“We are not at war with Islam”—President Obama

It was only last month that Pentagon officials repeatedly implored Pastor Terry Jones not to burn copies of the Quran fearing that Jones’s inflammatory action could arouse Muslim sentiments and endanger the lives of US soldiers serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet, a month later the Pentagon  managed to outdo the bigotry of Terry Jones and had been caught red handed for spearheading America’s crusade against Islam and seeking its total annihilation. Lt Col Matthew Dooley who was responsible for conditioning  hundreds of US officers with a distorted view of Islam said in one of his presentations: “We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as moderate Islam…It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.”

One does not have to look very far to discover the depth and breadth of the Pentagon’s enmity towards Islam.  In Afghanistan, the US  war machine’s vilification of Islam is a routine occurrence. This includes the cowardice act of  burning the Holy Quran by bigots within the American military.  Elsewhere US troops playfully urinated on dead Afghans and felt great pleasure in  mutilating their dead bodies.  Not forgetting the horrific abuse of prisoners in Bagram, the rape of young girls and mindless civilian massacres have become the hallmark of America’s malicious crusade in Afghanistan. No matter how hard the US tries to downplay its efforts to indoctrinate its soldiers to hate Islam, these vitriolic incidents, the latest episode is a vivid reminder to the rest of the world that barbarism and not emancipation from tyranny is the hallmark of America’s policy in the Muslim world.

It is a well known fact that wherever in the Muslim world America’s military intervenes. -  it leaves behind a trail of death and destruction – a reputation unworthy of a leading nation that also prides itself on tolerance. Look for instance, the indiscriminate killings of unarmed civilians by the USdrones and Special Forces in Pakistan, or the immunity granted to Raymond Davis for his cold blooded murder of Pakistanis in broad daylight. This clearly undermines America’s penchant for disregarding human rights it so evangelically preaches to the rest of the world. Take America’s war in Iraq: The cruel humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the senseless killing of unarmed civilians in Haditha are portent reminders about the fruits of America’s Iraqi occupation. Yet, despite such barbaric acts perpetrated by USA’s military, its soldiers are lavished with praise and their crimes against humanity are overlooked. At the end of last year, President Obama told the troops coming home from Iraq: “As your Commander-in-Chief, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I am proud to finally say these two words.”

Worse still, there are no serious efforts by America’s political establishment or senior officers to change the uncivilised conduct of US troops. Wherever they are stationed, the Pentagon immediately seeks immunity from prosecution, as a mandatory condition in exchange for security pacts or military aid. In other words, there are no repercussions for the evil acts committed by the US soldiers against indigenous populations. If by chance aUSsoldier is found guilty, sham trials are convened by theUS military (the conclusion of Haditha massacre trial early this year) to ensure that punishment does not fit the crime. The US military goes to great length to instil savagery within its ranks by making certain that this kind of behaviour is institutionalised. The recent National Defence Authorisation Act passed by the US Senate epitomises such measures, which legalises sex with animals and permits sodomy.

As the US military is committed to preserving its barbarian code and despicable values, one can only imagine what type of training theUSmilitary imparts to nations around the globe. So, what is the root cause behind such reckless behaviour that defies human logic? The explanation that “a few rotten apples” are to blame is no longer plausible and does not merit a discussion. Nor can America’s military culture institutionalised by the Pentagon be held solely responsible for nurturing a generation of young men and women, who show scant respect for foreign cultures and people.

On the contrary, the military culture is based on the very foundations that the rest of American society is built. The sole driver for such behaviour is freedom, which is the bedrock ofUSA’s cherished ideals and responsible for shaping popular culture, corporate culture, social values and ethics. It is on this very basis that the military in Western countries, especially in America, is responsible for moulding the attitudes of its military personnel.

Men and women, fed from a young age on a diet of freedom enlist in the army as defenders of freedom, undergo weapons training and are eventually deployed overseas. Here, they find themselves in a different environment; laws and restrictions of the home country no longer impinge on what one can say and do and the weapons in their possessions makes them feel that they can finally say and do whatever they desire. Naturally, the indigenous populations’ beliefs, values, property, life and dignity are quickly trounced upon – all in the name of freedom.

Freedom is a fanciful idea and always leads to disputes and violence. The West claims that individuals are free to do whatever they choose and indoctrinates within its populace the desire to be free. But, in practice, this leads to unending conflicts amongst the people, as the views expressed by a few, or the behaviour exhibited by some, can be interpreted as offensive and insulting to others. Hence, the Western governments are persistently intervening in disputes and resort to severity of the law to protect the freedoms of some people by depriving others of their freedom to express thoughts and behave in a certain way.

Often, the real benefactors of freedom are those individuals or groups whose views or conduct coincides with the interests of the government, or the powerful capitalists who possess the ability to exert influence over the government. That is why so many institutions, including military establishments in the West, are given free rein to attack Islam because their fiery rhetoric and discriminatory policies are in full harmony with the West’s unfinished war on Islam. However, if the Western media, or its numerous institutions, were to insult Jews or the Zionist state ofIsrael, the Western governments would swiftly adopt stern measures to restrict their insults.

Islam does not believe in the whimsical idea of freedom, where a handful of men decide which thoughts and behaviours are legally beyond censure, and which thoughts and practices are subject to criticism and can be tried in a court of law. Islam stipulates that life, honour, blood, property, belief, race and the mind are to be protected by the Islamic State. All the citizens of the Caliphate are guaranteed these rights, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

Islam also protects the rights of non-Muslims to worship without any fear of retribution, or vilification of their beliefs. The Messenger (saw) of Allah said: “One who hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Caliphate), he hurts me and the one who hurts me, hurts Allah.”  Therefore, it is prohibited for a Muslim to insult the beliefs of a non-Muslim, spill their blood, harm their places of worship and desecrate their property.

The Islamic history is unrivalled in its capacity to guarantee the religious rights of non-Muslims under the shade of the Caliphate. At the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), the Islamic army conquered Syria, but quickly returned the Kharaj collected from Homs, a town inhabited by Christians and Jews. The Muslims reasoned with the non-Muslims that they were returning the money, as they were unable to protect their life, blood, honour and property from the regrouping Roman Army. So impressed were the non-Muslims that they said: “We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your ‘amil’s’ help, repulse from the city.” The Jews rose and said: “We swear by the Torah, no Governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Homs, unless we are first vanquished and exhausted!” Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them.

If America’s military really wants to reach out to the Muslim masses and win their hearts and  minds, the very least it can do is to radically alter the indoctrination of its military officers by representing a more balanced view of Islam that is  fully inclusive  of the Caliphate and Islam’s contribution to human civilisation. Perhaps Pentagon’s  trainers can draw on the writings of Bernard Shaw who said, ”I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity.”(Sir George Bernard Shaw  in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936). Or more recently from one of America’s leading business personalities, Carly Fiorina who said,” There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins…its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between. ..While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.” (“Technology, business and our way of life: What’s next”, September 26, 2001).

Failing to conduct root and branch revision of the educational curriculums for the US military and indeed for many of America’s institutions  will   only reinforce the impression in Muslim minds that America is hell bent on the destruction of Islam. It will also enable a small cabal of neo-conservatives (the extremists) to perpetrate new crimes in the name of the American people (the moderate majority).  Americans like to use labels such as extremists and moderates to describe the Muslim world, yet they are oblivious to the fact that they are being held hostage by a small faction of extremists, who are unwavering in their determination to terrorise another civilisation in their name.

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialise on Muslim issues and global affairs.

Dr Abdul Wahid 

Over the past few days, hoards of media commentators have filled column inches after the conviction of nine men for the sexual exploitation of 47 teenage girls. Most write as if they are well-informed experts – despite simultaneously informing us that one of the key problems is how poor statistical data is on this matter.

This obvious contradiction is a sure sign that much of their comment is likely to be nonsense – and bigoted, politically driven nonsense at that.

But the focus on the Asian/Muslim/Pakistani background of the gang and the fact that most [but not all] of the victims were young, white & vulnerable has led to most of the speculative comment being about how endemic this problem is amongst Asian/Muslim/Pakistani men – and if so, what is it in their psyche that makes them behave like this.

Some – like Melanie Phillips & David Aaronovitch – are not even asking questions. They seem to have made up their minds well before they heard a single fact of the case – at least that is the impression they give in the manure they peddle as journalism on this subject. Their position is very similar to that of the BNP and other far-right anti-Muslim groups.

Only a handful of commentators have mentioned some of the key questions that ought to spring to mind. In particular, what is it in society that allows young women to be exploited like this?

Britain has a serious problem when it comes to the sexual exploitation of young women. Let’s not forget that in weeks and months gone by these same media outlets have discussed the issues of sex-trafficking, date rape, the way professional footballers have been implicated in abusing women; and many cases of child sex abuse where there was not even a semblance of consent – not to mention the sexualisation of young girls by the media and fashion designers.

Prison service statistics from 2007 suggests that the ethnic breakdown of sex offenders in the UK is 81.9% White, 9.9% Black and 5.6% Asian – but other research suggests a disproportionately high level for Asian men in cases such as that in Rochdale. But if in Rome, people do as the Romans do, they will adopt as many vices as virtues of the host society. Hence, if men of Asian/Pakistani/Muslim origin are increasingly doing what others do in unacceptably high numbers, it is perhaps predictable.

A brief look at the website of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [NSPCC] makes disturbing reading about the extent of abuse against young people:

• One in six (16.5%) 11-17 year olds have experienced sexual abuse and nearly a quarter of young adults experienced sexual abuse during childhood.
• There were 17,727 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11.
• Two thirds (65.9%) of contact sexual abuse experienced by children aged 0-17 was perpetrated by someone aged under 18.
• Four out of five (82.7%) children who experienced contact sexual abuse from a peer did not tell anyone else about it.
• The number of sexual assaults on children were more than 400 offences reported to police every week in 2010-11 with fewer than one in ten resulting in a conviction.
• Of the 23,097 victims more than a fifth – 4,973 – hadn’t reached secondary school age and almost 1500 were five or under. However the majority of offences, 14,819, were reported against 11-17-year-olds.
• Around half of the abused or neglected children who enter care each year are abused or neglected again when they return home.
• They reveal more than one in three of all sex crimes* are committed against children and at 19,790, the number of girl victims was six times higher than boys – 3218.

The abuse and rape of these girls started as free social interaction with some flirtatious chat. One victim described pitifully how they made her feel ‘pretty’ before any sexual contact started – something not uncommon in the UK but not especially common in South Asia/Pakistan/Muslim culture.

The men sat and drank vodka with their eventual victims – again not uncommon in the UK, but not at all common from where they originated.

The girls, mostly from broken homes and vulnerable backgrounds, were hugely attracted by the drink, cigarettes, food and taxis: which seems tragic when one thinks about it. For they were made to feel special and wanted in a way they were not at home and in other areas of society – a feeling that was grotesquely exploited it seems.

Perhaps one of the red herrings in the coverage is the idea that the men chose these girls because they were ‘white’ or ‘non-Muslim’ [Melanie Phillips’ view!]. One commentator did mention that Asian girls of the same age were more ‘strictly parented’ – which made them a less easy target. There is likely to be some truth in this; as there maybe to saying that the cultural norms that surrounded these victims that made them an easier target.

Julie Bindell describes the process of ‘grooming’ saying: “First there is the gaining of trust. Next, desensitisation (the normalisation of abusive acts to the point where the victim comes to believe she deserves it); isolation (from friends, family members and school); and sexualisation (so that the girls “act out” their abuse in a way that results in them being seen as “asking for it” rather than abused).”

Her point is strengthened by her account of the disappearance of Charlene Downes, “who was 14 when she went missing in 2003 and has never been found. What was discovered during the police investigation, however, was endemic child sexual abuse and prostitution in her home town of Blackpool. Dozens of girls were being bought and sold for a bag of chips, cigarettes and vodka by sexual predators of all ages, cultures and ethnicities.”

The strong implication in all of this is abuse and grooming has become easier where the victims view the enticing behaviour in the ‘gaining of trust’ as part of a normal social life; where the victim craves attention, attention and being made to feel special for their looks; and where where families and social structures have broken down, so leaving them vulnerable and defenceless.

These are some of the deep societal questions that are consistently avoided by most politicians & media.

This is also why many Muslim parents in Britain will continue to strive hard to inculcate Islamic values of modesty, preserving childhood innocence and treating women as figures of respect and honour, and not commodities [which Nick Griffin and Melanie Phillips will abhor!]. If liberal behaviour and loose [or non existent] family structures are part of the reason young girls are vulnerable – surely people have to counter this with some effective values.

If British society has reached a point where it doesn’t protect these values, do not be surprised that Muslims looking for a change in Muslim countries want a system that will effectively protest and promote these values.

There can be little doubt that power, lust, greed are the drivers behind the kind of behaviour from any one who commits these abhorrent acts; and there is much in modern Western society to fuel these drivers. But there seems no effective sanctions that act as a deterrent.

In an Islamic society, a person proven beyond doubt to have had a sexual relationship outside marriage would be punished – and for a married man, it’s a capital punishment.

In a normal week, most people in Britain would flinch at the thought of this. But just for a moment, after the Rochdale gang were convicted, I suspect most people would have seen the wisdom of this particular Shariah punishment.

Dr. Abdul Wahid is a regular contributor to New Civilisation. He is currently the Chairman of the UK-Executive Committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain. He has been published in The Times Higher Educational Supplement and on the websites of Foreign Affairs, Open Democracy and Prospect magazine. He can be followed on Twitter @abdulwahidht or emailed at abdulwahid@newcivilisation.com 

Adding to the evidence of those who would respond in the affirmative – is this report from WIRED’s Danger Room:

U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”

The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It’s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesn’t contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley’s classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.

For the better part of the last decade, a small cabal of self-anointed counterterrorism experts has been working its way through the U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement communities, trying to convince whoever it could that America’s real terrorist enemy wasn’t al-Qaida — but the Islamic faith itself. In his course, Dooley brought in these anti-Muslim demagogues as guest lecturers. And he took their argument to its final, ugly conclusion.

“We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America’s enemies. “It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.”

Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooley’s presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, “I don’t know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant” of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward.

That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like “Islam reduced to a cult status” and “Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation.” (It’s an especially ironic suggestion, in light of today’s news that Saudi intelligence broke upthe most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.)

International laws protecting civilians in wartime are “no longer relevant,” Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying “the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki” to Islam’s holiest cities, and bringing about “Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.”

Dooley’s ideological allies have repeatedly stated that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaida’s most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.

“Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as ‘political correct’ in the eyes of many,” Dooley adds. “Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.”

Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. “Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn’t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,” Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.

Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that “Obama is bin Laden’s dream candidate.” In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that “Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.” (.pdf)

Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 master’s thesis that then-president George W. Bush’s declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the world’s Muslims had “a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemy’s doctrine.” (.pdf)  Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the military’s Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooley’s class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didn’t see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of “complexification.”

Coughlin titled his talk: “Imposing Islamic Law – or – These Aren’t the Droids Your Looking For!”

Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. “The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of today’s Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.”

Guandolo’s paper, titled “Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth” (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that “it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians” (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled “Watch Before This Is Pulled,” supposedly shows President Obama — the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course — admitting that he’s a Muslim.

Dooley added the caveats that his views are “not the Official Policy of the United States Government” and are intended “to generate dynamic discussion and thought.” But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama’s alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. “By conservative estimates,” 10 percent of the world’s Muslims, “a staggering 140 million people … hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit” to Islam. He added, “Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.” It is unclear if Dooley’s “total war” on Muslims also applied to his “Muslim” commander in chief.

After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooley’s presentation, the country’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material. Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government — military and civilian — to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam.

By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war. Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24.

Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaida’s brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.

Israel’s colonization policies are entering an alarming new phase, comparable in historic magnitude to the original plans to colonize Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem following the war of 1967.

On April 24, an Israeli ministerial committee approved three settlement outposts – Bruchin and Rechelim in the northern part of the West Bank, and Sansana in the south. Although all settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal by international law, Israeli law differentiates between sanctioned settlements and ‘illegal’ ones. This distinction has actually proved to be no more than a disingenuous attempt at conflating international law, which is applicable to occupied lands, and Israeli law, which is in no way relevant.

Since 1967, Israel placed occupied Palestinian land, privately owned or otherwise, into various categories. One of these categories is ‘state-owned’, as in obtained by virtue of military occupation. For many years, the ‘state-owned’ occupied land was allotted to various purposes. Since 1990, however, the Israeli government refrained from establishing settlements, at lease formally. Now, according to the Israeli anti-settlement group, Peace Now, “instead of going to peace the government is announcing the establishment of three new settlements…this announcement is against the Israeli interest of achieving peace and a two states solution”

Although the group argues that the four-man committee did not have the authority to make such a decision, it actually matters little. Every physical space in the occupied territories – whether privately owned or ‘state owned’, ‘legally’ obtained or ‘illegally’ obtained – is free game. The extremist Jewish settlers, whose tentacles are reaching far and wide, chasing out Palestinians at every corner, haven’t received such empowering news since the heyday of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The move regarding settlements is not an isolated one. The Israeli government is now challenging the very decisions made by the Israeli Supreme Court, which has been used as a legitimization platform for many illegal settlements that drove Palestinians from their land.

On April 27, the Israeli government reportedly asked the high court to delay the demolition of an ‘unauthorized’ West Bank outpost in the Beit El settlement which was scheduled to take place on May 1st. The land, even by Israeli legal standards, is considered private Palestinian land, and the Israeli government had committed to the court to take down the illegal outposts – again, per Israeli definition – on the specified date.

Now the rightwing Netanyahu government is having another change of heart. In its request to the court, the government argued: “The evacuation of the buildings could carry social, political and operational ramifications for construction in Beit El and other settlements.” Such an argument, if applied in the larger context of the occupied territories, could easily justify why no outposts should be taken down. It could eradicate, once and for all, such politically inconvenient terms such as ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’.

“Previous Israeli governments have pledged to demolish the unauthorized settler outposts in the West Bank, but only a handful have been removed,” according to CNN online. In fact, that ‘handful’ are likely to be rebuilt, amongst many more new outposts, now that the new legal precedence is underway.

Michael Sfard, an attorney with Yesh Din, which reportedly advocates Palestinian rights, described the request as “an announcement of war by the Israeli government against the rule of law.” More specifically, “they said clearly that they have reached a decision not to evacuate illegal construction on private Palestinian property.”

Some analysts suggested that Netanyahu was bowing down to the more rightwing elements in his cabinet – as if the man had, till now, been a peacemaker. The bottom line is that Israel has decided embark on a new and dangerous phase, one that violates not only international law, but Israel’s own self-tailored laws that were designed to colonize the occupied territories. It appears that even those precarious ‘laws’ are no longer capable of meeting the colonial appetite of Israeli settlers and the ruling class.

Israeli settlements have been contextualized through Israeli legal and political references, as opposed to references commonly accepted in international law. The emphasis on differences between Israeli governments, political parties and religious/ultra-nationalist settlement movements is distracting and misleading; colonizing the rest of historic Palestine has been and remains a national Israeli project.

An article in the rightwing Israeli Jerusalem Post agrees. “Support for settlement is not simply a program of right-of-center Likud. Its history has firm roots in Labor party activity during the periods of its governments, and activities by predecessors of the Labor party going back before the creation of the Israeli state” (April 27).

The only variable that might be worth examining is the purpose of the settlement, not the settlement itself. Following the war of 1967, the Allon plan sought to annex more than 30 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza for security purposes. It stipulated the establishment of a “security corridor” along the Jordan River, as well outside the “Green Line”, a one-sided Israeli demarcation of its borders with the West Bank. Then, there was no Likud party to demonize, for that was the Labor party’s vision for the newly occupied territories.

While the Israeli settlement drive since then has swallowed much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, populating them with over half a million Israelis, the international community’s response was as moot in 1967 as it is now in 2012. Responding to the latest sanctioning of illegal outposts, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declared that he was “deeply troubled” by the news. Meanwhile, Russia was ‘deeply concerned’ and so was the EU’s Catherine Ashton. As for the US, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland insisted that the Israeli measure is not “helpful to the process.” What process?

While Israel has now showed all of its cards, and the international community declared its complacency or impotence, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah continues to plan some kind of UN censure of the settlements. Even if a watered-down version of some UN draft managed to survive the US veto, what are the chances of Israel heeding the call of international community?

There is no doubt that Israel is plotting its version of the endgame in Palestine, which sees Palestinians continuing to subsist in physical fragmentation and permanent occupation. Unless a popular Palestinian uprising takes hold, no one is likely to challenge what is actually an Israeli declaration of war against the Palestinian people.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London)

South Sudan’s leaders have stolen at least $10 billion in oil revenues shared with them by Sudan in the past 7 years. With somewhere between $12 to $17 billion turned over to South Sudan, Africa’s newest “government”, during this time frame some say estimates of only $10 billion stolen is too conservative.

South Sudan has about 8 million people so the oil revenues amount to somewhere between $1,500 to $2,000 per man, woman, and child in a country where every day hundreds if not thousands die from hunger and disease.

Where has the $10 billion gone? In some cases directly into London City bank accounts, never having made it into South Sudan’s official treasury. In one instance the South Sudanese Minister of Finance managed to have $300 million “disappear” at one time.

And what has South Sudan to show for its $12 billion+ share of the oil revenues? Almost no infrastructure, few schools, fewer medical facilities and millions suffering from malnutrition and sickness.

The South Sudanese leadership can’t even claim to have spent the money on their military for they have little in the way of modern armament, never mind all the claims of Israeli arms sales to them.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), if you can call it that, for years was revolting over unpaid salaries, resulting in the USA stepping in and providing over $100 million a year to pay its salaries since the last major mutiny in 2009.

The SPLA itself is an ethnic or tribal based military force with little centralized control. Ethnic minorities make up the companies, brigades or even divisions that are based in their own tribal territories. When tribal conflicts over land and water rights break out the local militias quickly call in their “big brothers” in the SPLA and local conflicts become inter-SPLA warfare.

Many times the local commanders are at odds with the largest, ethnically Nok based units and do not coordinate their actions with them.

In other words, there are serious doubts whether South Sudan’s President Salva Kir actually controls South Sudan’s army. The latest attack on Heglig, recognized internationally as part of Sudan, may not have been initiated by Salva Kir but by the local SPLA commander.

Since convincing South Sudan to stop all oil production in late January 2012 (see “US Plan To Destabilize Sudan”) the USA has continued its history of broken promises and blackmail against both parties and failed to deliver the aid it was secretly promising to South Sudan if it implemented the USA’s plan to evict China from Sudan’s oil fields and, in killing two birds with one stone, destabilizing or even bringing down the Bashir government in Sudan by depriving it of its main source of income.

After three months without any oil income at all, South Sudan President Salva Kir had to take an emergency trip to China, hat in hand, to try and keep his government afloat, returning with a Chinese promise of some $8 billion in aid. Hopefully he has learned not to trust the USA, though one should not hold one’s breath in this regard.

The World Bank has also signed a several hundred million dollar “loan” agreement with a very smug looking South Sudanese robber baron, a.k.a. Finance Minister, though no one has bothered asking how with their oil fields shut down, their only source of income, South Sudan will be able to repay the World Bank.

With Hollyweirdo’s such as George Clooney and Angelina Jolie accusing Sudan’s government of everything from food aid blockades to genocide, coupled with the Phony Kony/Silent Children 2012 PR blitz that has the CIA’s fingerprints all over it via the Enough Project (the people of north Uganda, the region the program claimed to be portraying, threw stones at the screen when it was shown there), western attention has been diverted from the real reason for the suffering in South Sudan due to the massive theft of almost all of the countries income.

While the USA certainly has a hidden hand behind the recent fighting between South Sudan and Sudan, hunger, disease, and the missing $10 billion may very well be behind South Sudan’s recent military offensive against Sudan. As the saying goes “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”, what better way to distract your people from hunger, disease and Grand Theft International than starting a war with your erstwhile partner.

One thing is for sure and that is that South Sudan has more than its share of scoundrels and that the USA has more dirty tricks up its sleeve for the people of the region.

Thomas C. Mountain is an independent western journalist based in the Horn of Africa, and has been living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He was a member of the 1st US Peace Delegation to Libya in 1987

This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy Journal

Pragmatic policies and methods can only produce pragmatic responses and answers to critical questions related to principal and vision. Engagements with reformist movements are rarely a debate about principle; rather, they usually end in a common logical fallacy—an appeal to consequence (argumentum ad consequentiam) in which an argument’s conclusion or premises are rejected by referring to its undesirable consequences, which in reality have no bearing on the truth-value of the argument. Some Islamic Activists often appeal to this fallacy in referring to the consequences of adopting a revolutionary methodology—and the trials and tribulations which would follow—and insist instead on adopting a more reformist methodology of compromise and concession through the whimsical parliamentary politics and participation in periodical theatrical plays dubbed “elections”—an analogy of which is trying to plant a tree, but digging only a handful deep to do so. The result will indeed be a tree, but one which will be blown away by the slightest wind and whose branches will not reach high. A patient and wise gardener, however, is aware of the fact that strong and deeply rooted trees whose branches strike high into the sky must be planted, gardened, and cultivated with patience, and done properly so that the desired end can be reached. Sayyid Qutb observes:

“…they might be driven to use methods that don’t measure up to the specific scales or firm manhaj of the da’wah. They do this out of a desire to aid and spread the da’wah quickly, and in an effort to fulfill what they call ‘maslahat ad-da’wah’ (the interest of the da’wah)…”

We argue that the politics of activism and liberation are inextricable from the politics of tribulation, and that the clash between the establishment and the movement is an essential phase in the flowering of the principles and concepts which the movement propagates. This comes through the polarization of the movement and the establishment, and not the structural and ideological conformity between the two. This is because political participation in the establishment which the activist seeks to, in theory, antagonize will result in its the legitimization; this in turn dilutes and renders the party, in principle, non-existent as its existence is based on its ideological platform (which is compromised and lost through political participation in the very establishing the party opposes) and not on pragmatic gains (the presence of bearded MP’s is not to be considered a gain). Ones concepts and principles are made apparent through their principled, clear, systematic, and unwavering propagation as articulated by a clear and principled discourse which will result, as stated, in a clash with the state and its hegemonic establishment for the following reasons:

[1] A political platform and methodology which is anti-systemic and is in conflict with the underlying foundations of its opposing political system cannot but be violently opposed and suppressed by the establishment. As a matter of fact, this is only legitimate from the state’s perspective as it alone possesses what Weber called “legitimate violence”, and the intrusion into the political field by such movement was an informal intrusion, meaning it used illegitimate means as well as a radical and counter-hegemonic discourse to that of the state and its normative policies. The politics of “becoming”, as Connolly calls it, is the production of a new identity and subjectivity outside the matrix of power-structures which preserve the status-quo. Becoming necessitates that we are met with violence. And thus, we witness state’s launching propaganda wars and character assassinations on activists—where then would the pragmatic activist stand? Oppose the activist or oppose the state that he is legitimating, and through it, legitimizing the state’s opposition of the activist.

[2] Modern States have suppressed movements working within legitimate means of expression and political participation, although these movements are those which have declared their allegiance to the establishment and whose discourse is both apologetic and overtly reformist. Despite this, the past decades have witnessed severe suppression of these movements. If this is the case with those movements which acknowledge and legitimize the state, what can we expect to be the faith of those revolutionary movements whose methodology is counter-hegemonic, anti-systemic, and a discourse revolving around a denunciation of the state as being fundamentally illegitimate?

[3.1] The Modern (Nation-) State is by nature a conflict-generating state—in that it monopolizes identity, communication, and allegiance by constantly constructing what it means “to be” for its occupants. This monopoly is rested in the hands of the establishment as it not only maintains security, but the existence of the nation-state (as a nation)—as the state’s existence is based on this artificial and monopolizing identity.  [3.2] This is a unique feature of the “Modern” and Eurocentric state which bases its legitimacy and authority via the people on identity or the (state-shaped) general will, and (unnatural) natural categories (e.g. the nation) leading to what Dussel calls the fetishization of power by linking subjectivity to institutional power, as opposed to the Islamic system of governance which is purely contractual.

[4] A state’s legitimacy is based on consensus from a political community; however, when this consensus becomes dissensus, then a state will adopt more coercive measures to maintain its hegemony. The initial phases of this coercive phase are formidable both from the political movement which is becoming and for al-Mufasala which is the methodological demarcation of conceptual boundaries and grounds of legitimacy between two parties (in our case, state v. movement). It is at this crucial state—the stage in which a movement is being suppressed—that it fully articulates what it is by the violence of those who they are not. Life is given to one’s political platform which goes from a political agenda to a politics of Liberation and from the abstract to the concrete and from political principles to a praxis-oriented activism which Islam breeds.

[5] Political establishments in the Muslim world are part of a larger colonial power-structure or a world-system at the head of which is U.S and several European powers.  It is they who make up the center and whose surplus of wealth flows to their peripheries. Proxy regimes sustain and maintain a structure of inequality which renders much of the worlds resources and power within a neo-Liberal order. A revolutionary movement which would seek independence on the ideological, political, and economic well from the capitalist economic and hegemonic matrix of power-structures would lead, inevitably, to external unconditional support from imperial powers towards the political systems which seek to maintain the status-quo and, in turn, preserve the external powers’ imperial hegemony. Examples of such can be found across the globe from Latin America, the Muslim world, to East Asia. It is only natural then that an anti-systemic movement calling for the destruction and liberation from the tyrannical capitalist order will be met with utmost adversity, and one can only imagine how it would be met if this movement was a global movement such as that of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the nascent Hizb al-Ummah, and Lebanon’s emerging Itihad Organization.

[6.1] Quintessential to Islam is Tawhid—the very nature of which is revolutionary in that its totalizing nature transcendentalizes any form of absolute power, be it under the masquerade of divine kingship, the general will, or the [divine-like] invisible hand of the market. All thrones are to be demolished and rendered illegitimate as power is always relative and contingent with its authority belonging to the Ummah—the people who are responsible for manifesting not their “will”, but the will of Allah on earth through the implementation and preservation of Shariah. A message whose very implications amount to a cosmic revolution is bound to be met with adversity and fierce opposition by those who fetishize power.  Hence [6.2] suppression, is not seen by the believer as a problem but rather as an essential stepping block towards not only worldly victory but a prerequisite for the hereafter, and that this suppression represents the flowering of his or her da’wah and the coming to life of a new political order. The Qur’anic pedagogy cultivates within him a consciousness which is at ease for it recognizes that there is no necessary casual relationship between material strength and strategic success, but that Allaah aids his believers so long as they strive and act upon the divinely revealed knowledge. It (the Qur’an) reminds and instructs him in twenty-eight out of thirty of its chapters of the clash between Musa ‘Alaayhee as-Salaam and that of Fir’awn and his Establishment—[6.3] Aware that behind the hegemonic international norms and global power-structures and its laws are the cosmic laws put in place by Allaah ‘azza wa Jal from which no nation, power, or coalition can escape. The Qur’an, having mentioned the fall and destruction of empires, puts little doubt in the mind of the Muslim that the illegitimate establishment will also crumble and fall—he or she has full tawwakul. [6.4] The Qur’anic pedagogy emphasizes and stresses the importance of Sabr (Patience) as being essential to any successful transformation equating it with principles and actions themselves. Hence, the believer knows that no matter how politically articulate, or strategic he or she is, it must be accompanied by Sabr and Tawwakul. In the words of Qutb again, we are reminded:

“…The true maslahat ad-da’wah is that it remain firm on the manhaj without deviating in the least. As for the outcome, this is from the matters of the Unseen that none know except Allah. So, it’s not for the carriers of the da’wah to think about these outcomes. Rather, they are to go forth with this clear, straightforward, specific manhaj, leaving the outcome of this firmness to Allah – and the outcome will be nothing but good at the end of the process…”^[1]

Reforming the corrupt political systems in the Muslim world through the removal of its age-old dictators took the sacrifice and death of thousands of believers. A complete transformation of a political establishment will require more intellectual and physical endeavor—more sacrifice. Denying this however will only create a sense of complacency amidst an unfinished revolutionary project. Just as the revolutionary companions—the earliest of activist, at the order of their revolutionary head, the Prophet (Salallahu ‘Alaayhe wa-Salaam)—persevered in their persecution because what they sought was to plant the tree deeply and to reap its fruits long term, so must the true Islamic activists stand in the face of tribulation and persecution firm with ultimate sabr, firm that their persecution and imprisonment is nothing but a sign of their righteousness and a sign that they are in fact with the correct party, a party which is persecuted and attacked, politically and otherwise, for its ideas and its viewpoint on life, as opposed to those who seek to appease the establishment with apologetic rhetoric doing more harm to Islam than the good they delude themselves into thinking they are doing in turn of social safety. The true Islamic activist must reflect on the following ayah:  “Indeed Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties (in exchange) for that they will have paradise.” That the purchase of our lives is between us and Allah ‘azza wa Jal, who gives in return for it—Paradise. Thus, our lives are a loan with which we must strive in the cause of Islamic activism, and thus, we cannot allow illegitimate rulers and establishments to purchase our ideology, our steadfastness, our concept of systemic Tawhid in turn of temporary and feeble safety and tranquility in the life of this temporal abode. For surely that would be a foolish and fruitless transaction.

Ali Harfouch is a student of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut working in Islamic activism with al-Itihad Organization and Islam Policy.

Farah Abdul Khaliq is a Graduate from the University of Manchester and an Islamic Activist in the United Kingdom.

Sheikh Rashid,

On the 23^rd of October 2011, during the first “free”[1] elections in Tunisia following the departure of the tyrant dictator Ben Ali, the 60% of Tunisians eligible to vote that actually turned up at the polling stations across the country handed your party Hizb an Nahdha a clear victory[2].

It is generally accepted that the primary reason for your party’s success was its campaign-platform of “revival based on Islam”. So when I learned of the election result I wondered how your party would work to achieve this, since I knew from an interview you gave on France’s state-funded news channel France24 that you considered transforming Tunisia into an Islamic State out of the question[3].

It was with great interest, therefore, that I read the transcript of your recent speech at the “Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy”, with the title “Secularism and Relation between Religion and the State from the Perspective of the Nahdha Party”[4]. I was hoping to find in it an explanation of your views around the methodology to achieve “revival based on Islam”. But unfortunately, while it did indeed clarify for me some aspects of your thinking, in the end it raised only more questions.

You said in your speech:

“(…) It is not the duty of religion to teach us agricultural, industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified to reach these truths through the accumulation of experiences.”

“The role of religion (…) is to answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose for which we were created, and to provide us with a system of values and principles that would guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state to which we aspire.”

“When we need to legislate (…) we are in need of a mechanism, and the best mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which produces representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as opposed to an individual effort.”

The meaning of these statements is clear. According to you Islam should define the goals, while the human mind should define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals. And you feel it should be mandated representatives of the people who apply their minds to define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals set by Islam, rather than a single individual or a group of individuals acting without a power-of-attorney from the people.

Things became less clear to me when you presented your arguments for your vision. You said:

“Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics, religion and state. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder of the religion as well as the state. The first pledge of allegiance made by the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge to believe in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protect the Muslims, even by sword, should al-Madina be attacked.”

“The Prophet (pbuh) was an imam in the religious sense as he lead prayers in mosques, and at the same time a political imam that arbitrated people’s disputes, lead armies, and signed various accords and treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival to Medina he established a mosque and put in place a constitution that was called Al-Sahifah.”

“The distinction between that which is political and that which is religious is clear in the Sahifah in that Muslims are a religious nation (ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of the two plus other polytheists made up a nation in the political sense. (…) Whereas the religious is the sphere of observance and obligation, the political is the sphere of reason and Ijtihad. At times when the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet (pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. In the case of the former they would obey, and when it is the latter they may differ and offer alternatives. On more than one occasion did the companions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head of state (…). One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinating palm trees and said: ‘I do not see the benefit of doing so’. The Medinan people thought that that was divine revelation and stopped treating their trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser quality. They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: ‘You are best placed to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires’.”

Clearly this is a religious argument, for you say that the human mind should define the laws and systems of a state because this is what the Prophet (saw) taught. Hence also your referencing of Islamic scholars from the past, who – according to you – understood the Islamic law regarding the state in the same manner:

“It is mentioned that al-Mansour had become concerned with the multitude of religious views and interpretations emanating from the same religion and feared their divisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him to amalgamate all these in one to unify people’s outlooks. Imam Malik produced his famous book al-Muwatta’, with which al-Mansour was greatly pleased and wanted it to become a law that binds all Muslims. This horrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so.”

“When al-Ma’moun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation of the Quran and one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of the Mu’tazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal revolted and refused the state’s attempt to dominate religion.”

To me, this could not be more confusing. Because when you say that your vision regarding the state is what Islam prescribes, you effectively say that you want the Islamic State – how else could one define “Islamic State” but “the state prescribed by Islam”? But as mentioned earlier, we have you on the record also as saying you are against an Islamic State!

Through this letter I wish to bring this to your attention, sheikh Rashid, since I suspect other people share my confusion.

I wish to remind you also of the required intellectual premise that lies at the heart of this confusion, which is that if you are really against the Islamic State, you can not use religious arguments; but if you insist on using Islamic religious arguments when debating the state, then you can not be against the Islamic State as then the topic of the discussion is the characteristics of the Islamic State.

And I wish to urge you to remove this confusion and make your fundamental position on this issue clear. If you want the state as defined by Islam, then say you want the Islamic State. And then we as an Ummah can have a debate about the characteristics this state should have, based on religious evidences. (I am, by the way, pretty certain there will be quite a few people with quite a lot to say about the daleels you presented in your speech. For instance, how can you say the al-Sahifah is an indication that “the political is the sphere of reason” when one of its articles says “When you differ on anything the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (pbuh)”? Or how can you say the hadith on cross-pollination, whose topic is science and technology, has implications also for the completely different topic of governance, laws and systems? Or how can you say the Khilafah is not the correct form of the Islamic State, when the best of the companions of the Prophet, Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Umar bin al Khattab (ra), ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan and ‘Ali bin Abu Taalib (ra), all filled the post of Khalifah with complete consent of all the other companions?). Or, if you do not want the state as defined by Islam, then say so also – but which Muslim could say he does not want what Islam has prescribed for him?

To bring this clarity to the debate would not only be good for Islam and the Ummah, by laying a clear foundation for the most of urgent of discussions, the discussion about the path forward for the Muslim who wish to live according to Islam. It would also be good for yourself, sheikh Rashid. For as long as you continue to hover in between the two possible positions in this matter, you leave the door open for the cursed Shaytaan to whisper in the ears of the people: “Sheikh Rashid is just a hypocrite. He is against the state prescribed by Islam, the Islamic State, and only tries to hide that fact through religious reasonings”

Idries de Vries is an economist who writes on economics and geopolitics for various publications. As a management professional he has lived and worked in Europe, America and Asia.

Breivik the right-wing Norwegian extremist who admitted killing 77 people used court appearances to demand a “medal of honour” for killing “traitors” who had facilitated “Islamic colonization”. He also vehemently denounced multiculturalism and said,” We, the Norwegian resistance movement, will not just stand by while we are made a minority in our own country.” Breivik is not alone in his rile against multiculturalism.

Last year, David Cameron launched a devastating tirade against 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain. He warned that multiculturalism was incubating extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism. He said, “We have failed to provide a vision of society [to young Muslims] to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to extremist ideology.”

Cameron is not the only European leader critical of multiculturalism. In October 2010, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, unequivocally declared: “The approach of saying, ‘Well, let’s just go for a multicultural society, let’s coexist and enjoy each other,’ this very approach has failed, absolutely failed.” Merkel’s remarks came soon after Thilo Sarrazin’s diatribe against multiculturalism. In August 2010, then a board member of Germany’s central bank, Thilo condemned multiculturalism and claimed Germany’s intelligence was in decline because of Muslim immigrants. Elsewhere in Europe, boisterous voices are reverberating in the corridors of power warning about dangers of multiculturalism. And all too often, Muslim adherences to Islamic values in Western societies are cited as demonstrative examples of the failure of multiculturalism.

The rallying cry against the concept of multicultural societies extends beyond European shores. On September 28th, 2010, Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard said, “This is a time not to apologize for our particular identity but rather to firmly and respectfully and robustly reassert it. I think one of the errors that some sections of the English-speaking world have made in the last few decades has been to confuse multiracialism and multiculturalism.” He further added that some sections of society have gone too far in accommodating Muslim minorities.

In America, the daily assault on multiculturalism by conservatives and other right wing politicians is polarizing American communities and is accentuating tensions between Americans and Muslims. The plan to build a mosque close to ground-zero is just the latest manifestation of this struggle. Clearly then, multiculturalism as envisaged by its proponents has failed to deliver what it was supposed to do, i.e., protect groups or communities against intolerance and discrimination perpetrated by society or dominant groups.

Concepts like multiculturalism and diversity signify that in liberal democracies coexistence can be fostered between different groups without the erosion of their respective identities or cultural norms. However, these concepts although widely employed in the lexicon of modern political philosophy are not new. Rather they are derived from one of the main pillars of Western liberal political thought called pluralism. Like other Western concepts, the origin of pluralism is firmly rooted in birth of secularism. Back then, some philosophers were incensed at the manner by which various Christian denominations were forced to assimilate and conform to the standards and virtues mandated by the papacy.

They endeavoured to safeguard the religious practices of such groups by campaigning for greater tolerance and leniency to be shown to them by the rest of society and other dominant groups. Initially, this meant that such groups were spared physical punishment and financial penalties. However, they were barely tolerated, and were subject to torrents of racial abuse, extreme discrimination, and forced exclusion from different facets of society. For instance, they were denied employment, precluded from educational institutions, suffered from restrictions on travel movements, etc.

But as time passed, other thinkers sought to extend the boundaries of pluralism and pressed for weaker groups to be granted greater opportunities to express their religious and cultural identity in all aspects of societal life, besides the designated areas of worship. In some cases, the thinkers managed to convince the state to extend protection against persecution of a group’s cultural identity and race, and remove impediments to employment previously barred. Hence over the centuries, the concept of pluralism underwent progressive elaboration by Western philosophers and thinkers, as well as selective application by Western States. Despite numerous revisions and reviews, divergent views over pluralisms meaning, its applicability and value to society still persist. Some advocate that pluralism should be limited to a mere tolerance of a group’s cultural identity and nothing more. Others equate pluralism with the right for diverse groups to freely express and celebrate their cultural identity without fear and restrictions imposed by society or dominant groups.

Towards the middle of the last century, the labour crisis in Europe spurred an influx of immigrants to European shores. Attempts by Europe to absorb people from numerous diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds posed a number of challenges to the cohesiveness of their respective societies—chief amongst them were housing, marriage, education, health care, welfare benefits and employment. Tensions frequently surfaced between the indigenous populations and the immigrants, as both competed for limited resources. During this period, several thinkers and a handful of politicians criticized the inability of Western governments to assimilate immigrants. They suggested alternative solutions to preserve social cohesion based on pluralism, and advocated cultural diversity under the guise of integration.

In 1966, Roy Jenkins, a British politician, presented a new pluralistic vision for Britain. He said, “ I do not think we need in this country a ‘melting pot’ which will turn everybody out in a common mould, as one of a series of carbon copies of someone’s misplaced vision of the stereotyped Englishman… I define integration therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, coupled with cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.” This became known as Jenkins formula and was widely employed by policy makers to establish guidelines and laws for multiculturalism.

In the next 40 years, pluralism or multiculturalism—as it came to be widely known—was introduced in almost every aspect of life; so much so that indigenous populations perceived immigrants and other minority groups to enjoy greater benefits than themselves. Subsequently, relations between the host and immigrant communities rapidly deteriorated, many questioned the wisdom behind multiculturalism, and some even went as far as calling for its abolition. Therefore, even before the events of September 11, 2001, multiculturalism which was coveted as a panacea for social cohesion was an abject failure.
Multiculturalism or pluralism is whimsical idea that is conceptually flawed and unworkable in practice. This is because pluralism encourages groups to promote their cultural identity irrespective of their political influence or financial strength. Naturally, the strongest group uses its political prowess and financial muscle to persuade politicians to define legislation, which vigorously defends and endorses their culture and values at the expense of other groups.

Additionally, the most powerful group manipulates the media and the educational establishments to actively promote its culture, which leads to widespread acceptance amongst the indigenous population. In this way, the strongest group’s culture becomes indistinguishable from the state’s culture. Weaker groups find themselves culturally squeezed, discriminated against, and in conflict with the state. Such groups are coerced by both the state and society to dilute their cultural identity to fit in. Those groups that refuse to temper with their cultural identity are ostracized and consigned to live in ghettos. In extreme cases, they are expelled from the host nation, like what happened to the Roma gypsies in France.

What the Norwegian incident illustrates is that the preoccupation of mainstream society to stigmatize Muslims has provided ample opportunity for other marginalized groups to implant their ideas and attract new recruits to their detestable ideologies. One must wonder, how many other home grown right-wing extremists lurk in European cities waiting to pounce against their governments and fellow citizens, whilst politicians struggle to replace multiculturalism with other fad ideas like assimilation, and integrations that will no doubt lead to the same result.

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs and global issues. He can be reached at provokethought@hotmail.co.uk.

The decision by Formula One to go ahead with the Bahrain Grand Prix while the country is still in a state of ongoing unrest since the violent suppression of demonstrations which began against the Khalifa regime last year, is being seen as an international endorsement of the Kingdom’s autocratic rule.  Bernie Ecclestone’s statement that  “there’s nothing happening [in Bahrain]” and his assertion that he knows “people who live there and its all very quiet and peaceful” has definitely been useful for the Bahraini authorities in their attempt to proclaim that its business as usual. However, no one should be surprised at Ecclestone’s lack of moral scruples in holding an international entertainment event in the midst of a crackdown that has seen scores of people arrested, tortured, and in some cases convicted for 15 years for giving medical help to those wounded in the protests. After all, here is a man who allegedly has previously suggested that despotism is underrated, that Saddam Hussein was the only man who could control Iraq, and that Hitler may have been his favorite historical dictator. It may be that the Khalifa regime is not actually autocratic enough for his tastes.

However, the FIA’s decision to return to Bahrain needs to be taken within context. For all intents and purposes, Bahrain remains the British protectorate that it has been since the 19^th century. This is why the monarch of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, is an invited guest to the Queen of England’s diamond jubilee celebrations later this year. It is also the reason why the British Prime Minister David Cameron rolled out the red carpet for the crown prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, only weeks after he had overseen the violent crackdown of protestors in the Bahraini capital Manama, with the aid of Saudi and other GCC troops. He then met the King personally in Downing Street six months later, who visited to get “British advice” on how to implement reforms in the country.

One can only wonder the kind of advice Britain has been giving to its client regime – to start with, in the period soon after the height of the protests in 2011 the British government approved the sale of more than £1 million worth of military equipment to the Bahraini regime. This included licenses for gun silencers, weapons sights, rifles and other equipment, all of which could conceivably be being used against their own population. Not a single export license to Bahrain was rejected, despite a crackdown on protestors denounced by international human rights organizations. In other words, Britain has been, and continues to, provide the weapons that could be used by the regime in their crackdown against opposition.

However, aid has not been limited to military sales. Policing expertise has also been exported to Bahrain, with former Scotland Yard “counter-terrorism” chief John Yates being currently employed to advise the Bahraini regime on “police reform”. (Yates, for those who don’t know, resigned in disgrace from Scotland Yard for his role in the Murdoch media phone hacking scandal). His employment by the Bahraini regime follows in the tradition of British ex-spooks being given a job by the Khalifas, with Ian Henderson – formerly a Colonial Police Officer responsible for suppressing the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya – hired as the head of state security in Bahrain for more than three decades. During his time, he was accused by political dissidents and international human rights organizations of overseeing, and participating, in the torture of opposition figures, as covered in this 2002 documentary – “Blind eye to the Butcher” (Henderson is apparently living out his retirement as a guest of the Khalifa’s in Bahrain). Yates does not (yet) have the reputation of Henderson, though his comments whitewashing the torture allegations against the Bahraini regime are certainly not a good start. His statements that the police could use live fire in retaliation against protestors hardly endorse his previous comments about the security situation in the country, but consistency is not one of Yate’s known traits.

With the deep connections between on the one hand British Businesses and British establishment, and on the other hand the Bahraini regime, it is clear that the client regime remains little more than a British protectorate, independent in name only. In such a context, the green light given by the FIA and Ecclestone is only taking its lead from the bill of health that the British government has given to the Khalifa ruling family and its autocratic rule, and is simply a reflection of putting British interests before the will of the local population.  This is a tale often repeated across the Middle East and other areas of former British colonies, and is likely to continue as long as the ruling powers in these regions remain largely subservient to the post-colonial set-up.

Reza Pankhurst is a political scientist and historian, specialising in the Middle East and Islamic movements. He has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, where he previously completed his Masters degree in the History of International Relations. He was a political prisoner of the previous Mubarak regime in Egypt, spending almost 4 years in jail between 2002 and 2006. His forthcoming book is entitled “The Inevitable Caliphate?” (Hurst/ Columbia University Press 2012) – further details of which can be seen at facebook.com/theinevitablecaliphate. He can be contacted at rezapankhurst@newcivilisation.com

Kabul was cast into chaos Sunday as the Taliban began their spring offensive with attacks on US, British, German and Russian embassies, NATO headquarters, Camp Eggers, a hotel, President Karzai’s palace compound and parliament. “These are coordinated attacks that went just as we planned,” Taliban spokesman Qari Talha told The Daily Beast. “This is only the start of what’s in store this year and next for the Americans and Karzai.”

Targets across the country included Vice-President Mohammad Karim Khalili, airfields and police stations in three eastern provinces. About 20 insurgents were killed in the attacks, which injured at least 15 police officers and nine civilians.

US ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker dismissed the Taliban’s claim of responsibility: “Frankly, I don’t think the Taliban is good enough,” leaving unsaid who is. Crocker commended the NATO-trained Afghan forces, whose capability was “proven today by their professional and highly effective response in restoring order”.

A warning came from New Delhi’s Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies Director Dipankar Banerjee: “We’re only going to see an increase in these attacks. It helps [the militants] ensure political dominance in the new order as they slowly take over.” Talha said that Sunday’s strikes were just a preview of the fighting season to come. “We want to engage smaller numbers of well-trained fighters to make attacks on significant government, American and NATO targets.” He said the mastermind of the operation was Hajji Lala, the insurgency’s shadow governor of Kabul and its eastern-front military chief.

One big difference, according to Talha and other Taliban sources, was that this time the Haqqani network did not play a significant role in the operation. Rivalry has developed between the Taliban and its eastern partner in insurgency, although Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin have in the past declared their loyalty to Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. Talha says he’s hopeful that the Taliban and the Haqqanis will work together in the future. “With this coordination we can double of number and size of attacks across Afghanistan.”

Sunday’s attacks confirmed the ease with which the Taliban are able to infiltrate fighters, suicide bombers, explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons into the capital and the main towns of the three surrounding provinces. The Kabul government’s 300,000-strong security forces actually make this easier, Talha explained. “The bigger the Afghan police, army, and intelligence services grow, the less effective they become. Kabul’s intelligence and police are weaker than ever, allowing us to carry out these stunning episodes.”

A senior Kabul-government official in eastern Paktia province confirms this: “I fear our intelligence and security forces are becoming less coordinated while the Taliban’s coordination is getting better.” The problem is that the intelligence service, the police, and the army, controlled by Tajiks, are riven by ethnic rivalries and mistrust between them, Pashtuns and Uzbeks. “They do not coordinate with each other. This provides a golden opportunity for the Taliban to infiltrate and penetrate wherever and when they wish.”

American, Afghan and NATO officials undoubtedly will call the Taliban assault a failed offensive. But that is small comfort to most Afghans.

British parliamentarian Lord Nazir Ahmed added a note of whimsy to AfPak’s ongoing tragedy, when he announced a reward for the capture of US President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W Bush at a reception in Lord Nazir’s honour held by the business community of Haripur, Pakistan on Friday. Nazir said that placing a bounty on Lashkar-e-Taiba Chief Hafiz Saeed was an insult to all Muslims, and by doing so President Obama has challenged the dignity of the Muslim Ummah. Lashkar-e-Taiba is held responsible for the 2008 Mumbai bombings and is on the US terrorist list.

“If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush,” Lord Nazir said. A terrorist tit-for-tat.

Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s. He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, and Al-Jazeerah. His articles appear in Russian, German, Spanish and Arabic and are accessible at his website ericwalberg.com. His Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games  is available at http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html or through Amazon.