وائل قنديل عزيزي الثائر النصاب، والثائر المتقاعد، والثائر المختبئ خلف شعارات فارغة تقول، معركتي ليست الشرعية، بل هي ثورة يناير والقصاص للشهداء،" كيف حالك اليوم؟ مبارك عاد في احتفالية بهيجة داخل قاعة المحكمة، عاد ومعه رجاله مدججين بحكم براءة تلاه القاضي، وهو يكاد يرقص فرحاً، قبل أن يقول، بمنتهى الوضوح والصراحة، إن اليوم عيد قومي بمناسبة وفاة الثورة واجتياز مصر المرحلة الثورية.. فما قولك؟ هل تتذكر وأنت تحشد الناس للمشاركة في ثورة 30 يونيو المضادة، بحجة أنها موجة جديدة لاستعادة حقوق الشهداء، وهتافك ضد العسكر والداخلية والإخوان والفلول "وحياة دمك يا شهيد.. ثورة تاني من جديد"؟. ما شعور الدكتور جلال أمين، أستاذ الاقتصاد بالجامعة الأميركية والكاتب الكبير، وهو يشاهد ابتسامة المومياء المتوحشة، احتفالاً بانتصارها على ثورة يناير؟ جلال أمين هو صاحب أول ضربة معول في بنيان ثورة يناير، تمهيداً للانقلاب العسكري، إذ كتب بتاريخ 4 مايو/ أيار ٢٠١٢ مقالاً تحت عنوان "الثورة المصرية: أسئلة بلا أجوبة"، يشكك فيه بتوقيت ظهور محمد البرادعي في مصر، كما يشكك في الشاب وائل غنيم العائد من أميركا للثورة، ثم يختتم مستدعياً نظرية المؤامرة للإجابة عن ثورة يناير. لكن، الأهم هنا أننا نسأل رموز الثورة الكبار: محمد البرادعي- حمدين صباحي- عبد المنعم أبو الفتوح .. البرادعي أول من أعطى إشارة ضم فلول مبارك إلى معسكر الثورة، للمساهمة في القضاء على حكم مرسي.. حمدين صباحي أول من استقبل في مخيمات تياره بميدان التحرير أعضاء حملات "آسفين يا مبارك وعمر سليمان وأحمد شفيق"، وأسس لمبدأ كراهية الإخوان تجبّ ما قبلها.. وعبد المنعم أبو الفتوح خرج ولم يعد، وتحول من مشروع زعيم معارضة حقيقية إلى كاتب مرثيات ركيكة في المنتحرات والمنتحرين من الثوار. هؤلاء قادوا ما سميته "عملية الانزلاق الثوري" في وحل استدعاء الثورة المضادة، بحجة مواجهة التغول الإخوانى.. نريد أننسمع منهم. وما قول الذين قيل لهم تعالوا إلى الميادين للدفاع عن آخر ما تبقى من ثغور يناير، فردوا بأنهم يأنفون الميادين لأن بها الإسلاميين والإخوان، ومن شأن ذلك أن يؤثر سلباً على مظهرهم الثوري الأنيق، ووسامتهم النضالية المزيفة؟ حسناً.. نرجو من الإخوان وكل الإسلاميين، الآن، عدم التظاهر بدءاً من اليوم حتى يتسنى للثوار الأنقياء الحلوين إسقاط نظام مبارك من جديد.. تفضلوا بالنزول.. الميدان في انتظار تشريفكم. أذكر أن في ذروة الحشد لإسقاط محمد مرسي كانت جلسة في سلسلة محاكمات مبارك، وحدث أن تعرض ذوو الشهداء والمصابون لاعتداءات عنيفة من مجموعات فلول مبارك وأفراد الشرطة في محيط المحكمة. وبالطبع، تُرك هؤلاء في العراء وحدهم، لأن القوى الثورية المزعومة كانت منشغلة بالاجتماعات السرية مع قوى الثورة المضادة، للاتفاق على الترتيبات الأخيرة لهجمة الثلاثين من يونيو/ حزيران. وفي ذلك الوقت، تعليقاً على ابتسامة حسني مبارك داخل القفص، وكأنه يخرج لسانه للجميع "لماذا لا تنفرج أسارير المومياء فى توحش، وتنشب ابتساماتها فى صدر أهالي الشهداء، وهي تجد رموز معسكر الثورة تغازل بقايا دولة الفساد والقهر، وتغدق عليهم بالألقاب وشهادات الصلاحية الثورية، وتفتح لهم الميادين والشاشات، ليدوسوا على الدماء، ويبصقوا كلاماً وضيعاً في وجه أرواح أزهقت من أجل "مصر حرة"؟ والآن فماذا أنتم فاعلون؟ أكرر: هي فرصة حقيقية لمن أراد أن يستعيد وعيه وضميره النائم تحت تلال من الزيف والأكاذيب التي ابتلعت المسافة بين الثورة وعكسها، وبين الدماء والسولار، وبين الحق والباطل. هي الفرصة الأخيرة لاستنهاض الضمائر الثورية من ثلاجات الموتى الأحياء، والأحياء الموتى.
Palestinian men in Gaza look at a house destroyed by Egyptian security forces as they conducted an operation in the Egyptian city of Rafah near the border with southern Gaza Strip on November 2, 2014.
The Egyptian authorities must halt the arbitrary demolition of hundreds of homes and mass forced evictions underway in Rafah, North Sinai in order to create a buffer zone along the border with the Gaza Strip, Amnesty International said amid signs that the operation may be expanded.
“The scale of the forced evictions has been astonishing; the Egyptian authorities have thrown more than 1,000 families out of their homes in just a matter of days, flouting international and national law. Shocking scenes have emerged of homes in Rafah being bulldozed, bombed, with entire buildings reduced to piles of rubble and families forcibly evicted,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
At least 800 homes have been destroyed with an estimated 1,165 families forcibly evicted from their homes since the Egyptian military began clearing the area days after a deadly attack on a military checkpoint in North Sinai that killed at least 33 soldiers on 24 October 2014, according to official statements.
The authorities have proceeded with the evictions completely ignoring key safeguards required under international law including consultation with residents, adequate prior notice, sufficient compensation for losses and granting alternative housing to those who cannot provide for themselves, rendering the evictions unlawful.
On the same day as the deadly attacks, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi declared a state of emergency in North Sinai, between Al Arish and Rafah and imposed a curfew between 17:00 to 7:00 in the area. Anyone who breaks the curfew could face up to 15 years in prison.
Plans to extend the buffer zone by another 500 meters in width announced by Egyptian officials have raised fears that forced evictions could increase in the coming weeks.
“Plans for expanding the buffer zone must not include further forced evictions. The human rights of the residents in North Sinai cannot just be trampled on in the name of security,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
The home demolitions are being carried out in the context of increasing attacks by armed groups targeting the security forces in North Sinai. At least 238 members of the security forces have been killed there since 3 July 2013, according state media reports.
During the same period, the military have conducted several military operations in North Sinai targeting armed groups. According to state officials, ordinary residents were caught in the middle and killed in clashes between the army and the armed groups. Scores of suspected members of armed groups were also killed in the same period, according to military sources.
While the authorities have every right to secure the country’s borders and a duty to protect any individual on its territories, they must do so in a manner that upholds their obligations under international human rights law.
Residents told Amnesty International that many of those forcibly evicted by the operation had only received paltry compensation. According to the governor of North Sinai those evicted receive a 900EGP ($125) to help cover rent for three months until they can get full compensation. The governor also added that families will receive additional compensation for the loss of their houses ranging between 700 EGP /($ 97) and 1200 EGP / ($167) per square meter but residents told Amnesty International that this is far from enough to replace their homes.
Days after the checkpoint attack on 29 October, Egypt’s Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab issued a decree by law (no 1975/2014) to create a buffer zone and evacuate the area in Rafah. Article three of this law stipulates that anyone who refuses to leave their home is to be forcibly evicted, contravening both international law and the Egyptian constitution which strictly prohibits forced evictions.
Many residents told Amnesty International they received no official notification of their eviction and heard about the 48-hour ultimatum to leave their homes on the news.
“I was never notified about the eviction plans, I only heard about it on TV. Not a single official approached me or my family to inform us how to apply for compensation,” one resident told Amnesty International.
Another said: “I only knew that I had to leave my house when a bulldozer demolished the external fence of my house. A military officer then told me that I had to leave immediately as the house would be demolished the next day. The area around my house was swarming with armoured vehicles and tanks, there were also helicopters flying overhead”.
Residents also said they had witnessed their neighbours being forcibly evicted after the military threatened them using dogs.
“My neighbours refused to leave. I saw them arguing with military officers, then soldiers with dogs raided the house and the family had to flee. Who can say no to the military with their heavy weapons? Their house was later demolished with all the furniture and family stuff inside it,” one resident said.
“In their bid to wipe out the threat posed by armed groups in Sinai, Egypt’s authorities have entirely disregarded their duties towards residents in the area,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
Although residents have been living in the area for generations they expressed concerns that they will face difficulties obtaining the government compensation given they do not own the land and do not have official documents proving their ownership. Land in Sinai is considered state property and private ownership is prohibited.
Apart from the financial consequences the demolitions have had a deep psychological impact on residents. Following Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel, Rafah town was split into two parts. Many who live on the Egyptian side of Rafah have relatives on the Palestinian side and are now being forced to move far away from them.
Sinai fast evolving into ‘black hole’
A media blackout has also been imposed throughout North Sinai to block reporting of the demolitions and forced evictions or any other military operations.
Journalists told Amnesty International that it has been difficult to report on violations in Rafah due to the curfew in place which seriously hinders their freedom to move around.
“Even if you reach the residents they refuse to speak because they are terrified the army will persecute or ill-treat them,” one reporter told Amnesty International.
A new draft law prohibiting reporting news about the military is being reviewed by the State Council, pending approval by the cabinet. The law prohibits the publication of any news about the military or any army documents or statistics without prior written consent, effectively exempting them from media scrutiny.
Anyone found violating the law would face up to five years in prison. The law imposes even harsher penalties of up to 15 years in prison if the “crime” is committed during a war or while a state of emergency has been declared.
“This law would represent a serious blow to press freedom in Egypt. The media remains one of the few ways that residents can freely report injustice or abuses by the authorities. Sinai is fast evolving into a black hole where human rights violations are committed without fear of exposure,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
The Egyptian government has an appalling record of trying civilians before military courts including journalists covering Sinai. Ahmed Abu Deraa, a correspondent for Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm, was arrested in September 2013, and Mohamed Sabry a freelance journalist was arrested in January 2013 while working on a story for the Reuters news agency. Both received six-month suspended prison sentences after military trials.
Under a new law passed last month key public properties are considered military institutions and any offences against these will be dealt with by military courts. The law will pave the way for mass military trials of civilians including peaceful protestors, university students and possibly journalists.
Background
Since July 2013 the military have conducted several operations against what the authorities describe as “militant” groups active in Sinai.
Attacks by armed groups targeting the security forces in North Sinai have increased in recent months with at least 238 security officers killed in Sinai since 3 July 2013, according to official statements.
The killing of at least 33 soldiers at the Qaram Al-Qawadis checkpoint in North Sinai on 24 October 2014 was the deadliest attack on the military since July 2013. The armed group Ansar Bait al-Maqdishas has claimed responsibility for this attack and other attacks targeting the military. At least 22 members of armed groups have been killed and 193 arrested in operations by Egypt’s security forces carried out following the attack according to a military spokesperson.
The North Sinai governor, Major General Abdel Fattah Harhour, stated in a TV interview on 21 November that around 1165 families living in the area have been evicted from 802 houses that were demolished in order to establish the buffer zone. He added an area 500 meters wide and 13,800 meters long (13.8 Km) extending west of Rafah was cleared. He mentioned the width of the area could be extended to 5 Km in order to destroy tunnels leading to Gaza that are 1750 meters long.
Forced evictions are defined by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the body overseeing the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which Egypt is a state party as “the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. The committee, which reviewed the human rights record of Egypt last year, expressed concerns about widespread forced evictions in the country.
Amnesty International issued a statement on Thursday denouncing the Egyptian army's forced displacement of its population under the pretext of securing the border in the Sinai Peninsula.
The organisation stressed the need to stop the arbitrary demolition of hundreds of homes and its on-going forced evacuations in Rafah located in northern Sinai in order to create a buffer zone along the border with the Gaza Strip. There have been recent signs indicating that the project has been expanded.
The statement issued by Amnesty highlighted that: "The Egyptian authorities are conducting multiple operations and have forcefully evicted more than one thousand inhabitants from their homes. This is a violation of international and human rights law as well as Egyptian national law". The international human rights organisation emphasised that while the Egyptian authorities have the right to secure their borders, they must do so in a way that complies with international human rights law.
عزمي بشارة بعدما شهد العقدان الأخيران مبادرات برلمانية عديدة لإعلاء قيمة يهودية دولة إسرائيل، كمعيار في التعامل السياسي والحقوقي فوق قيمة الديمقراطية، جاءت مبادرة حكومية لجمع هذه الاقتراحات مع ما تناثر من بنود في تشريعات قائمة في قانون واحد، هو "قانون القومية". وهو "قانون أساس"، كما يطلق عليه بالعبرية، أي قانون دستوري بلغة الشعوب الأخرى. وينص بنده الأول أن إسرائيل "دولةٌ قوميةٌ للشعب اليهودي". وفي الفقرة الثالثة من البند الثاني من الاقتراح، يقصر صفتها كدولة قومية عليه، إذ ينص على أن حق تقرير المصير في الدولة خاصٌ ينفرد به "الشعب اليهودي". ومع أنه ورد في ما يسمى "إعلان الاستقلال"، جاء حذف لفظ المساواة من الاقتراح، تأكيداً للتناقض بين هذه القيمة، من جهة، والطبيعة الاستعمارية للكيان هذا وتحديده كدولة يهودية، من جهة أخرى. ولذلك، يتجاهل القانون فكرة المساواة التي أسسنا نظرياً لتأكيد التناقض بينها وبين بنية هذه الدولة، وعملنا طويلاً على تأكيد ذلك في الممارسة، ويُحِلّ مطرحها تعبيراً جديداً هو "ضمان الحقوق الشخصية". يؤكد اقتراح القانون أنه لا توجد حقوق قومية لغير اليهود في إسرائيل، وهو الذي عبّرنا عنه في شرحنا مطالب العرب في الداخل بحقوق قومية، وليس مدنية فقط. كما يعترف ضمناً باستحالة المساواة، وذلك بتغييبها من اقتراح القانون. وهي القيمة التي تشدقت بها وثيقة الاستقلال، حينما كانت إسرائيل، في بداياتها، تبحث عن قبول دولي بعد احتلال الأرض، وتشريد أغلبية سكانها الأصليين، وهو ما اصطلح عليه الفلسطينيون بالنكبة. لم تعد ثمة حاجة إلى فضح التناقض بين إسرائيل وديمقراطيتها، ولا تعارضها مع المساواة، فكراً وممارسة، إذ إنها تصرح بذلك بلا مواربة، بل تتبناه دستورياً. لقد واجهنا إسرائيل بهذا التناقض. وها هي "تحلّه"، بتأكيدها على ما تسميه القومية اليهودية، وإخضاع كل القيم الأخرى لها. ويتمثل إنجاز الائتلاف الحكومي الحالي في أنه، بعد هذا القانون، سيكون على الليبرالية الإسرائيلية "المزعومة"، المتمثلة بنظر السياسيين الإسرائيليين الشعبويين، في المحكمة العليا الإسرائيلية، أن لا تتردد، حين ينشأ صراع بين ديمقراطية إسرائيل ويهوديتها، أو حين يضعها عرب الداخل أمام مثل هذا التناقض. وسوف يكون على العالم أن يعرف، حسب هؤلاء الساسة أنفسهم، أن حق العودة، بموجب القانون الإسرائيلي، هو حق لليهود فقط، أما حق العودة للفلسطينيين الذي نصت عليه القرارات الدولية، فلا تكتفي إسرائيل برفضه كسياسة خارجية فقط، بل تعرّف نفسها دستورياً كنقيض له. وبمجرد اعتراف العرب والعالم بها، بتعريفها هذا لنفسها، تنتفي حقوق أخرى، تتناقض مع هذا التعريف، مثل حق العودة.
على هذين الرجلين، يقف هذا القانون. وروحه هي التأكيد على تطابق قومية الدولة ويهوديتها. ولا تكترث إسرائيل كثيراً لكونها تُقَوْمِنُ ديناً، وما كان يوماً طوائفَ دينية في الواقع. لأن هذا، بالنسبة لها، نقاش نظري، لا يسمن دولة ولا يغنيها عن جوع، فالقومية عندها تُعرَّف بالممارسة، وليس بالكلام، وما يحسم وجود، أو عدم وجود، شعب هو سلوكه كشعب. وهذه الممارسة تُبنى بالمؤسسات والقوانين، وباللغة وكتابة التاريخ كتاريخ قومي، وبالجيش الوطني وغيره. إنه يُبنى ويعاد إنتاجه. فثمة دول وقيادات ورثت شعباً، ومحاولات متفاوتة الجدية لمشاريع قومية، وحولتها إلى طوائفسياسية. وثمة قيادات ورثت طوائف، وحولتها إلى شعب ببناء الدولة والمؤسسات. وهذا هو الفرق بين قومنة اليهودية وتطييف العروبة. وفي الوقت الذي تؤكد فيه إسرائيل على القومية كشرط الديمقراطية، كديمقراطية لليهود، نشهد التمزق الطائفي والهوياتي الحالي عربياً كأحد أهم العوائق أمام التحول الديمقراطي. تقوم إسرائيل ببناء مؤسسات الدولة القائمة على حساب الحقوق الفلسطينية. ولكن، هذه المقولة ذاتها قد تتحول إلى مجرد شعارات. فإذا لم تمارس هذه الحقوق بالنضال وببناء الشعب، يبقى التعبير احتجاجاً في محله، في أفضل حالاته. كما أنه لا يكفي التأكيد على الغبن والظلم في القوانين التي تسن، بل يجب أن يكون ثمة نضال ديمقراطي ضد ما هو غير ديمقراطي، ووطني ضد ما هو استعماري، تقوده قوى وطنية، ذات صدقية في حديثها عن الديمقراطية والمساواة.
لا أدري، نضحك أم نبكي عندما نسمع وسائل إعلام «المماتعة والمقاولة» وهي تتشدق بصمود بشار الأسد والانتصار على «المؤامرة الكونية» وإفشالها. فإذا كانت المؤامرة قد فشلت، وأدت إلى دمار سوريا وتهجير شعبها، فكيف لو نجحت، لا سمح الله؟ كيف كان سيكون وضع سوريا؟ ربما انتصار آخر ويختفي بلدنا عن الخارطة! يا من تتفاخرون بصمود بشار الأسد وانتصار الدولة السورية: لو عرفتم الحقيقة، لبكيتم دماً على «صموده» المزعوم حتى الآن، فلو سقط، كما سقط حسني مبارك وزين العابدين بن علي، لما وصلت سوريا إلى هنا. بشار الأسد، أيها المغفلون، لم يصمد، بل أراده أعداء سوريا أن يبقى كل هذا الوقت كي يدمروا بلدنا من خلاله وبواسطته. ونجحوا. لاحظوا أن سقوط مبارك وزين العابدين بن علي في مصر وتونس خلال أسابيع انقذ مصر وتونس من الخراب والدمار الذي حل بسوريا بسبب عدم سقوط الأسد. ولو بقي مبارك وبن علي في الحكم، لكانت مصر وتونس الآن في وضع مشابه لسوريا، لا سمح الله. لكن سقوطهما أنقذا تونس ومصر، وكان نعمة عليهما، بينما كان «صمود» بشار المزعوم نقمة على سوريا والسوريين. لقد بدأ أعداء سوريا، بمن فيهم روسيا وإيران، على تطويل أمد المحنة السورية ودعم بشار الأسد ورفض أي محاولة لتنحيه عن السلطة منذ اللحظات الأولى. لقد تمثلت المؤامرة الكونية الحقيقية على سوريا في الإبقاء على الأسد، لأن بقاءه يضمن المزيد من الدمار والانهيار خدمة للأعداء. بشار الأسد كنز استراتيجي لإسرائيل وأمريكا من الناحية العملية، فقد نفذ كل ما تريدانه، وربما أكثر بكثير. هو المغناطيس العظيم الذي جذب إلى سوريا كل أنواع الأشرار ليحولوها إلى أنقاض. ماذا يريد أعداء سوريا أجمل من ذلك؟ المنطقة بأكملها على كف عفريت بفضل خدمات بشار الأسد. إنه القائد لمشروع الفوضى «الهلاكة». ولو تخلوا عنه في بداية الأزمة السورية، لما استطاع ضباع العالم إيصال الشرق الاوسط إلى ما هو عليه الآن من فوضى واضطرابات وكوارث وقلاقل؟ ولو أرادت أمريكا وإسرائيل لتكافئانه، لشيدتا لبشار تماثيل من ذهب. ومما يؤكد ذلك أن إحدى العواصم شهدت مؤتمراً هاماً مغلقاً حول سوريا قبل مدة، حضره كبار الاستراتيجيين والمسؤولين الغربيين والدوليين: فسأل أحد الحضور مسؤولاً كبيراً: «لماذا لا تتدخلون في سوريا»، فأجاب المسؤول: «الوضع في سوريا مثالي جداً بالنسبة لنا، فكل السيئين الذين نكرههم يخسرون، ويهلكون في سوريا. كان بإمكاننا أن ننهي بشار الأسد بسهولة، لكن لو أنهيناه، لتوقف الدمار المطلوب. نحن نريد بقاءه مرحلياً، لأنه أشبه بالمغناطيس الذي يجتذب السيئين إلى المحرقة السورية، فيحرقهم، ويحترق معهم». أيها المتشدقون بصمود بشار: لا تتفاخروا إذاً، بل ابكوا على وطن تمزق، وانهار، وشعب تشرد بسبب «صمود» بشاركم. وهو ما يريده أعداء سوريا بالضبط. أمريكا تدعو إلى تنحي بشار، وروسيا ترفض. لعبة مفضوحة منذ سنوات هدفها تمديد فترة الدمار. يوماً ما ستندمون على التصفيق للصمود «المسموم» الذي كلفنا وطناً، وجعل شعبنا طعاماً للأسماك في عرض البحار، وجعلكم انتم أيها الشبيحة تتسابقون على تقديم طلبات اللجوء في ألمانيا وغيرها. صمود بشار حتى الآن أشبه بالشجرة التي تحجب الغابة، يستخدمونه ستاراً وذريعة مكشوفة للإجهاز على ما تبقى من وطن كان اسمه سوريا. سحقاً لصمود كلفنا وطناً كان اسمه سوريا!
With over 1.6 billion followers, one third of them living as minorities, Islam is a major force in the world today. An active factor in international relations, its influence is far from local or confined to countries and communities classified as "Muslim." With the presence of Muslims in Western capitals and the rapid diffusion of mass-communication media, Islam has become a globalized subject, albeit one largely viewed through the prism of security and intelligence. Amidst the rise of al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, it has become increasingly perceived in Europe and the U.S. as a generator of crises and a threat to global stability and security.
In spite of the deluge of images and narratives of Islam that has flooded the public space since September 11th, knowledge and understanding of the subject has remained limited. Few know the enormous diversity of the Muslim world and its societies, on the levels of schools of thought, religious interpretations, or sectarian pluralism. Fewer still realize that there exists no uniform Islam but divergent tendencies fostered and promoted by the general political climates where different Muslim communities happen to find themselves.
It is such conditions that define the form of Islam that gains prevalence in a given historical context. Like any other major religion, Islam has been in its past, and continues to be in the present, subject to multiple strategies of interpretation. In general terms, we can speak of three prominent trends competing over the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world today.
The first is theocratic, at the service of absolutist rulers for whom Islam is a means of acquiring a de facto authority wrested by the force of the sword and hereditary succession, above any checks and restraints, and free of any accountability. This Islam is armed with its network of institutions, funds, and functionaries. The essence of religion as an authentic spiritual experience is irrelevant here. What matters are the rituals and outward forms of religiosity as the source of power legitimation. Religion is a mere obedient and obliging servant of the ruler, his interests and whims. In the Arabian Peninsula, a Wahhabism wedded to rule by the sword represents the clearest embodiment of this form of Islam.
Its proponents are as eager to exhibit the ritualist and formalistic aspects of Islam in a crudely interventionist way, such as the imposition of prayer, the segregation of men and women and enforcement of the niqab, as they are to keep it remote from politics and the realms of power and authority. As soon as these taboos are touched, the religious establishment, with its guardians of the sacred army comprising official scholars, clergymen and preachers, springs into action, denouncing the culprits as deviant and unorthodox, thereby furnishing the religious cover for their silencing, oppression and elimination.
The second strategy is as morally absolutist, dogmatic, legalistic and exclusionary as the first but espouses a different type of politics. It is an anarchist form of Wahhabism. It feeds on the climates of crisis, wars and conflicts raging in Muslim lands and seeks a source of justification for the perpetration of violence and terror in the theology of Islam.
This minority current had been isolated in Khandahar and the distant mountains of Tora Bora. But the military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and widening circle of political, sectarian and ethnic conflicts has strengthened it and enabled it to resonate with growing sectors of angry, anxious and disillusioned Muslim youth. The Arab awakening, which gave people in the region hope of the possibility of peaceful political change, had dealt a powerful blow to this tendency.
But as its great aspirations were crushed under the boots of generals in Egypt, burnt in the furnace of civil wars in Libya and drowned in the bloodshed of Syria, this violent anarchist current gained fresh momentum and rose to the forefront once more. For all its noise and the enormous exposure it receives, however, it still fails to command religious legitimacy or acceptance in the eyes of most Muslims, who still dismiss it as religiously deviant and politically counterproductive, damaging to the image of Islam and the stability of Muslim societies.
The presence of such extremist groups and the extent of their influence depend to a large extent on the general political climates prevailing in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, these conditions, particularly those reigning in the Arab hemisphere, show no sign of rehabilitation or stabilization.
These two trends are at loggerheads with democratic modernist Islam, whose roots lie in the 19th-century Islamic reform movement founded by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Mohamed Abdu, which revolves around the notion of compatibility between, on the one hand, Islamic spiritual and religious values and, on the other, what it describes as the "requisites" of modern times. These include the imposition of checks and balances on power, the adoption of democratic mechanisms and procedures, and the emancipation of Islam from what proponents of this reformist school describe as the "prison of stagnation and imitation."
With the advent of modernization, urbanization and mass education, this current has amassed considerable influence in Muslim societies (and later among Muslim minorities). Today, it is under pressure from multiple quarters. One of these is the theocratic camp, which considers the very presence of an Islam that calls for restrictions on the authority of rulers and respect for the will of the people, expressed through electoral democracy, a direct threat to its existence. This explains the unrelenting war waged by certain Gulf states on the wave of democratic change in the Arab region for the last three years.
Alongside pressures from Arab theocracies, democratic Islam is challenged by Salafi jihadists who dismiss it as "diluted," "soft" and "naive," pinning its hopes on peaceful protests and ballot boxes, which, unlike armed warfare, lead nowhere.
And beyond the Muslim landscape, this brand of Islam is viewed with mistrust by many in American decision-making circles and across the Atlantic. In the name of realism and pragmatism, these prefer to deal with rulers who, though authoritarian and ruthless with their masses, are pliant and willing to leave their markets wide open for Euro-American goods and squander billions in their nations' resources on weapons no one else would buy. These are, therefore, infinitely preferable to elected leaders bound by the will of their people and committed to their interests.
Those who call for the reformation and democratization of Islam seem to miss an essential fact: that a democratic reformist Islam has existed since the 19th century. It has its own literal body, pioneers, and thinkers, within both Shia and Sunni Islam. The question is: Does the situation of present-day Muslim society, marked by crisis, tensions, foreign interventions and political despotism, foster this reformist democratic Islam, or does it promote its violent and theocratic rivals?
Rather than sifting through Muslims' religious texts, theological tracts and medieval polemical disputes, those agonizing over the "problem" of Islam would do well to ponder the concrete reality of real, living Muslims and seek to fix it rather than striving to fix Islam.
British soldiers fighting in Helmand: ‘Western wars and support for dictatorship are what drive jihadist terror in Britain and elsewhere.’ Photograph: Ho/REUTERS
It takes some mastery of spin to turn the litany of intelligence failures over last year’s butchery of the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby into a campaign againstFacebook. But that’s exactly how David Cameron’s government and a pliant media have disposed of the report by Westminster’s committee of intelligence trusties.
You might have expected Whitehall’s security machine to be in the frame for its spectacular incompetence in spying on the two killers: from filling out surveillance applications wrongly and losing one suspect’s house number, to closing down the surveillance of another – just as the pair were preparing the Woolwich attack.
Centre stage might have been the admission that British intelligence could have been “complicit” in Michael Adebolajo’s torture in Kenya, and tried to cover that up. There is evidence that MI5’s attempts to recruit the Muslim convert on his return to Britain played a part in triggering the killing – though the trusties thought better than to inquire too closely into the matter.
Instead it was the US internet giant, Britain’s prime minister insisted, that was really to blame. Facebook had “blood on their hands”, the Sun declared, as the Daily Mail denounced the Mark Zuckerberg corporation’s “twisted libertarian ideology”.
It’s nonsense, of course, but it gets the authorities off the hook. The spooks couldn’t handle the intelligence they had, and the US tech companies already operate in collusion with western governments. As Richard Barrett, MI6’s former counter-terrorism director, points out, the scale of material the internet barons would need to dredge would overwhelm the security services, let alone the companies.
No matter. The Rigby report’s timing was ideal for the government, which is launching the seventh anti-terrorism bill since 2000 – including new measures for the internal exile of suspects, crackdowns on schools and universities that fail to act against “extremists”, and requirements on internet service providers to hand over users’ identities.
Advertisement
Theresa May says Britain is facing the greatest terrorism threat in its history, and that the security services have foiled 40 plots since 2005. Who would know? Even ministers are in no position to judge the claims securocrats make about themselves. For the intelligence agencies the terror threat is good for business – as Cameron made clear this week when he announced another £130m for their already swollen budgets.
That there is a small number of would-be jihadists prepared to carry out acts of carnage in revenge for British and western bloodletting in the Muslim world is not in doubt. But, given the ease of carrying out low-tech atrocities – and the scale of the IRA’s armed campaign of the 70s and 80s – it’s striking how few there have actually been.
But the war on terror has now become a war without end: a permanent state where a politically constructed “national security” trumps the actual security of citizens and feeds a continual ideological campaign to discipline and intimidate the Muslim community.
For politicians, the promotion of customised “British values” has the advantage of putting themselves on the right side of the new culture wars while dogwhistling to racism in the process. But it certainly does nothing for community integration or public safety.
The anti-Muslim drumbeat is relentless. In the wake of the “Trojan horse” onslaught against mainly Muslim state schools in Birmingham, which branded conservative religiosity “extremism”, politically directed Ofsted inspectors have now turned their attention to east London.
Six Muslim schools in Tower Hamlets have been failed and a majority-Muslim state secondary school with good results has been put in special measures because of risks of “extremism”. That followed hard on the heels of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, sending in commissioners to take over Tower Hamlets council from the twice-elected Muslim mayor, Lutfur Rahman.
Pickles claimed that Rahman had dispensed grants like a “medieval monarch”, though neither the police nor the PwC report Pickles commissioned found evidence of wrongdoing – and Rahman’s progressive record is widely acknowledged. But the undercurrent of accusations of extremism and corruption was clear – as was the message of the politically driven Charities Commission’s decision to put 55 Muslim charities on a watchlist for links to “radicalisation and extremism”.
The chilling impact of this campaign on Muslims in Britain is obvious enough, just as it fosters fear and prejudice in the non-Muslim population. One result is to feed a rising tide of Islamophobic attacks. The Metropolitan police recorded a 65% annual increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in London in the past year alone.
On top of that, as the Rigby report blithely conceded, “the government’s counter-terrorism programmes are not working”. Its Prevent strategy has stopped many Muslims from speaking freely, but prevented little else. Around 500 Britons are now estimated to be fighting in Syria and Iraq.
But why would that be a surprise? The British and US governments first supported the rebels in Syria – as they did in Libya – and then turned against most of them, as the jihadist campaign mushroomed around Isis, intensifying cynicism about the west’s role in the Muslim world.
Which remains the heart of the war on terror 13 years on. It’s not considered seemly to mention it when discussing terrorism and extremism, but western wars and support for dictatorship are what drive jihadist terror in Britain and elsewhere, just as they fuelled it in the region itself.
No amount of surveillance or oppressive legislation will stop those determined to launch attacks. The war on terror has spawned terror from the start, fomenting community divisions and curtailing freedoms everywhere. That’s true for those states that launched it – as well as those on the receiving end.
AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM! الفيلم الوثائقي "سيناء.. الحديقة الخلفية" الذي عرضته الجزيرة الخميس (27/11/2014) ضمن برنامج "الصندوق الأسود" اخترق المنطقة التي باتت أشبه ما يكون اليوم بساحة حرب تدور رحاها بين الجيش المصري وبين الجماعات الجهادية فيما اصطلح على تسميته بالحرب على الإرهاب، تلك الحرب التي أدت إلى تدمير عدد من القرى وتهجير أهلها.
ALERT: THE PALESTINIAN ASSHOLE IS FARTING, YET AGAIN!
رام الله - (د ب أ) – أعربت الرئاسة الفلسطينية الخميس، عن رفضها واستنكارها لدعوات الخروج بمظاهرات في مصر يوم الجمعة، معتبرة أنها تستهدف “إشعال نار الفتنة الداخلية”.
وقالت الرئاسة في بيان أوردته وكالة الأنباء الفلسطينية الرسمية (وفا)، إنها “تتابع باستياء بالغ الدعوات الهدامة والظالمة التي دعت إليها جماعات مشبوهة للخروج للتظاهر رافعين المصاحف يوم الجمعة في مصر”.
وأضافت أن “الشعب الفلسطيني والقيادة الفلسطينية تعرب عن شديد رفضها واستنكارها لكل هذه الحملات الهوجاء التي تستهدف الوطن والدين وهي مخططات تخدم أجندات خارجية”.
واعتبرت الرئاسة أن دعوات التظاهرات في مصر “تستهدف زعزعة أمن مصر، وهز ثقة الشعب المصري بقيادته وإسقاط مؤسسات الدولة، وإشعال نار الفتنة بين أبناء الشعب الواحد، وتعطيل استكمال خارطة الطريق”.
وأعربت الرئاسة الفلسطينية عن الثقة في “قدرة الشعب المصري على إسقاط هذه الدعوات الخبيثة التي تأتي في إطار عمالة تلك الجماعات لمن يمولها ويخضعها لأهدافها ومصالحها من أجل تفتيت المنطقة وإشغالها بقضايا جانبية وعلى حساب قضاياها الأساسية وفي مقدمتها قضية فلسطين ومقدساتها”.
Eye of the Storm
by JONATHAN COOK
CounterPunch
Relations between Israelis and Palestinians have descended into a dangerous melee of tit-for-tat attacks and killings, with the violence of the past few weeks centred on Jerusalem. The city, claimed by Israel as its “undivided capital”, has been torn apart by clashes between Israeli police and Palestinian residents since the summer, when 16-year-old Mohammed Abu Khdeir was burnt alive by Jewish extremists.
Subsequent attacks by Palestinians culminated last week in a shooting and stabbing spree by two cousins at a synagogue that killed four Jews and an Israeli policeman. In this atmosphere, both sides have warned that the political conflict is mutating into a religious one.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, cautioned that Israel’s intensified efforts to extend its control over the Al Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, including by imposing severe restrictions on Muslim worship, risked plunging the region into “a detrimental religious war”.
Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence service, concurred. He warned last week that Israel was stoking religious discord by encouraging Jews to pray at the site over rabbinical objections.
But despite these warnings, the Israeli government announced today it was drafting a law that would ban Muslim guards on the esplanade, making it yet easier for Jews to visit.
Government ministers, meanwhile, accused Abbas of religious “incitement” and masterminding the violence in Jerusalem.
Ari Shavit, an influential Israeli analyst, also blamed what he termed an emerging “holy war” not on oppressive Israeli policies, but on the spread of an Islamist extremism.
Shavit and other Israelis have preferred to overlook the obvious parallels between last week’s killings and an even graver incident 20 years ago. Then, Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish settler, entered the Ibrahimi mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron in his Israeli army captain’s uniform and opened fire on Muslim worshippers, killing 29 and wounding 125.
One can only wonder why the timeline for Shavit’s holy war did not extend back to Goldstein’s massacre, or include the waves of attacks, including arson, by settlers on Muslim and Christian places of worship ever since.
Israel’s responses to these two massacres are more helpful in illuminating the fundamental causes of the recent surge in violence.
In Hebron, Palestinians rather than the settlers paid the price for Goldstein’s slaughter. Israel divided the Ibrahimi mosque to create a Jewish prayer space and effectively shut down Hebron’s commercial centre, displacing thousands of Palestinian residents.
Instead of pulling out of the settlers from the occupied territories following the massacre, Israel allowed their numbers to grow at record pace.
Although the anti-Arab Kach group Goldstein belonged to was outlawed, it has continued to operate openly in the settlements, including in Jerusalem. Goldstein’s tomb, next to Hebron, is a site of pilgrimage for thousands of religious Jews.
Palestinians, not Israelis, are again the ones suffering, this time after last week’s synagogue attack.
Israel has begun demolishing the homes of those involved in recent attacks, and is drafting laws to jail stone-throwers for up to 20 years and harshly penalise the parents of those too young to be jailed themselves.
On Sunday the interior minister revoked the Jerusalem residency of a Palestinian convicted of driving a suicide bomber into Tel Aviv 13 years ago – a prelude, according to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to many more such revocations.
Israel is also preparing to relax gun controls to allow thousands more Israeli Jews to carry weapons at a time when Palestinian taxi and bus drivers in Jerusalem say they are being regularly assaulted. Last week a bus driver died in mysterious circumstances, which Palestinians suspect was a lynching.
It should be no surprise that Jerusalem is the eye of the storm. For more than a decade it has served as a laboratory for the Israeli right to experiment with a model of political despair designed to make Palestianians either submit or leave.
House demolitions for Palestinians and settlement building for Jews, brutal policing and the encouragement of crime as a way to recruit collaborators are happening faster and more aggressively in Jerusalem than anywhere else in the occupied territories.
Since the second intifada erupted in 2000, East Jerusalem has been a political orphan. Israel expelled the Palestinian Authority, and jailed or deported Hamas leaders as they tried to fill the vacuum. Since then, Palestinians in Jerusalem have been defenceless against Israel’s intrigues.
Netanyahu and the right have made little secret of their wish to export a similar model to the West Bank, gradually eroding what control the PA still enjoys. But the spiralling violence in Jerusalem has exposed the paradox at the heart of their strategy.
Palestinian anger in the West Bank is every bit as intense as in Jerusalem but Abbas’ security forces still have the will and, just barely, the upper hand to keep a lid on it.
In Jerusalem, on the other hand, protesters face off directly with Israeli police. Because the city lacks organised Palestinian groups, the security services have been unable to penetrate them with collaborators. Instead Israel has been caught off guard by unpredictable attacks as individual Palestinians reach their breaking point.
By refusing to recognise any Palestinian national claims in Jerusalem, Netanyahu has forced the population to recast the conflict in religious terms. Unable to identify politically with either Fatah or Hamas, Jerusalem’s Palestinians have found powerful consolation in a religious struggle to counter the mounting threats to Al-Aqsa.
From this perspective, Netanyahu’s continuing efforts to weaken and undermine Abbas and the PA appear strategically self-destructive. Without them, the West Bank will go the way of Jerusalem – an ever more unmanageable colonial conflict that risks heading towards religious conflagration.
With Iraq’s military a corrupt trainwreck and Syria’s military not much better off after years of war, the US coalition is keen to see some “boots on the ground” in the nations to fight ISIS, and are increasingly recognizing that neither nation’s military is really up to retaking territory from ISIS.
The US has been increasing its own ground presence across Iraq, though they continue to deny that they’re going to be involved in direct combat operations. Jordan seems to be keen to get an Arab army involved, and could be the first nation on board with the operation.
Selling the idea to either Iraq or Syria is going to be a tall order, however, as Arab troops really means in this context “Sunni Arab troops,” from nations not on particularly good terms with the Shi’ite governments of those nations.
Jordan and Syria have seen their relationship sour dramatically in recent years, with Jordan openly training US-backed rebels for the fight in Syria, and calling for the ouster of the Assad government.
Sending this army careening into Syria and Iraq without at least some acceptance from those governments would be hugely problematic, and would further complicate an already messy war.
In the meantime, the US continues to sell ideas like arming random Anbar Province tribes or training up whole new Syrian rebel factions as the way to increase the number of boots on the ground. Their denials notwithstanding, it seems like the US troops are also likely to get sucked into direct combat sooner or later.
Egyptian authorities have reacted in predictably knee-jerk reaction to an Islamist call for a day of protests. But Islamist leaders cannot escape blame for Egypt’s parlous situation.
Tahrir Square is closed until Saturday. Al-Azhar tunnel, a vital traffic vein in a congested capital, is also closed.
Battalions from the army and police, meanwhile, have been deployed around government facilities, across the country. And state TV as well as private channels are filled patriotic songs, old and new.
Hysteria has been whipped up by the government, and its media pundits are occupying the airwaves, warning the public of “plots”, “conspiracies”, and the imminent demise of the Egyptian state on “Black Friday”.
Why? The state is reacting to a call for an “Muslim youth uprising,” on 28 November, by the Salafi Front, which was endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies. The protest seeks to "impose Islamic identity without disguise".
The call for national demonstrations tomorrow predictably elicited a knee-jerk reaction from the state, with the troop deployments, daily incitement and a series of doomsday scenarios delivered by a variety of self-described strategic experts.
Interior ministry officials have already stated they are ready to use live ammunition against protesters. Al-Azhar and associated cliques of government-friendly sheikhs also did not waste the chance. They quickly weighed in with their fatwas excommunicating those planning to take part in the protests, and providing religious justification, in rubber-stamp fashion, for killing opposition activists.
Three years ago, the (same) Islamist leaders, mobilized their followers onto Tahrir Square to “preserve Egypt’s Islamic identity”, by supporting the ruling military junta. Today, “preserving Egypt’s Islamic identity” entails the overthrow of the (same) ruling military junta, they say.
Since the coup, Islamist leaders have not stopped calling for unity with the secular opposition, and they seem genuinely puzzled as to why their calls are not heeded. And I share their puzzlement. Why on earth would Copts resist the urge to support “imposing Islamic identity without disguise”? Why would leftists stay away from protests that call for the establishment of “Islamic Sharia”?
One must denounce firmly the abuses of the state against Islamists. Sisi is employing the “dirty war” manual by the letter. Yet, the hypocrisy and the sectarianism of Islamist leaders cannot also be forgiven.
With Iraq’s military a corrupt trainwreck and Syria’s military not much better off after years of war, the US coalition is keen to see some “boots on the ground” in the nations to fight ISIS, and are increasingly recognizing that neither nation’s military is really up to retaking territory from ISIS.