In this mailing:
- Nonie Darwish: What Egyptians Are Afraid to Know
- Peter Martino: The Real "Obstacle to Peace"
- Irfan Al-Alawi: "Turning Mecca into Las Vegas"
What Egyptians Are Afraid to Know
by Nonie Darwish
December 12, 2012 at 5:00 am
December 12, 2012 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The problem
with Egypt and many other Islamic nations is that they are ignorant of what
they are demanding, and are left ignorant by their own media and educational
system. By now it seems apparent that Egyptians do not even want to learn the
truth about Sharia, in case they might reject it -- an act that would turn them
into apostates, eligible for death.
The chaos in Egypt today is an indication of an old culture that has lost
its way and its connection to a great civilization over 3000 years old. Pure
Islamists who hate their ancient history and are threatening to blow up the
pyramids and sphinx as idols of the pharaohs are now back in full swing to stop
any further weakening of Islam by a secular government. But is it the
Islamists' fault or the fault of the Egyptian public who continually vote in
favor of Sharia [Islamic law - "The Path"]?Once Islam takes hold of a nation, the turmoil never ends -- between human nature, which aspires for freedom and dignity, and forces of domination and oppression, which see and understand nothing in the political life of a country other than enforcing Sharia law on others.
During the last 1400 years of Islamic domination, Egyptians discarded their past and adopted the culture of Arabia through the process of Arabization and Islamization. Islamists in Egypt and in any other country, for that matter, understand that for their country to remain Islamic, it must be ruled from the top down by Sharia. Muslim leadership has no confidence that Islam would survive without government enforcement through fear, intimidation and harsh punishments. Without government control and enforcement by means of a tyrannical legal system, Islamist leaders believe that the religion cannot survive through choice. That is why, wherever Islam travels, the goal is always to control government.
Nothing symbolizes the turmoil in Egypt today more than the stalemate over writing yet another constitution. Only a handful of people have so far had the courage to publicly call for abolishing Article 2 of the former constitution, which reads: "Islam is the Religion of the State…and the principle source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence [Sharia law]." It seems that Sharia will remain as the source of legislation and the legal foundation in Egypt.
This should not be surprising: a 2007 survey with 1,000 Egyptian Muslims by the University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org, stated that 67% said they wanted a caliphate, 74% wanted strict application of Sharia, 77% wanted mutilating punishment for theft; 82% wanted stoning for adultery and 84% wanted execution of apostates. By Western standards, that is a mandate for Sharia and Islam.
So why are Egyptians now unhappy with Morsi? They wanted Sharia, and Morsi is giving them Sharia. By Western standards, Morsi has a mandate to rule by Sharia, so why are Cairo's streets full of rebels chanting for freedom and democracy? Is this Morsi's fault or the fault of a confused Egyptian public who do not seem to know what they really want? Why can't they recognize Sharia law as the "elephant in the room," name it, reject it and vote accordingly? Why are they not aware that Sharia forbids any man-made government, such as democracy, which is considered an abomination and must be eliminated? And how can they be so ignorant about a legal system under which they demanded to live?
The problem with Egypt and many other Islamic nations is they are ignorant of what they are demanding, and are left ignorant by their own media and educational system.
The problem in Egypt is not Mubarak or Morsi, King Farouk or Nasser. It is the ignorance of Egyptians about basics of their beloved religious law that they say they want enshrined in their constitution. I recently asked several Egyptians if they are aware of the following laws in Sharia pertaining to the Muslim head of state:
- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph (Muslim head of state), even if he is unjust.
- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
- A Caliph is exempt from charges of murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
By demanding a legal system they do not really want, however, Egyptians are preventing themselves from having a harmonious moral foundation upon which the country can survive. The more Egyptians reject an honest discussion and deeper clarity about what they want, the worse this problem will get in the future.
Egyptians need to learn how to take responsibility for themselves and the future of their country, and stop placing blame on their leaders. They should either accept or reject Islamic tyranny. Whether it is Egypt, Iran or even Saudi Arabia, what they need is an honest public discussion to educate the public about what Sharia really is without any sugar coating, after which they can vote on their constitution. But will they have the courage to do so? Some Egyptians do have the courage, but they are still the minority, and they understand that speaking out would be a death sentence. Without courage, however, change cannot happen, and without saying what they mean, Egyptians will continue rewriting their constitution every 50 or 60 years, and stumbling and falling over and over again into an unending cycle of dictatorships and revolutions.
Nonie Darwish is the author "The Devil We Don't Know" and "Cruel and Usual Punishment", and president/founder Former Muslims United.
Related Topics: Egypt
| Nonie
Darwish
The Real "Obstacle to Peace"
by Peter Martino
December 12, 2012 at 4:00 am
December 12, 2012 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Why should
any country sign an agreement if it will just be invalidated a few years later?
Iran is building nuclear weapons, Syria is slaughtering its citizens, Libya
is being taken over by al-Qaeda, Egypt is threatened with another Pharaoh,
Turkey is working toward rebuilding the Ottoman Empire, and Christians are
being massacred in Egypt, Nigeria and Mali (among other countries). But last
Thursday, the European Commission summoned the Israeli Ambassador to the
European Union (EU) over Israel's plan to build 3,000 new homes in Judea,
Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. The Israeli plans were a response to the United
Nations' decision on 29 November to grant the Palestinian Authority the status
of a UN non-member observer state, in direct violation of the UN's own
Resolutions 242, 338, and 1850 -- an overruling the UN Charter specifically
forbids.The Palestinian move was also in direct violation of its bilateral September 28, 1995, Oslo II agreements, in which the both the Palestinians and the Israelis, in Article 31, consented that "nether side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations."
Why should any country sign an agreement if it will just be invalidated a few years later?
Canada, in response to the Palestinian Authority's illegal behavior, immediately recalled its diplomats assigned to the West Bank; however, the same illegal behavior was lavishly rewarded shortly thereafter by several European countries who summoned Israel's ambassadors -- a precedent that can only be understood to signal that, as so often at the UN, illegal behavior -- as in oil for food, or sex for food -- will be rewarded -- or at least not reprimanded -- in the future.
Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, emphasized that it is very exceptional for the Commission, the executive body of the EU, to summon an ambassador.
The ambassador met Ashton's deputy Pierre Vimont, who expressed the EU's concern about the Israeli building plans. The EU wants the project annulled: it is said to be "an obstacle to peace." Not the PLO or Hamas Charters, which call for Israel's destruction, or the hundreds of rockets fired into at Israel over the last month, or Iran's continual and illegal -- under both the UN's own Charter and the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- calls for genocide in "wiping Israel…": No, no, no these are not threats to peace worth mentioning or bothering about. The Czech Republic was the only one of the 27 EU member states to join the US, Canada, Israel, Panama and four Micronesian island states in voting against the UN resolution to upgrade the status of the PA within the UN. Twelve EU members, including Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and all the EU states from Eastern Europe, were among the 41 UN members who abstained. The remaining fourteen EU members, consisting of the entire Latin and Mediterranean bloc and the Scandinavians, were among the 138 nations that voted in favor of the Palestinian Authority.
There is also some good news, however. In Italy, one of the countries which backed the recognition of the PA as a UN non-member observer state, one hundred members of the Italian Parliament protested the decision of the government to do so. The parliamentarians belong to the PdL party of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which withdrew its support of the Italian government last week. In Belgium, another country which supported the enhanced status of the PA within the UN, the decision led to a rift within the governing center-right MR party. Half the MR senators oppose the government's pro-Palestinian line.
Nevertheless, it is striking to see that within the EU there is but one country courageous enough to stand with Israel: the Czech Republic. Most EU members backed the Palestinian claims. The governments that took a neutral position by abstaining can only be found in the countries that suffered under Communist dictatorship, in Germany (previously, partly under Communist rule), Britain and the Netherlands.
The Scandinavians and the Irish traditionally pursue leftist international policies which are by definition critical of Israel; the Mediterranean rim together with Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, have since the 1970s and 80s conducted a foreign policy that aims to appease North Africa and the Arab world.
The dependency on Arab oil and the fact that millions of immigrants from North Africa have settled within the borders of these EU states explain this appeasement policy.
Apart from the European Commission, several EU governments bilaterally expressed their dissatisfaction with the Israeli building plans. As 14 of the 27 EU members took a pro-Palestinian position in the UN while thirteen did not, it is unlikely that the EU will impose trade sanctions over the construction plans. A vocal critical stance will, however, be taken, also by the twelve EU members that abstained in the UN.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her dissatisfaction in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United Kingdom followed the French, Spanish, Danish and Swedish example of summoning the Israeli ambassador over the housing projects. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said that, although there did not appear to be any "enthusiasm" in the EU for a move to impose economic sanctions on Israel, "if there is no reversal [of the Israeli decision] we will want to consider what further steps European countries should take."
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans told the Dutch media that the Netherlands will raise pressure on Israel to stop its building projects. It is unlikely that Timmermans will follow the example of his predecessor Uri Rosenthal, who last year vetoed a critical EU report on the Israeli settlements. The Dutch ambassador to Tel Aviv urged the Israeli government to stop the building project.
Meanwhile, the civil servants of the European Commission are pursuing their anti-Israeli policies. The Commission recently sponsored a workshop to investigate how to label goods made in the Israeli "settlements" and prevent them from being sold in Europe. Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for Human Rights, and Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland and Nobel peace prize winner, are patrons of a movement to boycott such Israeli products. EU officials want the products labeled so that they can be differentiated from other Israeli products. As the EU does not recognize that Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are part of Israel, products from these areas would be subject to EU import duties.
Last August, the European Commission issued a ruling ordering EU customs authorities to check the origin of Israeli products in order to exclude "settlement goods from preferential treatment." The Commission made a list of so-called "non-eligible locations" – Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria – which are to be targeted. "Operators are advised to consult the list before lodging a customs declaration for releasing goods for free circulation," the EU document states. The communities on the EU blacklist are non-eligible for duty-free status under the EU-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
The EU blacklist is a violation of international free trade; it is also reminiscent of the 1933 Nazi boycott of Jewish products.
Related Topics: Israel
| Peter
Martino
"Turning
Mecca into Las Vegas"
Saudi Wahhabis Continue Assault on
Islamic Heritage
by Irfan Al-Alawi
December 12, 2012 at 3:00 am
December 12, 2012 at 3:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Saudi plans
indicate that commercial ambitions outweigh the protection of the spiritual and
cultural history of Islam.
Wahhabi extremists and property developers affiliated with the Saudi
authorities are furthering plans to demolish the oldest sections of the Grand
Mosque in Mecca, the location to which all the world's Muslims turn in prayer.
They apparently intend to remove features of the site dating back many
centuries, such as columns placed in the Grand Mosque during the eighth century
CE. Also, porticos designed by the legendary Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan (c.
1489/1490-1588 CE), whose achievements, and those of his personal disciples,
are found at many places in the Islamic culture area, from Bosnia-Hercegovina
to India, are slated for destruction.Public dismay about the proposed wrecking, to be done under the pretext of renovation and modernization, has been notable. In response, the Imam and Friday preacher of the Grand Mosque, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, a prominent Wahhabi fanatic and hatemonger, has promised that the areas of the Grand Mosque originating in the Abbasid Arab caliphate (750-1258 CE) and the Ottoman period of rule in Mecca and Medina would not be touched.
Al-Sudais, head of the official Presidency for the Two Holy Mosques, and with the rank of a minister in the royal court, has told the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat [The Middle East] that the remodeling of the Grand Mosque, would be completed over three years, and would be limited to minor expansions intended to make tawaf (circumambulation of the Ka'bah, the sacred structure at the center of the mosque) easier during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. He stipulated that "removal will be limited to (the first Saudi expansion, 60 years ago), without disturbing the Ottoman porticos, except for arches and lights…maintaining the old area, reduced in proportion to align with the zone of circumambulation." However, some of the Abbasid and Turkish area including the portico's have already been demolished, and authorities stated that these portico's will inadvertently have to be removed during expansion work between the two hills of Safa and Marwa.
The Saudi dailies Okaz and Saudi Gazette reported that construction work on the Grand Mosque already commenced in mid-November, with the Saudi Gazette boasting, in the idiom of architectural gigantism favored currently in Saudi Arabia, that the project includes "the two largest tower cranes ever built in the 21st century in the eastern and western parts of the mosque."
A cable-car system has also been proposed to serve old and disabled pilgrims by linking the mataf, at which pilgrims walk around the Ka'bah, with the masa'a, a location where Hajj participants run symbolically between two hills, Safa and Marwa. Again reflecting the Saudi fascination with oversized construction works, the Saudi Gazette asserted that upon its completion the Grand Mosque would accommodate 130,000 pilgrims per hour in the march around the Ka'bah. The current average is 52,000 per hour.
As noted in the Arab News, the top floor of the mataf would be altered to add a moving walkway carrying pilgrims around the Ka'bah. The new plan would provide access to the circumambulation area from outside the walls of the Grand Mosque, without crossing the floor of the mosque. Bridges and pedestrian lanes are to be included in the structure to "reduce crowding" during the Hajj, at the same time as, illogically, the Wahhabis claim they will greatly expand the capacity for pilgrims.
Saudi and other Muslim sources express concern that Al-Sudais and his Wahhabi accomplices are lying about their intentions in the project. Dr. Hatoon Al-Fassi, a female Meccan native, distinguished Sufi, and history professor at King Saud University in Riyadh, who, let it be noted, refuses to cover her face in public with the Wahhabi-imposed niqab or face veil, has accused the Saudi Bin Laden construction conglomerate, which is supervising the rebuilding of the mosque, of seeking to "turn Mecca into Las Vegas." Specifically, Al-Fassi charges that the reconstruction plans include "tearing down the ancient Ottoman-style galleries and rebuilding 'identical' galleries further away." Al-Fassi cites an unnamed official of the Saudi Ministry of Hajj Affairs as the source of this information.
Al-Fassi alleges further that the new galleries would support "new towers… featuring hotels, restaurants, and malls."
The precincts of the Grand Mosque already include new buildings, which house a clock tower and hotel complexes that dwarf the Mosque and the Ka'bah. Saudi plans indicate that commercial ambitions outweigh the protection of the spiritual and cultural legacy of Islam.
In an admission that the grandiose refurbishing of Mecca has harmed the Islamic heritage of the sacred city, Muhammad Abdullah Idris, author of the architectural upgrading study, told the Arab News that demolition blasts during erection of the outsized and overbearing recent structures near the Grand Mosque have undermined the strength of the mosque and, especially, its pillars.
Saudi King Abdullah ordered a halt to a proposed expansion of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina after a major article was published in The Independent (London) by the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, exposing the Wahhabi plans and opposing to the concept. The article was re-published worldwide by other newspapers and generated significant media coverage. The Medina expansion would have involved serious historical vandalism. It is to be hoped that similar opposition will move the King to halt the defacement of the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
Related Topics: Saudi Arabia
| Irfan
Al-Alawi
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment