Institutions, like individuals, could be fragile. Their fragility is dictated by several factors, chief among which is how their function is perceived by those whom they are intended to serve. The confirmation hearings of Judge Kavanaugh, nominated by President Trump to the Supreme Court, constitute a historic case on the decline of public perception in the US of that co-equal branch of the American government.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides in its Section I that "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court." Then it goes on to add an important condition -a sort of a character reference. "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior."
The drama surrounding the attempted rape accusations against Judge Kavanaugh raises critical questions. The FBI fact-finding regarding his character did not prove culpability. It was a limited exercise in both duration and scope. Proving culpability requires investigating more than 4 persons. Thus the Senate's Republican majority has been poised to ram that nomination through. Could he as Justice Kavanaugh be impeached? And could Justice Clarence Thomas be impeached for Anita Hill accusations of 1991?
In theory, this is possible. In reality, it is nearly impossible. The damage to the perception of the Supreme Court as a neutral body judiciously deciding on cases and controversies (Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution) is already done. A two dimensional damage: politicization, with Republican appointees, siding with Republican-inspired causes; and Democratic appointees, casting their opinions in an opposite direction.
The Supreme Court of the future promises to be an arm of the Trump's Republican Party. Never mind for now, the moral reputational damage resulting from having seated not one, but two justices suspected of being sexual predators.
In that context, how can the US Supreme Court remain perceptionally "supreme?" This and other question marks about that 9-justices body hang over the grand edifice of that court. Even prior to the Kavanaugh historic debate. The truth is invariably hard to prove. This is exquisitely expressed in a book by Paul Bergman, entitled "Trial Advocacy" in a chapter on "Truth and the Adversary System."
On the issue of "trial," Bergman says: "Ironically, while you might instinctively agree that trial is a "search for truth," rarely can you prove "What really happened... Words have a limited power to convey real events." Then he goes on to say: "Some commentators may suggest that adversarial techniques obscure reality even further."
Even the Oxford Dictionary, when it comes to defining "truth," casts it in a muddy way. It says "quality, state, of being true, or accurate or honest or sincere or loyal." This fog is best expressed by the Arab sarcastic poem: "After much exertion, he ended up defining the term "water" as "water."
Of course, the volcanic performance of Kavanaugh before the Senate's Judicial Committee should have prevented his nomination from confirmation. Kavanaugh has dug up for all to see that politics, not law, as applicable to his case, were his true calling.
On Thursday, September 27, Kavanaugh demonstrated that there are two of him in one skin. Earlier that month, during the first round of confirmation hearings, there was Kavanaugh No.1 -a calm judicial demeanor. "The Supreme Court, he said, must never be viewed as a partisan institution." But on September 27, Kavanaugh No. 2, much like in the film "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," burst in the open, for the whole nation to see. His diatribe stunned me (as it did millions) as an attorney and a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court.
The real Kavanaugh was totally incoherent. He was vicious, betraying a hidden belief in the conspiracy theory, the trade mark of Donald Trump who nominated him as a potential shield from possible impeachment. Shouting his claims to innocence, Kavanaugh said: "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit."
Then, as if anger is a non-disputed evidence of innocence, he dug deeper in politicizing his case. The charges levelled against him by his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, were "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
Would such a person be neutral in deciding a case which might come before the Supreme Court, assessing the guilt or innocence of Trump complaining about his violation of the Presidential oath of Office? That oath provides for "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?" Judges are also humans with feelings. Even while they are wearing black robes.
And common sense dictates that Kavanaugh the volcanic and Kavanaugh the judge are inseparable. In the words of former President Harry Truman: "If you haven't got common sense, you shouldn't get out of bed in the morning."
Sadly, one should ask: "Is the US Supreme Court for sale?" If not, what prompts the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to say something to the effect of "We shall plow forth with the Kavanaugh nomination?"
September 27, 2018 and October 5 and 6, are dates that shall live in the annals of infamy. For they are pivot points for a besmirched Supreme Court, a highly dysfunctional US Congress, and a President who has been called by many, including one of his former Cabinet members,"an idiot." In today's American democracy, whose mainstays are "The Rule of Law," and a robust system of "checks and balances," those checks and balances do neither check nor balance.
The all-out war America has witnessed as of September 27, must have also terrified Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a devoted custodian of the court's prestige.
In 2016, the Chief Justice has concluded from a series of confirmation hearings, that those hearings were hobbled by rancorous partisanship: "We don't work as Democrats or Republicans. And I think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process."
Well, justice and fairness are largely about perception. They are not codified. There is a difference between "justice" and "law." Within that mix of perceptions, one factor looms large: President Trump is unhinged. A clown. And when you elect a clown, you get a circus!!
In an attempt to energize his supporters in West Virginia, Trump the Clown, on September 29, viciously mocked Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Later, he mocked Kavanaugh's accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The President of the US, who is personally accused by 16 women of sexual offenses, naturally sided with his soul-mate, Kavanaugh.
The President of the United States depicted Feinstein as confused before he turned on her party, saying: "You see the meanness, the nastiness. They don't care who they hurt ... in order to get power and control."
Words from a man whose whole life has been about self-aggrandizing. America of today is not the America intended to be by its great founders. The world laughed at Trump, the face of America, to his face at the UN on September 25.
Yet Trump and his aides insist that the world was laughing with him. Dream on!!
Friday, October 5, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
What A Bad Day for America At the UN!! An Avalanche of Contradictions By Donald Trump and of Laughter At Him
In his second annual appearance before the U.N. General Assembly, Donald Trump lived up to universal expectation. By making as little sense as possible before the presidents and prime ministers of 193 member states. An avalanche of contradictions, gushing out of the mouth of a man who doesn't like to read. Supplemented by much laughter at him.
So before an organization devoted to international cooperation for peace and prosperity, the Donald gleefully announced:
So before an organization devoted to international cooperation for peace and prosperity, the Donald gleefully announced:
- American withdrawal from membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council;
- Reduction of American contributions to UN peace-keeping operations to 25% of the required budget;
- The readiness of America to use its economic might to force other nations into submission to American barriers created to the disadvantage of the freedom of trade (tariff, taxes.. etc.)
- Accused China of violating the terms of its entry into the World Trade Organization, while thanking it for its role in ameliorating the tensions between America and North Korea; and
- The primacy of national sovereignty which he favors over globalization intended to harmonize between cross-border relationship and national interest.
It was last year that Trump from the UN GA rostrum that he threatened to wipe North Korea off the map. But this year, his old threats turned to utter praise for the North Korea president. Trump's floating hostility turned this year to Iran and Venezuela. In defiance of plain truth, the unhinged American President states that the Iran nuclear deal was a embarrassment to the US and that Venezuela needed a new leadership.
Lying through his teeth, he insinuated that many countries supported his unilateral opting out of the six-party Iran nuclear deal. Not so by any means. The International Atomic Energy Agency, through its inspectors, supported Iran's assertion of living up to the terms of that deal. And France, Germany, the UK, China and Russia have manifested their incredulity about the American claims. Breaking international deals is not the kind of action to be lauded at the UN GA annual summit.
It was impossible to square the Trump's call for respect of national sovereignty and the emphasis on self defense, with his declared threats against Venezuela and its leadership. Trump had no regard for the right of Venezuela to choose "socialism" over capitalism. His disparaging remarks flew in the face of the UN Charter emphasis on non-intervention in internal affairs.
Trump's message was a blatant return to gunboat diplomacy through the advocacy of a reborn Monroe doctrine (Monroeism) under which South America had been regarded as an American protectorate. Obviously he did not take account the fact that the president of this 73rd session of the General Assembly was a fine lady diplomat from Ecuador.
Trump's message was a blatant return to gunboat diplomacy through the advocacy of a reborn Monroe doctrine (Monroeism) under which South America had been regarded as an American protectorate. Obviously he did not take account the fact that the president of this 73rd session of the General Assembly was a fine lady diplomat from Ecuador.
More of Trump's contradictions before the world body:
- His false claim that Germany shall soon by over-dependent upon Russian national gas for its energy needs. This is while the American President has, since inauguration, done his best to avoid criticizing Russia for anything, including its alleged intervention in the 2016 American election. Thus his untoward remarks about German dependency hit in 3 ways: German purported weakness; Russian politicization of its exports; and infringement of domestic affairs of two sovereign States.
- Trump's call on States to pay for the cost of their own defense, while proclaiming that America's might shall also serve the needs of its "friends and allies." No allusion to who are his or America's "friends and allies," in view of his "America First" policy.
- Trump's implied disparagement of the administration of his predecessors through his claims that America has never before seen such rates of economic growth as compared to the pre-Trump era. He has ignored the historic fact that President Obama has, in 2008, inherited an economic mess which threatened even the car industry.
And his call for observance of the right of peoples to sovereignty and prosperity flies in the face of his dealing with the Palestinian people's plight under Israeli occupation, including his recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
His claims to respect of the Rule of aw could not be supported by his own disregard for the US Constitution, nor by his denigration of the US Department of Justice, nor by his executive orders relating to the Muslim bans regarding immigration to the US, nor of the first Amendment of the US Constitution in regard to the freedom of expression. For in a fascist vein, he has described the US media and even journalists as "Enemy of the People."
It was a bad day for America at the UN -a forum which was largely created by the US. The UN Charter compares in many ways to the principles and values enunciated by or implicit in the US Constitution.
The world laughed aloud at America, as represented by Trump. That occurred when he said: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of my country." Trump's nemesis, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani seemed to have the last laugh as he pointed out another contradiction: "It is ironic that the United States government does not even conceal its plan for overthrowing the same government it invites to talk."
Trump is nothing but a reality terminator. As the UN laughed at him, he confessed from the General Assembly rostrum that that laughter was not the reaction which he expected. But the following day, the reality terminator had a different interpretation. "They were laughing with me." Really? If so, why was there no applause?! Trump's brain seems to process realities as if to shield himself from reality.
In an op ed article in the New York Times of September 28, 2018, Susan Rice, former US Ambassador to the UN during the Obama presidency, said: "In these troubling times, up is down, black is white, and America stands alone, reckless ridiculed, among the nations of the world."
In an op ed article in the New York Times of September 28, 2018, Susan Rice, former US Ambassador to the UN during the Obama presidency, said: "In these troubling times, up is down, black is white, and America stands alone, reckless ridiculed, among the nations of the world."
Friday, September 21, 2018
A SUNSGLOW Occasion Enriching the Global Debate on Immigration
A raging debate on immigration denotes global interest. Such global interest has a sizeable legal perspective. And for an organization like SUNSGLOW, whose central mission since 1999 has been Global Training in the Rule of Law, it was obvious that it should contribute to that debate.
Hence the decision to assemble a high-level panel to deal with this topic under the title of "Immigration As a Global Challenge." Implementation took place at the SUNSGLOW historical venue, namely, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York City, whose President, Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz, is a SUNSGLOW Trustee.
On August 9, the College reserved for that event the Founders Hall Auditorium (from 6:00 to 8:00 pm) where Vice President Jennifer Lancaster, who is also Academic Dean, was deputized to welcome the panelists and the select audience.
This is perhaps the first time for the SUNSGLOW management to report to our Board (Trustees, International Advisors, and Associates) through the wider medium of this blog posting.
The panel consisted of Carolina Maluje, Esq. (Miami, Florida) as the first speaker. She was followed by Dean Elizabeth F. Defeis, Seton Hall University School of Law and Advisor to the Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. The third speaker was SUNSGLOW Vice President, Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen. Followed by me, as the last speaker.
The entire event was moderated by the Honorable Judge Elizabeth S. Stong, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York City. Thanking her for her astute running of this event, I wrote: "No one could have run our event as exquisitely as our distinguished judge and dear friend the Honorable Stong."
And in thanking Dean Jennifer Lancaster of St. Francis College for her launching the panel, I wrote: "If the Brooklyn Bridge is a St. Francis College symbol of connectedness, SUNSGLOW is one of your bridges to the UN and beyond. For it was during the tenure of my friend, the late Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, that a formal statement by him in 1999, declared: "SUNSGLOW is a UN Partner."
Now to a selection of excerpts from what the panelists said on August 9.
Ms. Maluje reminded her audience of her immigrant background. She said:
"I also was attracted to immigration law because I come from a long line of immigrants. It seems that our family emigrates every generation, or so it appears. My father's family came from Syria (my grandparents) and my mother's family from Spain (my great grandparents). I know what it is to be an immigrant and see it firsthand. I adjusted under Reagan's law amnesty and I was fortunate to benefit from it, as well as my parents."
Then she delved into a depiction of the sorrowful portrayal of immigration laws during the present Trump administration. She said:
"Current changes during this new administration have been noticeable. Asylum law has taken a big blow in terms of protecting women from domestic violence and their relationships. Matter of A-B was a case that Attorney General Sessions referred to himself, and reversed protections for women in abusive relationships."
As to Dean Defeis, she addressed the outlook of His Holiness Pope Francis on today's suffering by the millions of immigrants in these words:
"Addressing immigration has become a centerpiece of the papacy of Pope Francis. In his first trip outside of Rome after his election as Pope in 2013, Francis chose to visit the Sicilian Island of Lampedusa, called by some, the "Ellis Island of Italy." At the time of his visit, more than 20,000 persons had died , fleeing hardship and persecution in hopes of a better life in Europe. As he spoke about those deaths, Pope Francis said it was "a thorn in my heart." The sad situation of so many migrants and refugees has been called by Pope Francis “a sign of the times."
The contrast between Canada's acceptance of its responsibilities towards today's immigration issues and that of the US was crystallized by Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen:
"In 2016, there was an influx of refugees, due to the willingness of the Canadian administration to rescue those whose lives were in danger. In response, I joined other friends to form The Canadian Organization For The Integration of Newcomers. Through that organization, we were able to help those new Canadians in many ways, big and small. From helping them to cope with their past ordeal and present loneliness , to assisting them to become contributors to their new society. So we taught them how to look for employment; how to craft jewelry using local material; how to use the libraries."
She went on to cite the upward mobility of Canadian immigrants to top positions. These were her concluding words:
"Suffice it to note that several Canadian Prime Ministers were not Canadian born. These include Canada's second Prime Minister, Alexander Mackenzie."
Moving on to conclude the deliberations of that panel regarding immigration, I began by citing the UN Global Compact on Immigration. That instrument was announced on July 13, 2019. In this respect, I began by saying:
"On July 13, UN member States finalized the first agreement on international migration. Its title is "The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration." It should come to nobody's surprise that the two countries which facilitated that Compact (meaning a Covenant arrived at by common consent) were Mexico and Switzerland."
On the legal context of that Compact, I informed the audience as follows:
Note that that Compact deals with whatever is not at the US/Mexico border. That border, in history, shall always stand for non-safe, extremely disorderly and the apex of irregularity. These are the results of the genocidal acts and acts of war, committed by the present American Administration. Ambassadors Camacho of Mexico and Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland, said to the world from the glass house of the UN the following:
The paralysis in American decision-making on immigration was the centerpiece of my statement. Here I said:
"Our dilemma in America is that we have a Congress whose Senate, with a Republican majority, does not act to pass a sane immigration law. And an Executive, who prides itself on saying that our Constitution is archaic. And a judiciary whose 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court shall go on forever with a conservative tilt, if Brett Kavanugh is confirmed to the seat vacated by justice Kennedy."
So the flow of migrants, hundreds of whom have died from drowning in rickety boats overloaded by the pirates of the Mediterranean, and the flow of immigrants from Central America, whose lives have been put in danger by the US "zero tolerance" draconian policies, are twin companion flaws.
Thus we concluded that SUNSGLOW event regarding one of today's hottest issues dividing our world community. And it shall not be the last.
Hence the decision to assemble a high-level panel to deal with this topic under the title of "Immigration As a Global Challenge." Implementation took place at the SUNSGLOW historical venue, namely, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, New York City, whose President, Dr. Miguel Martinez-Saenz, is a SUNSGLOW Trustee.
On August 9, the College reserved for that event the Founders Hall Auditorium (from 6:00 to 8:00 pm) where Vice President Jennifer Lancaster, who is also Academic Dean, was deputized to welcome the panelists and the select audience.
This is perhaps the first time for the SUNSGLOW management to report to our Board (Trustees, International Advisors, and Associates) through the wider medium of this blog posting.
The panel consisted of Carolina Maluje, Esq. (Miami, Florida) as the first speaker. She was followed by Dean Elizabeth F. Defeis, Seton Hall University School of Law and Advisor to the Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. The third speaker was SUNSGLOW Vice President, Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen. Followed by me, as the last speaker.
The entire event was moderated by the Honorable Judge Elizabeth S. Stong, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York City. Thanking her for her astute running of this event, I wrote: "No one could have run our event as exquisitely as our distinguished judge and dear friend the Honorable Stong."
And in thanking Dean Jennifer Lancaster of St. Francis College for her launching the panel, I wrote: "If the Brooklyn Bridge is a St. Francis College symbol of connectedness, SUNSGLOW is one of your bridges to the UN and beyond. For it was during the tenure of my friend, the late Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, that a formal statement by him in 1999, declared: "SUNSGLOW is a UN Partner."
Now to a selection of excerpts from what the panelists said on August 9.
Ms. Maluje reminded her audience of her immigrant background. She said:
"I also was attracted to immigration law because I come from a long line of immigrants. It seems that our family emigrates every generation, or so it appears. My father's family came from Syria (my grandparents) and my mother's family from Spain (my great grandparents). I know what it is to be an immigrant and see it firsthand. I adjusted under Reagan's law amnesty and I was fortunate to benefit from it, as well as my parents."
Then she delved into a depiction of the sorrowful portrayal of immigration laws during the present Trump administration. She said:
"Current changes during this new administration have been noticeable. Asylum law has taken a big blow in terms of protecting women from domestic violence and their relationships. Matter of A-B was a case that Attorney General Sessions referred to himself, and reversed protections for women in abusive relationships."
As to Dean Defeis, she addressed the outlook of His Holiness Pope Francis on today's suffering by the millions of immigrants in these words:
"Addressing immigration has become a centerpiece of the papacy of Pope Francis. In his first trip outside of Rome after his election as Pope in 2013, Francis chose to visit the Sicilian Island of Lampedusa, called by some, the "Ellis Island of Italy." At the time of his visit, more than 20,000 persons had died , fleeing hardship and persecution in hopes of a better life in Europe. As he spoke about those deaths, Pope Francis said it was "a thorn in my heart." The sad situation of so many migrants and refugees has been called by Pope Francis “a sign of the times."
The contrast between Canada's acceptance of its responsibilities towards today's immigration issues and that of the US was crystallized by Dr. Zahra Hend Shnayen:
"In 2016, there was an influx of refugees, due to the willingness of the Canadian administration to rescue those whose lives were in danger. In response, I joined other friends to form The Canadian Organization For The Integration of Newcomers. Through that organization, we were able to help those new Canadians in many ways, big and small. From helping them to cope with their past ordeal and present loneliness , to assisting them to become contributors to their new society. So we taught them how to look for employment; how to craft jewelry using local material; how to use the libraries."
She went on to cite the upward mobility of Canadian immigrants to top positions. These were her concluding words:
"Suffice it to note that several Canadian Prime Ministers were not Canadian born. These include Canada's second Prime Minister, Alexander Mackenzie."
Moving on to conclude the deliberations of that panel regarding immigration, I began by citing the UN Global Compact on Immigration. That instrument was announced on July 13, 2019. In this respect, I began by saying:
"On July 13, UN member States finalized the first agreement on international migration. Its title is "The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration." It should come to nobody's surprise that the two countries which facilitated that Compact (meaning a Covenant arrived at by common consent) were Mexico and Switzerland."
On the legal context of that Compact, I informed the audience as follows:
Note that that Compact deals with whatever is not at the US/Mexico border. That border, in history, shall always stand for non-safe, extremely disorderly and the apex of irregularity. These are the results of the genocidal acts and acts of war, committed by the present American Administration. Ambassadors Camacho of Mexico and Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland, said to the world from the glass house of the UN the following:
- Article 10 of that Compact informs us that it is "the product of an unprecedented review of evidence and data gathered during an open, transparent and inclusive process... We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world...;"
- The Compact rests on, among other things, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Slavery Convention.
The paralysis in American decision-making on immigration was the centerpiece of my statement. Here I said:
"Our dilemma in America is that we have a Congress whose Senate, with a Republican majority, does not act to pass a sane immigration law. And an Executive, who prides itself on saying that our Constitution is archaic. And a judiciary whose 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court shall go on forever with a conservative tilt, if Brett Kavanugh is confirmed to the seat vacated by justice Kennedy."
So the flow of migrants, hundreds of whom have died from drowning in rickety boats overloaded by the pirates of the Mediterranean, and the flow of immigrants from Central America, whose lives have been put in danger by the US "zero tolerance" draconian policies, are twin companion flaws.
Thus we concluded that SUNSGLOW event regarding one of today's hottest issues dividing our world community. And it shall not be the last.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Since 1882, The Rise of Egyptian Democracy Found Its Main Protector: The Egyptian Armed Forces
In Tahrir Square, in January 2011, the Egyptian Revolution I against Mubarak, was shielded by SCAF (The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). And in June 2013, Revolution II against the Muslim Brotherhood was protected by the same armed forces. In the two uprisings, history has repeated itself in continuation of the events of 1882.
The armed forces, led by Ahmed Orabi, in support of the young Egyptian democracy of 1880, had performed the same role. Though overwhelmed by non-Egyptian factors, the oath of loyalty to Egypt administered to the officers by Sheikh Mohamed Abdo in May 1882 continued to operate for the past 136 years. It is the glue of fidelity to honor and country which still held in Tahrir for all these decades.
This blog is in celebration of that continuity which separates Egypt from a Syria, a Yemen, or a Libya, where chaos prevails, foreign interference is rampant, and bloodshed has tragically become the news of the day -every day.
Putting a date on that cohesion between civil and military in Egypt, I choose a dark date, an Egyptian Black September, namely September 14, 1882. Why? For against all odds, when the British occupation of Egypt began in July of that year, the head of state in Egypt, Khedewi Tewfik, accompanied the British army of occupation into Cairo on that Black September day.
What legitimacy could one attribute to that ruler reviewing in Abdeen Square, Cairo, a foreign army of occupation? A review which took place in front of Egypt's equivalent of the White House -namely, Abdeen Palace? Tewfik was then 30 years of age (he died in 1892 at the age of 40) fully deserving of the accusation by Orabi, then Egypt's War Minister, of "high treason."
Though the Orabi Revolution and Resistance faltered in 1882, the accolades bestowed on Orabi by his army and countrymen as "The Defender of the Land of Egypt." That honor was more than merited by the events of that time. Those events of the late 19th Century continue to reflect till today their larger meaning for an Egyptian rising democracy whose main protector is Egypt's armed forces.
The line from Orabi to Naguib and Nasser, to Sadat, to Tantawi, to El-Sisi remain unbroken, un-challenged, and permanently embedded in the psyche of that 7000-year old nation. Same nationalistic genes, same commitments, same inclination to keep on rising after every misstep.
A celebratory review of the events of 1880-1882 is in order, providing evidence of the deep roots which have historically bound a nation to its armed forces.
As foreign influence and interference in internal affairs in Egypt grew as of the 1840s, so has the resentment towards these phenomena by Egyptian society. Such nationalist fervor was spread by landowners, the educated classes and the armed forces. Following the inauguration of the Suez Canal in 1869 by Khedewi Ismail, Tewfik's father, the appetite of England and France for control of Egypt increased. Thus enhancing the national reaction in opposition, especially when it came to matters of representation, economy, or national defense.
With Egypt's first constitution of 1879, promulgated by Prime Minister Sherif Pasha towards the end of the reign of Khedewi Ismail in place, that document acquired a haloed status for all those who called Egypt their historic home. The terms Sherif Pasha, the Constitution and the House of representation stood, with a luminous circle around them, in the developing struggle for the very existence of an independent Egypt.
On the opposition side, stood Tewfik, foreign consuls, British designs over Egypt, and foreign lenders who managed to over-lend to an Egypt searching, at the time of Khedewi Ismail, to be as modern as Europe. The result was the establishment, for the first time in Egyptian political history of "The Nationalist Party" (Al-Hezb Al-Watani) in 1879 in Helwan, south of Cairo.
Crystallizing national demands, the first manifesto of The National Party was a true reflection of what the Orabi movement (the military) stood for. These included the total divestiture of the royal family of its land, the abolishment of directing the revenue from the Egyptian Rail Roads for foreign debt payment, and the capping of the interest on foreign debts at 4%.
To Khedewi Tewfik and his foreign backers, especially England, those demands were viewed as treason. The names of the party's membership were hotly sought after for banishment to the Sudan. Not only that these efforts failed. Another nationalist party was formed in Alexandria under the name of "Young Egypt" (Misr Al-Fatah).
With these developments, the tempo of confrontation between the Khedive, backed by an array of foreign powers and interests, and the Egyptian nationalists fronted by Orabi's armed forces was accelerating:
The armed forces, led by Ahmed Orabi, in support of the young Egyptian democracy of 1880, had performed the same role. Though overwhelmed by non-Egyptian factors, the oath of loyalty to Egypt administered to the officers by Sheikh Mohamed Abdo in May 1882 continued to operate for the past 136 years. It is the glue of fidelity to honor and country which still held in Tahrir for all these decades.
This blog is in celebration of that continuity which separates Egypt from a Syria, a Yemen, or a Libya, where chaos prevails, foreign interference is rampant, and bloodshed has tragically become the news of the day -every day.
Putting a date on that cohesion between civil and military in Egypt, I choose a dark date, an Egyptian Black September, namely September 14, 1882. Why? For against all odds, when the British occupation of Egypt began in July of that year, the head of state in Egypt, Khedewi Tewfik, accompanied the British army of occupation into Cairo on that Black September day.
What legitimacy could one attribute to that ruler reviewing in Abdeen Square, Cairo, a foreign army of occupation? A review which took place in front of Egypt's equivalent of the White House -namely, Abdeen Palace? Tewfik was then 30 years of age (he died in 1892 at the age of 40) fully deserving of the accusation by Orabi, then Egypt's War Minister, of "high treason."
Though the Orabi Revolution and Resistance faltered in 1882, the accolades bestowed on Orabi by his army and countrymen as "The Defender of the Land of Egypt." That honor was more than merited by the events of that time. Those events of the late 19th Century continue to reflect till today their larger meaning for an Egyptian rising democracy whose main protector is Egypt's armed forces.
The line from Orabi to Naguib and Nasser, to Sadat, to Tantawi, to El-Sisi remain unbroken, un-challenged, and permanently embedded in the psyche of that 7000-year old nation. Same nationalistic genes, same commitments, same inclination to keep on rising after every misstep.
A celebratory review of the events of 1880-1882 is in order, providing evidence of the deep roots which have historically bound a nation to its armed forces.
As foreign influence and interference in internal affairs in Egypt grew as of the 1840s, so has the resentment towards these phenomena by Egyptian society. Such nationalist fervor was spread by landowners, the educated classes and the armed forces. Following the inauguration of the Suez Canal in 1869 by Khedewi Ismail, Tewfik's father, the appetite of England and France for control of Egypt increased. Thus enhancing the national reaction in opposition, especially when it came to matters of representation, economy, or national defense.
With Egypt's first constitution of 1879, promulgated by Prime Minister Sherif Pasha towards the end of the reign of Khedewi Ismail in place, that document acquired a haloed status for all those who called Egypt their historic home. The terms Sherif Pasha, the Constitution and the House of representation stood, with a luminous circle around them, in the developing struggle for the very existence of an independent Egypt.
On the opposition side, stood Tewfik, foreign consuls, British designs over Egypt, and foreign lenders who managed to over-lend to an Egypt searching, at the time of Khedewi Ismail, to be as modern as Europe. The result was the establishment, for the first time in Egyptian political history of "The Nationalist Party" (Al-Hezb Al-Watani) in 1879 in Helwan, south of Cairo.
Crystallizing national demands, the first manifesto of The National Party was a true reflection of what the Orabi movement (the military) stood for. These included the total divestiture of the royal family of its land, the abolishment of directing the revenue from the Egyptian Rail Roads for foreign debt payment, and the capping of the interest on foreign debts at 4%.
To Khedewi Tewfik and his foreign backers, especially England, those demands were viewed as treason. The names of the party's membership were hotly sought after for banishment to the Sudan. Not only that these efforts failed. Another nationalist party was formed in Alexandria under the name of "Young Egypt" (Misr Al-Fatah).
With these developments, the tempo of confrontation between the Khedive, backed by an array of foreign powers and interests, and the Egyptian nationalists fronted by Orabi's armed forces was accelerating:
- In January 1881, the Officers Corp convened at Orabi's residence;
- There they issued a petition to Khedive Tewfik calling for replacing the Turkish War Minister, Osman Rifqi, by an Egyptian;
- Tewfik's decision was to court martial Orabi and two of his senior lieutenants. In response, the army attacked the military court, causing its members to flee, then marched upon Abdeen Palace forcing Tewfik to replace the Turkish War Minister by an Orabi loyalist, Mahmoud Sami Al-Baroudi.
- That was in February 1881. By May 1881, the armed forces and the leadership of the nationalist popular movement coalesced against the Palace and the various foreign actors.
- The people and army alliance demanded the increase of the army to 18,000, the fortification of the ports, the establishment of a lower house of parliament, and cabinet accountability before that parliament.
Such demands turned into an outright rebellion against Tewfik:
- The Orabi army refused to heed any military orders by Tewfik, including his orders to march on the Sudan to put down the Mehdi rebellion; ignored his orders to have the army dig up canals for fear of surrendering their weapons.
And when a European driving his car fatally killed an Egyptian soldier in Alexandria, resulting in a demonstration at Tewfik's Alexandria Palace (Ras El-Teen), Tewfik ordered participating army officers to be exiled in the Sudan. On September 9, 1881, Orabi marched his troops on Abdeen Palace.
Seemingly giving in to these army-people demands, parliamentary elections were held, and a House of Representatives was inaugurated in December 1881.
That was the tipping point for direct intervention by England and France:
- A joint Anglo-French memorandum was issued in January 1882 declaring extreme displeasure at the emergence of a parliamentary system in Egypt;
- It also dissembled fear for the future of Khedive Tewfik;
- The Anglo-French memorandum called, in the meantime, that the new-Egyptian Parliament should not deal with the State's budget (which included extortionist provisions for payments of debt and interest);
In defiance, a nationalist cabinet was formed, headed by Al-Baroudi, which included Orabi as War Minister. A new Constitution was promulgated in February 1882, and the rights of Parliament to debate and decide on the budget was affirmed. And in April 1882, a Turkish plot to assassinate Orabi and 40 other officers was unmasked. The Khedive, true to his colors, refused to punish the accomplices.
By May 1882, British and French naval vessels appeared at the port of Alexandria. But the French units later departed. And on July 11, the British navy bombarded Alexandria. And when the Egyptian army besieged the Khedewi Palace, Tewfik called the British for rescue.
The Egyptian drama of British occupation and the defeat of the Orabi army and the nationalist movement ended by the British entry of Cairo on September 14, 1882 escorted by Tewfik who relished reviewing them at Abdeen Palace. Thus began an occupation which lasted for 72 years.
Historically, the Egyptian nationalist movement had the solid backing of the Armed Forces.
Today, September 14, I bow my head in prayer for Ahmed Orabi in whose village in the province of Sharkia I was born. There I was also taught that love of country and community is part of faith.
Today, September 14, I bow my head in prayer for Ahmed Orabi in whose village in the province of Sharkia I was born. There I was also taught that love of country and community is part of faith.
Friday, September 7, 2018
We Shall Need MAGA After the EXIT of President Gaga!!
This is in honor of John McCain -who lived and died truthful to high principle. The highest of these principles is love of country for which sacrificing is but a pay back for its having been there for him and millions others!!
With this as an introduction, I find in MAGA (Make America Great Again) an insult by Trump to all those who strove to construct the USA. The founding fathers recognized that the Union needs constant improvement -the periodic search for accommodating changing circumstances. So when Trump calls for MAGA, he turns his back on the difference between evolution and destroying what we have.
And for what purpose? To rebuild America in his own image. But what image? His is never fixed. This president stands for an America which never was. For that reason alone, Donald J. Trump is no more than a Gaga, a senile, doddering, which in French, means "an old fool."
Yet that fool, and those who stand by him, or in awe of him, has given us MAGA as a mantra which should be our tool for repairing the damage inflicted by him on this great human experiment called America.
Trump's sordid record begins with his being oblivious of what governing the US, a complex entity of 50 sovereignties (the 50 States) is all about. He has demonstrated total ignorance of the separation of powers. The US President, under our Constitution, is no Chairman of the Board. Country and company are two different entities: The former is the vehicle; the latter is a mere dependency governed and regulated by the former.
But President Gaga does not see it that way. "I can run the country and my company at the same time," he fulminated. And "I alone can fix it," he uttered at his rallies, bamboozling his captive audience. Those poor souls have been hoodwinked by The Donald deliberate methods of deceit. Trump, a bamboozler par excellence, has explained his ignorance of the US Constitution as, if I correctly recall, "archaic; an inconvenience."
To my mind, this can only mean that "We the People of the United States...," words by which the Constitution begins, have now been abbreviated by President Gaga as "We, Donald J. Trump." Article II of the Constitution which provides for "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," seems to be interpreted by Donald the Narcissist as a power overwhelming all others under the Constitution.
"They have refused to defend America's national security in the face of Russian attacks. They have refused to defend the rule of law against Trump's attacks. They have refused to defend the F.B.I., the Justice Department and the First Amendment. They have refused to defend the basic civil rights that Trump seeks to deny to dark-skinned American citizens, including the right to vote and the right to hold a passport."
With this as an introduction, I find in MAGA (Make America Great Again) an insult by Trump to all those who strove to construct the USA. The founding fathers recognized that the Union needs constant improvement -the periodic search for accommodating changing circumstances. So when Trump calls for MAGA, he turns his back on the difference between evolution and destroying what we have.
And for what purpose? To rebuild America in his own image. But what image? His is never fixed. This president stands for an America which never was. For that reason alone, Donald J. Trump is no more than a Gaga, a senile, doddering, which in French, means "an old fool."
Yet that fool, and those who stand by him, or in awe of him, has given us MAGA as a mantra which should be our tool for repairing the damage inflicted by him on this great human experiment called America.
Trump's sordid record begins with his being oblivious of what governing the US, a complex entity of 50 sovereignties (the 50 States) is all about. He has demonstrated total ignorance of the separation of powers. The US President, under our Constitution, is no Chairman of the Board. Country and company are two different entities: The former is the vehicle; the latter is a mere dependency governed and regulated by the former.
But President Gaga does not see it that way. "I can run the country and my company at the same time," he fulminated. And "I alone can fix it," he uttered at his rallies, bamboozling his captive audience. Those poor souls have been hoodwinked by The Donald deliberate methods of deceit. Trump, a bamboozler par excellence, has explained his ignorance of the US Constitution as, if I correctly recall, "archaic; an inconvenience."
To my mind, this can only mean that "We the People of the United States...," words by which the Constitution begins, have now been abbreviated by President Gaga as "We, Donald J. Trump." Article II of the Constitution which provides for "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," seems to be interpreted by Donald the Narcissist as a power overwhelming all others under the Constitution.
- A president who regards the Department of Justice as if it were created as a law firm whose task is to "protect" him, is a president who believes that defending the U.S. should not be allowed unless it justifies his actions regardless of their dubious legality;
- A president who uses his power of pardon as a backdoor exit for those regarded as law breakers is himself a law breaker;
- A president whose call for an "America First," yet applies it as "America is for the whites only" is a president who abets racism and thus is an agent for civil strife.
- A president who ignores George Washington's call for "no entangling alliances" is a president whose thought mechanism is incapable of comprehending that that was not a call for no alliances.
President Gaga has built walls around America, not only at the southern borders. He has isolated this great country from Canada to the north; Mexico to the south; Europe except for Russia to the east; and alienated the pacific region to the west, except for North Korea.
A president who believes American adversary, Russia, and attacks the credibility of 17 American intelligence agencies, is an executive who is courting impeachment.
A president who sees in the rise of the extreme right in Europe a vindication of his own espousal of fascism is an executive who has been unfaithful to his own oath of office. That oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the Constitution in these words: "I do solemnly swear ... that I will faithfully execute the Office of President..." In essence, President Gaga, by ignoring that he is leading a country based on the Rule of Law, has destroyed his own legitimacy to occupy the Oval Office.
As for this obsequious Congress, I shall leave that assessment to David Leonhardt, the author of an op-ed column in the New York Times of September 3. Disparaging the leaders of Congress who attended McCain's funeral services at Washington's National Cathedral, he said:
"They have refused to defend America's national security in the face of Russian attacks. They have refused to defend the rule of law against Trump's attacks. They have refused to defend the F.B.I., the Justice Department and the First Amendment. They have refused to defend the basic civil rights that Trump seeks to deny to dark-skinned American citizens, including the right to vote and the right to hold a passport."
That column closed by "They were there for show, faced with a choice, they have rejected McCain's America for Trump's."
Yes, we need MAGA to repair the daily damage, inflicted on it by Trump through his raving mania through which he sees himself as a great president. A president who believes that one day, his utterances shall be regarded by history as being at par with Lincoln's Gettysburg address!! Yet a great America shall assert itself again through reclaiming the values on which it was established 240 years ago.
Trump's exclusion from attendance at the McCain funeral services was a dignified response to Trump's autocratic governance. It was also a response to Trump's denial of McCain's heroism in the service of America. A hero is a person noted for tests of courage or nobility of purpose. None of these qualities has ever fit President Gaga.
His statement that McCain was considered a hero because he was captured is so telling about the distance between Trump and the noble zone of sacrifice. Capturing a hero is the unhappy sequence of sacrifice for principle. For all his 72 years of life, Donald Trump had experienced neither principle nor sacrifice.
So go on, Donald: In this dark period of American history stick to tweeting. It is the only language by which birds can communicate with other creatures of feather. That is until our real MAGA would cleanse the Office of the President from the stigma attached to it by President Gaga!!
Yet the most cruel joke of the Trump mal-administration is the attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. This dreary process began with denying Judge Mark Garland, an Obama nominee, even the mere courtesy of a Senate hearing. So when Justice Kennedy stepped down, the Trump ultra-right machine went into an over-drive by nominating Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh's record shows a commitment to the controversial principle that a sitting US president cannot be investigated, or prosecuted or indicted. In sum, a president is above the law, except through impeachment. But impeachment through the Senate is at present impossible due to the spineless Republican majority. If confirmed, the Supreme Court of the US shall suffer a dangerous tilt to the Right which shall last for decades to come.
This tampering with the Rule of Law in the US is by a President who wishes that the US public would tolerate his role-playing of a dictator. This charade shall reach its end in a humiliating collapse. Only then shall the three branches of government reclaim their soul in the system of checks and balances -the essence of US democracy.
Friday, August 31, 2018
From a Mayor and a Prosecutor to a Huckster and an Imposter: The Rise and Fall of Rudolph Giuliani
Gone are the days in 1998 when I was gleeful about him -the Honorable Mayor of New York City. Rudy Giuliani had agreed to write the prologue (foreword) to my book published in 2000. Its title was: "Government Ethics and Law Enforcement." With me as co-editors were two colleagues in the legal profession: Kevin Ford, Esq., and Mark Davies, Esq.
But in these chaotic times of Trump, Rudy has been appointed the President's personal lawyer, espousing anti-ethics to match his anti-law. The Giuliani of today feels no shame when he publicly says: "The Truth Is Not the Truth."
Yet as a former prosecutor, Giuliani should know that the truth is a quality of being accurate or honest or sincere or loyal. It is conformity to fact or actuality. It is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. It is fidelity to an original or standard. It is veracity or verity.
Mr. Giuliani should know that "truth" is the bedrock of an oath to "tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so Help Me God." From there begins the law of evidence. Even the Muslim community of 1440 years ago adhered to that standard as their ABC in litigation. The Second Enlightened Caliph, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab decreed that "The burden of evidence is shouldered by the plaintiff."
Rudy: Can you still read? If yes, then check what the following masters have said. Charles Seymour declared: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences." And Thomas H. Huxley advised that "veracity is the heart of morality." And James Harvey Robinson referred to the term "verity" as applying to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth. His very words were: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities."
So, Rudy, your unconvincing narrative is an undisputed chican cry. For it is a deceptive subterfuge. Playing with words -your "truth is not truth" is intended to convey that there is no accepted standard. If so, then your own oath of office was nothing but fake. So must has been Trump's oath upon inaugurating him as President of these United States in January 2017.
You, Sir, have affirmed in your prologue to my book on "Government Ethics" the following: "Corruption and unethical behavior prevent any government from efficiently and effectively serving the needs of its citizens. In addition, corruption undermines respect for the rule of law and for the democratic process that are the very core of our system of government. Controlling this evil successfully is a constant challenge for any government."
These are the first sentences you wrote for my book published by Praeger in the year 2000. It is a book which I saw fit to dedicate to "the City of New York." But that was the Giuliani whom I fully respected at that time.
And when my city was attacked by the criminal gang of Al-Qaeda, I saw fit to work on yet another book entitled "Perspectives on 9/11," published in 2004 and dedicated to my beloved institution in Brooklyn -"St. Francis College."
I truly pity your fall from what you were to what you are now -a hot-air bag, a mouth piece for a declining presidency of a Liar-in-Chief, called Donald J. Trump. Your boss, by fact-checkers, has lied more than four-thousand times, since occupying the Oval Office.
The guidelines for both of you, Liar and Enabler, have been "the destruction of the Administrative State." A non-principle laid down by a fascist called Steven Bannon, who recently said in Europe: "When they call you a racist, wear it with pride" (or something to that effect). What pride can any rational human being find in demeaning others because of the color of their skin?
As a Bannonite, you Rudy attacked John Brennan, former Director of the CIA, now a professor at the venerable Fordham University School of Law. For when Brennan said that the Muslim spectacle of Hajj to Mecca was a captivating scene, you, Giuliani called for bringing charges against Brennan for endangering by that praise "national security!!"
Really, Rudy!! Truthfully speaking, your and Trump's anti-Islamism is the very essence of threatening America's national security. Your words, Rudy, are what the remnants of ISIS are waiting for. They are the oxygen which is prolonging the life of jihadism beyond their shelf-life.
And that is the Truth, so Help Me God!!
And why mix religion with politics, Mr. Lawyer Giuliani? Religion is about faith, and politics are about power!! Faith is in the heart; politics are in the mind. One is belief in the invisible; the other is an advocacy for the material. The mix is combustible as we learnt from the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.
You have plunged head-on mixing the Muslim pilgrimage with American national security. Only crazies can see any rationality in such a cocktail. Only you and Trump and Bannon Inc. can mix that cocktail during your "Happy Hour." Reason why Trump, on Monday, August 27 urged the evangelical Christian leaders to break federal law and openly support him from the pulpit.
Commented the New York Times of August 31, 2018 on that hallucination by saying: "Truth, fantasy and deceit slosh together with Mr. Trump." That was under the title: "After Mr. Trump, the Deluge?"
But in these chaotic times of Trump, Rudy has been appointed the President's personal lawyer, espousing anti-ethics to match his anti-law. The Giuliani of today feels no shame when he publicly says: "The Truth Is Not the Truth."
Yet as a former prosecutor, Giuliani should know that the truth is a quality of being accurate or honest or sincere or loyal. It is conformity to fact or actuality. It is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. It is fidelity to an original or standard. It is veracity or verity.
Mr. Giuliani should know that "truth" is the bedrock of an oath to "tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so Help Me God." From there begins the law of evidence. Even the Muslim community of 1440 years ago adhered to that standard as their ABC in litigation. The Second Enlightened Caliph, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab decreed that "The burden of evidence is shouldered by the plaintiff."
Rudy: Can you still read? If yes, then check what the following masters have said. Charles Seymour declared: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences." And Thomas H. Huxley advised that "veracity is the heart of morality." And James Harvey Robinson referred to the term "verity" as applying to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth. His very words were: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities."
So, Rudy, your unconvincing narrative is an undisputed chican cry. For it is a deceptive subterfuge. Playing with words -your "truth is not truth" is intended to convey that there is no accepted standard. If so, then your own oath of office was nothing but fake. So must has been Trump's oath upon inaugurating him as President of these United States in January 2017.
You, Sir, have affirmed in your prologue to my book on "Government Ethics" the following: "Corruption and unethical behavior prevent any government from efficiently and effectively serving the needs of its citizens. In addition, corruption undermines respect for the rule of law and for the democratic process that are the very core of our system of government. Controlling this evil successfully is a constant challenge for any government."
These are the first sentences you wrote for my book published by Praeger in the year 2000. It is a book which I saw fit to dedicate to "the City of New York." But that was the Giuliani whom I fully respected at that time.
And when my city was attacked by the criminal gang of Al-Qaeda, I saw fit to work on yet another book entitled "Perspectives on 9/11," published in 2004 and dedicated to my beloved institution in Brooklyn -"St. Francis College."
I truly pity your fall from what you were to what you are now -a hot-air bag, a mouth piece for a declining presidency of a Liar-in-Chief, called Donald J. Trump. Your boss, by fact-checkers, has lied more than four-thousand times, since occupying the Oval Office.
The guidelines for both of you, Liar and Enabler, have been "the destruction of the Administrative State." A non-principle laid down by a fascist called Steven Bannon, who recently said in Europe: "When they call you a racist, wear it with pride" (or something to that effect). What pride can any rational human being find in demeaning others because of the color of their skin?
As a Bannonite, you Rudy attacked John Brennan, former Director of the CIA, now a professor at the venerable Fordham University School of Law. For when Brennan said that the Muslim spectacle of Hajj to Mecca was a captivating scene, you, Giuliani called for bringing charges against Brennan for endangering by that praise "national security!!"
Really, Rudy!! Truthfully speaking, your and Trump's anti-Islamism is the very essence of threatening America's national security. Your words, Rudy, are what the remnants of ISIS are waiting for. They are the oxygen which is prolonging the life of jihadism beyond their shelf-life.
And that is the Truth, so Help Me God!!
And why mix religion with politics, Mr. Lawyer Giuliani? Religion is about faith, and politics are about power!! Faith is in the heart; politics are in the mind. One is belief in the invisible; the other is an advocacy for the material. The mix is combustible as we learnt from the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.
You have plunged head-on mixing the Muslim pilgrimage with American national security. Only crazies can see any rationality in such a cocktail. Only you and Trump and Bannon Inc. can mix that cocktail during your "Happy Hour." Reason why Trump, on Monday, August 27 urged the evangelical Christian leaders to break federal law and openly support him from the pulpit.
Commented the New York Times of August 31, 2018 on that hallucination by saying: "Truth, fantasy and deceit slosh together with Mr. Trump." That was under the title: "After Mr. Trump, the Deluge?"
The Genius of the Prophet Muhammad: From the Desert, Laying the Foundation of A Mighty Muslim Nation
This is not about Islam. It is about the art of nation-construction from zero nation in the 7th century to 1.7 Billions in the 21st century. It is the genius of Muhammad in constructing this mighty edifice with tools which our world of today sorely needs to employ.
It began with Muhammad, at the age of 40 (611 CE) advocating in Mecca that God is one. That one-ness of God directly resonated with both the Jews and Christians in Arabia. Triumphing over the many idols which the Arab tribes worshiped in Mecca during their pilgrimage season. A master ideological stroke which caused the Meccans to pursue, in bitter hostility, the new Prophet.
Yet, a cornerstone has been laid. The first adherent was a woman, Khdeejah, Muhammad's wife and employer; the poor and meek in the Meccan lording tribe of Quraish, flocked to Islam. It made them even as slaves equal to their masters. Another anathema to the proud tribal lords of the desert.
So potent weapons were employed: secrecy, selective conversion from idolatry to Islam. And immigration, first to Ethiopia, later to the Arabian city of Yathrib -a Jewish city northeast of Mecca.
The secrecy was a self-preservation stratagem. The conversion from multiple deities to one God was through persuasion: "Why worship what your own hands have created?" And why immigration to Ethiopia? That is where Christianity found in the Quranic description of Christ as "the word of God" a reflection of its own belief. Then the move to Yathrib was by invitation of the few converts to Islam. It was their means of saving the troubled peace which characterized the forever war between two tribal antagonists: Al-Aus and Al-Khazraj.
The move (immigration/Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina marked the beginnings of the Muslim "State" -in fact "nation." The date was September 20, 622 (and Muhammad was 51 years old). Not surprisingly, it marked the beginning of the Muslim (Hejira) calendar -now at 1439 years. Two pillars sustained the incipient nation: The construction of a mosque, as a town hall and a school, (where Muhammad is now buried), and the communal sharing of property between the immigrants (Al-Muhajeroon) and the Ansar (supporters), meaning the Yathrib Muslim population.
A bridge was thus constructed in Medina (Yathrib) across tribal chasms, the haves and the have-nots economically, and the Muslim-Jewish relationships memorialized in a pact of peace, though later it did not endure. Tawheed (the One-ness of God) permeating the two Semitic faiths) was ideologically sound, but communally an instigator of competition between Judaism and Islam.
Topping Muhammad's priorities was the equalizing between Arabs and non-Arabs (such as the Persians who were Yemen rulers); between men and women in terms of licensing women's ownership of property, and of enfranchising them as regards participation in Muhammad's councils. Women were even encouraged to quiz Muhammad publicly as regards his decisions. Their litmus test was to ask the Prophet: "Is your decision based on personal opinion or an inspiration from God?" If it was an opinion on which the participants in that "Town hall in the Desert" disagreed, Muhammad changed course.
In fact the first person who pledged allegiance to Muhammad was a woman (Afra Bint Obeid Ibn Thaalabah). The Quran, considered Muhammad's only miracle, made such allegiance (Baiaa) to Muhammad an allegiance to God himself. "Surely, those who swear allegiance to you swear allegiance to God; the hand of God is over their hands." The Quran, (Chapter 48/Verse 10).
What were the terms of that allegiance to Islam: No idolatry, as emphasis on the one-ness of God; no theft; no adultery; not infanticide (as the Arabs used to bury their infant daughters to avoid shaming them); truthfulness; and no contravening the word of God (the Quran). Piety, not ethnic or tribal roots, was the yardstick by which all humans were evaluated. "Surely, the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most pious of you." (The Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13).
Closely tied to the Muslim dogma as preached by Muhammad was humanity as one universal cooperative. It became a cardinal call for friendly relations among all nations, across ethnicities, languages, and time zones.
That revolutionary concept is today inscribed on a mural adorning a wall at the UN Headquarters in New York. It is a gift from Morocco which quotes from the Quran the following verses "O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another." (Chapter 49, Verse 13).
The new nation was no longer held together by family lineage, but by a faith that regulated their lives flexibly, under the ethos of justice for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The only difference between the two categories was that non-Muslim were made to pay a defense tax because of their exemption from defense services.
Calling them Zimmis is not an apartheid practice. Contrary to western orientalist depiction, "zimma" in Arabic means "a security guarantee." It is also the sum total of all obligations to which a person commits. It is akin to a treaty obligation. Its violation is not due to the faith, but due to the faithless practice of those who scorn human rights.
What bound this new nation together was an Islamic jurisprudence based on a tripod of principles and rules: The Quran, non-changeable in text, but amenable to interpretation (the science of Tafseer); the Sunna of Muhammad, that is what the Prophet has said and done, but also amenable to authentication since it was not written during the Prophet's life-time; and "wisdom" (Hekmah), the resort to common sense in utilizing the other two bases for resolving a dispute or settling an issue.
Within those parameters, the new community functioned, quarrelled, reconciled, and spread outward. All within the broad concept of Islam, meaning the submission to God's will. While unity was stressed, communities were led by consensus (ijmaa) not throughout all Muslim regions, but within the community of scholars of each region. Unity was in the ultimate purpose, not in sectoral decisions.
The Quran exalted unity as "harmony," taking into account the divergence of cultures, systems of governance, and changing circumstances. In praise of harmony the Quran stated: "God is the One who united their hearts; had you (Muhammad) expended all the riches of the earth, you could not have united their hearts together." (Chapter 8; Verse 63).
War, for the new nation, was restricted only to self-defense of territory (homeland) and faith. It is not exportable, nor is it waged beyond national borders. And must be proportional. A far far cry from the criminal ideology of jihadism which advocated the primacy of Islam and conversion to it by the sword - "There is no compulsion in religion" (The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 256). Diplomacy to end wars and achieve peace was decreed. "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it." (The Quran, Chapter 8, Verse 61). Prisoners of war are to be safely repatriated and exchanged, and an annual war-free month (Muharram) was set aside.
Insurrection (Fitna) was regarded as a catastrophe, represented by the total breakdown of law and order. Unjust rulers should be removed provided that such efforts should not lead to ascertained mayhem. In all cases, injustice which violates the liberty and human rights of the community or the individual shall always be a violation of God's decrees.
The Quran calls the unjust "an evildoer," who has no excuse whatsoever. "On the Day (of Judgment) when the excuses of the evildoers shall avail them nothing; they shall have the curse and the evil abode." (The Quran; Chapter 40; Verse 52).
When Muhammad died at the age of 63, the edifice of the Muslim Nation, having arisen from a Zero Nation in Arabia, evolved into a global Muslim entity existing in every corner of the earth.
Though divided and at times at war with one another and also within (Syria, Yemen, and Libya), it has kept the faith as spread by its great founder. Muhammad. The Prophet did not even name a successor; refused during his lifetime to have his sayings written, and left no heir to claim a hereditary mantle.
Today's pilgrimage of over 2 million to Mecca is a testimony of that enduring phenomenon which is still vastly misunderstood in many parts of the world. Though Islamophobia has now morphed into anti-Islamism, the plain fact is that those aberrations are hurtful primarily to those who espouse them. For they are the unwitting auxiliaries of groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the like.
Muhammad died on June 8, 632 at the age of 63. His first successor as "The First Enlightened Caliph," Abu-Bakr, gave the eulogy to a stunned Muslim community. In it, he pointed out the knob of the Prophet's enduring legacy. "To the Believers, stay on the path of Justice."
The pilgrimage to Mecca earlier this month numbered over 2 millions. With a global waiting list estimated to stretch out for 583 years in the future. Pillorying it by an ignoramus and an ethical thug like Rudy Giuliani proves his racism. For that pilgrimage instituted by Muhammad, as an optional manifestation of a faith of tolerance, raises the ubiquitous flag of inclusiveness.
The Prophet Muhammad was chased away from his birthplace, Mecca, by vicious tribal campaigners who preferred to worship idols over the belief in the One God. It was therefore axiomatic that his return victorious from Medina to Mecca, was initially thought to signal a blood path for his tormentors. Again Muhammad's genius asserted itself. He told the fearful Meccan throngs: "From now on, you are released from your past!! (Al-Tolaqa)".
That was the historic exercise by Muhammad's power of pardon. No Nuremberg trials. No Tokyo trials. The victor of 1439 years ago did not write history, as it is the practice of our times. He caused history to be engraved about him.
Thus, Abdel-Rahman Azzam, the first Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, titled his book about Muhammad: "The Hero of Heroes!!"
It began with Muhammad, at the age of 40 (611 CE) advocating in Mecca that God is one. That one-ness of God directly resonated with both the Jews and Christians in Arabia. Triumphing over the many idols which the Arab tribes worshiped in Mecca during their pilgrimage season. A master ideological stroke which caused the Meccans to pursue, in bitter hostility, the new Prophet.
Yet, a cornerstone has been laid. The first adherent was a woman, Khdeejah, Muhammad's wife and employer; the poor and meek in the Meccan lording tribe of Quraish, flocked to Islam. It made them even as slaves equal to their masters. Another anathema to the proud tribal lords of the desert.
So potent weapons were employed: secrecy, selective conversion from idolatry to Islam. And immigration, first to Ethiopia, later to the Arabian city of Yathrib -a Jewish city northeast of Mecca.
The secrecy was a self-preservation stratagem. The conversion from multiple deities to one God was through persuasion: "Why worship what your own hands have created?" And why immigration to Ethiopia? That is where Christianity found in the Quranic description of Christ as "the word of God" a reflection of its own belief. Then the move to Yathrib was by invitation of the few converts to Islam. It was their means of saving the troubled peace which characterized the forever war between two tribal antagonists: Al-Aus and Al-Khazraj.
The move (immigration/Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina marked the beginnings of the Muslim "State" -in fact "nation." The date was September 20, 622 (and Muhammad was 51 years old). Not surprisingly, it marked the beginning of the Muslim (Hejira) calendar -now at 1439 years. Two pillars sustained the incipient nation: The construction of a mosque, as a town hall and a school, (where Muhammad is now buried), and the communal sharing of property between the immigrants (Al-Muhajeroon) and the Ansar (supporters), meaning the Yathrib Muslim population.
A bridge was thus constructed in Medina (Yathrib) across tribal chasms, the haves and the have-nots economically, and the Muslim-Jewish relationships memorialized in a pact of peace, though later it did not endure. Tawheed (the One-ness of God) permeating the two Semitic faiths) was ideologically sound, but communally an instigator of competition between Judaism and Islam.
Topping Muhammad's priorities was the equalizing between Arabs and non-Arabs (such as the Persians who were Yemen rulers); between men and women in terms of licensing women's ownership of property, and of enfranchising them as regards participation in Muhammad's councils. Women were even encouraged to quiz Muhammad publicly as regards his decisions. Their litmus test was to ask the Prophet: "Is your decision based on personal opinion or an inspiration from God?" If it was an opinion on which the participants in that "Town hall in the Desert" disagreed, Muhammad changed course.
In fact the first person who pledged allegiance to Muhammad was a woman (Afra Bint Obeid Ibn Thaalabah). The Quran, considered Muhammad's only miracle, made such allegiance (Baiaa) to Muhammad an allegiance to God himself. "Surely, those who swear allegiance to you swear allegiance to God; the hand of God is over their hands." The Quran, (Chapter 48/Verse 10).
What were the terms of that allegiance to Islam: No idolatry, as emphasis on the one-ness of God; no theft; no adultery; not infanticide (as the Arabs used to bury their infant daughters to avoid shaming them); truthfulness; and no contravening the word of God (the Quran). Piety, not ethnic or tribal roots, was the yardstick by which all humans were evaluated. "Surely, the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most pious of you." (The Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13).
Closely tied to the Muslim dogma as preached by Muhammad was humanity as one universal cooperative. It became a cardinal call for friendly relations among all nations, across ethnicities, languages, and time zones.
That revolutionary concept is today inscribed on a mural adorning a wall at the UN Headquarters in New York. It is a gift from Morocco which quotes from the Quran the following verses "O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another." (Chapter 49, Verse 13).
The new nation was no longer held together by family lineage, but by a faith that regulated their lives flexibly, under the ethos of justice for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The only difference between the two categories was that non-Muslim were made to pay a defense tax because of their exemption from defense services.
Calling them Zimmis is not an apartheid practice. Contrary to western orientalist depiction, "zimma" in Arabic means "a security guarantee." It is also the sum total of all obligations to which a person commits. It is akin to a treaty obligation. Its violation is not due to the faith, but due to the faithless practice of those who scorn human rights.
What bound this new nation together was an Islamic jurisprudence based on a tripod of principles and rules: The Quran, non-changeable in text, but amenable to interpretation (the science of Tafseer); the Sunna of Muhammad, that is what the Prophet has said and done, but also amenable to authentication since it was not written during the Prophet's life-time; and "wisdom" (Hekmah), the resort to common sense in utilizing the other two bases for resolving a dispute or settling an issue.
Within those parameters, the new community functioned, quarrelled, reconciled, and spread outward. All within the broad concept of Islam, meaning the submission to God's will. While unity was stressed, communities were led by consensus (ijmaa) not throughout all Muslim regions, but within the community of scholars of each region. Unity was in the ultimate purpose, not in sectoral decisions.
The Quran exalted unity as "harmony," taking into account the divergence of cultures, systems of governance, and changing circumstances. In praise of harmony the Quran stated: "God is the One who united their hearts; had you (Muhammad) expended all the riches of the earth, you could not have united their hearts together." (Chapter 8; Verse 63).
War, for the new nation, was restricted only to self-defense of territory (homeland) and faith. It is not exportable, nor is it waged beyond national borders. And must be proportional. A far far cry from the criminal ideology of jihadism which advocated the primacy of Islam and conversion to it by the sword - "There is no compulsion in religion" (The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 256). Diplomacy to end wars and achieve peace was decreed. "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it." (The Quran, Chapter 8, Verse 61). Prisoners of war are to be safely repatriated and exchanged, and an annual war-free month (Muharram) was set aside.
Insurrection (Fitna) was regarded as a catastrophe, represented by the total breakdown of law and order. Unjust rulers should be removed provided that such efforts should not lead to ascertained mayhem. In all cases, injustice which violates the liberty and human rights of the community or the individual shall always be a violation of God's decrees.
The Quran calls the unjust "an evildoer," who has no excuse whatsoever. "On the Day (of Judgment) when the excuses of the evildoers shall avail them nothing; they shall have the curse and the evil abode." (The Quran; Chapter 40; Verse 52).
When Muhammad died at the age of 63, the edifice of the Muslim Nation, having arisen from a Zero Nation in Arabia, evolved into a global Muslim entity existing in every corner of the earth.
Though divided and at times at war with one another and also within (Syria, Yemen, and Libya), it has kept the faith as spread by its great founder. Muhammad. The Prophet did not even name a successor; refused during his lifetime to have his sayings written, and left no heir to claim a hereditary mantle.
Today's pilgrimage of over 2 million to Mecca is a testimony of that enduring phenomenon which is still vastly misunderstood in many parts of the world. Though Islamophobia has now morphed into anti-Islamism, the plain fact is that those aberrations are hurtful primarily to those who espouse them. For they are the unwitting auxiliaries of groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the like.
Muhammad died on June 8, 632 at the age of 63. His first successor as "The First Enlightened Caliph," Abu-Bakr, gave the eulogy to a stunned Muslim community. In it, he pointed out the knob of the Prophet's enduring legacy. "To the Believers, stay on the path of Justice."
The pilgrimage to Mecca earlier this month numbered over 2 millions. With a global waiting list estimated to stretch out for 583 years in the future. Pillorying it by an ignoramus and an ethical thug like Rudy Giuliani proves his racism. For that pilgrimage instituted by Muhammad, as an optional manifestation of a faith of tolerance, raises the ubiquitous flag of inclusiveness.
The Prophet Muhammad was chased away from his birthplace, Mecca, by vicious tribal campaigners who preferred to worship idols over the belief in the One God. It was therefore axiomatic that his return victorious from Medina to Mecca, was initially thought to signal a blood path for his tormentors. Again Muhammad's genius asserted itself. He told the fearful Meccan throngs: "From now on, you are released from your past!! (Al-Tolaqa)".
That was the historic exercise by Muhammad's power of pardon. No Nuremberg trials. No Tokyo trials. The victor of 1439 years ago did not write history, as it is the practice of our times. He caused history to be engraved about him.
Thus, Abdel-Rahman Azzam, the first Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, titled his book about Muhammad: "The Hero of Heroes!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)