Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

Ten Xenophobic European Political Parties to Avoid

A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of the far right. Right across the continent, extremist political parties are attracting millions of votes. They now have solid representation in national and European parliaments. They receive strong doses of, to use the words of the late Margaret Thatcher, ‘the oxygen of publicity’ from the media, and their leaders are regarded as having something important to say.

Once confined to the wilder shores of conspiratorial and violent activity, the far right are today planted firmly in the mainstream. They have succeeded, in differing degrees, in pulling the political centre to the right, with negative debates about multiculturalism, immigrants, the ‘Muslim problem’ and the fate of other minorities now the daily fare of newspapers, television and politicians of all stripes. Many of these parties have organic and generational roots in the fascist period of the 1930s, although most in Western Europe have sought to ‘detoxify’ their past and pose as modern democratic players in the political realm. In the south and east of Europe, however, there are far right parties who revel in Nazi-style insignia and violent street confrontations. They are all against the European Union and claim to champion the ‘little man’ exploited and over-run by dark-skinned immigrants.

Although many of these parties have taken up a virulent anti-Muslim agenda, and agitate against the manufactured phantom of the ‘Islamisation’ of Europe that led terrorist Anders Behring Breivik to murder 76 people in Norway in 2011, their hatreds go much deeper. Anti-semitism and anti-Roma racism remain a recurring motif in their rhetoric. In the end, it is all about racial purity and supremacy.

So here, in no particularly despicable order, are our top ten to avoid. Read; and choose by playing the time honoured parlour game of the uneasy immigrant: ‘if I were to move to another county in Europe it would be…’

1. Jobbik (Hungary)

Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik Magyarországért mozgalom), is without doubt one of the nastiest ultra-nationalist parties around. Its ideological roots lay with the Nazi collaborators of the 1930s, and anti-semitism still drives its ideologues. Today there are just 120,000 Jewish people living in Hungary, compared to 850,000 before the Holocaust. Yet they are a constant target of Jobbik; with supporters seen giving out leaflets depicting an image from the film ‘Easy Rider’ with the slogan ‘Jews are the problem – it’s time to step on the gas!’ The party’s paramilitary front like to goosestep in the streets wearing black uniforms with WW2 fascist armbands.

In November 2012, Marton Gyongyosi, the party’s deputy parliamentary leader, called for a security register of Hungarian Jewish legislators and ministers. Gyongyosi said: ‘It [s[timely to tally up people of Jewish ancestry who live here’. The apparently bottomless well of hatred and violence of Jobbik supporters is also directed at Hungary’s Roma and Gypsy population. The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) reported 69 violent attacks on Roma – in which nine Roma were killed – in Hungary between January 2008 and September 2012. Jobbik and its supporters hold provocative rallies in Roma neighbourhoods, its supporters attack Roma property and their election material uses the term ‘gypsy crime’.

In 2011, in a sinister echo of the Nazi period, the small town of Gyongyospata was invaded by 2000 Jobbik supporters, many of them armed, claiming that one Roma family was responsible for a suicide of a ‘Hungarian’ resident, and that the town’s Roma’s were responsible for all crime in the area. The town’s mayor, a Jobbik supporter, subsequently started segregating the local schools, with different floors for ‘Hungarians’ and Roma, along with barring Roma pupils from using the school’s swimming pool and toilets.

After the parliamentary elections on 6 April 2014, Jobbik became the third largest party in Hungry.

2. Golden Dawn (Greece)

Although the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn was founded in 1983 as an anti-Semitic, pro-dictatorship organisation, it only emerged as a dangerous force as a result of the economic crisis that has torn Greek society apart. Golden Dawn’s ideology is a repulsive cocktail of extreme nationalist politics, white supremacy, Holocaust denial, a distorted male virility, anti-immigrant pogroms and enacting violence against the ‘enemies of Greece’ – lesbians and gays, black people, the left and Jews. The organisation believes that Jewish thought has ‘infected’ Christianity and therefore Greeks should ‘reject the Old Testament and reveal the genuine Greek cultural identity [for centuries suffocating] under the layer of Jewish tradition’. Golden Dawn also agitates for the ‘unification’ of Greek minorities outside the borders of modern Greece, including calling for the annexation of all of Cyprus.

Golden Dawn has a track record of assassinating its opponents, most recently the leftist and anti-fascist rapper Pavlos Fyssas, who was stabbed to death by a GD member in September 2013. The popular backlash against the murder forced the Greek government, whose security forces have been accused of supporting Golden Dawn, to declare the party a criminal organisation and round up its leadership including nine MPs.

However Golden Dawn has also played a clever hand by posing as a friend of ordinary Greeks, beset by the Euro-provoked economic collapse that has resulted in a jobless rate of 27%, with 3.5 million people working to support more than 4.7 million unemployed and inactive people. Golden dawn vows to stand up for ‘Greeks in danger’, and distribute food parcels to poor communities (as long as they are ethnic Greeks). In the 2014 Euro-elections over half a million Greeks voted for GD, giving it three seats in the European parliament.

3. Front National (France)

The Front National is the most successful far-right party in Europe, and has a deepening influence within French society, pulling mainstream politics towards its xenophobic and anti-Muslim agenda.

Founded by anti-communist street brawler and Foreign Legionnaire Jean Marie Le Pen in 1972, the Front National combined ex-Vichy collaborators with assorted neo-Nazis and members of the OAS, a secret paramilitary group that conducted terrorist outrages in an effort to stop Algeria becoming independent.

Le Pen is a serial Holocaust denier, notoriously describing the gas chambers as ‘a mere detail in history’. In recent times he has mostly saved his racist bile for France’s Muslims, a tradition continued by his daughter Marine Le Pen, who took over leadership of the FN in 2011. She compared Muslims in France as equivalent to Nazi occupation during World War two: ‘fifteen years ago there were no veils, then there were more and more veils, and then there were prayers on the public thoroughfare. For those who like to speak about the Second World War, here we can talk about occupation …Certainly there are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it weighs heavily on local people.’

The FN’s electoral breakthrough came in the late 1980s, as voters increasingly perceived the two mainstream parties of the left and the right to be virtually indistinguishable in their policies. Le Pen then morphed his anti-Semitism into anti-Muslim racism, seizing upon the Salman Rushdie affair to ignite a poisonous debate about the position of Muslims in French society. In line with other parties in Europe with Neo-Nazi roots, the FN has sought to erase its nasty past. Marine Le Pen is known as the ‘de-toxifier’, and has tried hard to distance herself from her father’s anti-Semitic statements, even going as far as sending her partner and FN deputy leader Louis Aliot to Tel Aviv to court the vote of French-Jewish expatriates.

Increasingly courted by the media, Marine Le Pen was ranked as 71 in 2011 as the Time magazine’s top 100 ‘most influential people in the world’. The magazine praised her ‘less divisive style and her oratory talents’ that have made ‘Le Pen France's fastest-rising politician’.

In the 2014 Euro elections the FN gained nearly a quarter of all votes cast in France, giving it 24 MEPs.

4. Sweden Democrats

Who? Very few people outside the bastion of north European social democracy had heard of the Sweden Democrats until the 2010 general election when they won 20 parliamentary seats, a figure that they more than doubled in 2014. It is now the third largest party in Sweden.

Despite its soft focus party logo of a pastel seven petal flower, and its attempt to sanitise its past, this lot are a nasty bunch. Descended from various Neo Nazi, white supremacist and skinhead groups, the Sweden Democrats tick all the far right boxes: xenophobic, Islamaphobic, anti EU, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, pro ‘traditional’ Swedish culture, pro-nuclear family, against rights for ethnic minority groups (particularly the Sami people) and so on.

Their parliamentary representatives are a particularly unpleasant rabble. In 2012 a video surfaced showing three intoxicated Sweden Democrat MPs abusing Soran Ismail, Swedish comedian of Kurdish descent, in the street, threatening a drunken man, calling a woman a whore, and picking up iron bars. Shortly afterwards another of their number accused two immigrants of pushing him out of his wheelchair and robbing his backpack. It later transpired he had left his backpack in a restaurant and that the two ‘immigrants’ had in fact helped him after he had fallen out of his wheelchair of his own accord.

However the SD leadership has not only managed to ride out this buffoonery, but has succeeded in posing as an alternative to the mainstream parties who are blamed for presiding over the relative decline of this former paradigm of comfortable social democracy.

Sweden now has the fastest-growing income gap of all the OECD countries, along with crash privatisation of the ‘nanny state’ that once provided a secure safety net for its citizens.

5. National Democratic Party (Germany)

‘Africa Conquers the White House’. So ran the headline on the website of the National Democratic Party of Germany reacting to the news of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House in 2008. The NDP characterised America as being ‘swept up in Obama fever which resembles an African tropical disease’.

In 2001 the German authorities tried to ban the NDP on the basis that the party was ‘anti-constitutional’. The move failed after it was revealed in court that many of the leadership of the NDP were either planted in the organisation by the German secret services or state informants. The infiltrators included a former NDP deputy chairman who had written an anti-Semitic tract that formed a central part of the government's case. The case collapsed. Various attempts have been made to ban the NDP since then but all have failed.

In an episode that proves that truth is always stranger than fiction, during the 2006 World Cup qualifiers the NDP planned a march through Leipzig to coincide with the Iran V Angola match being played in the city. The NDP wanted to demonstrate their approval of the then Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rants.

The NDP leadership has sought to distance itself from its Neo-Nazi and National Socialist roots and to follow the Front National ‘detoxification’ strategy and enter parliamentary politics. However, scratch below the surface and its ugly politics reveals itself. The NDP is obsessed by miscegenation and ‘non Aryans’ representing Germany at international sports. When asked of his feelings about the success of Marcel Nguyen, a half-Vietnamese gymnast who won two silver medals for Germany at the 2012 Olympics, Party leader Holger Apfel said: ‘I can freely say it's not something that causes me euphoria’, before adding hastily, ‘but you won't see us calling for the deportation of half-breed children’. Charming.

Violence is never far away. In 2011 it was revealed that a Nazi terrorist cell had carried out a seven-year killing spree which left nine immigrants and a policewoman dead. Amazingly the killers managed to avoid detection and arrest, despite being on the run for other crimes. Three of them were found to have links high up in the NDP.

Although they have no seats in the central German parliament, the Bundestag, their presence in regional state assemblies has allowed them to access millions of Euros of state funds.

6. Finns or True Finns as they are often called (Finland)

The True Finns party, a right wing populist party rooted in ethno-nationalism, is so confident of speaking on behalf of the Nordic nation that it has renamed itself simply as ‘Finns’.

True Finns is the third largest group in the Finnish parliament, making it the largest opposition party. It has been described as ‘a non-socialist workers party’ because of its redistributive tax policies and opposition to the EU, combined with its ‘Finns first’ social policies. The party has gained ground by playing the anti-immigrant card, linking immigrants with crime, particularly sexual violence. It calls for immigrants and refugees to assimilate into the cultural norms of Finnish society, combined with ‘dog whistle’ politics exploiting issues such as forced marriages and honour-killings. True Finns MEP Jussi Halla-aho was briefly suspended from the party after comparing Islam to paedophilia and proposing a ‘solution’ to the economic crisis in Greece: ‘right now what is needed is a military junta that could use tanks to force the strikers and rioters into submission’.

Another True Finns MEP hit the headlines after suggesting gay people and Somalis should be exiled to an island in the Baltic. The True Finns are partners in the European Parliament with Britain’s UKIP.

7. Danish People’s Party

The far right populist Danish People’s Party which builds its base on opposition to immigration and multiculturalism and a Eurosceptic stance – is the third largest party in Denmark, and in the 2014 Euro elections came first after polling 26.6% of the votes cast.

Since 2001, Denmark has had a decade of right wing governments which relied on the DPP to push forward legislation. The price was the integration of far right politics into the political mainstream – echoed on both sides of the traditional political spectrum, left and right. Immigration became a recurring theme, with the DPP presenting itself as the protector of Danish and Christian values. Tightening of immigration controls, laws restricting family reunion and forced marriages followed.

The DPP has steadily kept Denmark’s Danish population within its sights – using every opportunity to ‘prove’ the undesirability of Islam as an influence on Danish society. Muslims make up 3-5 % of the country’s population. The controversy that erupted after a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten printed 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in September 2005 fed into support for the DPP.

For years the political establishment blocked the building of Copenhagen’s first major purpose-built mosque. (An Ahmaddiya mosque was built in a suburb of the capital in 1967). When a mosque was finally completed with Qatari money in May 2014, its opening was boycotted by city and national politicians. The DPP deputy mayor said it was wrong to allow the building of a ‘symbol of a religion that doesn’t recognise democracy and women’s right to freedom’. Another DPP spokesperson called the mosque ‘a bridgehead for an extreme version of Islam. I do not like the risk of rabid imams preaching on Danish soil.’

8. Lega Nord (Italy)

Where does one start with Northern League – Lega Nord – whose long-time leader Umberto Bossi infamously called Africans ‘Bingo-Bongos’, advocated that illegal immigrants attempting to reach Italy’s shores should be ‘shot out of the water’, warned the Vatican that he would ‘push it down the toilet of history’ and invented a fictional kingdom ‘Padania’ to rule over? The Northern League was founded in 1991, and quickly established itself as a political force in the general elections of the following year. In 1994, Bossi’s party joined the coalition government under that other Italian right wing maverick, Silvio Berlusconi, allowing it to launch its campaign for separation of the prosperous north, the mythical Padania, from the rest of the country. Padania is based on the territory defined by the valley of the River Po, including the prosperous cities of Milan, Turin and Venice.

The League claims that it represents the hard-working Celtic race (as opposed to the lazy southern Romans) and its supporters are known to turn up to party rallies wearing Celtic-inspired costumes replete with broadswords and horned helmets. It could be argued that the Northern League promotes equal opportunity bigotry, in that they seem to despise everybody who is not from the north. Rome, the Catholic Church, immigrants, Muslims, poor people from the south - all stoke the rage of the League. But Muslims have come under special attention. League mayors in northern towns have passed local laws banning the use of veils or other garb that conceal people's faces. In one town the League went as far as banning the burkini - a bathing costume favoured by some Muslim women (we are told).

9. Attack (Bulgaria)

One in eight MPs in the Bulgarian parliament is a fascist. Bulgaria, the poorest country in the EU, presently has two rival fascist groupings - the Patriotic Front and Attack (Ataka). Ataka takes its name from Der Agriff (German for ‘the attack’), the paper run by Hitler’s propaganda henchman Joseph Goebbels. Its symbol is a swastika-style trident, superimposed on a Celtic cross design in the colours of the Bulgarian flag. The party’s ideology is based on racism, ethnic nationalism and violence. It wants ‘Bulgaria for the Bulgarians’. Ataka’s main victims are the Roma, but Ataka hates Bulgaria’s Turkish and Muslim population too. When he is not ranting about ‘Gypsy criminality’, party leader Volen Siderov is denouncing the Turkish minority and ‘Ottoman domination’.

The Roma people make up around ten percent of the population and suffer severe discrimination in housing, health, education and employment. Many live in neighbourhoods without electricity or sewage services. In 2011, anti-Roma pogroms broke out in towns and villages across Bulgaria, after a young ethnic Bulgarian was killed by a minibus driven by a Roma man. Huge armed gangs stormed into Roma areas destroying homes and attacking residents indiscriminately. The wave of violence was described as the worst since World War II.

Ataka suffered in general elections in 2014 because of its association with the outgoing administration. Ataka had propped up a government made up of the Bulgarian Socialist Party – a centre-left formation that emerged from the old Stalinist Communist Party – and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, a centre party based on Bulgaria’s ethnic Turkish minority. The rival fascist coalition Patriotic Front was able to take votes from Ataka in the general election by accusing them of selling out.

10. Austrian Freedom Party (Austria)

The Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Osterreichs – FPO) is a far right racist populist party. It was formed in 1956 as the successor of the Verband der Unabhängigen, a group of so-called ‘de-Nazified’ fascists and liberal republicans. It had close links with Hitleralism, with its first two leaders being former members of the Waffen SS. The Party’s political breakthrough came in 1983 when it entered into a coalition government with the Social Democratic SPO party. Jörg Haider was selected as the party leader in 1986. Under his leadership the party took a sharp turn towards right wing racist populism. Haider himself was notorious for speaking out in defence of the SS and praising Hitler’s ‘full employment’ policies.

In 1999, FPO won 26.9% of the vote in national elections, its best ever result, and entered into a coalition government with the centre right. Following a series of poor election results the FPO split in 2005. Haider and the parliamentary wing of the party left, forming the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZO), but Haider was killed, three years later, in a car crash.

The leadership of FPO passed to Haider’s long-term disciple, Heinz-Christian Strache in 2005. Since then the Party has regained much of its electoral strength. It opposes European integration, is rabid in its opposition to Turkey entering Europe, portray itself as an anti-establishment party, and pushes a racist agenda aimed against migrants and asylum seekers. Strache was widely condemned in 2012 after he posted a caricature on his facebook page of a banker with a hooked nose, wearing Star of David cufflinks. Latterly the FPO has targeted the country’s Muslim population raising the bogey of ‘Islamisation’ of Austria. In the run up to the European elections in 2014, Andreas Moelzer, a leading FPO candidate, declared that the EU was in danger of becoming a ‘conglomerate of negroes’. The FPO subsequently polled a fifth of all votes in the election.

So where would you like to live in Europe – the cradle of civilisation?

We choose United Kingdom, still (just) united, still a (but overburdened) welfare state with a good (although creaking) National Health Service, still (but quite successfully) holding out against the far right; and thank the bloggers at dreamdeferred.org.uk for suggesting this top ten.

Ten Xenophobic European Political Parties to Avoid
by Samia Rahman, criticalmuslim.com

Islamophobia Rising in India by Alan Potter

Barack Obama recently visited India, where he was received with open arms by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a lavish Republic Day celebration. But with Western countries badly needing to heal their rift with the Muslim world, the timing was not fortuitous.

In recent weeks, after all, the Indian government has been behind a number of anti-Muslim outbursts and renewed clashes with Pakistan.

On January 1, for example, the government blocked 30 popular websites in order to prevent publication by “jihadi activists.” The next day, reports came out of Modi’s home state of Gujarat of anti-terror drills involving mock terrorists dressed in traditional Muslim clothing.

Just a few days later, the government announced the discovery of a small ship along the Indian coast full of “suspected terrorists” from Pakistan, though there was no real evidence that the boat’s passengers were anything other than run-of-the-mill smugglers. On the same day, the government put all airports on high alert for potential hijackings due to unnamed intelligence reports.

Throughout this time, confrontations between Indian and Pakistani military forces increased, including an incident on January 1 in which Indian forces killed five Pakistanis.

Of course, Modi has a history of stoking communal violence against Muslims. In 2002, while chief minister of Gujarat, Modi was accused of failing to stop and perhaps even encouraging viciously bloody anti-Muslim riots. The U.S. government later banned him from entering the United States because of his involvement in the riots. His party, the BJP, is traditionally based on a Hindu nationalist, anti-Islamic platform.

But over time, Modi has been able to shed some of this negative reputation by rebranding himself as an economic technocrat and modernizer.

Gujarat became the prototype for attracting foreign direct investment under his leadership. And his 2014 campaign for prime minister was based on an economic program of growth and, to a lesser degree, liberalization. Because of this, pundits around the world began to overlook his past and, perhaps more importantly, the past of his party. The question now is whether we’re beginning to see Modi and the BJP turn back to their traditional Hindu nationalist policies — and if so, why?

Modi is often characterized as a typical politician (if a particularly shrewd one), more interested in polls than ideals. Because of this, the logic goes, he will not stoke Hindu-Muslim violence as prime minister — the backlash would be too great, and it wouldn’t provide the same kind of benefits that it did at the state level.

By the same logic, however, if Modi is unable to produce the economic gains he promised, then he might return to stoking communal violence. A sputtering economy, in other words, could prompt Modi to “wag the dog” by encouraging Hindu violence against Muslims and thus placating his Hindu nationalist base.

However, the present increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the government does not appear to be a function of a failing economy or a drop in Modi’s popularity. The Indian economy has shown signs of life after a particularly tumultuous first half of 2014. Furthermore, the BJP performed well in recent state elections in Jharkhand and, to a lesser degree, in Jammu and Kashmir.

Nor does the increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric seem to result from an upsurge in confrontation along the Pakistan border. Those tensions are more likely to be the result of Indian rhetoric and actions than a cause of them, particularly as initial reports indicate that India has been the aggressor in recent clashes.

Another possibility is that the BJP is pushing the issue and Modi is simply trying to keep up.

After all, it’s not Modi so much as other members of the BJP that have most pushed the envelope in recent weeks. A government minister, for example, recently asked her supporters at a rally to choose between children of the Hindu God Ram and “bastards.” Modi stated that he didn’t approve of the comments, but he didn’t sack her either. Another BJP member of parliament recently praised the killer of Gandhi, who was a Hindu nationalist.

Additionally, the RSS — a right-wing paramilitary politically allied to the BJP — has been accused of forcibly converting entire Muslim and Christian villages to Hinduism.

However, Modi himself has continued in his attempts to shed his anti-Muslim image. For example, he was the first Indian prime minister to invite the leader of Pakistan to his inauguration. And more recently, he made a direct appeal to all schools in India for two minutes of silence after the Taliban’s massacre of students in Peshawar, Pakistan last December.

If Modi is unable or unwilling to rein in his party’s instrumental use of Hindu nationalism, then this will portend trouble for nearly all aspects of Indian society. Religious minorities, specifically Muslims, will be in danger of mass violence and persecution. Additionally, India’s standing in the international community could drop precipitously.

But while Modi’s own role in the unfolding drama remains unclear, it was disappointing that on January 14 — just before Obama’s highly publicized visit to India — a U.S. court dismissed a case against Modi for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

If the new anti-Muslim rhetoric is coming from the BJP, then there’s still hope that Modi can rein in the extremists. If it’s coming from Modi himself, though, then the trend will likely worsen, as his own party will certainly not oppose him in on the issue. And the opposition, particularly the Indian National Congress, is in complete disarray after the last national election.

Modi has only recently begun to shed his nationalist reputation, and the international community is watching closely.
Islamophobia Rising in India
by Alan Potter, counterpunch.org,
Alan Potter is completing his PhD in politics at New York University. He is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

WAR AND PEACE IN ISLAM In the Light of Quran and Hadith

AN accepted principle for evaluating a system or ideology is to differentiate between its declared principles, on one hand, and the actual practice of the people who claim to stand for or represent it, on the other. For example, let us consider that you want to evaluate the role of the United Nations which was formed in 1945.
Every student of international politics knows that in order to understand the role of the UN, he/she has to study the Charter of the UN. It is this Charter which will serve as the authentic source of reference for understanding the UN. The student will not form his/her opinion about the UN by seeing the practices of the 193 member states of the UN.

The value of the UN can be judged by its ideology rather than the practices of its member countries. To understand Islam, one needs to study the Quran and Sunnah, rather than the actual behaviour of the people who claim to be its followers. So, too, is the case with Islam. To understand what Islam really is, you need to study the authentic texts which contain its principles. These are the Quran and Sunnah (practice of the Prophet of Islam). There are more than one billion people in the world who claim to be Muslims. To understand Islam, one needs to study the Quran and Sunnah, rather than the actual behaviour of these people who claim to be its followers. The right method of studying Islam is to differentiate between Islam, on one hand, and Muslims, on the other.

Muslims have to be judged in the light of Islamic teachings, and not vice versa. The central Islamic teaching is the discovery of God and the understanding of God's creation plan for mankind. Prophets were sent by God with the mission to make man aware of this creation plan. The Quran clearly tells us that the mission of the Prophet is peaceful dissemination of the divine message. [O Prophet] remind them: your task is only to remind, you are not a master over them. THE QURAN 88: 21
More:
AZADI Mag : http://flip.it/sQjQZ

BOOKS & ARTICLES: http://flip.it/yeAiw

AFTABKHAN-NET: http://flip.it/2RrrA

PEACE-FORUM: http://flip.it/cL4Tr

MUSLIM WORLD: http://flip.it/pqaSr

PAKISTAN POSTS: پاکستان نامه : http://flip.it/jqMow

CORRUPTION: کرپشن:  http://flip.it/tIBbf

CHRIST & CHRISTIANITY: http://flip.it/0kFbY

ISLAMOPHOBIA: http://flip.it/VFNWv

Takfiri Khwarji Terrorism  Magazine : http://flip.it/kiJqd

QURAN & HADITH MAGAZINE: http://flip.it/RvuUS

Islamic state moving to south Asia?

A military campaign against militant groups has growing popular support in Pakistan
The militant group Islamic State has its heartland in Iraq and Syria, but recent reports suggest it is now intent on building a presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

IS has even named a regional leader for South Asia - a former Pakistani Taliban commander, Saeed Khan.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are already beset with militancy, and there are fears that IS involvement could escalate an already volatile situation.

Should we be worried?

Militants in southern Afghanistan continue to be mostly loyal to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. There is little evidence of any prominent Afghan groups joining IS, except a disaffected commander in the Helmand region.

Graffiti in support of Islamic State has been seen in parts of Pakistan
In Pakistan, the army exercises almost total control. At times, it has seemed like the state was experiencing trouble from the Taliban. But that has been mainly because, as most analysts believe, the army has been using militants to achieve its own strategic aims in Afghanistan and India.

There is evidence that groups marginalised by the military offensive in North Waziristan have been toying with the idea of joining IS to re-energise their local presence.

As a result, pro-IS slogans have been chalked on walls, black IS flags have appeared, and some pamphlets have been distributed in various parts of Pakistan.

At least one official note by the provincial government of Balochistan in the south-west said some local sectarian groups were recruiting fighters on behalf of IS.

But so far only Saeed Khan and his group have announced allegiance to IS.

Who is Saeed Khan?

Between 2009 and 2014, he served as Pakistani Taliban commander for his native Orakzai tribal district in the north-west, before he pledged allegiance to IS in a video released last October.

His clout has been limited to Orakzai, and his elevation to regional IS leader comes while he is on the run, looking for reported hideouts in north-eastern Afghanistan.

Said to be in mid-40s, Saeed Khan studied religion at seminaries in the Mamozai area of Orakzai and in the neighbouring province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (then North West Frontier Province).

After 9/11, he fought the coalition forces in Afghanistan and came under the influence of then Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

Saeed Khan was a protege of Baitullah Mehsud
Photo by: left
Saeed Khan took charge of Orakzai in August 2009 when Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a drone strike and Orakzai chief Hakimullah Mehsud replaced him as overall leader.

Saeed Khan is said to have had differences with Hakimullah Mehsud, who was killed in another drone strike in 2013. He also opposed the elevation of Mullah Fazlullah, Hakimullah Mehsud's successor.

This was probably the reason he quit the Taliban and joined IS.

Have other militants reacted?

Ayman al-Zawahiri announced the formation of al-Qaeda in the Indian Sub-Continent just two months after IS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself Caliph in June 2014.

Weeks later it launched a major attack on the Pakistani naval installations in Karachi. Many believe al-Qaeda did it to prevent IS from eroding its influence with potential recruiting channels and rich Middle Eastern donors.

A school massacre in Peshawar might have been indirectly caused by Islamic State
There is also speculation that Mullah Fazlullah's group carried out the massacre of school children in Peshawar last month to match the brutality of IS before the IS regional chief Saeed Khan could launch his own maiden attack in the region.

Does IS have any links with South Asia?

Since the late 1990s, all leaders of militant groups in the region have remained loyal to the head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

This includes IS founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who spent several years in Afghanistan before he began fighting in Iraq.

IS founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had Afghan links
The IS leaders who have followed him have had little or no experience of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no personal links.

Their only link to the region is the local and foreign fighters who have been flocking to Syria and Iraq from Afghanistan during the last few of years.

Can they really make an impression?

A crucial factor remains the Pakistani army - it is believed to be the main force that sustains Islamist militant networks in the region, a suggestion that is officially denied.

Pakistan's army remains the real power in the region
Afghan militant groups also continue to depend on Pakistani support and supplies, according to analysts.

But Pakistan's army has also demonstrated its ability to eliminate militant sanctuaries at will, like it did in Swat in 2009, or in North Waziristan last year.

Most analysts believe IS cannot make inroads into the region unless the Pakistani military allows it.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31022576

The Christian Example for Modernizing Islam

Catholics and Protestants once killed in the name of God, but eventually liberal ideas took hold.
By KEVIN MADIGAN
Violent. Illiberal. Intolerant. Anti-Semitic. After the tragic, murderous events in Paris earlier this month, these adjectives have been applied not only to murderous jihadists but to Islam itself. Yet these words could just as easily apply to medieval Christianity and to much of Christianity in the 20th century.

Medieval Christians notoriously persecuted, incarcerated and burned religious dissenters. Less well-known is that Protestant Reformers in early modern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, despite their differences with the old Western church, agreed that religion was not a matter of private judgment but of deep communal concern and unitary. Reformers believed that religious orthodoxy must be safeguarded, and almost all agreed that dissidents deserved severe punishment and even death. Calvin ’s Geneva was a theocracy; one theologian who doubted the Trinity was burned to death—with Calvin’s approval.

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, popes habitually fulminated against modernity. One reason that popes like Pius XI (1922-39) supported the fascist dictator Mussolini —he once stated that Il Duce had been sent by “Providence” to rescue Italy—was that they shared antipathy for parliamentary democracy and for freedom of the press and association. Generally speaking, sacred and secular leaders in Catholic parts of Europe loathed modernity and all it represented: liberal democracy, emancipation, tolerance, separation of church and state and freedom of thought.

Only in the early 1960s did the Roman Catholic Church reject this medieval worldview. Only then did it begin to tolerate other world religions, representative democracy and the disenfranchisement of religion. It was only recently that it started to be reluctant to use political agencies to achieve religious objectives—even to accept the idea that the modern citizen is free to be nonreligious.

As Pope Francis recently remarked, reflecting this relatively new attitude of tolerance and pluralism, “Each individual must be free, alone or in association with others, to seek the truth, and to openly express his or her religious convictions, free from intimidation.” It has been said, and not without reason, that the church changed more from 1960-2000 than in the previous millennium. Yet even today, outside Western Europe and the U.S., predominantly Christian states—Russia and Uganda, for instance—have notoriously repressive laws.

All of this is to say that traditionalist Islamic states and Muslims have not, historically speaking, had a monopoly on authoritarianism, violence against apostates, the wholesale rejection of religious pluralism, and the manipulation of religion to realize political agendas. But in the same sad set of facts lies some good news: The startling changes experienced by Western churches over the past several centuries suggest that similar changes might occur within the world of Islam.

As Christianity has taken many twists and turns in its history, so has Islam, and so might it again, only this time moving toward the more open posture of most contemporary Western Christians. The Christian experience should caution us against assuming there is something intrinsic to Islam that mandates that Islamic societies be anti-modern. In fact, in the 16th through 20th centuries, liberal ideas were imported into Muslim societies with remarkable success, and harmonized with Islam, especially in the Ottoman Empire. Less happily, at critical moments in Islamic history, reactionary interpretations—or misinterpretations—of the Quran and Shariah triumphed over others.

Fortunately, some Muslims have begun to reinterpret ancient traditions in light of modernity and begun their own, albeit often-quiet reformations, distressed by the authoritarian elements smuggled into their tradition. They are intent on synthesizing—as have so many branches of Judaism and Christianity—features of their religious traditions with democratic ideas. Such reformations have been institutionalized successfully in several countries with significant Muslim populations, such as Turkey and Tunisia.

We can only hope that, with the quickening pace of historical change in modernity, Islam can adjust more rapidly than Christendom, so that a broad-minded form of the religion will prevail. Muslims will have to recognize what the West, through many centuries of hard experience and reflection, has learned: that religious texts arose in a particular context and must be reinterpreted in the new context of modernity; that pluralism within one’s own tradition and the tolerance of other faiths must be appreciated anew; and, finally, that the coercive imposition of faith will generate only nominal or hypocritical, not authentic, conversions.

This will require patience on the part of the West, and more. Above all, the West must not panic and extend its battle with radical Islam—most of whose victims have been Muslims—to the world-wide population of Muslims. The Christian world passed through its era of repression and theocracy; there is no reason to presuppose that the Islamic world cannot do likewise.

Mr. Madigan, a professor of history at Harvard Divinity School, is the author, most recently, of “Medieval Christianity: A New History” (Yale University Press, 20)

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=christian%20reconstructionism

Even today in Western society we see large groups of people that are uneasy with modern technology and want to force living standards back to the 19th century.
There is evidence all over the world that either for religion, language or economic reasons Muslims are failing to integrate into Western Society
We don't have multiple centuries for  religions steeped in third world thinking and dedicated to isolate themselves from Western thinking to catch up when so many efficient ways to kill in mass are available to these creatures.
Is the government going to wait and watch while millions of people are killed in the name of a religion?
I surely hope not!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kevin-madigan-the-christian-example-for-modernizing-islam-1422578153

The maddening reality of the Middle East


The only guarantee we have at this point is that the dramatic free fall some Arab countries are undergoing is unavoidable and even necessary. Let things fall where they may to see how and with whom the future will rise from there.

In the midst of an ever-changing Middle East, more often for the worst and rarely for the better, it has become more challenging to spearhead resolutions to the raging wars and lingering problems. Where can one get inspiration to end the bloodshed or return refugees to their homes or simply imagine life as it used to be only a short few years ago? It is therefore not surprising that many, including Arabs themselves, are turning their backs.

Power across the region
It is not difficult to see that the extremists have found their way to power across the region. Dictatorships were only replaced by militancy. Tyrants fell only to give rise to brainwashed underground groups. Disoriented, the latters practice intolerance and abuse power exactly as has been the case against them for decades. Their reactions are violent with deadly consequences, but we should expect their hatred to rage on as long as there is no one to stand up to them and stop them.

The situation today is the result of years of carelessness and neglect, blinded tyrannies, failed western foreign policies, old vendettas, hate-driven alliances and a systematic alienation of moderate voices.

Today, the Middle East stands at a crossroad with a major imbalance of wealth and power. Although “Instability” should be the headline of this era, some are still pretending not to be affected by it. A dangerous rise in extremism threatens friends and foes alike. Add to that upcoming Israeli elections and the winding of a confused U.S. administration that made the region worse one bad decision at a time and one late response at a time.

The only way out of this impasse is for the people to take charge of their lives. Not as a region or nation but as individuals coming together to create, grow and defend an independent, sustainable and dignified life for themselves and for the generations after them.

Lucky are those who have already started such process and are ready to apply it even at a small, individual scale. For the future is in their hands.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/01/27/The-maddening-reality-of-the-Middle-East.html

This article was first published in al-Nahar on January 27, 2015.

_____________________

Why single out Islam for this patronising treatment?

Eric Pickles, the British communities secretary, wrote a letter to Muslim leaders in which he asked them to ‘explain and demonstrate how faith in Islam can be part of British identity’.
A response

Dear Eric,

Walaikum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu.

Serious question. Will you be sending a letter any time soon to members of the Roman Catholic church following the child-abuse scandals in Catholic institutions? Or a letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the subject of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

No?

Thought as much.

Ten years on from 9/11 and you’re still asking the same questions, questions that have proved worse than useless in the intervening years. Still wondering aloud about the loyalty of British citizens based on their spiritual beliefs. Still demanding that these people prove themselves compatible with the “British way of life”, as defined by you.

In your letter this week, you say that you “know acts of extremism are not representative of Islam”. You mention that “British values are Muslim values”. Yet you insist on asking us to speak to our young people, telling them that “extremists have nothing to offer them”. Do you really think that little of our young people? That they can’t tell the difference between right and wrong? Do you imagine that they are already that different, that set apart from British society, simply because they’re Muslim? Do you think that little of our ability to bring them up to know that taking life is a sin?

To accept the terms of your argument for a moment, we already know that 83% of Muslims living in the UK say they identify with British values. Others are as free not to identify with them as any non-Muslim might be – the right to be disaffected isn’t limited to Christians. That a tiny number of Muslims are also lost to violent extremism says as much about other members of our faith as the conduct of abusers in the Catholic church does about theirs. But still you require our religious leaders do more in “demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity”.

Rather than send a patronising letter telling Muslim leaders what to do, maybe you should actually sit down with Muslim leaders and listen to them, really listen. You’ve been in the job for nearly five years. They would tell you that since 9/11 we have condemned, apologised and worked tirelessly to expose the incompatibility of the terrorists’ ideology with Islam. We have done what you have asked us to do. But we are like any other citizens of the UK today. We are anxious. Anxious about an increase in intolerance towards minorities, including but not limited to our own. Anxious about the economy. Anxious about whether the NHS can continue to meet our needs. Anxious about whether our children will be able to afford higher education. In general, it seems our fears are not listened to.

You are communities secretary. You have a duty of care to the diverse peoples who make up Britain and define British values. Sadly, it seems the only time you engage with us is under the rubric of counter-terrorism. With attacks against Muslims taking place across the country, more than ever before we need your reassurance and protection.

Instead we get a letter suggesting we’re not doing enough.

I would say it’s you, communities secretary, who hasn’t done nearly enough. I’m afraid your letter will be received respectfully, but with disappointment, up and down the country.

Yours sincerely,

Areeb

"Dear Eric Pickles – why single out Islam for this patronising treatment?"
theguardian.com | January 19

Causes of Islamist militancy

AS terrorist violence from ‘Islamic’ militants spreads across the world, from Peshawar to Paris, affected states are struggling to devise effective responses. So far, most of their responses have addressed the visible symptoms of the terrorist threat through military, police and intelligence measures. These are, of course, essential to stem the terrorist tide. Unfortunately, these responses are often insufficient or incorrect.

To develop the right responses, it is essential to honestly analyse and address the principal causes of ‘Islamic terrorism’.

The fundamental origins of Islamist extremism and militancy lie in the failure of Muslim states, and other states with Muslim populations, to deliver jobs, justice and dignity to a growing army of young people. The economic, social and demographic indicators in Muslim countries are some of the worst in the world. Their societies are imbued with inequality and injustice. Similarly, Muslim youth in the advanced Western countries have not become integrated in the social and economic mainstream. Poor, unemployed and disaffected youth have always provided ready recruits for radical and rebellious movements.

The basic rationale for radicalism has been provided by the political and economic suppression of Muslims for so long in many places. The plight of the Palestinians and Kashmiris are two examples. The memories of brutal colonial actions in Turkey, Algeria, Iran, Indonesia and other Muslim countries, are part of historical Muslim grievances. The oppression and discrimination against Muslim minorities in India, Burma, Russia etc, have added to these grievances. These real and perceived historical injustices provided the basic justification and support for ideologies that advocate antipathy towards the West and the active propagation and ‘defence’ of Islam.

The rise of radical Islamist movements was gradual and fitful. At some periods in the post colonial era, some of these Islamists were sponsored and supported by Western powers. However, with the ‘failure’ of the Western capitalist and the Soviet communist models, Islamic movements, financed often from abroad, were able to move into the political mainstream in many Muslim countries. Tolerant societies, like Pakistan, saw the rise of parties propagating a narrow and exclusivist version of Islam.

The basic rationale for radicalism has been provided by the suppression of Muslims.
A major turning point was the use of Islamist zealots to combat the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The seven-member mujahideen alliance, sponsored by the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries and Iran, was composed exclusively of ‘Islamist’ groups. Forty thousand ‘Islamic’ radicals were imported from across the Arab and Muslim world, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. These original ‘foreign fighters’ also included Muslim rebels from Uzbekistan, Chechnya and Xinjiang.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, this deadly cocktail of hardened local and foreign ‘jihadists’ either stayed on in Afghanistan-Pakistan or returned to their countries to spread their toxic ideology and fighting experience. These fighters and their descendants form the core of Al Qaeda and its franchises in the Arabian peninsula and North Africa as well as the IMU, ETIM and TTP.

With the Soviet withdrawal and an equally hasty American withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamist groups ran amok in Afghanistan, Pakistan and their ‘home’ countries. The first attack was engineered by Al Zawahiri against the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. He later joined Osama bin Laden to form Al Qaeda. The mujahideen, meanwhile, split into several factions, vying for control of Kabul. A struggle for influence ensued between Pakistan and Iran in Afghanistan. Pakistan became the battleground for externally sponsored Sunni-Shia violence. Meanwhile, Iran sponsored Shia groups in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.

During the 1990s’ Afghan civil war, many mujahideen groups became criminalised, raising money to finance themselves through drug production and trafficking, kidnapping and extortion. Criminality opened the door to the infiltration of these groups by state intelligence agencies, including those of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the West. Such infiltration of certain Kashmir groups by India was critical in transforming the legitimate struggle for freedom in Kashmir into a ‘terrorist’ threat.

Notably, it was Mullah Omar’s Taliban who restored order in southern and eastern Afghanistan, overcoming or winning over the warring groups, except those in the Iran-India backed Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar’s association with Al Qaeda came about only after the US and Western decision to isolate the Taliban. His adamant refusal to surrender Osama bin Laden or expel him led to the Taliban’s ouster by the US with the help of the Northern Alliance.

The 2001 US military intervention in Afghanistan and its 2003 invasion of Iraq provided a second life to Al Qaeda and other Islamist movements, offering a rallying cause and proximate targets for ‘jihad’. Al Qaeda received new recruits. Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq was born, a predecessor to today’s Islamic State. AQAP, AQIM, TTP, Al Shabab, Boko Haram and several lesser known groups all emerged in the renewed jihad generated by opposition to Western interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The recent spread of jihadi movements across the Muslim world has been made possible by three factors. One, the weakness of most Muslim states, in terms of their police, military and intelligence capabilities, political laxity towards extremist movements and official corruption. Two, misguided Western-engineered overthrow or erosion of authoritarian regimes in Muslim states including Egypt, Libya and Syria, which opened the door to Islamist groups. Three, the external sponsorship of some of these groups, like the IS and TTP.

The ‘successes’ of jihadi movements and their narrative — Muslim rights can be regained only through violent struggle — have attracted thousands of alienated youth in Western countries. Reportedly, there are over 5000 ‘foreign fighters’ from Europe who have joined the IS. The Paris attacks have brought the war home for the Europeans, transforming a foreign policy challenge into a domestic priority. These attacks have also laid bare the cultural and religious divisions within these advanced countries, manifested by the anti-Islam Pegida movement in Germany, the National Front in France and burning of mosques in traditionally tolerant Sweden.

Addressing ‘Islamic terrorism’ is thus now a global challenge and priority. However, unless the origins and causes of this phenomenon are fully understood, it will prove difficult to formulate and agree on comprehensive policies and actions to meet this challenge.

Causes of Islamist militancy
by Munir Akram, dawn.com
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.



Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of western intelligence

The Charlie Hebdo massacre may have been the work of an “intelligence agency”, working with the connivance of French authorities, according to Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far right Front National.

In an interview with a virulently anti-western Russian newspaper, Mr Le Pen, 86, gave credence to conspiracy theories circulating on the internet suggesting that the attack was the work of American or Israeli agents seeking to foment a civil war between Islam and the west.

His comments – only partially retracted in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde today – provoked outrage amongst French politicians. They will also infuriate Marine Le Pen, his daughter, and successor as leader of the FN, who has been trying to distance the party from her father’s extreme and provocative remarks.

Mr Le Pen stood down as FN leader three years ago but remains President-for-life. He made the comments in an interview with Komsomolskaïa Pravda , a newspaper which had already blamed the United States for the terrorist mayhem in France.

Charlie Hebdo: Mourning in Paris

“The shooting at Charlie Hebdo resembles a secret service operation but we have no proof of that,” the newspaper quoted Mr Le Pen as saying. “I don’t think it was organised by the French authorities but they permitted this crime to be committed.  That, for the moment, is just a supposition.”

To justify his comments, Mr Le Pen pointed to the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers, who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre, left his identity card in a crashed getaway car. He compared this to the “miraculous fact” – beloved by conspiracy theorists – that one of the passports of the 9/11 hijackers was found on the ground in New York after two planes collided with the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in 2001.

Read more: Suspected terrorists shot dead in Belgium
A continent on the edge - terror raids across Europe
Cameron and Obama vow joint anti-terror measures
Mr Le Pen made two other provocative remarks in the interview. He said that the 1,500,000 who marched “against hatred” in Paris last Sunday were not “Charlies” but “Charlie Chaplins” (ie clowns). He also said that there were 15,000,00 to 20,000,000 Muslims in France – three or four times the generally accepted figures of 5,000,000 people who are practising Muslims or have Muslim backgrounds.

In an interview with Le Monde today, Mr Le Pen repeated his suspicions about the identity card but said he “could not recall” talking about “secret services” to the Russian newspaper.

Mr Le Pen’s original quoted remarks run directly counter to the official line of his daughter and his party. They have suggested that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket are the final proof that France faces an  “enemy within”, which has been created by immigration and open EU borders.

Conspiracy theories of the kind espoused by the elder Le Pen sprang up on the internet within hours of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They have been repeated in recent days by some – not all - young Muslims in France,  torn between identifying with the Kouachi brothers and insisting that they were stooges of the French authorities, Washington and Israel.

The  French “pope of conspiracy theories”, Thierry Meyssan, now based in Damascus, insisted that the Charlie Hebdo massacres were “ordered by US neo-cons and liberal hawks”. An American conspiracy site, McLatchy, has claimed that the Kouachi brothers were working for French intelligence.

By John Lichfield, independent.co.uk

The attack on Charlie Hebdo: the problem is the Middle East, not Islam

The deadly attack in Paris by French Islamists with ties to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) provokes several basic responses.

One major response is a broad affirmation that the actions of the violent few in no way represent Islam as a global religion of over 1 billion adherents.
Indeed, the vast majority of Muslims are no less broadly humane and no more fanatic than anyone else, as was clear in Paris with the heroic actions of a Muslim employee of the besieged Kosher grocery store, or the death of a French Muslim police officer defending Charlie Hebdo.
Underscoring that this is the case might be less necessary if Islamophobia were not a genuine global issue.
But, however true, the response that Islam is not about violence is unlikely to satisfy.
People are asking why – at least at this moment in global history – the most frequent and dramatic violence explicitly undertaken in the name of religion seems to occur in Middle East and North Africa countries and/or in the name of a particular branch of Islam.
Even for a scholar like myself – who has studied the diversity of orientations in Islam – and has many Muslim friends, the question still nags: why are a tiny minority of Muslims with connections to the Middle East and North Africa committing violent attacks against religious and other pluralism?
The answer may actually be the MENA geographic piece of the equation, rather than the Muslim one.

What is special about the Middle East and North Africa?

Put it this way: if Islamist violence linked to the Middle East and North Africa is the issue, then looking at the regional, rather than religious piece of the puzzle may be more fruitful, particularly in light of the diversity of Islam worldwide.
The question of why the MENA has bred so much recent violence might have many answers, but there is one that I want to highlight here.
Colonialism in the region and the authoritarian governments that followed the withdrawal of the British, French and Ottoman empires, have specifically prioritized the violent suppression of dissent. It is this violent clampdown that has influenced many of today’s Islamist opposition movements.
Several points from “Middle Eastern Politics 101” are worth keeping in mind,
First, there is the idealization of Islamic civilization before colonialism and nostalgia for its intellectual and cultural pre-eminence – think the oft-cited example of the Arab-invented navigational tool, the astrolabe. In contrast, relations with Europe were never easy – they were, in fact, violent from the beginning. And this only got worse with the arrival of colonial rule.
The relative aimlessness of today’s states in the Middle East and North Africa is often blamed on the legacy of such colonial practices as theEuropean powers' drawing arbitrary borders and practicing “divide and rule” to help their control over the region’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. All of this helps explain why political cohesion in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen has not survived the fall of coercive dictators.
Second, although Middle Eastern authoritarianism can not be completely blamed on the colonial legacy, it’s convenient for Middle Easterners to say the West’s past and present actions have contributed to the relative lack of democracy in the MENA. Citizens’ political and economic aspirations are repressed across the region. This widespread frustration, in turn, had much to do with the 2011 Arab uprisings – as well as with the backlash that followed in Egypt and elsewhere.
Third, this repression has been particularly acute in the arena of free expression, where governments – and the opposition movements they have spawned – have often justified harsh treatment of political dissenters and journalists in the name of enhancing social solidarity.
What all of this means in a nutshell is that the Middle East and North Africa has been a region with an unusual level of popular resentment towards governments, and with many examples of force being used against any open opposition to political orthodoxy.

Before and after the Arab spring

Before 2011 the usual pattern was to force Islamist political groups underground. This often resulted in these groups being a mirror image of the states that had outlawed them.
With the broad disillusionment after the uprisings of 2011, states like Egypt have gone back to their pattern of violently repressing groups – mostly Islamist – who, it is claimed, undermine social solidarity.
At the same time, and somewhat ironically, Egypt, and several other MENA states, have been in the forefront of clamping down on journalistswhom they deem dangerous to national values or cohesiveness. Journalistic self-censorship, and media censorship more generally, have been a well-known aspect of MENA politics for decades.
Given this regional context, violent actors like the Islamists in France are not as much representative of Islam, as they are of a specific political context with far too many concrete and well known examples of using of violence to silence dissent.

An alternative perspective

If violence can breed violence, then the legacy of both Western colonialism and post-colonial repressive authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa should be confronted – and more clearly connected to the broader context of the tragedy of Paris.
Emphasizing the influence of repressive political structures in the modern Middle East and North Africa is an approach that does not get to the social psychological issues of the attackers or the particular context of contemporary French culture.
However, acknowledging that authoritarian repression of dissent in the Middle East and North Africa replicates itself elsewhere, and that it fosters networks that can abet terrorist attacks globally, offers an alternative view on last week’s shooting of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo. It is a different argument to the usual one that the problem lies in Islam or with Muslims – an argument that is only likely to further heighten conflict.
The key point is that excessive repression by a politically-dominant group (governmental or non-governmental) is central to breeding violence, in the Middle East and elsewhere.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Magazines
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ajit Doval: The Indian who wants to ‘destroy’ Pakistan?

After reading the title you must wonder, so what? There are plenty of Indians who want to ‘destroy’ Pakistan - there always were and there always will be – that is the sad reality. But this one, my friends, is a little different. He has the knowhow, the expertise, and most importantly, now he has the resources and power to inflict damage upon not only the people of Pakistan, but also countless, defenseless Indian minorities. And he has done it before. So all peace-loving people from Khyber to Kerala – sit up and read carefully.

Ajit Kumar Doval was born into an Indian Army family in Uttarakhand in 1945. After graduating in 1967 with a degree in economics from Agra University, he joined the Indian Police Service (IPS). His early years were spent fighting against the Mizo National Front (MNF) insurgency in Assam where he earned a reputation for bribing and turning insurgent operatives into counter-insurgents.During this time he also operated within Chinese sovereign territory, staging terrorist attacks against the Chinese government, leading to civilian deathsin the process. A colleague of his from that time, Haba Ram, (TOI) detailed thathis main motivation was not strictly professional but stemmed from a deep hatred of anyone and anything non-Hindu which he perceived as a threat to his notion of Hinduism - a misguided notion of the religion which is advocated today by ultra-right-wing Hindu fascist organizations such as the RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS) and to which the new PM of India, NarendraModi also ascribes to. (However, there is no evidence that he was actually a member of any such organizationat that time.)

After the Mizo Insurgency ended in 1986, Doval was transferred to Indian Punjab which was in the midst of a freedom struggle by the persecuted Sikh minority, called the Khalistan movement. In 1989, during Indira Gandhi’s Operation Black Thunder, security forces were sent to storm the Golden Temple at Amritsar, the holiest site for the Sikh religion. Several weeks before the storming, Doval, posing as a friendly agent, entered the holy site (source needed)and reported back the positions of the defenders. Even though he was aware of the large presence of civilians inside he did nothing to avoid civilian casualties – leading to the Indian Army massacring hundreds of women and children in an unprecedented and unprovoked catastrophe. For his ‘heroism’ he was promoted and was soon organizing the rigging of the 1992 Punjab State Elections in favour of parties who were controlled by the ruling Hindu majority.

Doval was then sent to Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in the early 90’s, where there was another freedom struggle underway. He once again used his expertise in blackmail, bribery and intimidation to convert a small group of insurgents into counter-insurgents. This though proved ineffectual; however it did sow confusion amongst other groups of freedom fighters, leading them to go further underground for a time.

For his efforts, in 2000, he was appointed Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) – the 2nd most powerful Indian spy agency after RAW. This allowed him to go on the offensive. From 2001 to 2005 he planned terrorist acts in Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Specifically, he was instrumental in increasing the amount of funds and weapons going to Indian trained terrorists in Balochistan who then killed countless Pakistani civilians in indiscriminate bombings. Such attacks also occurred in Lahore and Karachi and were part of Doval’s and the Indian Intelligence communities’ strategy of violently destabilizing Pakistan from within. In China, he provided funding to Tibetan secessionists. Doval had to retire in 2005, because the right wing government that had appointed him lost power.

But now he’s back. India’s new right wing PM, Modi, appointed him National Security Advisor (NSA) this June – a position that grants him tremendous influence over Indian foreign overt and covert policy and a plethora of resources to wage his crusade of madness. State controlled media in India is terming it as the ‘return of the superspy’and ‘the spy who came in from the cold,’ - But Doval has never been far from influential intelligence circles in Delhi. Since his retirement he has been advising RAW chiefs and also publishing papers on intelligence. In 2009 he was the founding member of the Vivekananda International Foundation, a group of right-wing Hindu nationalist ‘commentators’ with close ties to the RSS and RAW, who are masquerading as a think-tank. In one of his many anti-Pakistan papers titled‘Internal Security — Need for Course Correction’, he wrote that ‘the Indian security establishment has become lax in its attitude towards Pakistan…Indian foreign policy must re-gear itself to go on the offensive against its enemy Pakistan by funding, arming, training and directing non-state actors to wage a campaign of chaos within Pakistan by exacerbating existing sectarian and ethnic differences through violence…India will never be secure until Pakistan is destroyed, China is silenced, and Muslim and Sikh anti-state groups in India are forever extinguished.’

With such blatantly fascist and racist views Ajit Kumar Doval now joins a growing number of anti-Pakistancampaigners in the new BJP government. The world must sit up and take notice. If Doval and his goons have their way, they will unleash a torrent of suffering upon the innocent people of the subcontinent - Muslim, Sikh and Hindu alike. The only thing standing against the barbaric machinations of such men will be the actions of good men. That is why, most importantly, Pakistan’s government and its security establishment must be on their guard. The world cannot afford to ignore another Nazi party.
Ajit Doval: The Indian who wants to ‘destroy’ Pakistn. By Hassan Qureshi
Source PKKH.tv

Videos: http://goo.gl/CJFkvx


What will the big stories be in 2015?

With the new year upon us, several of the BBC's experts have been asked to give their predictions on which stories to follow in 2015.

Security, refugees and the battle against Islamic groups

Lyse Doucet, chief international correspondent

2015 will be another year of global consequence in the Middle East and just beyond.

The year ended with major security challenges in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. This situation will be further aggravated in 2015. Better relations between Pakistan, India and Afghanistan will be essential but difficult.

2015 will be a critical year in the battle against Islamist groups on many fronts.

The US will strive to limit its military engagement but won't be able to pull away despite President Obama's best laid plans to do so.

In Iraq, the US will strive to strengthen Iraqi forces to take back iconic cities seized by the Islamic State group. Iraq will remain fragmented, as will Syria, where a deadly stalemate will continue.

The UN predicts continued hardship for refugees, such as this 4-year-old Afghan girl in Islamabad, in 2015
Financial pressures stemming from a sustained slump in oil prices will not cause key players to abandon their allies but will increase pressure to find a way out.

Oil producers Russia and Iran - President Bashar al-Assad's key backers - will weigh new political approaches including the UN plan for a local "freeze" in Aleppo. The West, Arab states and Turkey will continue to back different forces, impeding any united opposition front. Assad's own forces are stretched, and strained.

2015 is a pivotal year on other fronts. There are reasons to believe a deal will be reached on Iran's nuclear programme. US Secretary of State John Kerry will try to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks after Israel's elections but there are too many tensions in the mix to make real progress possible.

This will be another year of global hand wringing over the inability of world powers to resolve many major crises. And, all the while, the armies of the desperate will continue to swell with ever more people forced to become refugees or migrants risking their lives at sea.

Bridget Kendall, diplomatic correspondent

Western diplomats face two major challenges as 2015 dawns: how to contain contagion from Syria's collapse; and how to tackle a resurgent Russia.

On the first, in theory a nuclear deal with Iran could unveil a new paradigm in the Middle East, transforming Tehran from pariah into partner.

Many hope a long-term deal with Iran over its nuclear programme can be reached in 2015
The West and Iran already share a common enemy - the IS jihadists currently dismembering Syria and Iraq. Both sides desire a deal, the West to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran, President Rouhani to get sanctions lifted.

But the window for compromise is closing: sceptical Republicans now controlling Capitol Hill encumber President Obama and Tehran conservatives would rather block than back a deal ahead of parliamentary elections.

Then there is what to do about Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, Iran's key ally, but unacceptable as part of any compromise in many Western capitals.

So the most likely outcome is continued mayhem, contained somewhat by air strikes, with the hydra-headed problem left for the next American president, while Iran seeks other ways to breach the stranglehold of sanctions.

Likewise a deal with Russia over Ukraine may appear preferable to an escalating conflict. And you might think Russia's economic worries would make Mr Putin more pliant.

The Ukraine crisis has put Russia's ties with the West are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War
But loss of trust on all sides makes a breakthrough unlikely. Kiev and Western powers now view Moscow with the utmost suspicion. And President Putin welcomes reduced contacts with the West as an opportunity for Russia to become more self-reliant.

A de facto border already divides Ukraine proper from the self-styled eastern enclaves next to Russia. Expect a broader barrier to take shape over 2015, reminiscent of the Iron Curtain, but virtual not actual.

The West will blame Russia. And Mr Putin will blame the West, while encouraging Russians to turn inwards, away from the malign influence of foreigners.

The pressures of globalisation will mean fragmentation of our more integrated world.

The US will boom, Europe will stagnate or worsen, and China is the wild card. Inequality will rise, and no-one will know what to do about it. That will feed the feeling that politics doesn't work.

The debate about Western intervention will heat up
The conflicts of 2014 will deepen and probably worsen and new ones will erupt - both that, and the US election around the corner in 2016 will intensify the debate about Western intervention.

The next US president will have to work out if there is a middle way between Bush's adventurism and Obama quietism. Other countries may start to reflect that, prompting a better, less dangerous world.

Europe will have to decide if it wants to stick at its current borders - if Ukraine and Turkey will never join, the EU will have changed course. Like many other political projects the EU may start to deflate if is stops expanding.

The internet will become a philosophical battleground as it increasingly freaks out the gerontocracy, unnerved by a lack of control, faced by a younger generation who largely think the good of the medium outweighs the bad of any messages it may contain.

China: Political purge, high growth and internet governance

Carrie Gracie, China editor

China's rulers have much to grapple with
2015 will be dominated by the ongoing anti-corruption campaign, a drive to make the Communist Party fit for purpose, clearing President Xi's remaining political enemies from the field and scaring the bureaucratic machine out of its habits of self-serving greed and cynicism.

The "new normal" economics slogan is about weaning China off a high growth model after more then 30 years. Reform is more urgent than ever, but putting it off is making it ever harder.

Hong Kong's Legislative Council will or won't approve rules on electing the territory's next leader. Whichever way, the divisions exposed by the Occupy movement will be hard to bridge.

Clean air, soil and water go on being big challenges for the long term. Expect some progress on emissions pledges made during the Xi-Obama summit in November 2014, especially as we get closer to the big Paris conference in autumn 2015.

Prince William's visit at the beginning of March will be a moment to push public education on protecting elephants, rhino and species at home. Conservation is one of the few areas where NGOs are permitted to operate in China.

With China's tech market impossible to ignore, expect to see Mark Zuckerberg back in Beijing, working his Mandarin and making compromises for Facebook access. Watch China use its new leverage with the Californian tech companies to push harder for a stake in global internet governance.

Lots happening in terms of defence, for example China's nuclear armed submarines will become operational and its big defence companies will go looking for global arms sales.

Another year of energetic diplomacy by President Xi and Prime Minister Li to push China's geopolitics and commerce, particularly the Silk Road Economic Belt to control China's backyard: energy, transport and security dominance in Central Asia.

A tougher line from a Republican-controlled Congress may make US-China engagement bumpier than ever in 2015, while the US electoral cycle weakens President Obama just as President Xi cements his authority for year three of ten.

Chinese companies are closing in on their Western competitors
Globally significant is the business power shift from west to east. Chinese companies and banks are all expanding rapidly westward, with many of these businesses not simply aping Western companies but beating them.

Alibaba (online commerce) is now closing in on US behemoth Walmart as the most valuable retailer in the world. 2015 could see it become one of the top ten most valuable businesses in the world.

China's move to significant global business player has been rapid, with it now the second largest foreign investor in the US behind Canada. It raises significant questions about the use of soft, economic and business power and how that plays into China's political influence across the globe.

The West needs money. China, a nation of savers with a $260bn trade surplus with the rest of the world in 2013, has it.

In 2015, the West will face many of the challenges experienced by African nations which have seen major levels of investment from China, often to service the latter's growing demand for food.

This raises challenges for Western businesses at just the time when the political discussion in many Western nations is more about de-globalisation and cutting businesses "down to size".

That's the anti-markets trend which has been strong in the West since the financial crisis, and will still be very visible throughout 2015.

Watch for significant developments in artificial intelligence and computers that think, fresh troubles in the eurozone and a major breakthrough in the hunt for an Ebola vaccine led by GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson.

There will be continuing good economic news from the US (still the world's global powerhouse), support for global growth from the commodities price squeeze and, in general, a more optimistic economic and business mood at the end of the year compared to the beginning.
BBC.com