|
|
|
||
|
|
Prompted by other press comments and events.
|
303
|
|
|
June 2012. I am considerably disquieted by the fact that 51% of those who voted in Egypt (about 51% of the electorate actually voted, despite all the supposed enthusiasm during the "Arab Spring" demonstrations.) voted in the Moslim Brotherhood candidate. That organisation is primarily Sunni Moslem in outlook apparently. It would appear to me that the new leader could have opposition from the almost 75% of the electorate total who did not vote for him. He could be on shaky ground (despite the group of supporters seen rejoicing on TV everywhere) He has also suggested that he could "reconsider" both the Camp David peace accord and the relations with the Shiite regime in Iran. This is very worrying. Ahmadinejad is NOT a responsible leader, and is, himself on somewhat shaky electoral ground as well. The situation in Gaza and other areas will NOT be resolved by more sabre rattling and indescriminate "do it yourself" rocket fire at Israel. Yes, some Palestinians WERE forced out of Israel in 1948 and some have been evicted more recently, but a substantial part of the reasoning for the latter is the refusal of some factions to talk and to fire rockets etc. instead, often from close proximity to settlement areas and even deliberately sheltering behind children. Israel simply cannot trust some Moslims to live alongside Jew and Christian. |
|
December 2nd 2001 Atrocities in Israel and the "Revenge" attacks today. |
|
Yet more dreadful Terrorist acts by extremists produce more counterreaction. Why, in the name of Allah and Jehova do they all not see the UTTER FUTILITY of all this bloodshed and destruction. There was an Israeli on BBC News24 talking about Arafats response today. At least he had responded this time! Why then does Sharon say he is responsible for the terrorists? That is patently incorrect! The last Israeli act of assassination was the main trigger. If the Israelis do not work WITH Arafat, rather than undermine his position by this "Eye for an Eye" and "A week of quiet before we talk" nonesense there is NO hope at all! Seriously, readers, there is there NO solution other than Nuking the area. "Holy Land"? All this stupidity on both sides in the name of religion makes it UNHOLY! P.K.M. 3rd December 2001. |
|
** And you wonder why there is violence in Gaza! |
This is the problem! Too many 'militias' all armed to the teeth! There is absolutely NO need for all these members wasting energy and resources which could instead be improving the lives of the people instead of creating yet more misery. There should be One army and One police force, neither linked to ANY faction or 'party'. Until this happens, there will not be peace! 86000 men NOT producing anything of economic value! |
|
** Vaguely legitimate perhaps? |
Executive Force: |
|
The "Brigades" |
Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: |
|
April 1st. 2002 Letter to Ceefax and Teletext. |
The insanity continues! All Sharon is doing by his actions is creating more militants. His attitude to Arafat makes it impossible for Arafat to restrain them. However if Islam condemns those who kill innocents, where does that leave the suicide bombers? Paradise? I think NOT! (See Orthodox Islam below) |
|
Suggestions:- In no particular order. |
That the Israelis cease the indiscriminate "Avenge that bombing!!!!" destructive reaction. This has to include allowing Arafat to put the case against the bombers to his people, and to point out that all the bombers are doing is killing themselves for absolutely NO progress. The Clerical leaders should also be doing that as well! The "Wahhabi" approach (see below) will not work. It belongs in past ages. If this does not happen, ALL aid and assistance to the participants should be frozen. After all, so much which was EU funded has been needlessly destroyed by Israeli "Revenge" in any case! How can Ariel Sharon expect the "average Palestinian" not to be outraged by it, rather than to the "militant" ones!!!! There should be no further "resettlement" on the disputed lands and no more displacements. Any thoughts of a "Palestinian" state should bear in mind that all the "states" in the region were drawn up out of a larger empire, built up probably as a result of similar religious disagreements to those today, and that Jerusalem has more archaeology pointing towards Judaism than Islam. After all The Mosque is ON TOP of Solomon's temple ruins! The best case for that city is INTERNATIONAL status, with tolerance for all. |
|
The Middle East. A commentary. |
|
Re Blair's visits. (Oct/November) Clearly things did not go to plan. Assad clearly doesn't understand what is going on. If he STILL wants to support sundry "Freedom fighters" (actually simply TERRORISTS) Syria can NOT be on the UN Security council. If the terrorists he condones stopped attacking innocent Israelis there would be NO reason for (arguably too severe and indiscriminate at times) Israeli counter reaction. The Israeli position on "Palestine" is not completely tenable from the "Palestinian" viewpoint, but that should NOT be an excuse for Jihad, Hamas and others to perpetuate the violence. The UN are entitled to suspend Syria forthwith after that statement by Assad. In Israel he fared little better. I can see why Sharon still wants to target specific extremist targets. Until Assad and Yasser Arafat can really rein these fanatics into more civilised behaviour it is probably unrealistic to expect Sharon to change his views. The UN could, perhaps help here, but there can be no direct USA involvement, other than to keep pressure on the Israeli position. The real solution is compromise, and until the extremists are curtailed there won't be one. |
|
Osama Bin Laden Had picked up on George Bush's use of the term "Crusade". That is emphatically what the operation is NOT! It is against a "policy" (by Al Queda) of indiscriminate, unislamic murder of innocents of all faiths by often suicidal terrorist action. Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), the Islamic interpreter the Al Queda group is following, twisted a historic commentry in the Koran as if it was a policy to be applied as "Islam".(see further down this page). There should be a condemnation of this misleading approach. When Muhammed wrote the text, Islam WAS under pressure by other faiths. Today, in the 21st Century there is NO reason why such a hostile position must be taken. Followers of Islam are (arguably) entitled to try and "convert" others, but The Koran does NOT say that unbelievers are to be killed at all times! Yet again, as in his comments over the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden is misleading his followers. Saddam Hussein's expansionist plans (over fellow Moslems) were the reason for the Saudis to invite the Americans in, NOT American expansionism, or whatever other ruse Bin Laden used as justification. The coalition action now is NOT a Crusade. It is reflecting the whole rest of the World telling the Terrorist factions "Enough is Enough"! |
|
Above this cell 2nd. November 2001 The rest up to Oct 21st. |
|
Yet more "eye for an eye" reaction / counter reaction. This has got to be reconsidered. Both sides have "rights" to various "Holy" places too, I don't propose to prioritise there as to who had "first claim", but this constant bickering defiles those places to both communities. Do both Koran and Bible REALLY say any other religion is to be condemned? After all, BOTH have only ONE God! Its just the name which is different! |
|
The minority factions on the "Palestinian" side are again carrying out the occasional attack. The Israelis should set aside the "48 hour calm" clause and talk now. It is all too easy for the minority to exploit that type of clause! |
|
"Two wrongs do not make a right". "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The former is a New Testament quote, the latter from the Old Testament. America could have reacted hastily to Sept. 11th. It did not. Why, in Heaven's name do the Israelis always react too quickly? It was WRONG for the "Palestinians" to kill the minister, but so is the Israeli policy which is still being pursued. It is idiocy to maintain this "revenge" approach. Innocent death resulting from almost all such attacks serve only to perpetuate the anger on the Palestinian side, and NOT just the extremist factions. |
|
Both Arafat and Sharon should rein in their extremist elements as soon as possible. Wahhabism should be discredited as a misreading of a historical text in the Koran. The World demands this action for the benefit of all. "Islamic" extremism is a misguided force, but if the equivalent Israeli element is not also shown the error of its ways NOW, then this sorry saga will go on until the nuclear or biological attack sends us all back to the Stone Age! |
|
What does the Archaeology of Jerusalem tell us? |
|
I am already aware that the Mosque in Jerusalem is on top of the remains of the Temple of Solomon (c974 -937 BC). This fact places the Islamic claim second on Archaeological grounds, but that should not make either claim less valid. Muhammad is dated as living c 570 - 632 AD so the Israeli claim IS the prior one by over a millennium! He however recognises Moses and many other Old Testament features. The current Israeli claim that it is capital of Israel is not recognised by the UN however. 1400 BC Ruled by a king subject to Egypt. c 1000 BC Made Capital of a United Jewish kingdom by David. 586 BC captured and depopulated by Nebuchadnezzar. Cyrus then repopulated it and in c445 BC rebuilt the walls. Islamic control came first in 637 AD, taking over from the Byzantine rule. The Crusades brought Christian control in 1099 AD until Saladin recaptured it in 1187. Muslim rule continued until the British occupation of Palestine in 1917 when it was the capital of the "British Mandate" 1922 - 1948. |
|
The dates above clearly point to a prior Israeli claim. Their disposession, however by a long dead warring opponent goes back many generations. This is one reason why the "new settlement" policy is so provocative and has been handled so badly in almost all cases. "Arab" families have been established for many generations. Why both can't coexist is incomprehensible to me. Bulldozing a home on land a family has occupied for centuries is VERY provocative and should not have become apparently established practice. The Jewish fundamentalist groups who have pushed for it are another reason for the current tension. Much of the current situation relates to uncompromising and, perhaps less than helpful reactions to that subdivision. |
|
Remember also that Jerusalem was NOT visited by Mohammed and is also NOT mentioned in the Koran. Also NONE of the states in the Middle East existed as such until the "West" drew up the borders last century! |
|
Saudi Arabia. Is almost entirely the creation of King Ibn Saud who fought rival Arab leaders after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918. He established himself as king of the Hejaz and sultan of Nejd by 1926. These two areas became Saudo Arabia in 1932. The discovery of oil in the 1930's and its sale to the West led directly to the prosperity of Saudi Arabia and its strategic importance to the energy hungry (and profligate) USA. |
|
Iran. (Shi'ite Moslem) Has a chequered history, like the whole region. Known as Persia for much of its history and in 1921 Col Reza Khan was able to take power and become Shah in 1925, when the period of modernisation began. The country was, however partly democratic too, taking over the foreign oil companies in the 50s. There were coups though and eventually a one party state was set up by the Shah. Resentment grew however and the charismatic Ayatollah Khomeni, working from exile in France was able to encourage a change to an Islamic Republic,(1979) with a constitution based on Islamic principles. It also is, in effect a one party or no party state surely? The state has gradually become more strict in its application of the Islamic laws, yet also appeared to condone hostage taking and similar activities. There was also a very damaging war (1980-87) over a border dispute with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The South border area also overlaps the Kurdish tribal areas, as does that of Turkey. |
|
Iraq (Sunni Moslem) Biblical Mesopotamia and was part of a series of empires. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918. Under a British administration (League of Nations 1920) the country recovered and became independent in 1932. The kingdom however was overthrown and Iraq became a republic. This was somewhat unstable at times eventually leading to the establishment of Saddam Hussein (who had been the real background power for some time) in command. A dispute over the Shatt-al-Arab waterway led to the war with Iran, which produced little territorial change. Hussein was also engaged against the Kurdish minority, often with indiscriminate chemical weapons. After all this and more negative history, Saddam is still there and being praised by some Arab states! |
|
Syria (Sunni Moslem, Alawite and Druze sectarian factions) Was also under Ottoman control. It was under French control from 1920 to 1946 when it became independent. Army control took over in 1949 however. In 1970 the Ba'ath party under Hafiz al-Assad established control and Assad was elected president in 1971. Syria has attempted assistance in other parts of the Middle East, notably Lebanon, and has both opposed and now condoned various Shi'ite, Druze and other splinter groups. The current leader has stated that such groups are "freedom fighters", which may undermine Syria's security council position. There is still a difference of opinion with Iran over Lebanon. |
|
Jordan |
|
Wahhabism. The legacy of Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792) |
|
Quoted more or less verbatim from Mail on Sunday Sept. 23 2001 page 16 |
|
According to a report by Stephen Schwartz in The Spectator, this is apparently the "official religion" of Saudi Arabia. It is a variant, (and a recent one at that) of Islam. It is similar to extreme Puritanism. It abolishes decoration in mosques, including even writing the name of Mohammed. Music is banned and sexual transgressions or drinking warrant the death penalty. I wish someone would indicate WHERE in the Koran Mohammed states that. It also (unique in Islam) brands those who do not pray as "unbelievers". It is violent, intolerant and fanatical beyond measure. WHERE does Mohammed sanction this? All the Muslim suicide bombers were Wahhabis! The cult has a historical association with mass murder. In 1801 when they took the city of Qarbala they killed 2000 in the streets. Britain actually supported them (Ibn Saud) against the "decadent" Ottoman empire. The Turks tolerated differences in local traditions, but Wahhabism does not. It also is the reason why Bin Laden is so inflamed by the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. In this case then, WHY do the Saudis still allow it? They seem to be facing both ways! Bin Laden is a Wahhabi, as are the suicide bombers in Israel and the Egyptians who massacred the tourists at Luxor 4 years ago. The Algerians who murdered for reading secular newspapers and the Taliban style guerillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus are also Wahhabi. The Iranians however are not. The Taliban however do practice a variant of Wahhabism. Ironically it is also being presented as "Islam" in up to 80% of the mosques in the USA! Promoted as "better Muslims" Those who support traditional Islam are the silent majority apparently. Clearly it is time for them to speak up! "American" Muslims may be being brainwashed by it! The Saudis are spreading this minority ideology under the anti Saddam guise! Radical Islam or " Islamofascism" is clearly behind much of the terrorism whether intentionally or not. This is also against the Islamic majority! It seems that Saudi Arabia is the single most important cause and supporter of the general fanaticisation of Islam! All the suicide pilots seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf States, Egyptians or Algerians, planted as "sleepers" in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada! The conspiracy seems in fact to date from the time of the Middle East Peace Process! This report puts a completely different light on the matter. Since Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi and that is the "official" Saudi Arabian religion then we should be told where in the Koran the text is which justifies this kind of barbarism. I suspect the reading into it of the 18th Century is in error. A text intended as a historic reference only should not be taken out of context! The world has evolved considerably since then, taking basically a humanist view. The Taleban and similar opressive regimes seem far removed from any kind of "fair" society from whatever angle you view it! |
|
Orthodox Islam states that to fight "in the way of Allah" you fight your enemies face to face, without harming non-combatants, women or children. This statement clearly points not only to the WTC atrocity, but also the habit of Jihad and Hamas of involving children. Wahhabism runs contrary to this stated view. Where have they found the grounds for this extremism? |
|
The Taliban. Written prior to the article above. |
|
Does the Islam of the Taliban make sense to other Muslims in the
21st. Century? This comment today is a strong suggestion that at
least some of the Taliban approach is out of line. Saudi Arabia did
support the regime, but does this mean their opinions have changed. |
|
September 18th. Taliban "To Give Up Bin Laden" says the Manchester Evening News headline, (actually delayed until Wednesday and so far without result) yet the Taliban apparently also told the population to prepare for "holy war" against the United States. Hang on a moment, did the West not AID the Taliban against their opponents (and the Russians?). What has changed? |
|
Re Protests. |
|
There have been reactions in Pakistan to the opinion of the current government. The question is, does the Pakistani clerical heirarchy agree or not? These protests are becoming less marked. |
|
Political Comment page set up September 17th. 2001. Edited October 21st. and Dec 3rd. New material ** June 12th 2007. New edits June 2012 |
