Archive for the ‘Theocracy’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
Newer Entries »

It’s Not Just Islam, It’s the Tribal Mentality

March 12, 2015

It’s Not Just Islam, It’s the Tribal Mentality, Front Page Magazine, , March 12, 2015

fft-450x253

Islam in part is the “theologizing” of the tribal mentality. Islam’s important innovation was to redefine the “tribe” as the whole umma of believers, creating in effect a “super tribe” that transcends mere blood as the bonding agent. But the tribal warrior ethos persists–– in the doctrine of jihad, tribal atrocities in contemporary terror and its gruesome videos, the privileging of men in polygamy, honor killings, and social restrictions on women, the disdain for the infidel “other” in the Koranic belief that Muslims are the “best of nations,” the betrayal of alliances in the religious sanction of lying to infidels (taqiyya), and the obsession with “honor” that today we find in violent Muslim reactions to “blasphemy” against Mohammed or the Koran.

Ignoring the tribal mentality is as dangerous for our foreign policy as downplaying Islamic doctrine.

The Obama administration’s serial appeasement of Iran––currently the “strongest tribe” spreading its influence throughout the region–– has damaged our prestige among allies like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who are already shopping around for a more reliable and forceful partner. If we want to destroy the jihadists, check Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and protect our interests, we must again become the “strongest tribe.”

********************

The “nothing to do with Islam” mantra took a hit recently in one of the premier organs of liberal received wisdom, The Atlantic. Many have greeted as a revelation Graeme Wood’s article on the Islamic doctrines behind ISIS’s atrocities. Regular readers of FrontPage and Jihad Watch will not be as impressed. For years they have understood the link between jihadism and Islam. In 1994 Andy McCarthy made this connection when he prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing the previous year, a connection that the FBI ignored or discounted at the time––a failure, by the way, that has become a pernicious tradition for those charged with protecting our nation’s security and interests. For everyone else who has been paying attention to the rise of modern jihadism, Wood’s article is a dog bites man story.

One can hope that perhaps now, with the truth revealed by one of the Acela corridor’s oracles, the jihad deniers will wise up, though I wouldn’t bet on it. Unexamined opinions comprise the bulk of the progressive mind, and are notoriously resistant to empirical evidence and sound argument. But the current mess in the Middle East results from more than just Islam and its traditional belligerence, supremacist pretensions, and illiberal religious laws and doctrines. These characteristics reflect variations on the mentality of the tribe, one antithetical to modernity and the principles of liberal democracy, and still powerful in the Middle East, the region once described as “tribes with flags.”

For all the differences among tribal peoples, the components of this mentality are consistent, from the ancient Gauls and Germans Caesar conquered and the Vikings terrorizing much of Europe, to the American Indians the U.S. Cavalry fought and the jihadist gangs rampaging in the Middle East.

First, there is little notion of a common humanity that transcends ethnicity or culture. Universal principles are scarce, and personal identity is found solely in the collective customs and traditions of the tribe. Outsiders are to be distrusted, plundered, or conquered when possible. Loyalty is not to principle, but to blood. Most tribal peoples consider their tribe the acme of humanity, the only genuine humans. Hence their word for “human” is usually identical to the name of their tribe. They are literally ethnocentric.

Second, violence, particularly against outsiders, is an acceptable instrument for resolving conflict and asserting tribal superiority. Not just the violence of war, but also the cruel torture and slaughter of outsiders, including women and children, are legitimate for serving the interests of the tribe. Indeed, what we call terrorism was a tactic of tribal warfare to prevent a full-scale war by so terrorizing enemies that they would give up without a fight, a phenomenon common in the various Indian wars of American history. Hence the scary face-paint, tattoos, war cries, bizarre hairstyles, tortures like scalping, mutilation of enemies, or slaughter of their women and children, all of which are meant to frighten and demoralize the enemy. The same intent explains the blustering threats, braggadocio, and insults typical of tribal warfare and diplomacy. These practices can be documented in tribal societies from the Iroquois to the ancient Gauls.

Next, loyalty in tribal societies counts only for those within the tribe. Alliances with other tribes or peoples are ad hoc and contingent on the immediate interests of the tribe. They can be abandoned or betrayed if circumstances or perceptions change. Moreover, respect for others beyond the tribe is based solely on their capacity to inflict violence on their enemies. The “strongest tribe,” a status based on its effectiveness and success in conflict, will attract allies, who will abandon the hegemon once it loses that perception of its strength. Thus during Caesar’s wars in Gaul various Gallic and Germanic tribes would ally with the Romans when they appeared dominant, and betray them in an instant if they thought them weak. Likewise during the U.S. Cavalry’s wars against the Plains Indians, many tribes victimized by the Sioux or Apache or Cheyenne would ally with the Americans if they seemed to be winning, then switch sides the moment they seemed weak.

Finally, tribal societies are centered on the male warrior and his honor. Forget the Women’s Studies fantasies of matriarchal tribal societies. Tribal cultures privilege males, for men fight, and the survival and honor of the tribe depends on martial valor. Women bear children and work, as the skeletons of pre-contact American Indian remains demonstrate. Female bones show much more damage from hard physical labor than do male. This doesn’t mean that women had no status within the tribe, or did not enjoy somewhat more equality than women in more sophisticated civilizations. But warrior males still dominated, and culture in the main centered on men and their prowess in war, which earned honor, what we call prestige, for the whole tribe.

Sound familiar? It should, for Islam in part is the “theologizing” of the tribal mentality. Islam’s important innovation was to redefine the “tribe” as the whole umma of believers, creating in effect a “super tribe” that transcends mere blood as the bonding agent. But the tribal warrior ethos persists–– in the doctrine of jihad, tribal atrocities in contemporary terror and its gruesome videos, the privileging of men in polygamy, honor killings, and social restrictions on women, the disdain for the infidel “other” in the Koranic belief that Muslims are the “best of nations,” the betrayal of alliances in the religious sanction of lying to infidels (taqiyya), and the obsession with “honor” that today we find in violent Muslim reactions to “blasphemy” against Mohammed or the Koran.

Ignoring the tribal mentality is as dangerous for our foreign policy as downplaying Islamic doctrine. The chronic disorder in northern Iraq today is not just about the Sunni-Shi’a divide, or ISIS’s dream of a caliphate. It also reflects the bewildering number of tribes and clans in the region, whose complex alliances and enmities continually shift depending on circumstances and the perceptions of which tribe is the stronger. Our ally today can instantly become our enemy tomorrow. Factions that appear “moderate” today can become jihadist terrorists tomorrow. Our “friends” will tell us what we want to hear today, and then betray their words tomorrow. Most important, anything we do that creates the perception of weakness––especially concessions, or failure to inflict revenge, or acts of mercy––will also damage our prestige as the “strongest tribe” and invite tribes to abandon us.

These tribal practices defined most peoples, including Europeans, before the advent of modernity. They have survived among Middle Eastern Muslims because they were encoded in religious doctrines that promise global power for the tribe of the faithful in this life, and paradise in the next, especially for jihadist warriors. This amalgamation in part explains the spectacular success of Muslim warriors for a 1000 years, a record of martial achievement the memory of which today fuels the resentment and anger of those Muslims who wish to restore that lost honor. It also contributes to the difficulty of many Muslim societies to reconcile with modernity, particularly liberal democracy and its cargo of human rights, confessional tolerance, and equality for women and those of other faiths.

Of course, worldwide millions of Muslims have managed to transcend tribalism and adjust their faith to modernity. But millions more haven’t, and it is they who are fomenting most of the mayhem and murder on every continent except Antarctica. Our tactics and strategies in confronting this threat must indeed be based on a correct understanding of the spiritual imperatives that motivate the jihadists. But they also must take into account the tribal mentalities that respect force and honor the strong.

The Obama administration’s serial appeasement of Iran––currently the “strongest tribe” spreading its influence throughout the region–– has damaged our prestige among allies like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who are already shopping around for a more reliable and forceful partner. If we want to destroy the jihadists, check Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and protect our interests, we must again become the “strongest tribe.”

Categories: Caliphate, Diplomacy, Egypt, Foreign policy, History, International Community, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Israel, Jordan, Middle East, Moderate rebels, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Theocracy, Tribal mentality
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Gives Sisi the Netanyahu Treatment

March 12, 2015

Obama Gives Sisi the Netanyahu Treatment, Commentary Magazine, , March 11, 2015

[O]ne of the major changes that took place on President Obama’s watch was a conscious decision to downgrade relations with Cairo, a nation that his predecessors of both parties had recognized as a lynchpin of U.S. interests in the region. The current weapons supply squeeze is not only a blow to the efforts of a nation that is actually willing to fight ISIS and other Islamist terrorists; it’s a statement about what it means to be an American ally in the age of Obama.

******************************

In a Middle East where Islamist terror groups and the Iranian regime and its allies have been on the offensive in recent years, the one bright spot for the West in the region (other, that is, than Israel) is the way Egypt has returned to its old role as a bulwark of moderation and opposition to extremism. The current government led by former general Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has clamped down on Hamas terrorists and has been willing to deploy its armed forces to fight ISIS in Libya while also clamping down on a Muslim Brotherhood movement that seeks to transform Egypt into another Islamist state. Yet despite this, the Obama administration is unhappy with Egypt. Much to Cairo’s consternation, the United States is squeezing its government on the military aid it needs to fight ISIS in Libya and Sinai terrorists. As the Israeli government has already learned to its sorrow, the Egyptians now understand that being an ally of the United States is a lot less comfortable position than to be a foe like Iran.

The ostensible reason for the holdup in aid is that the Egyptian government is a human-rights violator. Those concerns are accurate. Sisi’s government has been ruthless in cracking down on the same Muslim Brotherhood faction that was running the country until a popular coup brought it down in the summer of 2013. But contrary to the illusions of an Obama administration that hastened the fall of Hosni Mubarak and then foolishly embraced his Muslim Brotherhood successors, democracy was never one of the available options in Egypt.

The choice in Egypt remains stark. It’s either going to be run by Islamists bent on taking the most populous Arab country down the dark road of extremism or by a military regime that will keep that from happening. The obvious Western choice must be the latter, and Sisi has turned out to be an even better ally than Washington could have dreamed of, as he ensured that the Brotherhood would not return to power, took on Hamas in Gaza, and even made public calls for Muslims to turn against religious extremists.

But rather than that endearing him to the administration, this outstanding record has earned Sisi the Netanyahu treatment. Indeed, like other moderate Arab leaders in the Middle East, Sisi understands that President Obama has no great love for his country’s allies. Besotted as he is by the idea of bringing Iran in from the cold, the American government has allied itself with Tehran in the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria. He also understands that both of those ongoing wars were made far worse by the president’s dithering for years, a stance that may well have been motivated by a desire to avoid antagonizing Iran by seeking to topple their Syrian ally.

But those issues notwithstanding, one of the major changes that took place on President Obama’s watch was a conscious decision to downgrade relations with Cairo, a nation that his predecessors of both parties had recognized as a lynchpin of U.S. interests in the region. The current weapons supply squeeze is not only a blow to the efforts of a nation that is actually willing to fight ISIS and other Islamist terrorists; it’s a statement about what it means to be an American ally in the age of Obama.

As the Times of Israel reported:

On Monday Sisi was asked what he and the other Arab allies thought of U.S. leadership in the region. It is hard to put his response in words, mainly due to his prolonged silence.

“Difficult question,” he said after some moments, while his body language expressed contempt and disgust. “The suspending of US equipment and arms was an indicator for the public that the United States is not standing by the Egyptians.”

It turns out that although the American administration recently agreed to provide the Egyptian Air Force with Apache attack helicopters; it has been making it increasingly difficult for Cairo to make additional military purchases.

For example, the U.S. is delaying the shipment of tanks, spare parts and other weapons that the army desperately needs in its war against Islamic State.

This development raises serious questions not only about U.S.-Egyptian relations but the administration’s vision for the region.

This is, after all, a time when the administration is going all out to make common cause with Iran, an open enemy that is currently the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. President Obama is pursuing a diplomatic arrangement that will strengthen the Iranian regime and guarantee the survival of a nuclear program that moderate Arabs see as being as much of a threat to them as it is to Israel or the West.

The Egyptians understand that Washington isn’t interested in their friendship. Nor is the administration particularly supportive of Cairo’s efforts to rein in Hamas or to fight ISIS. Indeed, the Egyptians are now experiencing the same sort of treatment that has heretofore been reserved for the Israelis. That’s especially true in light of the arms resupply cutoff against Israel Obama ordered during last summer’s war in Gaza.

Despite flirting with Russia, Egypt may, like Israel, have no real alternative to the United States as an ally. Perhaps that’s why Obama takes it for granted. But if the U.S. is serious about fighting ISIS as opposed to just talking about it, Washington will have to start treating Egypt and its military as a priority rather than an embarrassment.

Categories: Diplomacy, Egypt, Foreign policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Hamas, Human rights, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Netanyahu, Obama, P5+1, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama’s Surrender to Iran

March 12, 2015

Obama’s Surrender to Iran, Front Page Magazine, , March 12, 2015

obama-iran

Iran, therefore, needs nuclear weapons to protect itself should it fail to derail Obama’s ambitious plans. Should the Pan Arabic (Sunni) Islamic Union become a reality, the Iranian rulers believe that having the capability of ushering in Armageddon will keep the Sunni’s at bay.

At the very least, the Mullahs in Iran rest better knowing, should they fall, that they can take everyone else down with them. Think “mutually-assured destruction.” A sort of “MAD” amongst madmen.

***************************

It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s agenda in the Middle East is to help the Islamists regain the land they once controlled but lost in 1924 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Arab Spring was not a movement to replace ruthless dictators with democratic governments. It was an Islamic movement to replace secular governments with Islamic ones.

Step by step, this administration is helping to establish the Islamists’ dream of a revived caliphate, or “Pan Arabic Islamic Union” as it has been called by Islamist leaders recently.

There is a mistaken school of thought that believes such an Islamic Union would function like an Arabic European Union, growing their economies and enabling them to take their place among the other nations of the world as equals.

This school neglects to answer the most salient question: How do you contain a movement that recognizes no borders but its own and is compelled by dint of faith to dominate the rest of the world or die in the effort?

Unfortunately, the primary opposition to this plan isn’t coming from the American people. Sadly, much of America is suffering from confusion, ignorance, self-loathing and a dedication to bending over backwards in an attempt to avoid the confrontation that looms ahead.

Rather than marshaling a strong core of support for the hard choices that must be made, our administration is creating a huge chasm between citizens over trivialities and over-amplified slights. We are far weaker for it.

One might ask then, who is opposing the mighty President of the United States? Who dares stand in the way of the Nobel Peace prize winner “Barack Obama?”

The answer will be something of a shock to many.

In no particular order, listed below are those who are arrayed against the designs of our “Dear Leader.”

Putin

Standing most prominently, is Vladimir Putin, the Russian bear. Putin has designs on the former Soviet satellite nations and he needs a strong economy and the leverage that an oil monopoly over the European market provides to fuel his aspirations.

His Ukraine adventure is proving more troublesome than originally thought, and Obama’s push to topple Assad in Syria threatens Putin’s access to a warm water port for Russia’s oil exports to Europe.

The Russian oligarchs are growing restive under the thumb of Putin, seeing his dreams of Sovietus revivivus as bad for business and potentially catastrophic. Putin’s leash is shortening, and his tenure is by no means a sure thing.

While Putin remains in power, he will oppose Obama’s Ottoman revival. He has no choice.

Old Guard and Monarchies of the Middle East

Next are the old guard and monarchies of the Middle East. We like to call them “dictators” even though in reality, while they are all Sunni Muslims, they are more concerned with maintaining their own wealth and power than in recreating an Islamic caliphate.

Among these were Gaddafi, Mubarak and the others deposed in the Arab Spring, but also numbered in this groups is the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan and both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

All are in danger of being ejected from this game. But just like Putin, they will not go bloodlessly.

Islamic Republic

The final player is also the strongest: Iran.

Iran, a Shiite nation, is a natural enemy to any Sunni Islamic caliphate system. The Iranian rulers know from Islamic history (the same history we completely ignore here in the West) that any Sunni caliphate will soon swallow and erase the Shi’a, destroying all opponents to their well-established ideals of Islamic religious and political structure.

Iran, therefore, needs nuclear weapons to protect itself should it fail to derail Obama’s ambitious plans. Should the Pan Arabic (Sunni) Islamic Union become a reality, the Iranian rulers believe that having the capability of ushering in Armageddon will keep the Sunni’s at bay.

At the very least, the Mullahs in Iran rest better knowing, should they fall, that they can take everyone else down with them. Think “mutually-assured destruction.” A sort of “MAD” amongst madmen.

Don’t let this apocalyptic scenario, however, lead you to think that Iran is going quietly into oblivion. On the contrary, it has tirelessly worked to thwart Obama’s plans.

Iran’s use of terror and terror proxies is on the upswing. It will distract and misdirect, strike and cajole, but it will not permit a Sunni caliphate to appear on its border without a nuclear capability of its own to deter Sunni adventurism.

Obama’s setbacks in Syria and Benghazi have forced him to negotiate with the Iranians. He wants to assure them that they have nothing to fear from a caliphate, while simultaneously keeping the American people from recognizing the monumentally stupid policy objective he is pursuing.

To this end, he tells us he has gotten Iran to agree to postpone its nuclear work for ten years, under the ridiculously naive idea that the dynamics of the Middle East will have changed. Many believe Obama is in fact a Muslim. In reality, that really doesn’t matter.

His administration believes that all conflict can be framed in Marxist terms. Empower those who have little and they will join the community with smiles and slaps on the back. The administration fundamentally misunderstands the problem and is applying a solution akin to gasoline on a grease fire.

Economics are unimportant to the Islamists. Power is their currency and they spend all they have to purchase the world for Allah. The establishment of an Islamic caliphate will not calm the Arab street, it will invigorate it to greater conquests, as Islam demands.

Of course, in the eyes of the neo-progressives in the White House, to speak truthfully about this “Islamophobia.”

To Obama, a nuclear Iran is an acceptable trade-off for a revived caliphate, To Israel, however, both Iran and a caliphate are threats to their very existence.

Iran with a nuclear weapon has no reason not to make good on its long-standing promise to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth.” A reconstituted caliphate modeled after the former Ottoman Empire has no room for Israel, indeed, on Iran’s maps, Israel doesn’t exist at all.

America is negotiating nuclear policy with a terrorist state, and geopolitical hegemony with an ideology/religion that knows no borders but its own.

In 2013, President Obama told us we can all take a deep breath, he was able to wring an invaluable concession out of the Iranians. He breathlessly announced that Iran had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

It appeared that we had been brought back from the brink by the president’s keen ability to negotiate.   Notwithstanding the obvious (and wholly inappropriate) grandstanding by the POTUS, there are a few other issues that need to be addressed in relation to this irrelevant fatwa.

Most Americans aren’t aware that the foundation of Iran’s nuclear program was laid on March 5th, 1957 by the United States, under an Eisenhower program called “Atoms for Peace.”  Iran established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) in 1967, which was a 5 megawatt nuclear research reactor, fueled by enriched uranium.

In 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ratifying it in 1970, making Iran’s nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification and accountability.

Following the 1979 Revolution, nearly all international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off.  With little hope of regaining international cooperation, Iran elected to continue the program on their own, although they thought it best to save face and attempt to “shame” America (and by extension its advanced nuclear technology) by condemning all things nuclear.

It was for this reason and this reason alone, that the fatwa was issued. It had nothing to do with any humanitarian interests held deeply in the hearts of Iranian leaders; they are certainly more than amenable to any method that allows them to more efficiently eliminate their enemies, most especially Israel.

The anti-nuclear fatwa, is fully revealed to be a sham five years later, when we see the destruction of a reputedly “non-existent” Iranian nuclear program by Iraqi forces.

All of this is still occurring under the reign of the same Ayatollah that issued the nuclear fatwa a brief five years previous. Clearly, the Iranians had continued their nuclear program, despite the fatwa.

The next time we saw any reference to the 1979 “nuclear fatwa” was in 2003.  The IAEA issued a report, condemning the Iranian nuclear program, accusing it of once again, trying to weaponize the technology.

Still, Iran didn’t budge.  It wasn’t until the U.S. threatened to get involved militarily (the full might and power of the U.S. military was on display right next door in Iraq under the leadership of President Bush) that the Iranians finally caved.

What did this concession look like?  Well, as you might have guessed, Iran simply reaffirmed the old stand-by fatwa from 1979, condemning nuclear weapons and promising to play nice.

So, for the record, we have clear evidence that the Iranians consider their anti-nuclear fatwa to be toilet paper, so Obama’s “concession” is more enabling than disarming. Iran had cast the ‘79 fatwa out again in 2013, hoping we’ll bite on it one more time. Obama readily obliged.

President Obama appears willing to do whatever it takes to build his legacy on reestablishing the Islamic state after an 80 year absence. He also appears willing to endanger both the United States and Israel to get it done.

European colonization didn’t create terrorists; Islam and Mohammed birthed terrorism in order to spread a brutal and unforgiving ideology.

Absent European intervention, Muslims might yet be centuries further behind than they already are. Islam is a crippling force. Science has never been particularly important to the Islamists.

European contact brought Muslim countries out of the Stone Age; the same stone age to which the Islamic jihad intends to return us all.

Categories: Arab nations, Caliphate, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, History, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian navy, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Khamenei, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Shia, Sunni, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iranian President: Diplomacy With U.S. is an Active ‘Jihad’

March 12, 2015

Iranian President: Diplomacy With U.S. is an Active ‘Jihad’, Washington Free Beacon, , March 12, 2015

Hassan RouhaniHassan Rouhani / AP

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described his country’s diplomacy with the United States as an active “jihad” that is just as significant to Tehran’s advancement as the slew of new weapons and missiles showcased by the Islamic Republic’s military.

Rouhani praised the country’s military leaders for standing “against the enemy on the battlefield” and said as president, he would carry out this “jihad” on the diplomatic front.

Rouhani’s comments echo those of foreign minister and lead nuclear negotiator Javad Zarif, who said Tuesday that Iran has emerged as “the winner” in talks with Western powers. Like Zarif, Rouhani boasted that Iran’s years-long diplomacy with Western nations over its nuclear program established the Islamic Republic as a global power.

Iran has made headway in convincing the U.S. to allow it to maintain much of its core infrastructure through diplomatic talks that Rouhani said are viewed as a “jihad.”

“Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride,” Rouhani said earlier this week. “Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

“Our power is growing each day, but we don’t intend to be aggressive toward anyone. However, we will certainly defend our country, nation, independence, and honor wholeheartedly.”

Iran stands “10 times more powerful” than it was during the time of the Iran-Iraq War, Rouhani said, which “reflects a serious deterrence to the enemies’ threats.”

Iranian leaders view the ongoing talks with the United States and other nations as a source of global legitimacy.

Rouhani’s remarks have “significant domestic implications,” according to an analysis published by the American Enterprise Institute.

“Iran’s negotiations team to the status of Iran-Iraq War commanders, who are traditionally revered by the regime as upholders of Islamic Revolutionary values, could potentially lead to rhetorical backlash from regime hardliners opposed to the nuclear negotiations,” AEI wrote.

Matan Shamir, director of research at United Against Nuclear Iran, said Rouhani’s latest comments show he is not a moderate leader.

“While Rouhani talks about a ‘win-win’ nuclear deal to global audiences, his comments make clear that he continues to view the U.S. an antagonistic global oppressor that must be triumphed over, in this case by a diplomatic ‘jihad,’” Shamir said. “This is clearly not the language of a moderate or of a regime with which rapprochement is at all realistic.”

Zarif said Tuesday that a final nuclear deal with the United States is meaningless at this point.

“We are the winner whether the [nuclear] negotiations yield results or not,” Zarif was quoted as saying by the Tasnim News Agency. “The capital we have obtained over the years is dignity and self-esteem, a capital that could not be retaken.”

As Rouhani and Zarif grandstand on the nuclear front, Iranian military leaders have begun to unveil a host of new missiles and sea-based weapons.

General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a leader in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Iran’s defensive capabilities “are non-negotiable in the nuclear talks,” AEI reported.

The comments came the same day Iran paraded its new cruise missiles.

Hajizadeh also dismissed economic sanctions on Iran, saying that “his is a message which should be understood by the bullying powers which raise excessive demands.”

On Wednesday, the State Department said any final deal with Iran was “nonbinding,” meaning that neither party would be legally obliged to uphold the agreement.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Free world, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian navy, Iranian nukes, Islam, Islamic jihad, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Theocracy, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Analysis: Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State

March 11, 2015

Analysis: Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State, Long War Journal,  and , March 11, 2015

B_vsofcXEAAtDRvQassem Soleimani (center) with his bodyguards near the frontlines of Tikrit.

Iran benefits from the threat of an Islamic State, and if the US continues its courtship of Tehran, it may find the Islamic State replaced by an Islamic Republic.

****************

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi,only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces. 

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.

Although both US and Iranian negotiators maintain that nothing but the nuclear issue is being discussed, this of course is fiction. On Sept. 22, Fars News, quoting an anonymous American source, reported that Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, discussed the nuclear issue as well as the fight against the Islamic State. And Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary, has also connected both issues. Clearly, Tehran’s cooperation with Washington in the fight against the Islamic State comes at a price, which Washington must pay at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Iran has Washington where it wants it. Iran wants a favorable deal, and the Obama administration is signaling that such a deal is forthcoming. US “strategic patience” is allowing Iran to increase its influence and presence in Iraq and Syria. Assad is waiting out the Americans and the international community, and Shia militias are now viewed as legitimate forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. But most importantly, US “strategic patience” signals to Iran an unwillingness to jeopardize the talks by linking them to Iran’s role in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. 

Iran benefits from the threat of an Islamic State, and if the US continues its courtship of Tehran, it may find the Islamic State replaced by an Islamic Republic.

Categories: Caliphate, Combat troops, Department of Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iraq, Iraq war, Iraqi military, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Shia, Sunni, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Rouhani adviser denies he called for Iran’s return to empire

March 11, 2015

Rouhani adviser denies he called for Iran’s return to empire, Al-Monitor, Arash Karami, March 10, 2015

(An modest attempt at a partial walk-back. Please see also, Advisor To Iranian President Rohani: Iran Is An Empire, Iraq Is Our Capital . . . — DM)

Iran's former Intelligence Minister Younesi, chief nuclear negotiator Larijani and former chief nuclear negotiator Rohani attend conference in TehranIran’s former Intelligence Minister Ali Younesi (L), chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and former chief nuclear negotiator and current President Hassan Rouhani (R) attend a conference on Iran’s nuclear policies and prospects in Tehran April 25, 2006. (photo by REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi)

Ali Younesi, President Hassan Rouhani’s adviser on Ethnic and Religious Minorities affairs, has issued a clarification about his comments suggesting a union between regional countries. His words had sparked criticism from the Arab-language media, which construed them as reviving Iran’s ancient empire. A former Iranian vice president who was at the conference also spoke out against Younesi’s comments.

Younesi accused Iran’s enemies of creating propaganda by misconstruing his comments at a March 8 conference on Iranian history and culture, saying that he was simply talking about a “historical and cultural unity” between certain countries in the region, including Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that his proposal was for a “union” and “does not mean an empire should be reborn,” but rather that the neighbors should cooperate to confront mutual threats. He added that Iran’s official position is that “it respects the national boundaries and territorial integrity of other countries.”

Younesi was specifically criticized for saying, “Currently, Iraq is not only part of our civilizational influence, but it is our identity, culture, center and capital, and this issue is for today and the past. Because Iran and Iraq’s geography and culture are inseparable, either we fight one another or we become one.” He went on, “My meaning is not that we should remove our borders, but that all the countries of the Iranian plateau should become close because our interests and safety are intertwined.”

Younesi’s call for a “natural union” between these countries was not welcomed by Iran’s regional rivals, especially given the sensitivities of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf to Iran’s assistance to Iraqi forces currently battling the Islamic State in former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit.

Saudi Arabian-funded Al-Arabiya incorrectly reported that Younesi had said, “Iran today has become an empire like it used to be through history, and its capital is now Baghdad. That is the center of our civilization and our culture and our identity today, as it has been in the past.” CNN Arabic wrote in their headline that Younesi said, “Iran is an empire and its capital is Iraq. We protect the region from Wahhabis, neo-Ottomans and atheists.” Though the first sentence in the CNN Arabic is incorrectly translated, Younessi did say in the March 8 conference that Iran was helping to protect the region from Wahhabi, takfiri, Zionist and Western domination. The Al-Arabiya article was tweeted over 3,000 times and shared on Facebook by over 4,000 people.

Former Iranian Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi also criticized Younesi, posting on Facebook immediately after attending the conference, “Now that the Arab countries in the region have reached a relative unity with Israel on fears about Iran, these comments will be construed as the same threatening talk of Ahmadinejad.” He added, “Irrespective of their governments, people have a sensitivity to their land, and this talk provokes people’s sensitivities.”

As Rouhani’s Ethnic and Religious Minorities adviser, Younesi has become known for reaching out to Iran’s Jewish population by laying wreaths at the graves of Jewish Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq war, taking criticism from conservatives for suggesting Iran revert to its pre-revolution flag bearing the lion and sun and criticizing those who commit human rights violations in Iran. Though he was once minister of intelligence under President Mohammad Khatami, today his position carries no executive weight. But given the tensions between Iran and Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, it’s understandable that these comments would spark a backlash.

Categories: Caliphate, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iraq, Islam, Islamism, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Obama, P5+1, Regional governments, Religion, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Declares Pre-emptive Victory in Nuke Talks

March 11, 2015

Iran Declares Pre-emptive Victory in Nuke Talks, Washington Free Beacon,  , March 11, 2015

(Unfortunately, he appears to be correct. Iran seems to have improved her arsenal substantially since November of 2013 and the sanctions relief, used to get Iran to “negotiate,” doubtless helped it to do so. Please see also Iran is an empire, Iraq is our capital.

What will Obama do if Iran declines even his “extremely reasonable” deal because Iran doesn’t want one? Blame it on the recent letter sent by Republican members of the Congress? — DM)

Iran minister says sanctions must be lifted before nuclear agreementIranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif / AP

Iran’s foreign minister and chief negotiator in nuclear talks with the West declared victory for his country, stating that no matter how the negotiations end, Tehran has come out “the winner,” according to remarks made on Tuesday and presented in the country’s state-run press.

Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s foreign minister, stated in remarks before the country’s powerful Assembly of Experts, which recently installed a hardline new cleric as its leader, that the nuclear negotiations have established Tehran as a global power broker.

“We are the winner whether the [nuclear] negotiations yield results or not,” Zarif was quoted as saying before the assembly by the Tasnim News Agency. “The capital we have obtained over the years is dignity and self-esteem, a capital that could not be retaken.”

Zarif’s comments were accompanied by a host of bold military displays by Tehran in recent weeks, including the announcement of one new weapon that Iranian military leaders have described as a “very special” missile.

As the United States and Iran rush to hash out a final nuclear agreement ahead of a self-imposed July deadline, Zarif also lashed out at congressional Republicans who have expressed skepticism over the Obama administration’s diplomacy and have fought to exert control over the implementation of any deal.

Zarif dismissed as a “propaganda ploy” a recent letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans that warned Tehran against placing too much stock in a weak deal agreed to by the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Iran’s military continues to unveil a range of new strategic missiles and advanced weapons meant to project strength throughout the region.

Iran disclosed during military drills late in February that it is developing a missile capable of being fired from a submerged submarine. Top Iranian military leaders have described the missile as a “very special weapon,” according to IHS Jane’s, a defense industry news source.

“I believe that this weapon is a strategic weapon,”Admiral Ali Fadavi, the naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said on state television, according to Jane’s. “It has special characteristics.”

Fadavi declined to provide additional details about the missile. “I would like to keep this information for the future. It is a very special weapon and the Americans cannot even surmise how strong and effective this weapon is.”

On Tuesday morning, the commander of Iran’s navy previewed the unveiling of “advanced surface and subsurface vessels” that will soon be incorporated into the country’s fleet, according to the state-run Fars News Agency.

Iran has put great stock in its navy, investing significant resources to bolster the force and make it a principal player in key global shipping lanes, including around the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the Caspian Sea.

Sea-based weapons were a major focus of recent high-level meetings between Iranian and Russian officials, who agreed to a new arms pact.

Earlier this week, Iran initiated into its fleet a new destroyer ship that is “armed with advanced anti-surface and anti-subsurface weapons and air defense systems,” according to military leaders quoted by Fars.

The ship was immediately deployed to the Caspian Sea, an area Iran views as critical to its interests.

Admiral Kordad Hakimi, a top Iranian navy official, told the country’s press that Iran is prepared to use force in the region.

“We have no security problem in the Caspian Sea today, [but] … the Navy is fully prepared to confront any threat,” he was quoted as saying.

Iranian officials have also bragged about being in full control of five out of nine major international waterways.

Categories: Caliphate, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian navy, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Middle East, Obama, P5+1, Sanctions, Terrorism, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Sisi’s religious revolution gets underway

March 8, 2015

Sisi’s religious revolution gets underway, American Thinker, Michele Antaki, March 8, 2015

In light of the apocalyptic convulsions shaking our world, never had the reform of the Islamic religious discourse been of more consequence and urgency than now. Sisi warned this would take time. One can see why, but he is to be applauded for keeping the pressure on in order to remove resistance to his initiative. The reform, which had known several false starts in the past, is now firmly underway.

*******************

Last week, the news spread across the web that Egypt’s President Al-Sisi had “cancelled Islamic education” in all of Egypt. Was it in fulfillment of his New Year call for a religious revolution?  Was that dramatic announcement for real or a just a wild rumor?

Bonjour Egypte, a French-language online publication, announced on February 20th that Al-Sisi’s Ministry of Education had “published a manual of values and ethics, for all levels of education, after canceling the program of Islamic education.” It added: “The decision is explained by the lack of moral values in the Egyptian street. Sissi, a champion of secularism and an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, has canceled the teaching of Islam in the schools of Egypt.”

The same word-for-word announcement had already been made by a different publication on 26 June 2014, only to be denied as a fake in an online forum one day later.

On February 22, in the Saudi holy city of Mecca where a counter-terrorism conference was held in the aftermath of the slaughter of 21 Copts by the Islamic State, Grand Imam Ahmed Tayyeb called for a radical reform of religious education to prevent the misinterpretation of the Quran by extremists. “The only hope for Muslim nations to restore their unity is to deal with this Takfiri trend [accusing other Muslims of being unbelievers] in our schools and universities.” He offered no indication whether this reform had been effected in Egypt and to what extent.

When Sisi called for a religious revolution on January 1st, 2015 before an assembly of ulema and clerics at prestigious Al-Azhar University, the world caught its breath. Could it be that the leader of a great Muslim nation, seat of the foremost Sunni Islamic learning center, was truly intent on carrying out such a historic and unprecedented reform?

Sisi knew that in requesting the revisiting of the “corpus of texts and ideas” that had been “sacralized over the years” and were “antagonizing the entire world,” he was taking enormous risks and not endearing himself to the radical fringes of his people. And indeed, voices calling out for his death were quickly heard on programs broadcast by Turkey-based Muslim Brotherhood channels: “Anyone who kills Egyptian President Abdel Al-Fattah Al-Sisi and the journalists who support him would be doing a good deed,” said Salama Abdel Al-Qawi on Rabea TV.  On Misr Alaan TV, Wagdi Ghoneim clamored that “whoever can bring us the head of one of these dogs and Hell-dwellers” would be “rewarded by Allah.”

In calling for a ‘religious revolution,’ Sisi also knew that he was up against tremendous odds, owing to Al-Azhar’s educational curricula that had been promoting a radical Salafist and Wahhabist brand of Islam for quite some time.

On Jan 4, the popular satellite TV host Ibrahim Issa showed, with book in hand, that what Al-Azhar taught in its curricula was exactly what Daesh [ISIS] practiced. To wit, that “all adult, free and able men” were to “kill infidels,” and do so “without so much as a prior notice or even an invitation to embrace Islam.” Issa, in his characteristically refreshing and funny style, chided his audience for being so deeply in denial. “So you find Daesh horrible, don’t you? Oh dear, oh dear! But why, when Daesh does exactly what Al-Azhar teaches?” He added that there was “no hope that Al-Azhar would ever lead the “religious revolution’” requested by Sisi, unless Al-Azhar was first willing to “reform itself.”  For how could an entity that was “part of the problem be also part of the solution?”

As Sisi had done, Issa made the distinction between religion/doctrine/belief (deen/ akida) on the one hand, and the thinking/ideology (fikr) on the other. He further explained that what was meant by the latter was the body of interpretative and non-core texts — such as Bukhari’s Hadith, for example, which narrated violent episodes taken from the lives of the Prophet’s companions. Those were amenable to re-interpretation in terms of contextual relevance.

In an earlier, Dec.14 program, Al-Azhar refused to consider the Islamic State as an apostate. On Dec.11, Al-Azhar had called the Islamic State criminal while insisting that “No believer can be declared an apostate, regardless of his sins.”  Nonsense, opined Issa. Apostasy had been declared many times against believers. The real reason for the reluctance was simply that ISIS’s practices were based on Al-Azhar’s teachings,[i] which had been allowed to stand for decades with the regrettable connivance and complicity of the State. Consequently, if ISIS was now declared an apostate, so should Al-Azhar.

Issa’s views echoed those of Sheikh Mohammed Abdallah Nasr, a former Al-Azhar student and a leading figure of the “Azhariyyun” Civil State Front, which is opposed to political Islam. “Although many consider Al-Azhar a representative of moderate Islam, its curricula incite hatred, discrimination and intolerance, and are a doctrinal reference for the Islamic State,” he said to MCN direct.

It is to be remembered that soon after his New Year’s bombshell, Sisi had created another commotion on Jan.7, by becoming the first Egyptian leader ever to visit the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral during mass, to wish his Christian compatriots a Merry Christmas. His overtures towards the Copts were a bold gesture that went against conventional wisdom. As stated by Ibrahim Issa, religious radicalism and supremacism were “deeply embedded in the minds of some Egyptians contaminated by pollutants inherent in the Brotherhood’s ideology.” The contamination “endured despite Egypt’s massive rejection of the MB rule in 2013,” he believed. Those people would not take kindly to Sisi’s move.

And sure enough, a leading Takfiri Salafist by the name of Yahia Rifai Suroor launched into inflammatory rhetoric that spread across Facebook and was also reported by Copts Today. Suroor posted that unless Christians clearly renounced “the war waged by the Church on Islam,” shedding their blood would be “a religious duty.” As for Muslims who were “Sisi’s supporters,” they were automatically “renegades” and their blood was also fair game.

A few days later at Davos, however, Sisi appeared to have taken a step back in his carefully worded address where he described Islamic terrorism as the action of a “minority” that “distorted religion,” instead of his previous strong language on the need for a “religious revolution.”

But his speech was delivered in the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks and subsequent violent protests that had swept the Muslim world; the timing was probably not right for him to come down too hard on Islam.

On Jan. 31, he was back on track when a wave of deadly attacks rocked the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Responsibility was claimed by a group of extremists previously called “Beit al-Maqdis,” who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and morphed into the “Province of Sinai.” The new terror acts presented Sisi with an opportunity to forecefullyrenew his commitment to fighting terrorism and to also tackle its root cause, religious extremism. He reiterated his undertaking on Feb.1st before a huge gathering of leaders of the Armed Forces, Islamic and Coptic clerics, and government members.  He said he was aware of how sensitive the subject of religion was, yet he had to confront it head on because he would be “accountable before God” for his stewardship of the country. In a dramatic tone, he added that he was ready to “lay down his life” for the completion of his mission — perhaps a veiled allusion to the fate of late assasinated President Sadat. He reminded the assembly that Egyptians had mandated him to lead their fight against the enemy [the Muslim Brotherhood, which he never named other than by “them”], adding that “they” had declared armed jihad on Egypt on their official website as of that very day. Therefore, it was war and Egyptians needed to brace themselves for it. This said, he emphasized he would not lead them against their will because he had to respect their freedom of choice.

This freedom, he said, extended to the religious sphere, for freedom was God-given gift to the human species. There were three aspects to religious freedom, which he enumerated. “First, the freedom to embrace a religion or none at all. Second, the freedom to choose which religion. Third, the freedom to do the right thing based on the teachings of that religion or to stray away from the path of righteousness.” Fourteen minutes into his address, Sisi called moderate Sheikh  Ali al-Jifri in the assembly, and pleaded with him half-jokingly: “Sheikh Ali al-Jifri, the world is so tired of us…Can we please, please have some tolerance and moderation?” Turning next to Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayyeb, he assured him that he would not interfere with the technical aspect of the reform process entrusted to him, adding that the the religious problem as a whole was indeed a shared concern for all Egyptians. Both statements drew a round of applause.

On 3 Feb, Egypt’s Imams came out in a massive show of support for the President, chanting pro-Sisi and anti-Muslim Brothers slogans.

The Feb.15 massacre of 21 Egyptian Copts that took place in Libya at the hands of ISIS was a further test of Sisi’s resolve. At Christmas mass on Jan.7, he had told the Coptic Christian congregation that all of them were “Egyptians, without distinction.” And he proved true to his word by immediately launching punitive strikes against ISIS’s positions in the wake of the mass slaughter, in coordination with the Libyan government.

Sisi returned to the Coptic cathedral to present his condolences in person to the congregation and decreed 7 days of national mourning for the victims. This went far beyond what governments of Christian-majority Western countries ever did to honor their own nationals targeted by terrorist attacks. He also acknowledged to all 21 Copts the status of “martyrs,” an unprecedented move in a country that previously denied its victimized Copts such recognition — deemed incompatible with the uncertainty on whether they would end up in hell or paradise, owing to their condition of  “kufar.”  He finally granted a generous financial compensation to the victims’ families — bereaved and deprived of their breadwinner — both as one-time cash payments and yearly income.

In doing so, Sisi did not fear arousing again the ire of the “Ikhwan” [Muslim Brotherhood].  And sure enough, ex-Muslim Brother Wagdy Ghoneim started his ranting against Copts from his exile in Turkey. He justified their killing by arguing that they behaved as though they owned the country. On his public Facebook page, he also lashed out at those who had expressed condemnation for the beheadings, including the Church.

In a statement uploaded to his personal YouTube channel on February 19, he accused the Coptic Pope of having “staged a coup” for the removal of former MB President Morsi in 2013, saying that “treachery run in the blood of Copts.”

Ibrahim Issa held another episode of his 25/30 TV program on that same day, where he blamed the religious education infused with a Wahhabi and Salafist ideology — taught in schools and at Al-Azhar University — for the radicalization that boomeranged now against Egypt. He said that Egypt was only reaping what it had sewn for  30/40 years by allowing its students to be poisoned by notions of religious supremacy and hatred of non-Muslims.  It was sheer hypocrisy to feign being scandalized by the slaughter of these 21 Christians, knowing that ISIS’s legal and religious justifications for their killings found their origins in the teachings of Al-Azhar.

On a more positive note, the Copts’ massacre was perhaps the catalyst that allowed Grand Imam Ahmed Tayyeb to be persuaded to modify his stance on religious education. Previously, his position had been that the teachings dispensed at Al-Azhar reflected the true and immutable word of God — as he stated in his closing remarks at the Al-Azhar meeting of Jan.1st, 2015.

Ibrahim Issa had analyzed them as meaning that Sisi’s initiative of a “religious revolution” was doomed to be indefinitely shelved. In Issa’s opinion, those remarks by the Grand Imam effectively closed the door on exegesis or ijtihad [also called intellectual jihad].

Yet, in a dramatic turnabout after the Copts’ massacre, it was the same Grand Imam who called for a radical reform of religious education while speaking at a Mecca conference on “Islam and counter-terrorism.”

Just as one was wondering where Egypt stood exactly with this on-again, off-again reform of the religious discourse and education, the “cancelation of religious education” reported by Bonjour Egypte appeared to have been misstated. On Feb. 23, Dar al-Akhbar reported not a cancelation, but a revision, was stillo worked on. The media representative of the Education Ministry, Omar Turk, said that efforts, focused on “generating a spirit of tolerance,” were part of “a 3-year strategy for intellectual security established in response to Sisi’s repeated calls for a religious revolution.”

Some people on social media expressed doubts the revision would ever take place. But as the project seemed pushed back to a distant future — if not downright taken off the table — an article suddenly appeared last Monday in the Egyptian publication Youm7 showing the first amendments made to Al-Azhar’s educational manuals. It was immediately shared and profusely commented upon on Facebook’s public pages. Jihad was not abrogated — because it could “merge with the protection of the homeland” — but postponed to the last 3 years of high school (ages 15-18 years); the crime of “terrorism” replaced that of “spreading [moral] corruption on earth,” perhaps to prevent the latter expression from covering atheism or “polytheism” [Christianity].  And the distribution of war booty among the victors was suppressed as being incompatible with modern warfare.

Last but not least, a former license to cannibalise enemies was also removed as being incompatible with modern mentalities. Comments under the Facebook post revealed readers’ genuine outrage and disbelief at discovering what had been taught for all these years under their nose — with the exception of a minority who attempted to find excuses.

A special Nov. 26, 2014 Youm7 investigative report predating the start of the reform analyzed the main contents of Al-Azhar’s educational books in some detail.  It revealed that late Grand Imam Mohammed Tantawi was very much aware of how “catastrophic” the Al-Azhar curricula were, and that is why he had removed certain texts deemed ill-adapted to our day and age. But his successor, current Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayyeb, yielding to pressure by some groups, had reinstated them.

The report added that Al-Azhar had always professed to promote an “Islam for all times and places,” truly “in the service of mankind,” as was “the purpose of all revealed religions.”

Al-Azhar, touted as a “bastion of moderation in the Muslim world,” had clearly not walked the talk, said the report. In deciding to sponsor archaic texts, revolting for modern minds, it had instead produced a generation of  “extremists” who also suffered from “psychological and behavioral troubles, and a sense of alienation from others,” as confirmed by the interviewed psychologists and sociologists.

These texts “could have been studied as part of a ‘history of religion’ curriculum without any problem, but not as a source of 21st century doctrine,” the report went on to say, least of all in an embattled country “fighting for its prosperity, and against terrorism and extremism.”  It was important, concluded the report, to make proposals “in a dispassionate spirit,” for “the substitution of all articles inciting violence and hatred against non-Muslims and against women, for others reflecting true Islam.”

Recent examples of horrific acts probably inspired by Al-Azhar’s anachronistic teachings come to mind. Such as the video of an FSA fighter, showing him eating the heart of an Assad loyalist back in 2013. Or this week’s repulsive story of a mother fed the flesh of her kidnapped son when she came to enquire about him with ISIS members.

In light of the apocalyptic convulsions shaking our world, never had the reform of the Islamic religious discourse been of more consequence and urgency than now. Sisi warned this would take time. One can see why, but he is to be applauded for keeping the pressure on in order to remove resistance to his initiative. The reform, which had known several false starts in the past, is now firmly underway.

Michele Antaki was raised in Egypt and France. LLM of Law – France. PG Diploma of Conference Interpretation – UK. She was a UN interpreter in NY for 27 years in 4 languages – Arabic, English, French, Spanish.

[i] “All infidels inside the country and everywhere else are killed without exception or excuse, to get them to convert. If they refuse, both to convert and to pay the jizya (protection money conferring the status of dhimmi – protected, second-class citizen), death is their fate, “including by immolation.” Infidels slated to be killed have “their weapons, clothes and horses confiscated, their lands burned. If the Imam entered a town by force, he could decide to distribute the booty among the looters [his men]. He could also decide to kill or enslave prisoners.  Those allowed to pay the jizya, have first to be subdued and humiliated.”

 

 

Categories: Egypt, Free world, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Sisi, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Newer Entries »