Pages

War on terror forever: Now Gold & Uranium of Africa

And the winner of the Oscar for Best Sequel of 2013 goes to... The Global War on Terror (GWOT), a Pentagon production. Abandon all hope those who thought the whole thing was over with the cinematographic snuffing out of "Geronimo", aka Osama bin Laden, further reduced to a fleeting cameo in the torture-enabling flick Zero Dark Thirty. 

It's now official - coming from the mouth of the lion, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, and duly posted at the AFRICOM site, the Pentagon's weaponized African branch. 
Exit "historical" al-Qaeda, holed up somewhere in the Waziristans, in the Pakistani tribal areas; enter al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). In Dempsey's words, AQIM "is a threat not only to the country of Mali, but the region, and if... left unaddressed, could in fact become a global threat." 

With Mali now elevated to the status of a "threat" to the whole world, GWOT is proven to be really open-ended. The Pentagon doesn't do irony; when, in the early 2000s, armchair warriors coined the expression "The Long War", they really meant it. 

Even under President Obama 2.0's "leading from behind" doctrine, the Pentagon is unmistakably gunning for war in Mali - and not only of the shadow variety. [1] General Carter Ham, AFRICOM's commander, already operates under the assumption Islamists in Mali will "attack American interests". 

Thus, the first 100 US military "advisers" are being sent to Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Togo and Ghana - the six member-nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) that will compose an African army tasked (by the United Nations) to reconquer (invade?) the parts of Mali under the Islamist sway of AQIM, its splinter group MUJAO and the Ansar ed-Dine militia. This African mini-army, of course, is paid for by the West. 

Students of the Vietnam War will be the first to note that sending "advisers" was the first step of the subsequent quagmire. And on a definitely un-Pentagonese ironic aside, the US over these past few years did train Malian troops. A lot of them duly deserted. As for the lavishly, Fort Benning-trained Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo, not only did he lead a military coup against an elected Mali government but also created the conditions for the rise of the Islamists. 

Nobody, though, is paying attention. General Carter Ham is so excited with the prospect of AFRICOM accumulating more gigs than Led Zeppelin in its heyday, and himself acquiring iconic savior status (Carter of Africa?), that he's bungling up his data. [2] 
The general seems to have forgotten that AFRICOM - and then the North Atlantic treaty Organization (NATO) - irretrievably supported (and weaponized) the NATO rebels in Libya who were the fighting vanguard in the war against Muammar Gaddafi. The general does know that AQIM has "a lot of money and they have a lot of weapons". 

But he believes it was "mercenaries paid by Gaddafi" who abandoned Libya and brought their weapons, and "many of them came to northern Mali". No, general, they were not Gaddafi mercenaries; most were NATO rebels, the same ones who attacked the US Consulate, actually a CIA station, in Benghazi, the same ones commuting to Syria, the same ones let loose all across the Sahel. 

So what is Algeria up to?
Right on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron followed His Masters Voice, announcing the intervention in Mali will last years "or even decades". [3] 

This Tuesday, the creme de la creme of Britain's intelligence establishment is meeting to plan nothing else than a pan-Sahara/Sahel war, for which they want yet another Bush-style "coalition of the willing". [4] For the moment, British involvement means yet more "advisers" in the usual "military cooperation" and "security training" categories, lots of money and, last but not least, Special Forces in shadow war mode. 

The whole scenario comes complete with another providential "Geronimo"; Mokhtar Belmokhtar, aka "The Uncatchable" (at least by French intelligence), the leader of MUJAO who masterminded the raid on the In Amenas gas field in Algeria. 

Haven't we seen this movie before? Of course we did. But now - it's official - Mali is the new Afghanistan (as Asia Times Online had already reported - Burn, burn Africa's Afghanistan, January 18, 2013). Here's Cameron: "Just as we had to deal with that in Pakistan and Afghanistan, so the world needs to come together to deal with this threat in North Africa." Right; Belmokhtar is already rehearsing for his cameo appearance in a Zero Dark Thirty sequel.

So by now it's clear where the Anglo-American Pentagon/Africom/British intelligence "special relationship" stands - with the French under President Francois Hollande, reconverted as a warlord, momentarily "leading" the way towards Operation African Quagmire. Crucially, no one in the European Union, apart from the Brits, is loony enough to follow in the footsteps of warlord Hollande. 

By comparison, what is definitely not clear is where the key to this equation - Algeria - stands, from the point of view of the Western GWOT. 

Number one fact is that the new "Geronimo", Belmokhtar, and his Mulathameen Brigade ("The Masked Ones"), of which the "Signed in Blood Batallion" which attacked in Algeria is a sub-group, enjoy extremely cozy links with Algerian secret intelligence. In a way, this could be seen as a remix of the relationship between the Taliban - and "historic" al-Qaeda - with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). 

The Algerian military's ultra-hardcore response to the Islamist raid was predictable (this is how they did it during the 1990s in their internal war against the Islamic Salvation Front). We don't negotiate with terrorists; we kill them (along with scores of hostages). We do it by ourselves, without nosy foreigners, and we go for total information blackout. 

No wonder this modus operandi raised a rosary of eyebrows across the Anglo-American "special relationship". Thus the Washington/London bottom line: we cannot trust the Algerians. Our GWOT - the Sahara/Sahel chapter - will be fought without them. Perhaps, even against them. 

A serious complicating factor is that the 40 or so Islamists (including Libyans, Syrians and Egyptians) crossed at least 1,600 kilometers of high desert coming from Libya, not Mali. They had to have serious "protection" - anything from intelligence provided by a foreign power to qualified Algerian insiders. Hostages told of kidnappers "with North American accents" (including a Canadian whom Reuters has named "Chedad") and that all of them knew exactly where the foreigners were located inside the compound. [5] 

Professor Jeremy Keenan of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London frames it in terms of an Algerian false-flag operation gone wrong. [6] Algiers may have wanted to signal to the West that French bombing in Mali would inevitably lead to blowback; but then Belmokhtar turned the whole thing upside down because he was furious the French were allowed to own Algerian airspace to bomb Mali. In a way, this could be seen as another remix of the Taliban revolting against the ISI. 

Algerian public opinion is immensely suspicious, to say the least, of all the players' motives, including the Algerian government and especially France. Here is a fascinating sample. This perspective, by a political science professor, is worth quoting at length, as it neatly summarizes the French "lead" in the new GWOT chapter.
In an interview with the French-language daily Le Soir d'Algerie, political science professor Ahmed Adimi described the intervention as an attempt to "undermine Algeria" and a "step in a plan for the installation of foreign forces in the Sahel region". Adimi's thesis is that France has worked for years to destabilize the Sahel as a means of strengthening its geopolitical stance. 

Asked whether the French operation in Mali was consistent with United Nations security council resolution 2085, Adimi states that the resolution "does not pose much of a problem in itself. Western powers have used it to intervene and adopt resolutions to justify their military operations. This has already happened in Iraq. In fact, the French operation may seem legal since it comes at the request of the Acting Present of Mali. However, it is important to remember that the current government came to power in a coup. Regarding the intervention, it was certainly predictable but the French have precipitated matters. [...] These terrorist groups are being manipulated by foreign powers," continuing to argue that these groups were "allowed" to move south to Konna as means of justifying the French intervention. 

Adimi argues that Algerians have "been sounding the alarm about the situation in the Sahel in general. Ahmed Barkouk and myself have organized several seminars on this topic. We discussed the role of France and its commitment to the region. It was France that was behind the creation of the movement for the Azawad, and I speak of course of the political organization and not of the people of Azawad, who have rights as a community. The French knew that their intervention in Libya would lead to a return of the pro-Qaddafi military Tuareg to Mali. They also planned the release of Libyan arms stockpiles across the Sahel band. The project is to transform the region into a new Afghanistan, the result of long-term planning."
Tariq Ramadan, in a devastating piece, [7] also unmasks Paris, drawing the connection between the dodgy Sarkozy "humanitarian" intervention in Libya and the current Hollande drive to protect a "friendly" country - all coupled with the hypocrisy of France for decades not giving a damn about "the people" suffering under assorted African dictatorships. 

But the Oscar for Best Hypocritical Scenario certainly goes to the current French-Anglo-American concern about Mali being the new al-Qaeda playground, when the major playgrounds are actually NATO-supported northern Syria (as far as the Turkish border), north Lebanon and most parts of Libya. 

Follow the gold, and follow the uranium 
Even before it's possible to fully analyze the myriad ramifications - many of them unforeseen - of the expanded GWOT, there are two fronts to be carefully observed in the near future. So let's follow the gold, and let's follow the uranium. 

Follow the gold. A host of nations have gold bullion deposited at the New York Federal Reserve. They include, crucially, Germany. Recently, Berlin started asking to get back its physical gold back - 374 ton from the Bank of France and 300 tons out of 1,500 tons from the New York Federal Reserve. 

So guess what the French and the Americans essentially said: We ain't got no gold! Well, at least right now. It will take five years for the German gold in France to be returned, and no less than seven years for the stash at the New York Federal Reserve. Bottom line: both Paris and Washington/New York have to come up with real physical gold any way they can. 

That's where Mali fits in - beautifully. Mali - along with Ghana - accounts for up to 8% of global gold production. So if you're desperate for the genuine article - physical gold - you've got to control Mali. Imagine all that gold falling into the hands of... China.
Now follow the uranium. As everyone who was glued to the Niger yellowcake saga prior to the invasion of Iraq knows, Niger is the world's fourth-largest producer of uranium. Its biggest customer is - surprise! - France; half of France's electricity comes from nuclear energy. The uranium mines in Niger happen to be concentrated in the northwest of the country, on the western range of the Air mountains, very close to the Mali border and one of the regions being bombed by the French. 

The uranium issue is intimately connected with successive Tuareg rebellions; one must remember that, for the Tuaregs, there are no borders in the Sahel. All recent Tuareg rebellions in Niger happened in uranium country - in Agadez province, near the Mali border. So, from the point of view of French interests, imagine the possibility of the Tuaregs gaining control of those uranium mines - and starting to do deals with... China. Beijing, after all, is already present in the region. 

All this crucial geostrategic power play - the "West" fighting China in Africa, with AFRICOM giving a hand to warlord Hollande while taking the Long War perspective - actually supersedes the blowback syndrome. It's unthinkable that British, French and American intelligence did not foresee the blowback ramifications from NATO's "humanitarian war" in Libya. NATO was intimately allied with Salafis and Salafi-jihadis - temporarily reconverted into "freedom fighters". They knew Mali - and the whole Sahel - would subsequently be awash in weapons. 

No, the expansion of GWOT to the Sahara/Sahel happened by design. GWOT is the gift that keeps on giving; what could possibly top a new war theatre to the French-Anglo-American industrial-military-security-contractor-media complex? 

Oh yes, there's that "pivoting" to Asia as well. One is tempted to donate a finger - extracted Islamist-style - to know how and when will come the counterpunch from Beijing. 

Notes:
1. Mali conflict exposes White House-Pentagon split, Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2013.
2. African nations can, must do for themselves - with US support, December 4, 2012. 
3. David Cameron: fight against terrorism in north Africa may last decades, The Guardian, January 20, 2013. 
4. Intelligence chiefs and special forces plot Sahara mission, The Independent, January 21, 2013. 
5. In Amenas : les ex-otages racontent quatre jours d'angoisse, Liberation, January 20, 2013. (In French). 
6. Algeria Hostage Crisis: Terror Attack 'Inside Job' Gone Wrong, Says Professor Jeremy Keenan, The Huffington Post, January 19, 2013.
7. Le Mali, la France et les extremistes, journaldumali.com, January 18, 2013. (In French). 

By Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. 

'Being A Khan’ by Shahrukh Khan (excerpts) - Deplorable state of Muslims in Secular India Exposed





The Outlook  magazine features a write-up by Shahrukh on ‘what it means to be a Muslim in the Post 9/11 world’.
Below are some excerpts from the article titled “Being a Khan”
  • I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India. There have been occasions when I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation (Pakistan) rather than my own country – this even though I am an Indian, whose father fought for the freedom of India. Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave and return what they refer to my ‘original’ homeland
  • I gave my son and daughter names that could pass for generic (pan-India and pan-religious) ones – Aryan and Suhana. The Khan has been bequeathed by me so they can’t really escape it. I pronounce it with my epiglottis when asked by Muslims and throw the Aryan as evidence of their race when non-Muslims enquire. I imagine this will prevent my offspring from receiving unwarranted eviction orders or random fatwas in the future
  • SRK also added that he became so sick of being mistaken for some crazed terrorist, “who co-incidentally carries the same name as mine that I made a film subtly titled ‘My Name Is Khan’ (and I am not a terrorist) to prove a point.”
  • Ironically, I was interrogated at the airport for hours about my last name when I was going to promote the film in America for the first time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SRK bares it, in what it means to be a Muslim in the post-9/11 world

Shahrukh Khan says how he became an “inadvertent object of political leaders” in his interview to Outlook Turning Points magazine, published in association with The New York Times newspaper. Titled Being a Khan, the write-up appears in the current issue of the magazine and the 47-year-old actor, one of the few Indian actors with international recognition, writes: “I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India.”

“There have been occasions when I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country – this even though I am an Indian, whose father fought for the freedom of India. Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave and return what they refer to my original homeland,” added the superstar of Hindi cinema.

SRK is married to Gauri, a Hindu, and has two children – Aryan and Suhana. “I gave my son and daughter names that could pass for generic (pan-India and pan-religious) ones – Aryan and Suhana. The Khan has been bequeathed by me so they can’t really escape it.”

“I pronounce it with my epiglottis when asked by Muslims and throw the Aryan as evidence of their race when non-Muslims enquire. I imagine this will prevent my offspring from receiving unwarranted eviction orders or random fatwas in the future,” he wrote.

He said he became so sick of being mistaken for some crazed terrorist, “who co-incidentally carries the same name as mine that I made a film subtly titled My Name Is Khan (and I am not a terrorist) to prove a point.”

Set in the post 9/11 US, My Name Is Khan focuses on religious and national identities through Rizwan (SRK), who has Asperger’s syndrome, and how his Khan identity becomes all important in a suspicious America.

“Ironically, I was interrogated at the airport for hours about my last name when I was going to promote the film in America for the first time,” said SRK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments:
Shah Rukh Khan! 
Remeber this verse, though its about about Jews and Christians but may also be applied to other non Muslims/unbelievers:
"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance." If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.(Quran2:120) 
What have you done for your people? 
Make universities and schools for Muslims, to live as dignified, peaceful citizens of India.
"That is because Allah would not change a favor which He had bestowed upon a people until they change what is within themselves. And indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (Quran;8:53) 

It's one of those seasons again when India's politicians rediscover the existence of Muslims. With elections in five states, including Uttar Pradesh, and possibly early general elections looming on the horizon, the Congress has ...
This only confirms how the police in India picks up young Muslims whenever there is a blast. Most in the majority community are so biased that they accept the official version readily. The truth is out only when the authorities ...
The cable indicates that the Director Mueller points, “terrorists come from more than just Muslim backgrounds.” In this regard, Guardian reported on December 16, Rahul Gandhi, the “crown prince” of Indian politics, told the US ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why partition of India?

Muhammad Ali Jinnah agreed to united India with safeguards for all Muslims of India, by accepting The British Cabinet Mission of 1946 to India. Promulgated on 16 May 1946, the plan to create a united dominion of India as a loose confederation of provinces came to be known by the date of its announcement:

  1. A united Dominion of India would be given independence.
  2. Muslim-majority provinces would be grouped - BaluchistanSindPunjab and North-West Frontier Province would form one group, and Bengal and Assam would form another.
  3. Hindu-majority provinces in central and southern India would form another group.
  4. The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.
  5. The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.'
The Congress Working Committee had initially approved the plan. However, on 10 July, Jawaharlal Nehru, who later became the first prime minister of India, held a press conferencein Bombay declaring that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and "regards itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best. The Muslim League gave its approval to the plan. There was an impression that the Congress also had accepted the scheme and the Plan would be the basis of the future constitution of India.Jinnah, in his speech to the League Council, clearly stated that he recommended acceptance only because nothing better could be obtained. [This could have saved the killing and migration of millions ] Kanji Dawarka Das in his famous book "Ten Years to freedom 1937-47" and Jaswant singh in his recent book "Jinnah India-Independence-Partition" writes all details of congress working committee debates and untimely press conference by JLN in which congress rejected the last effort to avoid partition.[from Wikipedia]


I personally feel Jawahar Lal Nehru and his associates mischievously turned down Cabinet Mission Plan 1946, and divided India for personal gains and to keep exploiting Muslim minority in India. Imagine in united India [Over 1000 Million] the Muslims population would have been equal [50-58%] or more than Hindus [Pak 180 Mn+BD 150 Mn+ 200 Mn=580 Million]. It would have not been  possible to treat them  unfairly.

You Indian Muslims sacrificed your present for our batter future, but you were betrayed. A prosperous, economically strong Pakistan would have been source of moral strength. We could have provided economic and moral support to our Muslim brothers in India, but alas! the White Masters were replaced by Brown Sahibs ... The day is not far off when we shall throw away this yoke of slavery... and help brothers to stand at their own with dignity. Indian and Pakistani leadership can learn from European Union, US-Canada, resolve issues like Kashmir and live like good neighbours. Concentrate towards welfare of their citizens.
However just a reminder from the Holy Book:
"Verily, God does not change men's condition unless they change their inner selves"[Quran;13:11]  
ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّـهَ لَمْ يَكُ مُغَيِّرًا نِّعْمَةً أَنْعَمَهَا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ ۙ وَأَنَّ اللَّـهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ﴿٥٣
This is because Allah has never changed a favor which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition; and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing;[Quran;8:53]  
یہ اس لئے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ ایسا نہیں کہ کسی قوم پر کوئی نعمت انعام فرما کر پھر بدل دے جب تک کہ وه خود اپنی اس حالت کو نہ بدل دیں جو کہ ان کی اپنی تھی اور یہ کہ اللہ سننے واﻻ جاننے واﻻ ہے (53)
यह इसलिए हुआ कि अल्लाह उस उदार अनुग्रह (नेमत) को, जो उसने किसी क़ौम पर किया हो, बदलनेवाला नहीं हैं, जब तक कि लोग उस चीज़ को न बदल डालें, जिसका सम्बन्ध स्वयं उनसे है। और यह कि अल्लाह सब कुछ सुनता, जानता है (8:53) 
তার কারণ এই যে, আল্লাহ কখনও পরিবর্তন করেন না, সে সব নেয়ামত, যা তিনি কোন জাতিকে দান করেছিলেন, যতক্ষণ না সে জাতি নিজেই পরিবর্তিত করে দেয় নিজের জন্য নির্ধারিত বিষয়। বস্তুতঃ আল্লাহ শ্রবণকারী, মহাজ্ঞানী। (53) 
"ஏனெனில், எந்த ஒரு சமுதாயமும் தன் உள்ளத்திலுள்ள (போக்குகளை) மாற்றிக் கொள்ளாத வரையில், அல்லாஹ் அவர்களுக்கு வழங்கிய அருட்கொடைகளை மாற்றிவிடுவதில்லை - நிச்சயமாக அல்லாஹ் (எல்லாவற்றையும்) செவியுறுபவனாகவும், (யாவற்றையும்) நன்கறிபவனாகவும் இருக்கின்றான். (8:53) 
ഒരു ജനവിഭാഗത്തിനു് താന്‍ ചെയ്തുകൊടുത്ത അനുഗ്രഹം അവരുടെ സ്വന്തം നിലപാടില്‍ അവര്‍ മാറ്റം വരുത്തുന്നത് വരെ അല്ലാഹു മാറ്റിക്കളയുന്നതല്ല എന്നത്കൊന്നുത്രെ അത്‌. അല്ലാഹു എല്ലാം കേള്‍ ക്കുന്നവനും അറിയുന്നവനുമാണ് എന്നത്കൊന്നുു‍ം (8:53) 



<<Free-eBooks Click here>>> 

Religion comes to Davos forum

DAVOS, Switzerland—Who created Davos, and why does it exist?
Questions about God and religion were rife at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos this year — providing a philosophical break from the more temporal concerns that tend to dominate the annual gathering of business and political leaders.
“Religion is more relevant now than ever,” asserted Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, a leader of the Russian Jewish community.
Studies around the world show conflicting trends: while Christianity and Islam are showing steady growth in developing countries, the number of people who identify with no religion is on the rise in the richer world.
Goldschmidt quickly found himself in a deep debate with Arizona State University theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss that reflected age-old tensions over religion, science and reason.
Why believe in explanations that lack evidence, and obsess about a book written by ancients who “didn’t know about the revolution of the Earth around the sun,” Krauss asked.
Narkis Alon, a youthful Israeli social activist on the same panel, countered that the religious instinct in essence required no particular proof.
“For me religion is the connection to something higher,” she said.
Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, a group representing more than 600 hospitals around the United States, noted that people all over the world have a need to believe in a higher power.
An analysis of more than 2,000 polls, census and other data by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 84 percent of the world’s 6.9 billion people identified with a religion as of 2010. Christians were the largest group with 2.2 billion, followed by Muslims with 1.6 billion.
However, the study also found about one-in-six, or 1.1 billion people, have no religious affiliation, making them the third-largest group after Christians and Muslims. The unaffiliated mostly live in Asia, with a majority in China, where the government controls official churches.
The debate at Davos reflected a widening gulf within and among nations between the deeply devout and those who identify with no faith.
The conflicts can be seen in recent lawsuits in Italy over displaying crucifixes in public schools and another in the UK where a marriage counselor cited his religious beliefs when refusing to work with a same-sex couple. Both cases reached the European Court of Human Rights.
In the United States, Americans with no religion are becoming as important a constituency to the Democratic Party as religious conservatives are to the Republican Party. The “nones,” who overwhelmingly support abortion rights and gay marriage, comprise about a quarter of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party.
Roman Catholic and other religious conservatives have found themselves on the losing side of culture war battles that a few decades ago they could have won. Gay marriage has been legalized in Belgium, Spain, Canada, Portugal, Argentina and other countries.
Standouts remain, not least in Russia, where 20 gay rights campaigners and militant Orthodox Christian activists were arrested Friday in Moscow near the Russian Duma as it overwhelmingly backed a bill that would ban “homosexual propaganda.”
In Israel, there is a protracted culture war between secular and ultra-Orthodox Israelis, especially in Jerusalem.
Within religions, clergy are facing a crisis of authority caused in part by the Internet. Rank-and-file believers are as likely to turn to Google for information about faith as they are to seek guidance from recognized scholars.
The issue has been especially vexing in the fight against Islamic extremism. Muslim religious edicts, or fatwas, have proliferated across the Internet, along with YouTube video lectures, where dangerous teachings are presented as mainstream religious thought.
In response, many religious groups have been beefing up their online presence, holding lectures and worship services on Facebook and other platforms that include live chats with pastors, study of scriptures and virtual baptisms conducted via Skype.
Meanwhile, religious freedom is an increasingly important consideration in international policy making.
In a study tracking freedom of religion worldwide over three years, Pew found that three-quarters of the world’s population live in countries with tight government restrictions on religious expression.
In Pakistan, Islamist groups have pushed through laws that marginalized Christians and other religious minorities. In Egypt, where the Coptic Christian minority has persistently faced discrimination, violence has flared more frequently between Christians and Muslims following the Arab Spring uprisings. Radical Islamists are behind deadly violence in Mali, Nigeria, the Philippines and elsewhere.
At several of the Davos meetings, speakers debated the consequences of the rise of political Islam across the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring. Is there something in Islam that is antithetical to liberal values? Definitely not, insisted former Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa and Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu; these are distortions of Islam.
Mohammed Ashmawey, head of an Islamic charity, argued that faith-based charities were behind much of the health care system in his native Egypt.
He drew support from Rabbi David Saperstein, a Reform Jewish leader from the United States, who acknowledged that religion was a force for bad as well as good.
On balance though, he said it was “immensely positive.”
Sania Nishtar, a Pakistani health care activist, almost jumped out of her seat.
“The interplay of religion and politics is very exploitative,” she said.
She argued that religion was behind the absence of family planning in much of the developing world and that clerical objections were raised against even vaccinations.
Like much of the discussions at Davos, this one yielded mostly an agreement to disagree.
Krauss, a militant secularist, said he was open to tweaking his views.
If the stars realigned in the night sky to spell out the words “I am here,” Krauss said he would reassess.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/62739/religion-comes-to-davos-forum
<<Free-eBooks Click here>>> 

Celeberation of Birth of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Mawlid

Mawlid falls in the month of Rabi' al-awwal in the Islamic calendar. Mawlid (Qur'anic Arabic: مَوْلِدُ النَبِيِّ‎ mawlidu n-nabiyyi, “Birth of the Prophet” is the observance of the birthday of the Islamic prophet Muhammad which occurs in Rabi' al-awwal, the third month in the Islamic calendar. Shias observe the event on the 17th of the month, coinciding with the birth date of their sixth Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and the Prophet Muhammad while Sunnis observe it on the 12th of the month. As the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, the corresponding date in the Gregorian calendar varies each year. 
History:
The basic earliest accounts for the observance of Mawlid can be found in 8th century Mecca, when the house in which Prophet Muhammad was born was transformed into a place of prayer by Al-Khayzuran (mother of Harun al-Rashid, the fifth and most famous Abbasid caliph).Though public celebrations of the birth of Muhammad did not occur until four centuries after his passing away. The oldest Mawlid-text is claimed to be from the 12th century and most likely being of Persian origin.
The early celebrations included elements of Sufic influence, with animal sacrifices and torchlight processions along with public sermons and a feast.The celebrations occurred during the day, in contrast to modern day observances, with the ruler playing a key role in the ceremonies.Emphasis was given to the Ahl al-Bayt with presentation of sermons and recitations of the Qur'an. The event also featured the award of gifts to officials in order to bolster support for the ruling caliph
Legality:
Traditionally Sunni and Shia scholars have approved celebration of Mawlid-un-Nabi except Wahabi and Deobandi scholars. In the Muslim world the majority of Islamic scholars are in favor of Mawlid. They consider observing Mawlid necessary or permissible in Islam, and see it as a praiseworthy event and positive development, while the Salafi minority say it is an improper innovation and forbid its celebration.

Mufti Ali Gomaa, Chief Mufti of the world's oldest and largest Islamic University Al Azhar in Egypt, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, Grand Mufti of Cyprus Nazim Al-Haqqani, Habib Ali al-Jifri of Yemen, Syed Shujaat Ali Qadri, Muhammad Ilyas Qadri the founder of Dawat-e-Islami, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Grand Mufti of Bosnia Mustafa Cerić, Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Hamza Yusuf, Gibril Haddad, Shaykh Said Afandi al-Chirkawi, Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, Grand Mufti of India Akhtar Raza Khan, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar of Markazu Saqafathi Sunniya and Zaid Shakir, all subscribe to Sunni Sufi Islam, and have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid.They suggest that fasting on Mondays is also a way of commemorating Prophet Muhammad's  (pbuh) birthday.

Scholars and preachers who consider Mawlid to be heresy and forbid its celebration belong to the Wahabi or Deobandi ideologies, they include Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the imam of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Zakir Naik,and Bilal Philips,of the Wahabi / Salafi movement, and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Muhammad Rafi Usmani and Ebrahim Desai who subscribe to the Deobandi movement. Although all agree that the birth of Muhammad was the most significant event in Islamic history, they point out that the companions of Muhammad and the second and third generation of Muslims did not observe this event

Mawlid is celebrated in most Muslim countries, and in other countries where Muslims have a presence, such as India, Britain, Russiaand Canada. Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country where Mawlid is not an official public holiday. Participation in the ritual celebration of popular Islamic holidays is seen as an expression of the Islamic revival.

Where Mawlid is celebrated in a carnival manner, large street processions are held and homes or mosques are decorated. Charity and food is distributed, and stories about the life of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) are narrated with recitation of poetry by children.Scholars and poets celebrate by reciting Qaṣīda al-Burda Sharif, the famous poem by 13th century Arabic Sufi Busiri.

During Pakistan's Mawlid celebration, the national flag is hoisted on all public buildings, and a 31-gun salute in Islamabad and a 21-gun salute at the provincial headquarters are fired at dawn. The cinemas shows religious rather than secular films on 11th and 12th Rabi-ul-Awwal.Hundreds of thousands of people gather at Minar-e-Pakistan Lahore between the intervening night of 11th and 12th Rabi' al-awwal for Mawlid celebrations, this is the worlds biggest gathering for Mawlid celebrations.
Among non-Muslim countries, India is noted for its Mawlid festivities.The relics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are displayed after the morning prayers in the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir at the Hazratbal Shrine, on the outskirts of Srinagar. Shab-khawani night-long prayers held at the Hazratbal Shrine are attended by thousands.
Other non-Muslim countries noted for its Mawlid festivities are Kenya and Tanzania where it is known as "Maulidi". In Kenya, the most famous place is the coastal island of Lamu and Malindi. In Tanzania the largest celebrations are on the island of Zanzibar.
In many parts of Indonesia, the celebration of the Mawlid al-nabi "seems to surpass in importance, liveliness, and splendour" the two official Islamic holidays of Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

<<Free-eBooks Click here>>> 

Faith versus tradition in Islam: Mustafa Akyol



TRANSCRIPT below
A few weeks ago, I had a chance to go to Saudi Arabia. And the first thing I wanted to do as a Muslim was go to Mecca and visit the Kaaba, the holiest shrine of Islam. And I did that; I put on my ritualistic dress; I went to the holy mosque; I did my prayers; I observed all the rituals. And meanwhile, besides all the spirituality, there was one mundane detail in the Kaaba that was pretty interesting for me. There was no separation of sexes. In other words, men and women were worshiping all together. They were together while doing the tawaf, the circular walk around the Kaaba. They were together while praying.

And if you wonder why this is interesting at all, you have to see the rest of Saudi Arabiabecause it's a country which is strictly divided between the sexes. In other words, as men, you are not simply supposed to be in the same physical space with women. And I noticed this in a very funny way. I left the Kaaba to eat something in downtown Mecca. I headed to the nearest Burger King restaurant. And I went there -- I noticed that there was a male section, which was carefully separated from the female section. And I had to pay, order and eat at the male section. "It's funny," I said to myself, "You can mingle with the opposite sex at the holy Kaaba, but not at the Burger King."

Quite ironic. Ironic, and it's also, I think, quite telling. Because the Kaaba and the rituals around it are relics from the earliest phase of Islam, that of prophet Muhammad. And if there was a big emphasis at the time to separate men from women, the rituals around the Kaaba could have been designed accordingly. But apparently that was not an issue at the time. So the rituals came that way. This is also, I think, confirmed by the fact that the seclusion of women in creating a divided society is something that you also do not find in the Koran, the very core of Islam -- the divine core of Islam that all Muslims, and equally myself, believe. And I think it's not an accident that you don't find this idea in the very origin of Islam. Because many scholars who study the history of Islamic thought -- Muslim scholars or Westerners -- think that actually the practice of dividing men and women physically came as a later development in Islam, as Muslims adopted some preexisting cultures and traditions of the Middle East. Seclusion of women was actually a Byzantine and Persian practice, and Muslims adopted that and made that a part of their religion.

And actually this is just one example of a much larger phenomenon. What we call today Islamic Law, and especially Islamic culture -- and there are many Islamic cultures actually;the one in Saudi Arabia is much different from where I come from in Istanbul or Turkey. But still, if you're going to speak about a Muslim culture, this has a core, the divine message,which began the religion, but then many traditions, perceptions, many practices were added on top of it. And these were traditions of the Middle East -- medieval traditions.

And there are two important messages, or two lessons, to take from that reality. First of all, Muslims -- pious, conservative, believing Muslims who want to be loyal to their religion --should not cling onto everything in their culture, thinking that that's divinely mandated.Maybe some things are bad traditions and they need to be changed. On the other hand, the Westerners who look at Islamic culture and see some troubling aspects should not readily conclude that this is what Islam ordains. Maybe it's a Middle Eastern culture that became confused with Islam.

There is a practice called female circumcision. It's something terrible, horrible. It is basically an operation to deprive women of sexual pleasure. And Westerners, Europeans or Americans, who didn't know about this before faced this practice within some of the Muslim communities who migrated from North Africa. And they've thought, "Oh, what a horrible religion that is which ordains something like that." But actually when you look at female circumcision, you see that it has nothing to do with Islam, it's just a North African practice,which predates Islam. It was there for thousands of years. And quite tellingly, some Muslims do practice that. The Muslims in North Africa, not in other places. But also the non-Muslim communities of North Africa -- the Animists, even some Christians and even a Jewish tribe in North Africa is known to practice female circumcision. So what might look like a problem within Islamic faith might turn out to be a tradition that Muslims have subscribed to.

The same thing can be said for honor killings, which is a recurrent theme in the Western media -- and which is, of course, a horrible tradition. And we see truly in some Muslim communities that tradition. But in the non-Muslim communities of the Middle East, such as some Christian communities, Eastern communities, you see the same practice. We had a tragic case of an honor killing within Turkey's Armenian community just a few months ago.

Now these are things about general culture, but I'm also very much interested in political culture and whether liberty and democracy is appreciated, or whether there's an authoritarian political culture in which the state is supposed to impose things on the citizens. And it is no secret that many Islamic movements in the Middle East tend to be authoritarian, and some of the so-called "Islamic regimes" such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and the worst case was the Taliban in Afghanistan -- they are pretty authoritarian. No doubt about that.

For example, in Saudi Arabia there is a phenomenon called the religious police. And the religious police imposes the supposed Islamic way of life on every citizen, by force -- like women are forced to cover their heads -- wear the hijab, the Islamic head cover. Now that is pretty authoritarian, and that's something I'm very much critical of. But when I realized that the non-Muslim, or the non-Islamic-minded actors in the same geography, sometimes behaved similarly, I realized that the problem maybe lies in the political culture of the whole region, not just Islam. Let me give you an example: in Turkey where I come from, which is a very hyper-secular republic, until very recently we used to have what I call secularism police, which would guard the universities against veiled students. In other words, they would force students to uncover their heads, and I think forcing people to uncover their head is as tyrannical as forcing them to cover it. It should be the citizen's decision.

But when I saw that, I said, "Maybe the problem is just an authoritarian culture in the region, and some Muslims have been influenced by that. But the secular-minded people can be influenced by that. Maybe it's a problem of the political culture, and we have to think about how to change that political culture." Now these are some of the questions I had in mind a few years ago when I sat down to write a book. I said, "Well I will make a researchabout how Islam actually came to be what it is today, and what roads were taken and what roads could have been taken." The name of the book is "Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty." And as the subtitle suggests, I looked at Islamic tradition and the history of Islamic thought from the perspective of individual liberty, and I tried to find what are the strengths with regard to individual liberty.

And there are strengths in Islamic tradition. Islam actually, as a monotheistic religion,which defined man as a responsible agent by itself, created the idea of the individual in the Middle East and saved it from the communitarianism, the collectivism of the tribe. You can derive many ideas from that. But besides that, I also saw problems within Islamic tradition.But one thing was curious: most of those problems turn out to be problems that emerged later, not from the very divine core of Islam, the Koran, but from, again, traditions and mentalities, or the interpretations of the Koran that Muslims made in the Middle Ages. The Koran, for example, doesn't condone stoning. There is no punishment on apostasy. There is no punishment on personal things like drinking. These things which make Islamic Law,the troubling aspects of Islamic Law, were later developed into later interpretations of Islam.Which means that Muslims can, today, look at those things and say, "Well, the core of our religion is here to stay with us. It's our faith, and we will be loyal to it. But we can change how it was interpreted, because it was interpreted according to the time and milieu in the Middle Ages. Now we are living in a different world with different values and different political systems." That interpretation is quite possible and feasible.

Now if I were the only person thinking that way, we would be in trouble. But that's not the case at all. Actually, from the 19th century on, there's a whole revisionist, reformist --whatever you call it -- tradition, a trend in Islamic thinking. And these were intellectuals or statesmen of the 19th century, and later, 20th century, which looked at Europe basicallyand saw that Europe has many things to admire, like science and technology. But not just that; also democracy, parliament, the idea of representation, the idea of equal citizenship.These Muslim thinkers and intellectuals and statesmen of the 19th century looked at Europe, saw these things. They said, "Why don't we have these things?" And they looked back at Islamic tradition, they saw that there are problematic aspects, but they're not the core of the religion, so maybe they can be re-understood, and the Koran can be reread in the modern world.

That trend is generally called Islamic modernism, and it was advanced by intellectuals and statesmen, not just as an intellectual idea though, but also as a political program. And that's why actually in the 19th century the Ottoman Empire, which then covered the whole Middle East, made very important reforms -- reforms like giving Christians and Jews an equal citizenship status, accepting a constitution, accepting a representative parliament,advancing the idea of freedom of religion. And that's why the Ottoman Empire in its last decades turned into a proto-democracy, a constitutional monarchy, and freedom was a very important political value at the time.

Similarly, in the Arab world, there was what the great Arab historian Albert Hourani defines as the Liberal Age. He has a book, "Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age," and the Liberal Age, he defines as 19th century and early 20th century. Quite notably, this was the dominant trend in the early 20th century among Islamic thinkers and statesmen and theologians. But there is a very curious pattern in the rest of the 20th century, because we see a sharp decline in this Islamic modernist line. And in place of that, what happens is that Islamism grows as an ideology which is authoritarian, which is quite strident, which is quite anti-Western, and which wants to shape society based on a utopian vision.

So Islamism is the problematic idea that really created a lot of problems in the 20th century Islamic world. And even the very extreme forms of Islamism led to terrorism in the name of Islam -- which is actually a practice that I think is against Islam, but some, obviously, extremists did not think that way. But there is a curious question: If Islamic modernism was so popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries, why did Islamism become so popular in the rest of the 20th century? And this is a question, I think, which needs to be discussed carefully. And in my book, I went into that question as well. And actually you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. You just look at the political history of the 20th century, and you see things have changed a lot. The context has changed.

In the 19th century, when Muslims were looking at Europe as an example, they were independent; they were more self-confident. In the early 20th century, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the whole Middle East was colonized. And when you have colonization what do you have? You have anti-colonization. So Europe is not just an example now to emulate; it's an enemy to fight and to resist. So there's a very sharp decline in liberal ideas in the Muslim world, and what you see is more of a defensive, rigid, reactionary strain,which led to Arab socialism, Arab nationalism and ultimately to the Islamist ideology. And when the colonial period ended, what you had in place of that was, generally, secular dictators, which say they're a country, but did not bring democracy to the country, and established their own dictatorship. And I think the West, at least some powers in the West,particularly the United States, made the mistake of supporting those secular dictators,thinking that they were more helpful for their interests. But the fact that those dictatorssuppressed democracy in their country and suppressed Islamic groups in their countryactually made the Islamists much more strident.

So in the 20th century, you had this vicious cycle in the Arab world where you have a dictatorship suppressing its own people including the Islamic-pious, and they're reacting in reactionary ways. There was one country, though, which was able to escape or stay awayfrom that vicious cycle. And that's the country where I come from; that's Turkey. Turkey has never been colonized, so it remained as an independent nation after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. That's one thing to remember. They did not share the same anti-colonial hype that you can find in some other countries in the region. Secondly, and most importantly, Turkey became a democracy earlier than any of the countries we are talking about. In 1950, Turkey had the first free and fair elections, which ended the more autocratic secular regime, which was the beginning of Turkey. And the pious Muslims in Turkey saw that they can change the political system by voting. And they realize that democracy is something that is compatible with Islam, compatible with their values, and they've been supportive of democracy. That's an experience that not every other Muslim nation in the Middle East had until very recently.

Secondly, in the past two decades, thanks to globalization, thanks to the market economy,thanks to the rise of a middle-class, we in Turkey see what I define as a rebirth of Islamic modernism. Now there's the more urban middle-class pious Muslims who, again, look at their tradition and see that there are some problems in the tradition, and they understand that they need to be changed and questioned and reformed. And they look at Europe, and they see an example, again, to follow. They see an example, at least, to take some inspiration from. That's why the E.U. process, Turkey's effort to join the E.U., has been supported inside Turkey by the Islamic-pious, while some secular nations were against that. Well that process has been a little bit blurred by the fact that not all Europeans are that welcoming -- but that's another discussion. But the pro-E.U. sentiment in Turkey in the past decade has become almost an Islamic cause and supported by the Islamic liberalsand the secular liberals as well, of course.

And thanks to that, Turkey has been able to reasonably create a success story in which Islam and the most pious understandings of Islam have become part of the democratic game, and even contributes to the democratic and economic advance of the country. And this has been an inspiring example right now for some of the Islamic movements or some of the countries in the Arab world.

You must have all seen the Arab Spring, which began in Tunis and in Egypt. And Arab masses just revolted against their dictators. They were asking for democracy; they were asking for freedom. And they did not turn out to be the Islamist boogyman that the dictators were always using to justify their regime. They said that "we want freedom; we want democracy. We are Muslim believers, but we want to be living as free people in free societies." Of course, this is a long road. Democracy is not an overnight achievement; it's a process. But this is a promising era in the Muslim world.

And I believe that the Islamic modernism which began in the 19th century, but which had a setback in the 20th century because of the political troubles of the Muslim world, is having a rebirth. And I think the getaway message from that would be that Islam, despite some of the skeptics in the West, has the potential in itself to create its own way to democracy, create its own way to liberalism, create its own way to freedom. They just should be allowed to work for that.

Thanks so much. (Applause)
http://www.ted.com/talks/mustafa_akyol_faith_versus_tradition_in_islam.html