Pro American Lobby in Israel

28 08 2013

A family friend, a South Asian international human rights lawyer raised a very interesting question the other day and asked if there is a pro Israeli lobby in the US, why there is no pro American lobby in Israel? A very good question indeed.

In the US, any one seeking a national political position whether as president, senator, house members, cabinet members or senior staff on the White House or Capital Hill, or diplomatic economic, and financial position certainly key financial advisors or Federal Reserve, all without exception must meet AIPAC litmus test of loyalty to Israel and its agenda. Single or dual citizenship is a one-way street in favor of Israel over America all the times.

The family friend was intrigued by the power AIPAC and Israel associated powerful think tanks hold over almost every thing political, economic or financial in America and asked why not an American lobby in Israel with the same powers and commitments to the US as AIPAC is toward Israel?

With hundreds of thousands of Americans in Israel, it is very difficult to even imagine if any one who would have the kind of loyalty to America to even think of organizing to represent pro America’s interests in Israel, in the same way that Americans Zionists and Israelis represent Israel’s interests in the US. Most are dual citizens; most volunteer to serve in the Israeli army, before they think of serving the American army, most join armed settlers groups and land thieves. America and its national interest is the last thing on their mind.

Just imagine if Bibi Netanyahu or members of his cabinet or security advisors who are members of the pro American lobby with declared loyalty to America First. Better yet imagine if members of Knesset as members of the American lobby.

Imagine members of Knesset simply signing blank letters or drafts bills presented by the pro American lobby when such letters or bills are contrary to Israel First or its national and security interests. They will never be able to come within one miles of Bibi or the Knesset or any political, defense or security positions.

Imagine if members of the pro American lobby in Israel, demand litmus test of loyalty to America from key political, defense and financial candidates similar to the demands made by members of Congress as they vote for confirmation of American officials who must meet loyalty test to Israel as recently was demanded by Susan Rice and Samantha Power, certainly Chuck Hagel. His service to America as a soldier, as a senator was not good enough for his colleagues in the senate who are at the pecking of AIPAC and who are Israel First.

Imagine if these US citizens in Israel decide to choose to join the US military instead of joining the Israeli army? Imagine what Israeli society would think of these people and whether they will be able to get jobs even as janitors in government buildings. Yet, we in America see nothing wrong with Israeli loyalists holding key political, national security and defense position. In fact if you are not an Israeli First you had no chance of ever holding a position of consequence in the US.

The idea of a pro American lobby in Israel is an intriguing question, but it will never happen because no one dares to stand up for America First, not in Israel certainly not in America. Beside Israel will never allow it to take place.

Missing; Arab Political Leadership

24 08 2013

Whether we like it not, whether we agree with it or not, the Arab World in the last 60 years had two leaders of consequence and world stature, the late King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (1906-197) and the late Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970). The conflicts, the mayhem, the failings, the backwardness, the oppression, the exiles, we see everyday shows the Arab World is in desperate needs of true leadership. I always wondered if these two leaders lived long enough, cooperated long enough I am sure the Arab World would not be the same as it is now, broken and bleeding.

To the misfortune of Arabs and Arab nations, they have been ruled for decades by the military, by socialists, by nationalists, by secularists, by capitalists, by Ba’athists, by Islamists (Sudan), by lunatics, kleptomaniacs and narcissists and the result is what we see today.

Nations, rises and falls with leadership and history showed us leaders that made a difference in their nation history. Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaul, Jawaharlal Nehru, Konrad Adenauer, Nelson Mandela, David Ben-Gurion, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, Lee Kuan Yeu are among those who made a difference for the good in their own country and in building or rebuilding their nations.

On the other hand, many leaders also contributed to the failings of their countries the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mussolini. Nixon, Bush, Saddam Hussain, Ali Abdullah Saleh, Muamar Qaddafi, Hafiz Assad, Ben Ali, Bahsar Assad, Nourdineen Malki, Omar Al-Bashir, Yasser Arafat, Hosni Mubarak are among the many who failed their own people and failed their countries. Driven by hate, partisan politics, dismissing the others and oppositions, and in the case of the Arab leaders, arrogance, stupidity, incompetency, criminal recklessness and corruption.

The Arab World not only suffers from oppressions, hunger, discontent, illiteracy, fear, death, destruction, sectarian conflicts, coupes and terrorisms, it suffers from anemic leadership that failed to rise up above its own narrow selfish interests, partisan and sectarian politics, family and feudal politics lacking a vision for the nation and no caring for the people. This is the case, we saw in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Sudan, in Palestine, and in Yemen among many. In the case of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia going beyond George Bush infamous statement “either you are with us or against us” demonizing the oppositions as “terrorists”. This behavior shows lack of political sophistications, loyalty to the country and people, inherent personal and public weakness to engage the opposition in a meaningful dialogue.

Political parties as we have seen in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Sudan among others are for the most part self serving their own interests mainly of leadership perpetuating the status quo that failed the people all these years.

What we see today in Tunisia, with the opposition parties mainly secular/liberal parties and labor unions shows at best this narrow selfish interests demanding all or nothing putting the Jasmine Revolution at risk, and refusing to consider what is good for the nation. Living in time pasts, having failed all these years to deliver any real and tangible benefits for their membership and nation. Certainly having failed to bring about the revolution. Now they want to have all the benefits of the revolution for themselves and not for the nation.

Lebanon is no different, notwithstanding semblance of civility of fine nightclubs, bonjour, merci, Louis Vuitton, it remains a feudal and sectarian society ruled by money, families and warlords. The Civil War that destroyed the country, left over 100,000 dead, and 30,000 missing, put the country in substantial debt with looting that left basic infrastructure unfinished, a scarred nation remains that remained divided along the few haves and the millions of have not, along sectarian lines and loyalty to families and world lords of times past, manifesting itself with deadlock partisan and sectarian politics ready to explode at any moment.

The scene is no different in many of the Arab nations, with political, civil society, labor, intellectual elites and leadership that is at best, partisan, ideologically driven, sectarians, narrow minded, without a vision for the future and for the most part on the payrolls of someone from within and from without.

It is hard to believe that nations like Iraq, and Tunis, even Egypt could not bring about political leadership that can put an end to the mayhem and killings like that in Iraq, deadlock politics in Tunisia and all or nothing military coup in Egypt. The people of Iraq did not benefit from ending Saddam’s criminal regime; it is now much worst and too corrupt. In Tunisia risking all that gained from a revolution they did not initiate but want to milk for their own partisan benefits. In Egypt the January revolution that ended 60 years of military and police state came to abrupt end because political parties and groups did not go beyond their own narrow interests and forgot what the revolution was all about, rebuilding the nation and giving the people the dignity and decent living they have been robbed off all these years.

Lack of such political and intellectual leadership is apparent everywhere. The Syrian Opposition more interested in offices, benefits and five stars hotels, failed to uniting politics with field commanders that allowed Bashar Assad and Salafi Jihadist to rob them and the Syrian people from a victory they deserve.

Sudan a failed state for many years due to incompetent corrupt partisan politics responsible for the war crimes in Darfur and the loss of South Sudan. In Yemen, there is absolute and urgent needs for all parties and political leadership to bring the nation together and making a difference in a country suffering from malnutrition, illiteracy and poverty. Interests of the nation and people should come before partisan politics.

Palestine and Iraq are no different, with political dictatorship that lost its legitimacy long time ago, leadership that puts its own selfish personal and financial interests ahead of any thing else. While Iraqi sectarian leadership (Sunnis and Shiites) failed to rise up to the occasion healing a nation destroyed by Saddam Hussein and George Bush and the daily mayhem of booby-trapped cars and suicide bombing could not bring itself to change a political system installed by American Zionist NeoCons.

In Palestine, both Hamas and Fatah leadership forgot about the continued occupation, the expansion of Jewish settlements are engaged in partisan politics that shamed all Palestinians and risked any future for a Palestinian state. Partisan politics that keeps Gaza under siege, keeping millions in large jail, keep thousands of political prisoners, nurture even promote political intolerance and hate.

I tried hard to think of those who in the Arab world that rose above partisan and sectarian politics and I simply could not fined any deserving leadership that can rise to the stature of the late King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud or the late Gamal Abdel Nasser. While both were on the opposite of the political and ideological difference, they came together at the end for the good of the Arab World. It was too short to make a difference. Nasser died of perhaps induced heart attack, while King Faisal was gunned down by evil American Zionist powers afraid of his commitment to the liberation of Jerusalem.

Simply there are no political parties or political and intellectual leadership worthy enough to make a difference, can rise to level much needed to give the Arab World the hope, bring peace, democracy and accountable government, give the people a reason to live and no reasons to die.

Ps. I mentioned David Ben-Gurion because he was instrumental in establishing and building Israel as military and political power, notwithstanding its legitimacy, land theft, expulsion of Palestinians, its racist’s policies and practice. Arafat was a narcissist fraud.

Egypt; Bullets not Ballots Rule

18 08 2013

Red lines are crossed when political groups or individuals take up arms as part of civil protests seeking political or economic change. Governments and regimes also cross red-line when they use deadly military forces to quell such protests and invite the populations to take up arms and engage in popular and armed uprising to topple the regime and change the nature of the state. We have seen this in Libya and in Syria. The sad tragic and deadly events in Egypt shows both the military and the Brotherhood are unfit to lead and govern.

In the January uprising, Mubarak regime and in a desperate attempts to thwart the popular uprising threatening the regime, both official media and ministry of interior engaged in lies and manufacturing the truth with many so called “credible” media such as Al-Ahram and Egyptian television including well known journalists took up the lies, with claims that Arab looking (Palestinians) are caught red handed in Tahrir Square with weapons, arms and communication gears, same claims now against the Brotherhood and of course with support from non Egyptian.

Egyptian television stations and well known journalists went so far in manufacture the truth airing interviews with a “journalist” claiming she was part of a large group trained by Israel and Qatar in the US to help overthrow the Mubarak regime. It came out later that this “journalist” was on the payroll of a major government media. In Egypt then and now and as always the truth is the first victim.

If the claims by the military regime that the Muslims Brothers engaged in violent uprisings and use of weapon then this undermine the claims by the Brotherhood that the demonstration and protests are “peaceful”. However from past experience it seems every one in Egypt is engaged in lies and manufacturing the truth. The number of fatality within police and military ranks does not fit the claims that the Brothers are engaged in well-organized armed insurrection and acts of terrorism.

Burning of churches, public buildings and destruction of private properties is a crime no matter how any one looks at whether committed by the Brotherhood or the military or its thugs. The burning of churches reminds up of the television claim by convicted former minister of interior Habib Al-Adly who falsely claimed that “armed foreigners i.e. Palestinians” were behind the burning of the Coptic Saints Church in Alexandria only to emerge later that ministry of interior thugs were the ones that fired bomb the church. Burning of churches and public buildings should disqualify the Brotherhoods from public office in the same way it should disqualify the military and ministry of interior from qualifying to rule the state. One has to question why burning of churches and headquarters or the Brotherhood were not a crime before the coup, but a crime after?

General Al-Sisis, the minister of defense and head of the Egyptian military seems to be in too much harry to join infamous generals the likes of Augusto Jose Pinochet (Chile) Rafael Vidola (Argentina) and Magalhaes Pinto (Brazil) among the many generals who aborted and snuffed democracy and the will of the people through ballot boxes. Military coup and bullets are no substitute for ballots.

General Al-Sisi and his generals are not about to let go of the absolute power the military have held over Egypt since Nasser came to power even it means burning down Egypt and every thing in it.

I could not help but see some similarities and contrasts between what is happening in Egypt and what happened in Chile. In Egypt General Al-Sisi and his generals could not and will never accept a civilian government in Egypt, let alone accept the idea that the military is under civilian rule and accountability. There is too much economic and personal stakes in such decision. The military in Egypt is a business, a big conglomerate, racketeering enterprise with substantial share of the economic life in Egypt with the defense of the country as a side by-product.

The Egyptian military were too anxious to precipitate the down fall of the Brotherhood and the democratically elected president and parliament and one year of Morsi rule was too much to take and military could not accept the interruption of the military rule that governed since 1953. The Egyptian liberals and secularist tolerated 60 years of a failed state, but could not tolerate the incompetence of the Brotherhood for a year?

In Chile, General Pinochet and his generals initially were not interested in governing but for the active instigation of the US and its CIA. The Chilean military were always and for many years accepted even promoted their professional not political role in the affairs of the state. Of course the military coupe made sure 48 years stretch of democratic rule comes to an abrupt end with the killing of the first “socialist” freely elected president in the history of Latin America. The United States with the conniving war criminal like of Henry Kissinger engaged fully in the toppling of the Allende regime supplying $10 million in the process and supplying the missiles that hit the presidential palace. In contrast the US invested more than $66 billions in the Egyptian military since Sadat –Begin Camp David. General Al-Sisi and his generals did not need any incitement to bring an end to the rule of the first Muslim Brothers elected to office making it would be the last. The Egyptian military did not need any incitement from any one to bring about the military coup.

According to the Rettig Report, in Chile, General Pinochet regime killed and murdered 3,065 citizens tortured 31,947 with 2,279 who simply disappeared. In addition to the 1,312 exiled. This happened over a period of time (1973-1998).

In contrast to Egypt the claims of more than 3000 killed in couple days break the records set by the Pinochet of Chile, and if one is to count the number of those were tortured by the military regime since Nasser days then Egypt breaks all the records set forth by Brazil, Argentina and Chile combined.

It is so ironic that Allende and Morsi both promoted the generals that toppled them. Allende and Morsi promoted Pinochet and Al-Sisis shortly before the military coup. While Chile returned to civilian rule and ballot based democracy, it is very unlikely that Egypt will ever see ballot based democracy.

While Chilean liberal and democrats struggled for years to bring about an end to the military regime and the re-introduction of civilian rules, Egyptian secularists and liberals are riding on top of military tanks to bring back military regime and end once and for all any chance a civilian democratically elected government and parliament.

In Egypt the chance of having true democratic government, with separate and independent branches, executive Legislative and judiciary seem unlike to ever take place. Too bad for Egyptians, for Arabs and for the world, the bloodbath in Rabiya Al-adawyia erased the euphoric spirit of Tahrir Square. Political Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood as we have seen it so far is a total failure as an alternative to military regimes. In the same way military regimes could never be a valid and credible alternatives to elected governments. In Egypt bullets not ballots rule.

Islam Supports Freedom of Belief

18 08 2013

In matters of belief, Islam offers people complete freedom, and in the very clearest language. That has been so ever since Islam was first revealed, and forms the basis of today’s Islamic morality. When a Muslim meets someone whom he wants to have faith, he only has the liability to communicate Islam and to explain the existence of God, to state that the Qur’an is the book of His revelation, that the Prophet Muhammad (saas) is His messenger, to explain the existence of the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment and the beauties of the Islamic morality. However, such liability is only restricted to communicating the religion. In one verse in Surat an-Nahl, God informs us that our Prophet (saas) also is only a messenger: Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and argue with them in the kindest way. Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way. And He knows best who are guided. (Surat an-Nahl, 125)

Another verse states, “… It is the truth from your Lord; so let whoever wishes believe and whoever wishes do not believe…” (Surat al-Kahf, 29) and our Lord addresses our Prophet (saas) as, “Perhaps you will destroy yourself with grief because they will not become believers.” (Surat ash-Shu’ara’, 3). In Surah Qaf God issues our Prophet (saas) this reminder:

We know best what they say. You are not a dictator over them. So remind, with the Qur’an, whoever fears My Threat. (Surah Qaf, 45)

For example, one person may immediately come to believe in the face of a believer’s preaching, while another mocks and attacks it. One person may use his conscience and decide to live in the way that is pleasing to God, while the other may join the deniers and respond to fine words with ugly ones. But that denial will never inspire despair or sorrow in the person issuing the call. In Surah Yusuf God says:

But most people, for all your eagerness, are not believers. You do not ask them for any wage for it. It is only a reminder to all beings. (Surah Yusuf, 103-104)

What’s important is that no matter what reaction he meets with, the person who abides by the Qur’an keeps on displaying the kind of morality that is pleasing to God, refuses to make any concessions on it, and puts his trust in God. God has told us that His religion is to be explained “in the kindest way” as revealed in the Qur’an: “Argue with the People of the Book only in the kindest way–except in the case of those of them who do wrong–saying, “We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are One and we submit to Him.” (Surat al-‘Ankabut, 46)

We must not forget that all events, great or small, happen in the framework of the destiny created by God. And it is God who bestows salvation on someone who is invited to believe. For that reason, believers are never troubled by deniers’ behavior. There are many instances of this in the Qur’an. In the verse “Perhaps you may destroy yourself with grief, chasing after them, if they do not believe in these words” (Surat al-Kahf, 6), God tells the Prophet (saas) not to be troubled if the people he calls on to believe in the Qur’an fail to do so. In another verse we are told “You cannot guide those you would like to but God guides those He wills. He has best knowledge of the guided.” (Surat al-Qasas, 56) Therefore, one’s invitation, fine words and all the details one set out will only have any effect in the event that God so wills it. (Harun Yahya, Only Love Can Defeat Terrorism –

God has given mankind both reason and a conscience. His messengers and the Divine books revealed to them have shown the true path, and people are responsible for their own choices. Islamic morality can be lived only by a sincere decision to do so–by surrendering oneself to God and listening to one’s conscience, which always commands one to do what is right. It is a total violation of Islamic morality to force anyone to believe, because what matters is an individual’s surrendering himself to God with all his heart and believing sincerely. If a system were to force people into a religion and worship, people would appear to be religious because of their fear of the system. From a religious perspective only religiosity lived for God and based on free and conscious choice is acceptable. God says the following to our Prophet (saas) in the Surat al-Ghashiyya:

So remind them! You are only a reminder. You are not in control of them. But as for anyone who turns away and is unbeliever, God will punish him with the Greatest Punishment. Certainly it is to Us they will return. Then their Reckoning is Our concern. (Surat al-Ghashiyya: 21-26)

It also needs to be emphasized that Islam leaves people free to make their own choices regarding religion and commands them to respect other religions. Even if someone believes in a superstitious faith, as the Qur’an describes it, still he can live in peace and security in Muslim lands and freely perform his own religious obligations. In verses God commanded our Prophet (saas) to tell those who denied Him:

“I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. Nor will I worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your religion, and I have my religion.” (Surah Qaf, 2-6)

Under the morality of Islam, everyone is free to carry out his religious obligations in accord with his own particular belief. Nobody can prevent any others from performing their particular religious duties, nor can he oblige them to worship in the manner he desires. That violates the morality of Islam, and is unacceptable to God. In the Islamic history a model of society emerges in which everyone is free to worship and perform the obligations attendant upon his particular chosen beliefs. In the Qur’an God describes monasteries, churches, synagogues, and the places of worship of the Peoples of the Book as all under God’s protection:

… If God had not driven some people back by means of others, [then] monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God’s name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him–God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Surat al-Hajj, 40)

Our Prophet’s (saas) life is full of such examples. When Christians came to see him, he left his own mosque for them to use and pray in it. That kind of compassion was maintained during the times of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet (saas). After Damascus was captured, a church that had been turned into a mosque was divided into two, so that Christians might worship in one half and Muslims in the other. (You can obtain detailed information on the subject from the web site, which is based on the works of Harun Yahya.)

Burcu Cekmece


Building Bridges – Istanbul, Turkey

Christian Brotherhood of America

3 08 2013

Not withstanding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution which declares that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and prohibits the establishment of a national religion, the Christian Brotherhood of America is in every establishment: the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, Home Land Security, CIA, among many of the different departments of the US government.

Although the Constitution does not support the establishment of faith-based parties, faith runs deep in the American political party system.

Republicans, due to their alliances with Evangelicals (Christians and Zionists), are deemed the party of political Christianity.

Though Thomas Jefferson was quite concerned, and rightly so, of leaving the door open to faith in public life, his clause was intended to “ erect a wall of separation between church and state.”

Political Christianity, or what I would refer to as the state of Christian Brotherhood in America, permeates in countless policy debates. This includes restrictions on abortion (even in cases of rape and incest), stem cell research and use, same-sex marriage, welfare and welfare reform, access to birth control, and even foreign aid to Africa. There are attempts to censor media that is deemed to promote “anti-family values,” and members of Congress who are “scored” on how much they enforce a traditional vision of family life.

Though members of Congress and state legislatures are forbidden to cross the line of separation between church and state, no legislation or Constitution can forbid legislators from voting with their “value system” or introducing legislation that stems from their value systems. It is only natural and expected.

Ronald Reagan and later George W. Bush were the first to recognize the power of the Christian Brotherhood when they made the Moral Majority (coined by Jewish Paul Weyrich) of the late Jerry Faldwell a corner stone of their political agenda. Later on, George W. Bush set up the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership back in January 2001 with President Bush defining it as “Compassionate Conservatism, with more than $2.2 billion in awards to social services associated with religion.”

President Barack Obama kept the faith with such policies though renaming the office to “The White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives” back in February 2009, with membership ranging from Church of God in Christ, the National Council of Churches, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, African Methodists Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.

The backbone of the Christian Brotherhood is in organizations such as the Southern Baptists Convention, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition of America, National Association of Evangelicals, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

Although U.S. tax laws prohibit churches from endorsing candidates, they are allowed to influence legislation through lobbies, the media, and an army of campaigners in support of certain political candidates. Religious institutions such as religious orders, churches, mosques and synagogues, which in some cases are large enough to be owners of billions of millions of dollars worth of real estate properties and financial assets, are given tax breaks.

That kind of financial power does make a difference in politics in America. This has most clearly been seen in cross-country efforts to restrict access to abortion and to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Unfortunately, a number of these same groups conduct fear-mongering, Islamaphobic campaigns that promote the idea that Muslims in the U.S. are here to impose Sharia Law, as if Sharia Law is an imminent danger to the U.S. and Christian way of life. Since November 2010, two-dozen states have considered legislation to ban the implementation of Sharia law, including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Given that predominantly Muslim countries are rejecting the imposition of Sharia Law, it seems ridiculous to believe that Sharia Law is ever going to be imposed on Oklahomans.

These groups fail to recognize the irony that they are waging anti-Islam campaigns while at the same time, actively trying to pass legislation at both the State and Federal levels to impose their faith on everyone else.

The motivations behind such campaigns is not for the love of America or leading a Christian life, it is to use a fear of Islam in the U.S. as a way to promote Israel. “Scholars” like David Yerushalmi, who enjoys wide support from Republicans, are able to hold conferences in the U.S. Capitol Building on reports titled “Sharia: The Threat to America.” Major political figures with the Republic Party such as Newt Gingrich, have called Sharia Law a “mortal threat,” and called for it to be banned across America.

We all should remember the U.S. war on Iraq, with Evangelical chaplains having found to pump troops up with hate speech, leading U.S. troops in Samara, Iraq to drive around town with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle with “Jesus Killed Mohamed” emblazed all over it.

The US military top brass ignored members of the military framing what the U.S. was doing in Iraq and across the Middle East as a war on Islamic, or a modern-day version of the Crusades. Colonel Gary Hensley, division chaplain of the 101st Airborne and chief chaplain for all of Afghanistan, surrounded himself with Biblical posters translated into Pashto and Dar during a sermon at Bagram Air Force Base’s main chapel.

The Evangelical Christians Brotherhood targeted the military in order to set up a spear head from which they can “convert” the US government and the rest of the world, with organizations within the military such as Officers Christians Fellowship counting on 15,000 members and presence in 80% of US military installations, with Evangelicals reminding members that God comes before country.

With guys like Lt. Col. Mathew A. Dooley staff instructors at the Joint Forces Staff College concluding “ Using the lessons of Hiroshima: to wipe out whole cities at once targeting the civilian populations whenever necessary in a total war against Muslims”.

There is spiritual and political collusion between Evangelicals and other organizations that are promoting, advocating and sponsoring “Islamophobia” with an agenda to empower Israel and its choke on America. Generous funding in the tens of millions donated from individuals and businesses involved in gambling, prostitutions, pimping, money launderings, Bingo Games and usury. While there are too many to mention here, I leave you with some few to ponder.

• Frank Gaffney- Center for Security Policy
• David Yerushalmi- Society of Americans for National Existence.
• Daniel Pipes- Middle East Forum
• Robert Spencer- Jihad Watch and Stop Islmaization of America
• Steve Emerson- Investigative Project on Terrorism

The anti-Islam campaigns have bled into campaigns against anyone who does not subscribe to conservative Christian values, with a number of bills this year being introduced or passed to restrict access to abortion or same-sex marriage. The breakdown of the line of separation between Church and State is the biggest threat to America.

The Error of Radicalism

31 07 2013

Radicalism means supporting sudden revolutionary destructive changes in any sphere and applying a strict uncompromising policy in order to achieve them. Radicals are characterized by their desire for revolutionary change and the stern, sometimes aggressive attitude they adopt. In this, as in every sphere of life, the guide for the Muslim is the Qur’an. When we look at radicalism in the light of the Qur’an, we see that it has nothing to do with the way in which God commands the believers to behave. When God describes a believer in the Qur’an, He depicts him as a loving, soft-spoken person, shunning conflicts and arguments, approaching even the most hostile people with warmth and friendship.

An example to guide us in this matter is the command given by God to Moses (as) and Aaron (as) to go to Pharaoh and speak gently to him:

Go to Pharaoh; he has overstepped the bounds. But speak to him with gentle words so that hopefully he will pay heed or show some fear. (Surah Ta Ha, 43-44)

Pharaoh was one of the most cruel and rebellious unbelievers of his time. He was a despot who denied God and worshipped idols; moreover, he subjected believers (the Israelites of the time) to terrible cruelties and murder. But God commanded His prophets to go to such a hostile man and speak to him gently. You will notice that the way shown by God was the way of friendly dialogue, not the way of conflict with sharp words, angry slogans and agitated protests.

There are a few other examples to show Muslims how to behave in the dialogue between the Prophet Jethro (as) and the deniers. This dialogue is related in the Qur’an in this way:

And to Madyan their brother Jethro. He said, “My people, worship God! You have no deity apart from Him. Do not give short measure and short weight. I see you prospering and I fear for you the punishment of an all-encompassing Day.

My people! Give full measure and full weight with justice; do not diminish people’s goods; and do not go about the earth, corrupting it.

What endures with God is better for you if you are believers. I am not set over you as your keeper.”

They said, “Jethro, do your prayers instruct you that we should abandon what our fathers worshipped or stop doing whatever we want to with our wealth? Yet you are such a lenient, normal person!”

He said, “My people! What do you think? If I do possess a Clear Sign from my Lord and He has given me His good provision, I do not want to oppose you in what way I am forbidding you. I only want to put things right as far as I can. My success is with God alone. I have put my trust in Him and I turn to Him.” (Surah Hud, 84-88)

When we examine what he says, we see that the Prophet Jethro (as) invited the people to believe in God and to adopt high moral principals and he did this with friendliness and humility. We can explain some of the reasons behind of the things said in these verses:

* When the Prophet Jethro (as) says “I am not set over you as your keeper.” to the people, he does not want to dominate them; his only intention is to inform them of the truth that God has revealed.

* “You are clearly the forbearing, the rightly-guided”: These words of the deniers to the Prophet Jethro (as) show his warm, gentle and courteous character and that this was particularly appreciated by the deniers.

* “My people! What do you think?” This expression used by the Prophet Jethro (as) shows that he calls on the deniers to use their intelligence and conscience. In other words, he does not use insistent pressure, but questions their ideas from an opposing stance and invites them to consider and come to a conclusion based on their own free conscience.

* “I do not want to oppose you in what way I am forbidding you”. The Prophet Jethro’s (as) prohibition here is not actually a prohibition. He explains that some acts are sinful and invites the people to abandon them. Moreover, when the Prophet Jethro (as) says “I do not want to oppose you”, it is not his purpose to dispute with the people; he does not want to make them uncomfortable and incite a quarrel; he wants only to invite them to faith and the practice of high moral principles.

An obvious characteristic of radicalism is its anger. This disposition can be clearly seen in the speeches, writings and demonstrations of radicals. However, anger is not an attribute of Muslims. When God describes believers in the Qur’an, He describes, “those who give in times of both ease and hardship, those who control their rage and pardon other people – God loves the good-doers” (Surah Al ’Imran, 134)

There is no situation in which a Muslim displays anger. The only thing a Muslim wants from other people is that they believe in God and live according to moral principles, but this is possible only by the grace of God. No matter what we do, no matter how much we try to explain the truth to people, human hearts are in God’s hands. God reminds Muslims of this very important fact in this verse, “… Do those who believe not know that if God had wanted to He could have guided all mankind? …” (Surat ar-Rad, 31)

Muslims are responsible only for explaining their religion, they apply no pressure or coercion on anyone and are enjoined to speak gently to even the most tyrannical deniers. Such persons cannot be radicals, because radicalism stands for the opposite of those qualities we have enumerated. Indeed, radicalism is an unIslamic current of thought and a political stance that came into the Islamic world from outside. When we examine social phenomena described in terms of radicalism, it will be seen that these are basically a collection of methods and pronouncements used by communists in the past, or an expression of the “fanatical rage” that has no place in true Islam. (Surat al-Fath, 26)

All Muslims must totally reject an angry, unbending argumentative attitude which goes against the very nature of the Qur’an and in its place adopt a friendly, gentle, calm and compassionate one. Muslims must set an example to the world and be admired for their maturity, compassion, moderation, modesty and peacefulness. Muslims must live Islam in the best possible way and be its representatives to the world, not only in these things, but also by their achievements in the fields of science, culture, art, aesthetics and social order and others.

Burcu Cekmece


Building Bridges – Istanbul, Turkey

Page 30 of 114« First...1020...2829303132...405060...Last »