevation to the occupancy of the White House.

The issues demonstrating the abandonment by the present DOJ of its historic responsibilities cover a very long list of items. This imposes on us the task of selecting only two primary ones:

Voting Rights:
The right to vote is the gateway to self-rule. Tampering with that franchise is the pathway to suffocating democracy. Under Sessions, those rights have been under constant attack. For twenty solid years, the Republican party has surpassed the Democratic party in building up its representation from the ground up: from school boards to state government, to occupancy of congressional seats.

The Republicans spoke the language of the changed American street. This is while the Democrats focused on urban cities and the language of the elite: urbane, nuanced, and nearly incomprehensible to the half-educated or even the non-educated populace. The most current phrase of the Tea Party, which ushered in the Trump dark ages, was: "We need people who look and speak like us." 

The Republican Party of today, a winner among the non-elite, evokes the memory of the defunct "Know Nothing Party" of the American post civil-war. The Trump governance ethos, now supported by 49 million Americans, is "don't trust either institutions or politicians."

With the Trump rallies, a modern Roman circus, becoming the Trump's mass way of governance, "America First" now means "America is for the whites only."

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was adopted in order to ensure and facilitate access to voting. The ballot box is the ultimate container of the popular will. Texas, a traditionally "red State" (Republican) has now adopted voter identification requirements. The introduction by the Texas legislature of those requirements had the hallmarks of racism as affirmed by a ruling by a federal judge against it.
• DOJ has now abandoned its opposition to that measure of voter suppression, a shift in line with the preferences of Trump and Sessions. The non-white population is known to vote democratic. This is an electoral fact which has pushed Trump to claim that Hillary's surpassing him in 2016 in the popular vote by 3 million has been due to millions of people voting fraudulently, a charge which is wholly without merit.
• In Ohio, about 50% of the population, like other Americans, don't vote. It has been reported that 80 percent of the notices sent by the state to eligible voters were never returned. Though there was no indication that such result was due to voters' moving out of that jurisdiction, Ohio took the drastic measure of removing them from the voting rolls.

Thus the citizens of Ohio, upon presenting themselves at their assigned voting station, only to discover that their names were not on the record, were turned away from exercising their constitutional right.

The upshot was a Supreme Court case (Hsted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute). That case challenged in January 2018 Ohio's practice of purging voters from the rolls if they failed to vote and/or failed to return the voting notice mailed to them. Remember that 80% of such notices were never returned.

The DOJ during the Obama administration had supported that lawsuit. Its support was solidly based on the National Voter Registration Act which clearly prohibits a State from removing voters from the rolls for failing to vote. But with Sessions, the DOJ abandoned a position which it had maintained for two decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering by States of electoral lines in order to reduce the effect of voting by a browning America, and non-substantiated charges of fraud, all point to one sorry conclusion. The Trump's Department of Justice's role in defending and enforcing civil rights, access to the ballot, and equal treatment, has nearly evaporated.

Trump's only ascertainable concern is for saving his own skin from the looming disaster of successful investigations by special counsel, Bob Mueller, into the alleged Russian intervention in the choice of an American president.

Justice System Reform:

The American Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the US Constitution) delineates the shape of America's respect for the rights of the accused. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, through a fair and open court of law. Upon an arraignment of a suspect before a judge, the pleading of the suspect is invariably: "Not guilty, Your Honor."

Both Trump and Sessions have made the phrase "tough on crime," the vehicle for downgrading the right of the accused. Not only has the DOJ been active in selecting very conservative federal judges. The President himself has encouraged police officers not to be too concerned about injuring suspects during arrests. And his Attorney General, Sessions, has never abandoned exaggerating the volume of violent crime.

• The DOJ stands in opposition to bipartisan reform of sentencing guidelines. This is evidenced by Sessions ordering all federal prosecutors across the 50 states to seek the most extreme charges possible against criminal defendants. That is regardless of any extenuating circumstances.
• By contrast, Eric Holder, the Attorney General under President Obama, had a completely different approach. Holder had directed prosecutors to stay away from filing charges which carry unnecessarily harsh mandatory minimum penalties. That is with the exception of cases where the defendant had a significant criminal history, including gang leadership and drug trafficking.
• The result of this shift in charging has been an increase in mass incarceration. Harsher charging decisions made by prosecutors in the age of Trump/Sessions have been the primary cause.
• Just look up the book by Fordham Law professor John Pfaff, titled "Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration -and How to Achieve Real Reform." It clearly demonstrates that charging decisions have been the cause.

As compared to Germany, for example, we find that per capita, the American incarceration rate is nearly four times as large as in Germany. Germany's emphasis is on rehabilitation and eventual integration in society, rather than on punishment and revenge. The law, if it is worthy of its name, is not meant to "get even," but to effect behavioral change.

One of the most egregious attacks in America on reforming the criminal justice system is the project of privatizing the prison system. An owner of a private jail does not care about the legality of how his residents got to his jail. Like a hotel owner, he is focused on "full occupancy." The profit motive is the primary motivation. The main loser is justice.

It is a great irony that the reduction in crime in America, which began in the Bush/Obama era, is now bold-facedly, claimed by Trump as resulting from his being "a law and order president," a leader who is "draining the Washington swamps." In reality, the age of Trump demonstrates that the persistent swamp is located in Trump's White House. Including the racist and ethnic ban of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering America.

Walling off of Muslims from entering America, is a part of the Trumpian march towards selectively disengaging the US from world affairs. Witness Trump's persistent call for a wall on the American/Mexico border. This reflects Trump's growing reliance on the popular myth that America is under attack.

The use of American laws as divisive tools within and outside America, especially when it comes to the Muslim world, ignores some basic American facts. In the US of today there are an estimated 3.5 million Muslims from 75 different countries (1% of the US population). Reporting on these facts, the American magazine, National Geographic of May 2018 said about them: "They (the American Muslims) are forming communities, building mosques, and thriving."

To this, I should add that many of these Muslims are enrolled in police departments all over the US, as well as in the armed forces. They included the son of Kizr Khan, formerly of Pakistan, an officer, who died in Afghanistan trying to save his troops from the carnage caused by a suicide bomber.

The father of that officer who died for the U.S. remains a strong advocate in America for the Rule of Law. His famous admonition to Trump shall live on for a long time. He shamed Trump at the Democratic National Convention of 2016 as he said: "Sir!! Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?!"

Michael Hayden, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency has wondered in his forthcoming book as follows: "How do you brief a president (Trump) who isn't interested in facts?" The title of this awaited book is "The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies."

Guantanamo Bay? Human Rights Laws Have Never Lived There!!

It is the darkest stain on America's human rights record!! Opened in 2002 in a fit of rage over 9/11, a criminal act to which neither Islam nor the Muslim world is related, it is still open. Challenging every Rule of Law. Obama tried to close it; Trump declares that he shall repopulate it. This is no way to MAGA (Make America Great Again). It is a way for ISIS to justify its lunatic existence.

Why is Guantanamo a human rights hell hole? The reasons are diverse, but their centrality resides in the following:

• Scooping whole populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a massive American dragnet? A nasty violation of the American Constitution injunction against "attainder." What is attainder?: Grabbing a person anywhere and hauling them to prison without notice, arraignment or charges.
• No habeaus corpus application. What is that? Enabling the detainee to appear in a court of law to challenge the cause of their loss of freedom. No Guantanamo detainee (their number has once exceeded 700 Muslims) was allowed that legal relief. 
• Who caused the deprivation of that elementary human right, which, in English, means "you have the body of the detainee?" By legislation of the US Congress, the legislative arm of the US Government. What was the reason for such unconstitutional legislation?: The laughable claim that these Muslims are neither American citizens, nor are they on US soil!!
• Really? But then what are they, and where are they on the part of the planet Earth called Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? They, from the ludicrous view violating human rights, are not American citizens, but "economy combatants." Thus, that foolish view goes on to say: these Muslims are not entitled to Habeaus Corpus application.
• But isn't the designation of "enemy combatant" the prerogative of a congressional action? Yes, but this is total war (where there is no distinction between military and civilian). So Congressional action has been dispensed with. Furthermore, so the lawless argument goes, those Muslims are not on American soil!!
• Oh My God!! Are you claiming that habeaus corpus can only apply on American soil? But Guantanamo Bay is American soil!! How do we know that?: The American flag is fluttering over it; the US Defense Department controls it; the Cuban Government has no scintilla of control over it; and the US Supreme Court had in 2004 dealt directly with it.
• How did SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the US) deal with it? In the famous case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). (Hamdi was a Guantanammo detainee; Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense), the Supreme Court required the Defense Department to provide Hamdi with the opportunity to challenge his classification as enemy combatant.
• The importance of that case lies in: (a) the Court's recognition of Guantanamo as "territory of the US.;" (b) confirmed the lawful extension of Habeaus Corpus to anyone detained in such territory; (c) four of the Justices relied on the Geneva Conventions (1949) as a source of due process; and (d) declared that the term "enemy combatant" does not exist in those Geneva Conventions.
• Here we should note that since 2003, the year of the American war of choice on Iraq, those conventions were downgraded to things of the past (depasse). And therefore not applicable to what the Justice Department and White House counsel called a new type of war: non-conventional, since the adversary (the terrorists) wore no uniforms; held no recognizable boundaries; and had no clear command and control hierarchy. As could be seen below, these are all bogus claims rebutted by international rules of laws of armed conflict. 

The Supreme Court cases of Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), proved that Guantanamo Bay, seen from the angle of human rights, was no more than a legal swamp whose drainage was called for by the US Constitution, US laws, international conventions on human rights to which America has affixed its accession.

• Rasul v. Bush (2004) held that America had sufficient sovereign control over Guantanamo. Thus justifying the extension of Habeaus Corpus to "the foreign nationals seized in Pakistan and Afghanistan, during America's invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 and transferred to Guanatanmo."
• And Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) denied the legality of the US establishment of "military commissions." Said the Supreme Court that those commissions, established as substitutes for the regular US criminal courts to try the Guantanamo detainees, were not authorized by the US Congress.
• The link made by the Supreme Court between the US legal system and international conventions were at its broadest in yet another case. In Boumedienne v. Bush (2008), the Court recognized the challenge raised by foreign nationals to the concocted term "enemy combatant," and to their endless detention at Guantanamo. Once more the absence of Habeaus Corpus application was noted, but on broader grounds. The Court's holding in that case declared that that deprivation violated the US Constitution federal laws, the US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions (1949), and Customary International Laws.

Guantanamo, the human rights catastrophe, has led to a Congressional act called the Military Commissions Act (MCA). MCA was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Such act constitutes aggression against the Rule of Law. This is because it precluded the federal judiciary from having Guantanamo detainees from bringing before it Habeaus Corpus challenges.

Thus a totally non-Rule of Law structure has been built. Infecting both Congress and the Executive, as far as law and order are concerned, with the Guantanamo disease.

Not only have the Geneva Conventions (1949) been blatantly flouted. So, among others, have been the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the UN Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966); the UN Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966); and the Torture Convention.

Specifically on the Torture Convention: It is most ironic for a former US Vice President (Cheney) to regard "water boarding" (subjecting a detainee to the simulation of drowning to force out confessions) as not torture. Torture, which has been the modus operandi in Guantanamo against detainees (all Muslims), is legally regarded "a universal crime." A universal crime is defined as a crime punishable by any State anywhere. Universal is universal.

A brief legal analysis of the Torture convention reveals: (1) The Torture Convention is an international treaty; (2) The US is a signatory of that Convention; (3) Under the theory of integration, developed by US chief justice John Marshall, in the case Marbury v. Madison (1832), that Convention has become the law of the land; (4) Under that Convention, torture is considered "a universal crime;" (5) Therefore, all American states are estopped from extraditing any individual, regardless of their status on American soil, to any other country where there are "substantial grounds for believing that there is a danger of torture."

It should also be stated that Guantanamo has not served to enhance US security; has resulted in the conviction of only ONE detainee (out of more than 700), namely Khaled Sheikh Muhammad; has offered the jihadists, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, justification for their existence; has demeaned the claim by the US that it is a governance based on the Rule of Law, including supporting human rights laws.

Keeping Guantanamo open is akin to keeping alive the aura of suspicion on the part of 1.7 billion Muslims that Islamophobia has, in America, become a war on Islam. No system of international peace and security can be sustained world-wide "without the gates of that hell hole been firmly shutdown."

Even the Alien Tort Claims Act provides American federal courts with jurisdiction over any claim of a violation of the law of nations. (the Kadic Case). The time may not be far into the future to get ready for massive reparations. Accountability Matters!!

THE US SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IS NOT ON THE SIDE OF GUANTANAMO. WHY? BECAUSE HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE NEVER RESIDED THERE. THE ONLY RESIDENT THERE GOES BY THE LONG NAME OF "ANTI-MUSLIMS POLITICAL MANIPULATION."

Absolute Justice For All: The Islamic Judicial Magna Carta Of Omar, In the 7th Century AD

It was promulgated 500 years before Magna Carta was issued in 1215. Magna Carta was extracted by British nobles from King John on behalf of human rights for his subjects. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second to succeed the Prophet Muhammad, as the second of four Enlightened Caliphs, had a sense of absolute justice.

With law being basically an equalizer, the motto "Justice Is the Pillar of Governance" was Omar's creed. Unsurprisingly, it appears on the wall of every Arab court behind the judge's bench. In Arabic it says: "Al-Adl Asas Al-Mulk."

With our present world in disarray, especially in these waning days of jihadism, I opted for translating Omar's judicial creed from Arabic into English.

And for a suitable location for that first-ever translation, I annexed it to my book, recently published by Amazon. The book's full title is "War on Jihadism By Ideology: The New Islamic Religious Revolution." That publication has been dedicated to Al-Azhar in Cairo, and to its Grand Imam, Dr. El-Taiyeb.

Of course, Omar's judicial creed is the very anti-thesis of the catastrophe for justice and human rights summed up in one word: "Guantanamo." For it reads as follows as instructions for a nominee for a judgeship in Kofa, Iraq:

Here follows its full text:

• "From Omar To Abu-Musa Al-Ashaari: Peace Be Upon You!! 
• Know that judging is a firm religious duty, and a tradition observed. Be sure to understand the pleadings delivered before you. And when you reach a decision based on evidence, implement it. For there is no use in speaking about what is right if it lacks execution.
• Maintain a neutral face while on the bench, performing the role of a judge. This ensures that the powerful shall not aspire to your siding unjustly with them. Nor shall the powerless despair of your rendering justice unto them.
• The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. And those impeaching that evidence should take a solemn oath that their denial has merit.
• Conciliation is permissible between litigants (referred to in general as Muslims). That is unless it is on a basis disapproved by Islamic jurisprudence, or denying what is permitted under that jurisprudence.
• Do not hesitate to review and amend a judgment which you might have reached the day before, only to discover, through your sense of fairness, that it was in error. That is because what is right does not age by the passage of time, as nothing could invalidate an obvious right.
• Returning to the zone of what is rightfully just supersedes any continuation down the path of what is unjust. And if someone claims a right that has not been uncovered before a proof was available, give them a time limit to provide such evidence. If they succeed, rule in favor of restituting to them those rights. But if they fail, they lose their cause. Thus no pretexts can stand, and no blindness to what is evident can prevail.
• Comprehension, comprehension of the pleadings in your court. Especially whatever is in those pleadings which is not based on text either in the Quran or in the Prophet’s tradition. In these situations, resort to prior cases decided by unanimity (ijmaa) or by analogy (quias). Educate yourself about those precedents, then make the judgments which seem to you to be supported by the Quran, as close as possible to the word of God, and nearest to the concept of fairness.
• People (the faithful) have a sense of what is right within their society. With the exception of those whose testimony had been previously impeached as false, or those previously convicted, or those whose sense of loyalty or family lineage is subject to doubt.
• Only God knows what people harbor in their bosoms, and He is the One who shields them from punitive measures. That is with the exception of situations where there is probative evidence and proven faith.
• You are hereby instructed to avoid becoming angry or anxious or bored, or upset by adversaries, or by turning your back upon issues of conflict. That is because good judging on issues of right and wrong is what God dictates to you, and is what you shall be remembered by.
• This is applicable to judges who are endowed with good will and who might rule even against themselves. It is the way prescribed by God for any relationship between a judge and his community.
• But those who resort to mere appearances which they know to be non-reflective of their true feelings, shall not be favored by God. Only honesty can be favored by God, and that is where God shall favor those who adhere to it, rewarding them in their livelihoods and through his limitless mercy.

Peace Be With You."

From the above, a global legal conclusion emerges. Equal protection of the law, otherwise referred to colloquially as "no one is above the law" is the substance of Omar's judicial decree. At that time, mid of the 7th Century AD, judging was integral to rulership.

Prior to the promulgation of Omar's judicial decree, which adorns the entrance to the Institute of High Judicial Studies in Abbasiyah (a Cairo district), the Prophet Muhammad had planted the seed of that concept.

In appointing Moaz Ibn Jabal judge for Yemen, to succeed the Prophet's cousin and protege, Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb, he urged the pursuit of a novel concept for finding the law. In summary, he urged that if the judge cannot discover the rule of law applicable to any case, in either the Quran or the Sunna, he should extrapolate it through common sense -in Arabic "Al-Hekmah." Thus the Prophet made Al-Hekmah the modus operandi of Al-Ijtihad, which in effect is the brain of Sharia (Islamic Law).

From the 7th Century (Omar's decree in Arabia) to the 13th Century (Magna Carta in England), to the 19th Century, when the U.S. Constitution embraces the same concept, the thread holding that legal necklace is one and the same. For the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868 provides for "any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, never accept the ancient Roman saying: "In times of war, the law falls silent." It never does!!

Ibn Al-Khattab put his declared faith in "equality before the law" in practice. Not only was he one of only 17 men in his tribe (Quraish) who could write when Islam began, thus able to enhance the enforcement of his sense of justice. Omar was also a dedicated protector of minority rights.

He chided and punished his appointed governor to Egypt in 641 AD for injustice to an Egyptian Christian subject (a Copt). Omar's words, on that occasion, shall always stand as testimony to "justice is the pillar of governance." For he told the errant Governor: "Why do you enslave people who were born free by the very fact of their birth!!"


NOTE: This blog posting is now monthly, appearing at the end of each month. This pattern shall continue while I am writing my autobiography.

Getting to Know the State of Kuwait

While I was Secretary of the Board of UNITAR (The UN Institute for Training and Research), I was tasked with supervising a special study. It was (in short) "issues of Small States." Its drafter was an Eritrean scholar, friend of mine, by the name of Dr. Berhan Andemicael. Later, Berhan headed the NY Liaison Office of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as I moved from UNITAR to establish the first Peace Research Center within the then UN Department for Secretary Council Affairs.

This is the context of this monthly blog, entitled "Getting to Know the State of Kuwait." Reason: Kuwait is described by the Kuwaitis as a "Small State." I beg to differ. States, in my own definition, are neither big, mid-size, nor small. Each State from Monaco to Russia draws their description from two sources: The character of their people, and the contribution they make towards internal welfare, and external management of their foreign affairs.

With these parameters in mind, I have observed Kuwait through its presidency of the UN Security Council in February, as well as through its celebration of its Liberation Day on February 26, 2018. Not only did I observe both the Foreign Minister, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, as well as the Kuwait Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Mansour Alotaibi; my gaze roamed beyond, as a search light, shining a spot on the totality of that environment of a State, whose origins date back to the mid 17th Century.

As I peered through the fog of the endless practice of UN compromises, a requisite for Security Council complex drafting and passing of resolutions, I detected Kuwaiti calm and well modulated voice from the presidential chair. No screams, no shouts, no pointing of blaming fingers on issues, such as Syria, Yemen, Libya, Central African Republic, Palestine and ISIS.

The outward motion hummed on noiselessly. Its combustion engine was not that of a tractor, but of a Mercedes Benz. The goal was to move things forward, even through the boulders of big power rivalries seeking to score points, not necessarily moving towards the two principal objectives of the UN: peace and prosperity.

Not since the 1990s when UN Secretary-General Boutros Ghali issued his twin agendas, one for peace, the other for development, have I, as professor of international law and organizations, seen the likes of the Kuwait concept memorandum on energizing the peace and prosperity pillars on which the UN Charter of 1945 had been established. Seeing in it the spirit of a "small" but resilient State, I have assigned it a course of study for my spring intern from St. Francis College, New York City, Julia Cruet. Her successors (I only take one notable undergraduate each semester from St. Francis College -a class of one student!!), shall benefit by that historic concept paper introduced by Kuwait into the UN annals.

Beyond the UN realm, I came to discern in the public events organized by the Permanent Mission of the State of Kuwait to the UN, what I can only describe as "the of sinews resilience" of Kuwaiti Society. From that I learnt why the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait of 1990 had failed. That power grab by Saddam Hussein had collapsed, not only because of the collective military intervention by the UN. The roots of that failure, as I came to recently discover, grew deeper in the sands of Kuwait through a population that said: Saddam "you can burn our oil fields. But you shall not extinguish our 350 years of Kuwait ID!!"

How did I reach that conclusion? Not through fantasy of a person like myself who was born in the desert of an Egyptian province called Sharqiah, west of the two Suez Canals. But through:

• Their orchestra playing in the UN General Assembly Hall;
• Their songs evoking the transition from the "hard times," to "the blessed times of plenty;"
• Their diverse skin color which reminds me of the American and the Egyptian models;
• The engagement by Ambassador Alotaibi and his Deputy, Mr. Bader AlMunayekh of little Kuwaiti girls dancing to their native music;
• The teamwork of their diplomats who seem never to forget why they are in New York serving Kuwait and the world;
• The outward openness and affability of their ladies whether diplomats, spouses, advisers or local recruits;
• Their generosity writ large not only at the Mission; but also worldwide through the "Kuwait Development Fund." They have even contributed significantly in 2018 towards the rebuilding of Iraq;
• Their national dress, especially the head gear, black AQAL (thick cord) holding in place a snow white Kaffieyeh covering a man's head, and needing constant adjustment with a flourish;
• Their security guards who never fail to greet every permitted visitor with the equivalent of the song in Oklahoma: "Oh What a Beautiful Day!!"

I am finally getting to know the State of Kuwait through only two weeks of residence at the Permanent Mission.

So please note: Kuwait is not only a State; it is "a state of mind!!"

With Trump As Captain, The Ship of State Is Sinking

At least Captain Ahab had a single obsession: To destroy a killing whale that interfered with safe navigation. But Trump has shown that he is plagued with various obsessions. Shifting whimsically from one to another. The obvious result is that the American ship of State is in dire peril. Whether he stays or goes, the damage to the Rule of Law in the U.S. shall outlast Trump's tenure.

Institutions like checks and balances, federal and state interaction, constitutional observance of limits of presidential power, respect for the Department of Justice, and non-interference with the freedom of the press, taking together, have been the hallmarks of American governance. They, not Trump single-handedly, have made America great.

But the very notion of "Make America Great Again," in the Trump era, is a revisionist vow to undo the America of 240 years of tradition. Only to replace it with an America gone rogue. Internally and externally. Never in my 66 years of life in the U.S. have I felt that the warning uttered in 1954 by one of my professors at Rutgers University, New Jersey's State University, might actually become real.

Professor Sidney Ratner, for whom I was a teaching assistant in American economic history, said at one of his seminars: "Under our Constitution, the President, if he is so inclined, could become a dictator." We thought that Ratner was being hyperbolic. Now I could see in Trump the very materialization of a dictator. For the Donald, the primary concern is loyalty to him, not to America's decades-old institutions.

No more can the word of Trump as president, be credible. Buzz-feed and other fact-checkers have attributed to him no less than 2000 lies, deliberately uttered in 2016 and 2017. A conman by both upbringing and temperament, like the Donald, shall eventually go down in history as a charlatan whose age's of one darkness.

Citing selectivity some manifestations of Trump's America gone rogue, one might start with the phenomenon of the House Speaker, Paul Ryan, choosing to stand aside as Trump treats Congress as if it were a subsidiary of the Trump organization. The episode of the release of a document impugning the credibility of the Department of Justice and the FBI, in spite of the opposition of those law enforcement agencies, is truly shameful.

That shame is allowed to envelope today's America, without a whimper by the House Speaker, shall forever attach. For the only beneficiary of that flagrant violation of America's need to protect its national secrets from the mischief of a hostile foreign power, Russia, shall not soon be forgotten. Saving Trump from the possible results of the ongoing investigation by the special counsel, Mueller, has become to the Republican establishment of today more important than protecting America's democracy.

In Trump's first State of the Union message, delivered on January 30, there was not even one word by that fake president against Russia. That is although no less than 517 votes were cast in the House of Representatives for the imposition of sanctions on Russia for its imperial designs on Europe. It is truly laughable.

Full throatedly in his State of the Union message, Trump characterized his efforts to place himself above the law as "our new American moment." Then, after applauding for himself in the style of a cheerleader, he declared: "Together, we can achieve absolutely anything." 

So let us look at Trump's view of "Our new American moment" in the context of today's American realities.

Disposing of the veracity of the phony rallying cry of "Togetherness," no American president before Trump has ever divided this great nation. His "America First" is no more than a code phrase for "America is for the Whites only." He has supported the extreme American right, equated between American Nazis and American supporters of diversity, and lambasted African States as "shit hole States." Trump has stood with the deprivation of minorities of the right to vote through gerrymander and vote-suppression. And has hatefully claimed that "the Muslims hate us." 

As to "Our New American Moment," it is "his" not "our" American moment. His guru, Steven Bannon, has called for "the destruction of the Administrative State," and his spokesmen have railed against "the deep State," a code name for "conspiracy" built in the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the 17 security agencies of the US, including the FBI. The Trumpist efforts are aimed at diversion, disbelief in the free-press (he called it "enemy of the people"), and preparation for either dismissing the Special Counsel, or casting doubts on the outcome of his investigations.

Today's Trump fascism has become clear in various ways: Indicators of his involvement in the obstruction of justice multiply. Whatever the outcome of the Mueller investigation, Donald Trump shall forever be stigmatized, at least as a non-convicted felon. For that rogue White House occupant has:

• Demanded from James Comey, former FBI Director, at the White House on January 27, 2017, a pledge of loyalty. At that time, Comey was overseeing the investigation of the Trump campaign;
• On February 14, 2017, Trump, acting in a mafia-mode, directed several officials to leave the Oval Office so he could be alone with Comey. At that unlawful tete-a-tete, he asked Comey to "let" the investigation of Michael Flynn "go." Flynn (the instigator of "lock her up about Hillary) had resigned the previous day as Trump's national security advisor.
• But that resignation had come about eighteen days after Trump was warned by the Department of Justice about Flynn's criminal involvement with Russia, in detriment to American national interest.
• With Comey standing his constitutional grounds, as his oath of office as FBI Director was to uphold the US Constitution and laws, Trump, on May 9, fired Comey.
• On the following day, the President of the United States told the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and the Russian Ambassador to Washington that the firing had "taken off the great pressure" of the Russian investigation. No US press was allowed to witness that treasonous admission. Only Russian media was permitted to record that unbelievable obsequious self-prostration in the mode of a Putin agent.
• No loyalty to country, to flag, to an oath of office, or to the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, provides for the following Oath or Affirmation by the President-elect at inauguration: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
• On May 11, 2017, Trump told NBC News for the whole world to see, that the firing of Comey was because of "this Russia thing." Being unfaithful to your country, Mr. President, is not a "thing."
• If proven, your collusion with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, if proven by the ongoing Mueller investigation, (forget about the sham of congressional investigations) is an impeachable offense. It falls within "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution).

Trump is still exploring various options to regain control of the Mueller investigations, including his attacks on the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, on the Deputy Attorney General, on the FBI, and the indirect firing of Andrew McCabe, the FBI deputy director. Bulldozer Trump shall not stop at anything or anyone who is not on the "Trump team."

Trump's totality of illegal actions shall have to be judged by the same standard used in Nixon's article of impeachment. It reads as follows: "made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." At the Constitutional Convention, when the framers were debating impeachment, George Mason asked: "Shall any man be above justice?"

To that basic principle on which America was established, I should add these words of Daniel Webster: "There are men, in all ages ... who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters... They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves... The Love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts..."

In North Korea, Kim is reported to kill those who do not applaud him with gusto. And in America, Trump has called the Democrats who did not join in applauding his "State of the Union" message last month "un-American" and even "treasonous." Conclusion: Kim and Trump, as dictators, are on the same page. Though not fully on the same authoritarian page. Kim is slightly better than his American clone. He does not attack his own law enforcement agencies.

In only one year of his chaotic presidency, Donald J. Trump has sunk even below the limits of "love of power." His narcissism, his divisiveness, his steering the ship of states over the shoals of destructive boulders, his kindness towards hostile foreign powers, and his mischief abroad, including his declaration of contested Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, are all sure signs of an unhinged potentate.

One of the recently published books sums up this dilemma. It is by David Frum, titled: Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic.

A Rare Arab Occurence: Judging Leaders By Their Peformance

How refreshing. Part of the mobocracy in the Arab world is to judge leaders by hearsay, not by performance. There is a weakened sense of nationalism in a 400 million population of whom 40% are illiterate. A combination which makes the rumor and personal interest the parameters for judging leadership performance. Yet, I was lucky enough to look up the sky when a shooting star was streaking across that darkness.

That was an article in the e-journal of Al-Qabas of Kuwait by a leader whom I have known for years to enjoy the gift of critical thinking. It is Ambassador Abdullah Bishara, former Kuwait representative to the UN, and later, the first Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (6 Gulf States). I always read his stuff and learn from it: the graceful Arabic rendering; the political analytical approach; the absence of pandering to leadership.

Bishara, as the founder and president of the Kuwaiti think tank of diplomatic and strategic studies, has been, and rightly so, critical of Egypt under Nasser (1950-1970), and aficionado of the democracy of Egypt before the Nasser Coup. On that plane, he and I, friends since 1968 (50 years ago) are on the same page. The ideological and contentious trajectory of Nasser's Egypt, and the lack of attention to the sovereignties of other Arab States caused the Egyptian public plenty of headaches.

Under Nasser, the great educational edifice crumbled. It was replaced by the rantings of hucksters, such as Mohamad Hassanain Heykal of Al-Ahram newspaper who sermonized that Arab leaders who did not accept Nasser's approach to Arab events were "traitors." I had once confronted Heykal at a dinner in Cairo in 1969 about the destructive hegemonic of attributing "treason" to others.

There has never been a consensual definition of "treason" which the Arab community of nations has reached. Nor can that be reached as each of these countries values its independence as an insulator from outside intervention under the guise of the controversial term "pan-Arabism." 

Under Nasser, Egypt became saddled with the inordinate price of his seeking to be a pan-Arab leader. The results were a series of catastrophes: The Sudan split from Egypt; Yemen descended into its first civil war (1962); Israel quadrupled its size following the 1967 war (the Six-Day War). The Arab leaders in Khartoum in 1967 declared: No negotiation, no recognition, no peace. That was at a time when Israel was ready to deal; but Nasser, and behind him, a corrupt Palestinian leadership, were after their image, not after an honorable accommodation.

Three years later, Arafat tried but failed to take over Jordan; the PLO immigrated to Lebanon; and Sharon of Israel, though through genocide at Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, forced Arafat and his corrupt coterie to flee to Tunisia. At every step, that failed Arab leadership assigned the word "victory" to every defeat. Even the massive defeat of 1967 was called "the setback" (Al-Naksah). The Nasser scene was one of phony image, but no substance. "The voice of the Arabs" was nothing as radio broadcasts more than unworthy propaganda in the service of Nasser.

Then in 1970, an Egyptian regeneration occurred with Vice President Sadat succeeding Nasser who passed away that year. An under-valued leader, the son of a Sudanese mother, whom the Nasser goons had disparaged and defamed as unfit to fill the shoes of his towering predecessor.

Being the heirs to the legacy of bombast, they were proven wrong. There was talk of attempted coup with Aly Sabri ready to assume the helm. Sadat, unexpectedly struck back; the armed forces stood solidly behind the legality of succession; and the suspected perpetrators ended up in jail, including the real author of "The Philosophy of the Revolution," Heykal.

With the era of pretended leadership of the fractious Arab world gone, Sadat, a true Egyptian patriot, saw in his presidency two vital goals: Regain Sinai from Israeli occupation, and rebuilding his country through economic and financial opening. As to the Arab world, Sadat ended any form of intervention, whether by the military, by the intelligence services, or by pretentious inflated propaganda.

Egypt, under Sadat, was not above other Arab countries; it acted as an example of a sovereignty which respected the sovereignties of its Arab sister States. Soon the era of good feelings generated by the Sadat regime (1970-1981) paid its national dividends, especially through Saudi Arabia under the enlightened leadership of King Farsal Ibn Abdel Aziz. His generosity was crucial to rebuilding, not only Egypt's economy, but also its demoralized huge armed forces.

With the Soviets dismissed by Sadat in 1972, the Supreme Armed Forces Command planned and successfully executed the crossing of the Suez Canal on October 6, 1973; destroyed the Israeli Bar Lev lines and partially penetrated Sinai. Egyptian honor was restored because that was not a fight, a la Nasser in Syria or Yemen. It was a fight by Egyptians, assisted by other Arab countries, for Egyptian liberation. The final outcome was peace with honor in the form of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979 which is still standing.

From Sadat, to Mubarak (1981-2011), to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (2011-2013), to the transitional government of Counsellor Adly Mansour (2013-2014), to El-Sisi (2014 to the present). The Sadat approach to Egyptian leadership held.

This brings me to the thoughtful assessment by Ambassador Abdullah Bishara of Kuwait in Al-Qabas newspaper in December 2017. Entitled (in Arabic) as "El-Sisi's leadership and Reforming Egypt," the author, eloquently, hit all the right keys. Bishara states that

• Modern Egyptian history records the names of two leaders who relieved Egypt from unprecedented burdens: Sadat, the liberator of Sinai; El-Sisi as Egypt's reformer;
• As the preparations for Sinai liberation distanced Sadat from the woes of its declining economy, El-Sisi came to give that economy his full attention;
• In the process, El-Sisi boldly relieved Egypt's economy from public subsidies for food stuffs, gas, electricity and water;
• Simultaneously, El-Sisi relentlessly pursued all those corrupt officials who have tarnished the dignity of Egypt and its public. There was no truce with those suspected of corruption whhom he exposed to public view;
• Referring to the other national preoccupation of El-Sisi, namely combatting terrorism, Bishara rightly points to El-Sisi perspective on terrorism as a retardant of Egypt's development.

Bishara's conclusion, which happily conforms to the reality of President El-Sisi, is that he is a true Egyptian leader, deeply immersed in his country's economic and social progress. Within that frame of mind, El-Sisi has patterned his diplomatic road map to align it with the improvement of the lot of his people.

Thus, Bishara, finds in El-Sisi approach a negation of the adventurism which characterized earlier regimes. The author sees in that sane and pragmatic approach the best way to stretching the hands of friendship and cooperation to all capitals. The goal, Bishara says, is to gain for Egypt access to technology and investments. For under El-Sisi, Cairo has become a capital with no enemy capitals abroad.

At the same time, Bishara sees the urgent need for Egypt to deepen the culture of investment. Laws, by themselves, are not enough. The educational process in regard to investment needs the elucidation of a philosophy which suffered greatly under Nasser. Nasserism has wrongly painted investment as a disease which robs Egypt, weakens its national resolve, and conspires against its security.

The remedy, as seen by Ambassador Bishara, is to inform the nation that investment creates job opportunities, opens up foreign markets, and introduces the new arts of management and technological innovation.

Only through such approaches, asserts the author, could Egypt create global partnerships which uplift the status of Egypt. This is feasible. Such a regime, which is confident in its capabilities and is a believer in the worthiness of its national program, can find in the societies of the private sector a true collaborator.

To Bishara, the yardstick for measuring the performance of El-Sisi government is: the educational and institutional innovations of Muhammad Ali Pasha, the founder, since 1805, of Egypt's last royal family. Then as now, seeking knowledge and education everywhere abroad, was the norm.

His parting shot in that seminal article in Al-Qabas of Kuwait, is a "We stand with Egypt, as we understand the nature of the leadership weight placed on the shoulders of President El-Sisi." This is particularly so after the terrorist massacre at the mosque in North Sinai -a massacre perpetrated by the devils of assassinations.

"May God Save Egypt and the Egyptians" was Bishara's prayer at the end of his article.

It is refreshing and inspiring to have such an Arab thinker, like Abdulla Bishara of Kuwait, pick up his pen to assess the Egyptian leader in terms of performance, not in terms of the dying personality cult and fake propaganda.

Note: Alazhar Forever replaces Tahrir Forever. Its focus is "The New Islamic Religious Revolution."