Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: WoT
Obama White House Hosts Sheikh Who Called for Killing American Troops in Iraq
2013-06-26
President Obama’s top national security advisers have just hosted Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah at the White House. As vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) in 2004, bin Bayyah endorsed a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops and other personnel serving in Iraq.

Bin Bayyah is the principal deputy to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist and the driving force of the IUMS. In addition to being behind the 2004 fatwa, Qaradawi also promotes suicide bombing against Israel. The IUMS strongly supports the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas, the terrorist organization designated as such under American law. Indeed, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh – a close ally of both Qaradawi and Turkey’s Islamic supremacist prime minister (and Obama fave) Recep Tayyip Erdogan – was welcomed into the IUMS as a member in 2004. As detailed here on other occasions (see, e.g., here), Hamas’s charter explains that the group’s imperative to destroy Israel is an Islamic obligation, and it cites authoritative scripture – frequently repeated by Qaradawi – stating that the world will not end “until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: ‘O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!’”

News of the White House meeting with bin Bayyah was broken last night by Steve Emerson and John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The meeting took place at the Obama administration’s request, according to an account of it posted – along with a photo – on bin Bayyah’s website. Since its original posting, the account has been edited to omit mention of Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon’s participation.
Link


Africa North
Egyptians Approve New Constitution. Some Notes.
2011-03-21
A constitutional referendum was held in Egypt on 19 March 2011, following the 2011 Egyptian revolution.

The proposed constitutional reforms include a limitation to at most two four-year terms for the president, judicial supervision of elections, a requirement for the president to appoint a deputy, a commission to draft a new constitution following the parliamentary election, and easier access to presidential elections, either via 30,000 signatures from at least 15 provinces, 30 members of a chamber of the legislature, or nomination by a party holding at least a seat in the legislature.

Opponents to the new constitution: An opposition coalition (including presidential candidates Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei, the New Wafd Party, the Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution, the National Progressive Unionist Party, the el-Ghad Party and the Egyptian Arab Socialist Party) criticised the proposed amendments as not enough and that the new constitution needs to be written immediately to regulate the process and the requirements for members of parliament. They also said that the president's power was not limited enough under the proposed changes.

The Christian Church was also opposed to the amendments. As did the reformist faction of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Proponents of the new constitution: The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi movement think that the amendments are suitable for the time being and that the situation in Egypt is not suitable to write a new constitution at the moment.

They have suggested that Article 2 of the constitution (which states that Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence) will be removed or altered if the proposed changes are not approved even though the constitutional amendment committee said that Article 2 will not be touched.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a very popular TV theologian on al-Jazeera, with some 40 million viewers, advised Egyptians to approve the referendum. The National Democratic Party (NDP), Mubarak's old party, also have asked their base to vote Yes.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the NDP are also perceived to be in favor of an approval because early elections could benefit them the most as they already have the biggest grassroots support while smaller and newly-founded parties would have little time to prepare for elections in the planned schedule.

One of the more interesting deletions in the new constitution is the elimination of Article 179:

"The Socialist Public Prosecutor shall be responsible for taking the measures which secure the people’s rights, the safety of the society and its political regime, the preservation of the socialist achievements and commitment to socialist behavior. The law shall prescribe his other competences. He shall be subject to the control of the People’s Assembly in accordance with what is prescribed by law."

In any event, a completely new constitution is expected to be drawn after the elections, by the new parliament.
Link


Africa North
Gaddafi threatens retaliation in Mediterranean
2011-03-18
Muammar Gaddafi has pledged to retake the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and warned that any foreign attack on Libya would endanger air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean area, as the UN security council voted for military intervention.
That would likely boomerang so it won't happen unless things turn against him. Even sending out suicide attackers would cause the Euros to wake up.
In a defiant and menacing radio address, the Libyan leader sought to pre-empt the UN. "No more fear, no more hesitation, the moment of truth has come," he declared. "There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight."

The defence ministry in Tripoli issued its threat of retaliation in the Mediterranean in the apparent hope of influencing deliberations in New York that approved an assault on Libya's air defences and ground forces.

Any action by foreign forces would inevitably be portrayed by Libya as an aggressive intervention in the country's internal affairs and linked to the US bombing in 1986, a key element of the national narrative of resistance to imperialism.
Gadaffy might want to remember that Reagan almost got him in '86.
As the security council vote was taking place, Gaddafi called it a "flagrant act of colonisation". He told Portuguese TV: "If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace."

The ominous statement from the defence ministry would not have been made without Gaddafi's approval. However, rebel leaders in Benghazi vowed to stand firm against any assault by Gaddafi's forces and loud bursts of celebratory gunfire were heard there last night.
Background news starts here:
The mood in Tripoli has been one of studied defiance tempered by continuing attempts to defuse the gathering crisis. The biggest banner in the capital's central Green Square proclaimed "No to foreign intervention in Libya's internal affairs" as giant loudspeakers blared out songs and slogans praising Gaddafi.

Libyan officials were alarmed on Wednesday when Russia appeared to endorse the no-fly zone idea. Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader's second son, said government forces would retake Benghazi within 48 hours so any international action would come too late to save the opposition.

But officials admitted privately that this statement was a tactical move designed to sow doubts about the efficacy of UN action. It seems clear that while the regime has the upper hand strategically, there is no quick or easy military way to reconquer the rebel stronghold, a city of a million people, without a bloodbath.

Gaddafi repeated an earlier offer of an amnesty for those who had taken up arms, while insisting that unarmed people would have nothing to fear. The offer of a ceasefire made earlier was immediately spurned.

State TV said government troops had taken Zueitina, an oil port on the coastal road 80 miles from Benghazi, but the rebels said they had surrounded the force. The rebels also denied a claim that government troops were on the outskirts of Benghazi.

Clashes around Ajdabiya, a strategic town and junction on the coast road, killed about 30 people earlier on Thursday, al-Arabiya TV reported. Libyan government forces displayed artillery, tanks and mobile rocket launchers – far heavier weapons than those used by the rebels – and the likely target of UN-mandated attacks.

Fighting was again reported from around Misrata, Libya's third city and a major port, despite the government's claims to have already taken it.

Fireworks were set off in Green Square in a continuing celebration of the military victories of recent days.

Earlier in the day, themes from Arab and Islamic history were invoked by pupils from the Khalid bin al-Walid school who had decorated a placard with the Qur'anic injunction "Sedition (fitna) is worse than killing" – a lightly coded reference to the sins of the anti-Gaddafi forces.

Despite the regime's strenuous attempts to lay down a uniform line and control visiting journalists, some Libyans are not buying the official story. "Things look very bad," said Abu Salah, a former government employee who drives a taxi. "The rebels don't want Gaddafi and he won't go. I was pessimistic before this crisis began – and yes, it's a crisis. Some people thought Saif al-Islam would bring change. But he's no better than his father. We need dialogue, not killing."

State media, however, have been turning up the volume in a crescendo of bile, fury and condemnation of the opposition. Treachery, conspiracy, rats, agents of imperialism, colonialism, lies and al-Qaida – this is the vocabulary of the propaganda war being waged in the Libyan media.

In Thursday's al-Zahaf al-Akhdar (The Green Page), a cartoon on the back page excoriated al-Jazeera, its Saudi rival al-Arabiya and the BBC, decrying their "false" or "biased" coverage. Al-Jazeera was the subject of an entire page of invective in Wednesday's al-Fajr al-Jadid (The New Dawn) and described as an outpost of Israel's Mossad. The broadcaster's owner, the "corrupt Zionist" emir of Qatar, was condemned for supporting Libya's rebels.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the popular preacher who appears regularly on al-Jazeera, has been vilified for issuing a fatwa authorising Libyan security forces to assassinate Gaddafi.

In the past few days the media focus has been on key tribes pledging loyalty to Gaddafi and a flood of telegrams offering support and solidarity. TV showed schoolgirls in Sirte, the leader's home town, taking turns to sing his praises and kiss his picture, the more confident ones ululating energetically for good measure.

Thursday's edition of Al-Jamahiriya devoted two full pages to Gaddafi's rambling message to one of the many delegations which have visited him at the Bab al-Aziziya barracks in Tripoli. Other papers ran shorter versions, but all used the identical headline: "Libyan unity or death!"
Link


Olde Tyme Religion
Al-Azhar in post-revolution Egypt
2011-03-15
[Asharq al-Aswat] Al-Azhar's stance regarding the events of the Egyptian revolution has aroused religious disagreements and disputes amongst its Learned Elders of Islam.

Some of the Learned Elders of Islam believe that Al-Azhar did not fall short in its role with regards to the Egyptian revolution, both before and afterwards. They argue it is still the "protector of Egypt" and an inspiration for the revolutionaries. According to these members, the reason that Al-Azhar delayed to declare its official stance towards the revolution was out of fear for the safety of the demonstrators, and the security of the country. They admit that Al-Azhar has showed elements of weakness in the past, but now it has started to regain its strength.

However,
The over-used However...
other members of the Learned Elders of Islam'>Learned Elders of Islam believe that Al-Azhar has been weakened ever since the leading role of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar was undermined during the former regime, and he became submissive to the state. They also stress that Al-Azhar's lack of financial and administrative independence from state authorities has led to it being cautious in some of its stances. Whilst these Learned Elders of Islam agree that Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib's appointment as the Sheikh of Al-Azhar represents a transformation from the previous regime, this is not one that they aspired for, because ultimately he is a state employee.

In this report, Asharq Al-Awsat investigates the dividing opinions amongst the al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam, in order to gauge the dimensions of this dispute.

Dr Abdul-Rahman al-Barr, professor at Al-Azhar University and member of the Guidance Bureau of the Moslem Brüderbund Group, says: "Anyone who assesses the role of Al-Azhar always looks at individuals, (either Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib, or members of the Islamic Research Council) occupying specific positions within the institution, and considers them representatives of it. If such individuals delay in making a statement about an issue, then Al-Azhar is deemed to have delayed in announcing its stance. If an individual announces a specific opinion, then this is taken as the stance of Al-Azhar in general."

Dr Al-Barr adds: "Despite the extreme importance of these two symbols [Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib and the Islamic Research Council]; Al-Azhar is far greater than them. Moreover, the Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam are dispersed across Egypt and the Mohammedan world, and most of them announce their Shariaa stances in a timely manner."

Al-Barr points out: "Many of the Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam in Egypt participated in the events of the Egyptian revolution, and went to Tahrir Square, despite the fact that they were not officially representing Al-Azhar." He explains: "By associating the stances of individual members of the Learned Elders of Islam, with the stance of Al-Azhar, this is unfair to those who belong to the organization. Whoever seeks to know Al-Azhar's stance towards any issue should focus only on the stance of the official institution, because Al-Azhar's members have individual motives, and sometimes do not wait for a signal from the Sheikh to undertake their duty."

Dr Al-Barr went on to say: "This does not mean that the institution refrains from expressing its opinions and stances, for it is required to take the initiative and declare its stances in an explicit and timely manner." However,
The ever-popular However...
Al-Barr believes that "this cannot be completely achieved unless we have total economic and administrative independence from the authorities."

Al-Barr praised Sheikh Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib's latest stance by saying: "It was natural that he would wait until after the events of the Egyptian revolution; however, had he been independent, his stance would have more accurately reflected the members of Al-Azhar, and he would not have been bothered about the authorities."

On the other hand, Sheikh Salim Abdul-Jalil, undersecretary for the Egyptian Ministry of Islamic Endowments, relating to Islamic Dawa affairs, explains: "Now, Al-Azhar plays a purely educational role. Before the July 1952 revolution its role was more extensive, because at the time, conditions were suitable for Al-Azhar to have a political role." Abdul-Jalil points out: "The 1952 revolutionaries were keen to exclude Al-Azhar from undertaking any political role. This then continued for long decades. It has become clear that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar is appointed by the state, a fact that has restricted Al-Azhar institution from being an independent religious institution."

Abdul-Jalil continues: "In order to further restrict Al-Azhar, the House of Fatwa was established to share its role. This has led to an overlapping between the two posts of Egyptian Mufti, and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar. Perhaps this came to the fore in many of the stances adopted during the era of former Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, when he was Mufti. He found that the Al-Azhar leadership opposed many of his opinions, and hence when he became Sheikh of Al-Azhar he blocked the role of the House of Fatwa completely."

Sheikh Abdul-Jalil adds: "When the Egyptian revolution erupted, Al-Azhar, or its Learned Elders of Islam in general, did not have a vision of what might occur, and hence Al-Azhar did not participate in the events in a major way, even if some of its members, who also belong to other trends such as the Moslem Brüderbund or the Salafi movement, participated. They did not participate as members of Al-Azhar. It is true that they were wearing the Al-Azhar turban, but they did not speak in its name."

Abdul-Jalil stresses: "As an official institution, it was natural that Al-Azhar stood by the legitimate authority. The leaders of Al-Azhar have indicated as much, by saying that the change ought to take place according to specific controls, and through legitimate means. They were afraid that society would be exposed to the dangers that any Arab regime would face where there is dissent, and in doing so, Al-Azhar's role was limited."

Sheikh Abdul-Jalil said: "I hope that Al-Azhar will soon have full independence, in the sense that it becomes a religious institution, whether its role is educational, issuing fatwas, or Islamic Dawa. I hope that it will not be affiliated with the authorities or the regime, and will be free to issue fatwas according to Islamic code, and not according to the interests of the ruler or anyone else."

Dr Aminah Nusayr, professor of religion and philosophy at Al-Azhar University, stresses: "The reason for Al-Azhar's retreating influence is the preoccupation of the imams and preachers with the traditional method of preaching and guidance. This method is outdated, whilst the Salafi Islamic preachers, or the newly appointed Sheikhs, have managed to infiltrate the Egyptian and foreign domain. Thus, the Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam have lost their role and their status."

Dr Aminah Nusayr adds: "What happened to the Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam has in turn reflected on the political role of Al-Azhar. It no longer plays the vanguard role that it played during the past century, where we witnessed the strength of the Al-Azhar Sheikhs. At the time, Al-Azhar was the protector of the Egyptian people, and it inspired their revolutions."

Nusayr points out: "The institution was struck by weakness when the post of Sheikh of Al-Azhar became subject to government appointment. This has undermined the leading role of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, as he has become subservient to the state, which has blocked his role." Nusayr says: "Within this context, I remember the former Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, saying "I am an employee of the state," when he talked about a certain decree that was criticized as being instructed from the regime."

Dr Aminah explains: "For seven years, I have been calling for the post of Sheikh of Al-Azhar to be appointed through elections. This call has angered many of Al-Azhar's leaders. At that time I said: The selection of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar must be made by all Mohammedan Learned Elders of Islam, east and west, so that he becomes worthy of the title 'Imam of Mohammedans'." Nusayr adds: "When the Mohammedans select their own imam, this liberates him from any affiliation, or submission to the policy of the state."

Dr Aminah reveals: "Liberating the post of Sheikh of Al-Azhar would be a leading and significant development in Egypt. The Sheikh of Al-Azhar would abandon the administrative work that occupies a great deal of his time, and dedicate all his efforts to keeping pace with Mohammedan issues. He would focus on them together with the members of the Islamic Research Council, and would turn his main preoccupation to updating religious stances, in light of contemporary events."

Dr Muhammad Abdul-Munim al-Birri, chairman of the Al-Azhar Ulema Front, says: "We have been distanced from the religious arena, and from expressing our opinions regarding jurisprudence issues, because of the lack of freedom within Al-Azhar, and because it was considered some kind of taboo to oppose the opinions of Al-Azhar leaders."

Dr Al-Birri adds: "A change will only take place within Al-Azhar with the removal of the current leaders, in order to bring in leaders who agree with the mission of Islam, and the Koran. The appointment of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar must be undertaken by honest and sincere leaders."

The chairman of Al-Azhar Ulema Front points out: "The front has not been distanced from all the political issues that have been taking place in Egypt. For example, it denounced the prevention of veiled women from entering universities, or appearing on television."

Dr Al-Birri says: "The Al-Azhar Ulema Front did not hesitate to call on the Egyptians to join the demonstrations in Tahrir square, so the unjust would hear their voices. In doing so, the Front cleared its conscience before God Almighty, who does not accept the excuses of anyone who is hesitant in such matters. We told the protestors: Come out to punish the unjust before others come out; come out and mobilize, supported by God's promise to you, and out of the belief in this promise and in His Prophet, God's prayer and peace be upon him. What are you waiting for after your dignity has been maimed, your sanctities have been violated, your blood has been held cheap, your honor has been neglected, your will has been falsified, and your leaders have lied?"

Dr Al-Birri adds: "In a statement issued by the front, we said: Had it not been for the [government] crackdown imposed on us, which made us leave Egypt or stay in our homes, you would have seen us at the forefront, and at the head of the marches, joining the good and preventing the evil, in order to repel the harm that has become widespread."

Dr Al-Birri explains that following the overthrow of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Octogenarian Egyptian politician, prior to that air force commander. He served as the fourth President-for-Life of Egypt from 1981 to 2011. He assumed the presidency in 1981, following the liquidation of Anwar Sadat. He was dumped after 18 days of demonstrations, which at one point featured a camel charge by his supporters, during the 2011 Egyptian revolution. On 11 February, Vice President Suleiman announced that Mubarak had resigned in favor of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Mubarak and his family left the presidential palace by a side door and moved to Sharm el-Sheikh, while the new regime started trying to follow the money trail.
's regime, the front issued another statement in which it expressed its sincere congratulations to the people, saying: "The youth success in the January 25th revolution has warmed the hearts of the believers." The front called on "the Egyptians and all Mohammedans to turn a new leaf in obeying God Almighty."

On the other hand, Dr Muhammad Raafat Othman, former dean of Shariaa and Law College of Al-Azhar University, and member of Al-Azhar Islamic Research Council, defends the institution, by saying: "Al-Azhar has not been negligent in following up the events of the Egyptian revolution, and what took place before these events. The Islamic Research Council convened many extensive sessions to follow up the events. Al-Azhar stances have been very clear in criticizing the damaging acts undertaken by some, who infiltrated the revolutionary youths."

Dr Othman adds: "One of the most significant examples of our participation in the Egyptian revolution was the personal appearance of Al-Azhar's official front man, Ambassador Muhammad Rifaah al-Tahtawi, at the Tahrir Square demonstrations. Also we should not forget that the imam who led the Friday prayers following the fall of the Egyptian president was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Chairman of the International Association of Mohammedan Scholars, who is one of Al-Azhar's sons. Furthermore, many Sheikhs from Al-Azhar participated in the Tahrir Square demonstrations. This means that Al-Azhar was supporting the revolution, and not the regime."

Dr Othman admits: "During the previous period, Al-Azhar suffered some weaknesses. However,
The ever-popular However...
it is clear that it is regaining its strength in the current era. This needs time, and will take place through a number of stages, not in a single leap forward." Dr Othman stresses: "The overwhelming majority of Al-Azhar members support the steps adopted by Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib towards reform."

Dr Othman explains: "If some past eras have witnessed negative aspects of Al-Azhar's performance, with regards to its duties, no one now can criticize Al-Azhar's stances. Any media outlet or journalist, who asks the Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam to express their opinion about a political or social issue, finds that the Learned Elders of Islam do not hesitate for a single second to express their opinions."

Islamic thinker Dr Muhammad Imarah, member of the Islamic Research Council, comments: "The situation in Al-Azhar is improving now, and Dr Ahmad al-Tayyib has taken a clear stance toward the events of the Libyan revolution."

Dr Muhammad Wahdan, professor at Al-Azhar University, stresses: "During its long history, which extends for more than 1,000 years, Al-Azhar has been the protector of the country, and the source from which revolutions have stemmed." Wahdan says: "The stances of Al-Azhar toward the Egyptian revolution have been clear."

Dr Wahdan also explained why the Sheikh of Al-Azhar delayed the announcement of his stance toward the revolution: "He was studying the issue from all aspects. He was concerned for the security of the citizens, for the safety of the country, and for the demonstrators." He also gave an example to illustrate his point: "A skillful carpenter measures seven times, but saws only once." Dr Wahdan adds: "As for the Libyan revolution, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar issued a clear stance, and he immediately denounced what Colonel Muammar Qadaffy
... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule...
did to his people."

Dr Wahdan points out: "Those who claim that Al-Azhar has been absent are enemies the institution. The Al-Azhar Learned Elders of Islam are characterized by their moderation and tolerance, and some groups and tendencies in Egypt cannot bear hearing its name, because the existence of Al-Azhar stands as an obstacle in front of their evil aims." Wahdan stresses: "Slandering Al-Azhar is not in the interest of Islam. Those who attack Al-Azhar should go to any country other than Egypt, and then they would know the value of Al-Azhar and its Learned Elders of Islam."

For its part, the Al-Azhar Supreme Council has issued a statement saying that: "Because of what has been noted, over the current period, regarding the rise of some voices from outside Al-Azhar, and by some people who do not belong to Al-Azhar, attacking the institution, its organizations, and its symbols, the council announces to all that the issue of Al-Azhar has been, and still is, of concern only to the Learned Elders of Islam working within Al-Azhar for the past 1050 years. They are the ones capable of leading the institution, and developing it."

The statement, of which Asharq Al-Awsat has obtained a copy, says: "The Al-Azhar Supreme Council announces to all that its Learned Elders of Islam are capable and qualified before God, and before the nation, to lead this ancient institution, manage its affairs, and conduct the necessary amendments to the legal and administrative procedures so that Al-Azhar can undertake its scientific and spiritual duties, which it has been performing for more than 1,000 years, as the greatest international rostrum of Islam, its science, and its civilization."

In its statement, the Al-Azhar Supreme Council urges "the press and all media apparatuses to ascertain the truth of what they relay and publish about Al-Azhar, and its symbols, who are the people who know best the requirements and needs of this great Islamic authority, in order to undertake its domestic and international mission. This mission stems from the role of Al-Azhar in the history of Islam and Mohammedans, its national and international role, and from the fact that Al-Azhar represents the greatest Islamic scientific authority, and conveys to people of the world the cultural and religious message of Islam, with tolerance and moderation, and without fanaticism or politicization."
Link


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Israel to negotiate with al-Qaradawi?
2011-02-27
[Asharq al-Aswat] The above title is not meant to arouse excitement, nor is this a joke currently doing the rounds, but rather this is a proposal put forward by former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who has called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to open a dialogue with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Halevy proposed this after al-Qaradawi gave his most recent Friday sermon in Cairo, and perhaps even after al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa calling on the people of Libya to kill Colonel Qadaffy.

It seems that the Israelis believe that al-Qaradawi has become a decision-maker in Egypt and the Arab world, believing that he has become the Supreme Guide of the [Sunni] Islamic world. This plays down or indeed ignores the reality of the situation, and the Moslem Brüderbund long ago clarified their position with regards to dealing with Israel, and they only use Israel to mobilize the Arab street, or blackmail Arab regimes, including the former Egyptian regime. Therefore, how can we explain the Moslem Brüderbund's statements following the ousting of the Hosni Mubarak regime? Commenting on the Camp David Agreement, one Moslem Brüderbund group member stated that there is no disagreement, or criticism of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel [on the part of the Moslem Brüderbund]. This agreement has been signed and so it is binding. This was the public position of the Moslem Brüderbund after Mubarak stepped down, and this of course, is nothing more than political hypocrisy.

If the Israelis believe that Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's sermon last Friday in Egypt was evidence of his influence and popularity then they are mistakenly reading the situation in the country, for he is merely jumping on the bandwagon, and this is something that many components of Egyptian society are aware of. Whereas if the former Mossad chief's call for dialogue with Sheikh al-Qaradawi is based upon the Sheikh's fatwa calling for the death of Colonel Muammar Qadaffy
... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule...
, then this is also impulsive, for what positions has al-Qaradawi taken against Qadaffy over the past decade? For Qadaffy has been a friend of Sheikh al-Qaradawi, and indeed the Al Jizz television channel, over the years. Through a simple search of the YouTube video-sharing website, one will find that the Qatari Al Jizz television channel is the Arab television channel which most broadcasts Qadaffy's speeches and interviews. This is something that Al Jizz has done for a long period of time; granting Qadaffy air-time to attack whoever he wants, and say whatever he likes. Where was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi during this period, especially as Colonel Qadaffy is not a new member of the dictator's club, but has ruled Libya for 42 years?

Of course, what has happened in the past does not mean that we reject the issue of Israel opening dialogue with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for first and foremost this is up to him, and he is in the best position to decide this for himself. Rather, what is meant by this article is to clarify the situation for the readers, for it seems that the disciples of the Moslem Brüderbund and the students of Sheikh al-Qaradawi, have become bolder these days, especially after what happened in Egypt, and following the fatwa of their Sheikh calling for the liquidation of Qadaffy. They consider this [the liquidation of Qadaffy] to be a moral act, as if the law imposed upon the Arab world is a life for a life, and a crime for a crime! It is as there are no courts where the accused can be brought to justice, whether we are talking about ordinary people or leaders. We have never heard of cases being brought to court giving people permission to kill somebody, this is a completely new and unprecedented issue!
Link


Africa North
Gaddafi ready for Libya's Day of Rage
2011-02-10
[Asharq al-Aswat] Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadaffy
... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule...
has dealt with the calls being issued by the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition [NCLO] and Libyan [political] activists for a Libyan "Day of Rage" to take place on 17 February, modeled on similar events in Tunisia and Egypt, by issuing an unprecedented warnings against any attempts to create chaos and instability in Libya.

In the last few days, Qadaffy privately met with Libyan political activists, journalists, and media figures and he issued severe warnings that these professions would be held responsible should they participate in any way in disturbing the peace or creating chaos in Libya. This was a source of frustration to those who attended these meetings and who had expected Qadaffy to inform them of his intention to carry out important political and economic reforms.
Why on earth would they expect even an "intention"?
The opposition "Libya Al-Youm" website that is based in London quoted eye-witnesses who attended these meetings with Qadaffy, reporting that Qadaffy addressed the audience -- the majority of whom were from cities in eastern Libya -- in a tone of warning against the consequences of participating in any potential disturbances.

This represents the first official Libyan response to concerns about the opposition's calls for a "Day of Rage" on 17 February 2011, the anniversary of previous anti-Qadaffy protests in 2006. In these meetings which took place amidst a media blackout, Qadaffy -- who has been in power since 1969 -- also spoke about the problems that the cities of Benghazi, Al Bayda, Darna, and Tobruk, are suffering from, particularly those of neglect, the collapse of infrastructure, unemployment, and corruption.
And whose fault is that, pray tell?
Sources who attended these secret meetings revealed that Qadaffy expressed his concern and anger about what is happening in Egypt, and said that the Libyan leader particularly stressed his anger towards the Al Jizz channel and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for inciting the Egyptians to turn against Mubarak. Qadaffy reportedly asked "why doesn't Qaradawi incite [people] against the US military bases in the Gulf?"
A very good question. Perhaps because the US military bases aren't oppressing them?
Commenting on the popular uprising that is calling for Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's resignation and the toppling of his regime, sources who attended these meetings say that Qadaffy described Mubarak as being "poor" and not even owning the price of the clothes he was wearing. Qadaffy also claimed that Libya is providing Mubarak with [financial] support, and accused the Israeli Mossad of being behind the current unrest in Egypt.

Qadaffy also reportedly defended his friend and ally former Tunisian President Zing El Abidine Ben Ali, saying "the Tunisians hate him because his wife is a Trabelsi [maiden name; meaning from Tripoli]." Qadaffy criticized the revolution that was carried out by the people of Tunisia and the toppling of Ben Ali's regime, before moving away form this and stressing his concern at the return of security and stability to Tunisia.

Libyan activists have claimed that the Libyan intelligence service has been carrying out a large-scale campaign to shut down Libyan websites based outside of the country due to their ongoing coverage of the situation in Libya.

The NCLO has called for mass protests to take place inside and outside of Libya on the anniversary of the 17 February 2006 uprisings in the city of Benghazi where protests against the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad were transformed into mass demonstrations against Qadaffy and his regime, resulting in the death of dozens of protestors and the injury of many more.
What a charmingly passive voice sentence. Nobody actually did the killing or injuring, it just -- somehow -- happened.
In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, the NCLO said that all Libyan internal and external oppositional forces intend to carry out protests and demonstrations at various levels against Qadaffy and his regime on the anniversary of the 17 February 2006 protests. The NCLO official also told Asharq Al-Awsat that he hoped that the people of Libya had learned from the victory of the Tunisian popular uprising.
Link


Home Front: Politix
What You Can't Say About Islamism
2010-07-11
American intellectuals won't face up to Muslim radicalism's Nazi past.

In our present Age of the Zipped Lip, you are supposed to avoid making any of the following inconvenient observations about the history and doctrines of the Islamist movement:

You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and '40s.

You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide.

And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a discreet and respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have succeeded in imposing on the rest of us their own categories of analysis.

Or so I have argued in my recent book, "The Flight of the Intellectuals." But am I right? I glance with pleasure at some harsh reviews, convinced that here, in the worst of them, is my best confirmation.

No one disputes that the Nazis collaborated with several Islamist leaders. Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, orated over Radio Berlin to the Middle East. The mufti's strongest supporter in the region was Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna, too, spoke well of Hitler. But there is no consensus on how to interpret those old alliances and their legacy today.

Tariq Ramadan, the Islamic philosopher at Oxford, is Banna's grandson, and he argues that his grandfather was an upstanding democrat. In Mr. Ramadan's interpretation, everything the Islamists did in the past ought to be viewed sympathetically in, as Mr. Ramadan says, "context"—as logical expressions of anticolonial geopolitics, and nothing more. Reviews in Foreign Affairs, the National Interest and the New Yorker—the principal critics of my book—have just now spun variations on Mr. Ramadan's interpretation.

The piece in Foreign Affairs insists that, to the mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler was merely a "convenient ally," and it is "ludicrous" to imagine a deeper sort of alliance. Those in the National Interest and the New Yorker add that, in the New Yorker's phrase, "unlikely alliances" with Nazis were common among anticolonialists.

The articles point to some of Gandhi's comrades, and to a faction of the Irish Republican Army, and even to a lone dimwitted Zionist militant back in 1940, who believed for a moment that Hitler could be an ally against the British. But these various efforts to minimize the significance of the Nazi-Islamist alliance ignore a mountain of documentary evidence, some of it discovered last year in the State Department archives by historian Jeffrey Herf, revealing links that are genuinely profound.

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion," said the mufti of Jerusalem on Radio Berlin in 1944. And the mufti's rhetoric goes on echoing today in major Islamist manifestos such as the Hamas charter and in the popular television oratory of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a revered scholar in the eyes of Tariq Ramadan: "Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one." Foreign Affairs, the National Interest and the New Yorker have expended nearly 12,000 words in criticizing "Flight of the Intellectuals." And yet, though the book hinges on a series of such genocidal quotations, not one of those journals has found sufficient space to reproduce even a single phrase.

Why not? It is because a few Hitlerian quotations from Islamist leaders would make everything else in those magazine essays look ridiculous—the argument in the Foreign Affairs review, for instance, that Qaradawi ought to be viewed as a crowd-pleasing champion of "centrism," and Hamas merits praise as a "moderate" movement and a "firewall against radicalization."

The New Yorker is the only one of these magazines to reflect even briefly on anti-Semitism. But it does so by glancing away from my own book and, instead, chastising Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch champion of liberal values. In the New Yorker's estimation, Hirsi Ali's admiration of the philosopher Voltaire displays an ignorant failure on her part to recognize that, hundreds of years ago, even the greatest of liberals thought poorly of the Jews. And Ms. Hirsi Ali's denunciations of women's oppression in the Muslim immigrant districts of present-day London displays a failure to recognize that, long ago, immigrant Jews suffered oppression in those same districts.

But this reeks of bad faith. Ms. Hirsi Ali is one of the world's most eloquent enemies of the Islamist movement. She makes a point of singling out Islamist anti-Semitism. And the anti-Semites have singled her out in return.

Six years ago, an Islamist fanatic murdered Ms. Hirsi Ali's filmmaking colleague, Theo van Gogh, and left behind a death threat, pinned with a dagger to the dead man's torso, denouncing Ms. Hirsi Ali as an agent of Jewish conspirators. And yet, the New Yorker, in the course of an essay presenting various excuses for the Islamist-Nazi alliance of yesteryear, has the gall to explain that, if anyone needs a lecture on the history of anti-Semitism, it's Ms. Hirsi Ali!

Such is the temper of our moment. Some of the intellectuals are indisputably in flight—eager to sneer at outspoken liberals from Muslim backgrounds, and reluctant to speak the truth about the Islamist reality.
Link


Olde Tyme Religion
An Evening with Tariq Ramadan
2010-04-10
[B]y the time my turn came, the general picture was surprisingly, reassuringly bright: reconciling Islamic faith with liberal values is easy; the views of Muslims are basically the same as everyone else's; the oppression of Muslim women is a third-order issue. It struck me that, in an event sponsored by groups whose whole purpose is a commitment to freedom of thought and expression (PEN, the A.C.L.U., and others), no one had said a word about the many threats to it in countries where Muslims constitute the majority, or where some Muslims who are in the minority refuse to accept it. And yet every day the news brings us such stories, so that they've become numbingly familiar.

I asked Ramadan two questions. The first was historical: drawing from a chapter in Paul Berman's forthcoming book “The Flight of the Intellectuals', I described the relationship between Ramadan's grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and a Nazi ally who made a series of genocidal broadcasts on an Arabic radio program transmitted from wartime Berlin, urging Arabs to rise up and kill Jews. I cited quotations from al-Banna expressing pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic views; I quoted Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a follower of al-Banna who is a hugely popular TV preacher on Al Jazeera, expressing similar views. And I asked Ramadan why he had never acknowledged, let alone condemned, these things.

My second question was philosophical: I wanted to know if Ramadan believed that rights are inherent in human beings or must be granted by the authority of religious texts—and, if the latter, what happens when, for example, freedom of speech collides with the injunction against blasphemy?

We didn't have time to air fully the second question. But on the first, Ramadan and I went back and forth a number of times. And he couldn't give me a direct answer. He hedged, he spoke about context, he suggested that the quotes were mistranslated, that they didn't actually exist. But he refused to acknowledge that his grandfather and the Muslim Brotherhood in its origins were characterized by anti-Semitic or totalitarian views. It seemed clear that there was a limit to what he would allow himself to say or think, and that I had found it.

Weisberg had asked me at the outset whether I thought Ramadan said different things to different audiences, and whether I thought he evaded hard questions about the conflicts between the open society and fundamentalism. On the first, I said no—he has no hidden agenda, he's an open book, and it's essentially moderate. On the second, I said I wasn't sure and hoped to find out. By the end of the evening, I knew the answer. Ramadan is building a worthy bridge on a rotten foundation.
Link


Arabia
IslamOnline: What Moderation?
2010-03-27
The future of the IslamOnline website [IOL] remains unclear. The assurances made by the website's administration, as well as those by its spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, have failed to dispel the ambiguities that have arisen as a result of the latest crisis. The IOL staff staged a sit-in at the IOL offices in Egypt in protest against unfair managerial decisions that they described as unjust. This protest was aimed at the al-Balagh Cultural Society, which is the Qatar-based financial sponsor of IOL.

Analysis on the background and causes behind the crisis at the world's most popular Islamic website vary. Some believe that behind the crisis is an Egyptian-Qatari dispute over the management of the website. While others believe the crisis is due to the disturbance over the site taking a more hard-line and conservative approach. A third group even believes that this may have something to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the US has played an undisclosed role in this crisis.

Whatever the case may be, this is a crisis that raises a question that relates to all aspects of Islam in the post-9/11 era; what kind of media for what kind of Islam after more than a decade of crises where politicians, philosophers, and activists have explored and analyzed everything connected to Islam to the point that the media is leaning towards irrational fear rather than towards research and knowledge?

It goes without saying that we live in a world that has grown more obsessed about religion and its interconnection with politics. Perhaps Islam, following the spread of armed Jihadist groups, has become the chief but not the sole subject of such controversy. Religion has become a global obsession as religious groups and sects have started to bring all their concerns to the internet. The internet, which is the most important invention in modern times, has allowed for the revival of religion. Religion is no longer about outdated ceremonies and tales that have no connection to their surroundings. The internet has increased the opportunity for there to be meetings and dialogue between groups, which we never imagined before and the internet has also contributed to the isolation of groups and trends that have become overly focused and centred on their websites. IOL presents itself as a site that presents Islam and Islamic issues around the world. So is the controversy at IOL an internal Islamic controversy?

Who can specify the identity of IOL?! Who can identify the kind of Islam this website presents to its audience?

This matter has been subject to as much debate as the idea of confronting Islamic extremism with moderation...in some cases the site presents issues in a moderate context, but in other cases IOL presents issues in an extremist manner.

Who sets the standards for moderation or extremism here?

It is obvious that we need some kind of measuring system that we are already lacking. The bottom line is that IOL is suffering a setback, but the discussion surrounding this is unclear and is taking place behind closed doors. Perhaps what we need is a measure of transparency in order to discover what kind of controversy has taken place at IOL, and this is something that we definitely need to order to state that IOL is a moderate site.
Link


Olde Tyme Religion
Al Qaradawi and Al Qaradawi Mania
2010-01-17
In most cases, a religious scholar cannot give preference to one political party over another or interfere in political affairs, using his immunity and status to do so, without actually inflicting harm on the political status quo and the reputation of religion.

One clear example of this is Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, a prominent contemporary Muslim scholar and the "Jurist of the Sahwa" [Islamic Awakening] as described by the researcher Mutaz al Khatib in his book recently reviewed by intellect Radwan al Sayyed in Al Hayat newspaper.

Al Qaradawi recently became involved in a number of political crises. In one of his Friday sermons that he delivered in Doha, which have transformed into a weekly political statement, he attacked Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and sided with Hamas. In fact he even called for punishing Abbas by stoning him to death before moving on to address the Egypt-Gaza border issue. He issued a Fatwa [religious ruling] a few days ago saying that Egypt's plan to build an iron wall along its border with the Gaza Strip is "prohibited according to Islamic Shariah." In response, members of the Islamic Research Academy in Al Azhar issued a Fatwa that invalidated al Qaradawi's Fatwa.

How are we supposed to deal with Sheikh al Qaradawi's opinions? Should we consider them religious edicts that are supported by concrete religious evidence or as mere political standpoints that could change in accordance with ever-changing policies?

Without doubt, they are clearly political standpoints and not Fatwas that have any kind of authority. However, the masses, or let us say the majority of the people, do not look at these views as personal opinions of a political activist called Yusuf al Qaradawi, but rather as instructions given by a great Muslim scholar and jurist. The danger of this lies in the consequences of religious scholars getting involved in political disputes.

It stems from the nature of Sheikh al Qaradawi's political and intellectual formation that is shaped by the theories of the Muslim Brotherhood. But we are under no obligation here to go along with his experience.

Sheikh al Qaradawi is not the only one combining religion with politics; rather let's say that it is a certain interpretation of religion. But there are sheikhs and muftis who disagree with al Qaradawi, the rest of the Sahwa jurists and the Islamists. For example there is Khomeinist Iran, and in Iraq religion, politics and spite have all been mixed together where Sunni and Shia religious figures carried out roles that further compounded the crisis. Talking about Iraq, we all know the magnitude of sectarian violence in that country and the extent to which key political players harbour anger and hostility against one another; even a secular figure like Ahmed Chalabi is hiding behind the cloak of Grand Ayatollah al Sistani, the highest-ranking Shia Marja in Iraq, whilst other Sunnis are calling in their Sheikhs from here, there and everywhere. The current Shia strategy in Iraq plays on evoking fear among the Sunnis and prolonging that fear. That is why the statement made by Saudi religious preacher Mohamed al Arifi against Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani at the beginning of a heated electoral season was ill timed. Al Arifi's statement became material for the election campaigns of Shia parties and to them it was a gift from above. I don't think that this is what al Arifi intended, nevertheless this is what happened.

Saudi Arabia is in the line of fire with regards to electoral propaganda of Shia parties. Needless to say, attempting to belittle religious icons in any society is absolutely unacceptable. However, this should not stand in the way of giving constructive criticism.

I wish our scholars and preachers would calm down a little and focus on explaining jurisprudence and reviving the moral principles of faith rather than getting involved in political wrangling.
Link


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Qaradawi: Abbas must be stoned if proven guilty
2010-01-10
Doha-based Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi says if it is proven that acting Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas instigated the Israeli war against Gaza, he must be stoned.

"During the debate raised over the Goldstone UN report which accused Israel of war crimes against Gaza, there were reports that Abbas encouraged Israel to launch its offensive against Gaza," Qaradawi said as he delivered a Friday sermon at Doha's Omar bin al-Khattab mosque.

"There also were reports that he stalled a vote on the report by the UN Human Rights Council," said the Egyptian scholar, who is a Qatari citizen, as well.

"The Arab League should investigate the matter, and if it is proven that Abbas instigated the Israeli war against Gaza, he deserves to be publicly stoned in Mecca because this would be a betrayal on his part," he added.

However, Qaradawi pointed out that he was not issuing a religious ruling (fatwa), but simply calling on the Arab league, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and certain other unbiased parties to conduct a probe.

"I did not issue a fatwa. I am not a judge or investigator," he stated, rejecting a contrary claim made by the acting Palestinian Authority Chief.

Abbas accused Qaradawi of issuing such a fatwa, while speaking to members of the Qatari media during a visit he paid to the Persian Gulf littoral state last week.
Link


Olde Tyme Religion
Al-Qaradawi's Fatwa
2009-09-15
I do not know if what has been attributed to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is true; in any case we have become accustomed to the politicization of religious fatwas. A news item reported in the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper revealed that Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi had issued a fatwa prohibiting Iraqis from acquiring US citizenship on the grounds that this is the nationality of an occupier nation. However this fatwa has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, and contains more political absurdity then it does religious guidance. Sheikh al-Qaradawi himself is an Egyptian who possesses Qatari nationality, which was given to him after he opposed the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However when an Israeli office was opened in Doha, al-Qaradawi did not renounce his Qatari nationality. This is a personal issue that does not concern us as much as we are concerned with the usage of religion, especially the weapon of the fatwa, in highly politicized cases.

Perhaps Sheikh al-Qaradawi would be right to resort to the dangerous weapon of fatwas if there were a large number of citizens being granted naturalization, or if there were forced relocations to America, or if the Iraqi nationality was being revoked, but none of this is happening. In fact, the opposite is true, for of the thousands of Iraqi citizens who queue up to apply for visas to Western countries, only a few are granted. Therefore obtaining US or European citizenship is not -- as Sheikh al-Qaradawi imagines- easy, but rather is a difficult process that is rarely granted to applicants. This is even more difficult for the Iraqis due to the large number of Iraqi refugees, including those seeking asylum abroad. The British Foreign Ministry raised the issue of repatriating its Iraqi refugees, as did the majority of Western countries. This is opposite to what Sheikh al-Qaradawi seems to think [with regards to Western countries wanting to naturalize Iraqi citizens]. These states are full of refugees and immigrants, and they offer financial incentives for them to return to their countries of origin.

After the US announced their withdrawal from the Iraqi cities earlier this year, a group of Iraqi interpreters [who worked for the US army] asked to be given visas and employment in the US on the grounds that they feared reprisal attacks following the withdrawal of US troops, however only a few interpreters were granted with visas. Similarly, the international organizations that seek to aid Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan by helping them to secure asylum in foreign countries have failed to do so with regards to the US.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More