RUTHFULLY YOURS

Even though at this stage, M-103 is non-binding, as one of its supporters — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum and affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood — wrote, “Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning.”

It sounds as if the next step is to try to make a non-binding resolution binding; and as if the eventual aim is to reinforce and legitimize the term Islamophobia, to limit freedom of speech, and to prevent Canadians from criticizing radical Islam, Islamic sharia, and practices such as wife- beating, honor killing and female genital mutilation (FGM).

Fear or anger toward radical Islam and Muslims are unlikely to be caused by an “irrational hatred and fear of Islam,” or “Islamophobia”. They are, however, likely to be triggered by global radical Islamic terrorist attacks and as more people become aware of the aggressive and intolerant nature of many Quranic verses, of the Muslims Prophet’s hadiths, of what Canadian Muslim clerics (imams) are preaching and of radical Islam.

The Canadian Liberal Party’s anti-Islamophobia motion, M-103, is not a law; it is a non-binding formal proposal, an opinion by Parliament. The motion’s text calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

However, the House of Commons Heritage Committee heard on September 27 that it is more likely to lead to “thought control, oppression, disharmony and criminalization of non-Muslims, ” according to the National Post.

The hearing also revealed that there are many doubts about the motion’s vague language. Committee members spent much of the time, the National Post added, trying to explain exactly what M-103 means.

The controversial motion passed 201 votes to 91 in March, after months of bitter debate, and protests and counter-protests, across Canada, and in the aftermath of the January 29 mosque shooting in Quebec City, where six Muslim men were murdered.

(Image source: Parliament of Canada)

Careful, objective reading of the latest hate crime statistics in Canada, for 2015 (released in June 2017), exposes that the motion is biased in both its wording and priorities. It is also an act of favoritism in that it singles out Islam and only Islam for special treatment.

The motion sets forth the term “Islamophobia,” mentions it twice by name, places the government’s condemnation of “Islamophobia” first, and “all forms of systemic racism” and “religious discrimination” only after it.

Iran’s goal in this move? For Hamas to maintain and enhance its preparation for war against Israel.

Iran’s message to Hamas: If you want us to continue providing you with financial and military aid, you must continue to hold on to your weapons and reject demands to disarm.

Iran wants Hamas to retain its security control over the Gaza Strip so that the Iranians can hold onto another power base in the Middle East, as it does with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In a historic reawakening, Iran is once again meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians. This this does not bode well for the future of “reconciliation” between Hamas and Palestinian Authority’s Fatah faction run by President Mahmoud Abbas.The re-emergence of Iran, as it pursues its efforts to increase its political and military presence in the region, does not bode well for the future of stability in the Middle East.

The Iranians are urging Hamas to hold on to its weapons in spite of the recent “reconciliation” agreement signed between Hamas and Fatah under the auspices of Egypt. Iran’s goal in this move? For Hamas to maintain and enhance its preparation for war against Israel.

A high-level Hamas delegation headed by Saleh Arouri, deputy chairman of Hamas’s “political bureau,” traveled to Tehran last week to brief Iranian leaders on the “reconciliation” deal with Fatah. During the visit, Iranian leaders praised Hamas for resisting demands (by Fatah) to disarm and relinquish security control over the Gaza Strip.

“We congratulate you on your refusal to abandon your weapons, an issue that you consider as a red line,” Ali Velayati, a senior Iranian politician and advisor to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei, told the visiting Hamas officials. “The Palestinian cause is the most important cause of the Islamic world, and after all this time you remain committed to the principle of resistance against the Zionists despite all the pressure you are facing.”

During the visit of a high-level Hamas delegation to Iran last week, Ali Velayati (pictured above in 2016), a senior Iranian politician and advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the visiting Hamas officials: “We congratulate you on your refusal to abandon your weapons…” (Image source: Hamed Malekpour/Wikimdia Commons)

Arouri and his colleagues rushed to Tehran to seek the support of the Iranian regime in the wake of demands by Abbas that Hamas allow the Palestinian Authority to assume security control over the Gaza Strip. The “reconciliation” agreement stipulates nothing about the need for Hamas to disarm, and Hamas officials have stressed during the past two weeks that they have no intention of laying down their weapons or dismantling their security apparatus in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas views the demand to disarm as part of an Israeli-American “conspiracy” designed to eliminate the Palestinian “resistance” and thwart the “reconciliation” accord with Abbas’s Fatah. Hamas’s refusal to disarm is already threatening to spoil the “reconciliation.”

“Like making a pyromaniac the town fire chief.” That’s the verdict from Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO UN Watch, on the controversial decision to appoint the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to the UN Human Rights Council. It’s a view shared by UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who said that the DRC’s appointment proved that the HRC could not possibly view itself as a unified voice of moral clarity with the integrity to call out abusive governments. The US, which is rightfully reviewing its membership in the council, has called for competitive elections to put pressure on countries with such abysmal human rights records.

Unfortunately, it is not only atrocities within its own borders that the DRC is fueling – it is also sponsoring terrorism overseas. According to a new report, “The Terrorists’ Treasury,” the BGFIBank DRC – which is operated by the brother of Congolese President Joseph Kabila – has been diverting assets to enable the financiers of the Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

This is not the first time that the DRC has been exposed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Earlier this year, the NGO Global Witness exposed how Congo Futur, a lumber company owned by major financiers of Hezbollah, had clandestinely created new companies and transferred ownership to proxies in order to circumvent sanctions and export more than $5.5 million worth of luxury timber from the DRC to the US market.

The news that the DRC continues to provide indirect support for Hezbollah comes at a time when the terrorist organization poses a greater threat than ever. First, Hezbollah has been boosting its stockpile of weapons across Lebanon, stoking tensions in the region and raising the prospect of war with Israel. Given the fact that since 1993 every confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon has grown increasingly intense, the next inevitable clash will end up wreaking havoc in both countries.

Second, in addition to expanding its military capacities in Lebanon, Hezbollah has been playing an ever prominent role alongside Syrian government forces in the eastern region of Deir ez-Zor, where the US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces and regime troops are competing for Islamic State territory. Hezbollah has also been exploiting the de-escalation of conflict in south Syria as a vehicle to carry out reconnaissance work in the region, identifying areas in the country from which it could easily strike Israel without needing to be physically close to the border.

However, it is not only towards key US allies that Hezbollah is posing an increasingly menacing threat – it is also towards America itself. The terrorist group was recently caught conspiring to attack the US on its own turf, conducting fundraising operations in the country and positioning “sleeper agents” in places like Michigan and New York.

That the DRC feels emboldened to help Hezbollah restock its war chest should not come as a surprise. After all, the Obama administration and other Western governments have already taught the country – and specifically its President Joseph Kabila – that it can behave how it likes without risking censure.

In 2011, when Kabila came to power in an election marred by electoral irregularities and vote rigging, the US chose to turn a blind eye, believing that for all his faults, Kabila was the best guarantee for stability in the country.

Unsurprisingly the chickens are now coming home to roost. Kabila, a leader who achieved power by corrupt means, is now ensuring that he retains power through equally underhanded methods. Taking Western governments’ past acquiescence as carte blanche, Kabila recently announced that presidential elections originally slated for last December would be delayed until 2019.

The problem is that “hate” is an ill-defined thing. What is hateful to one person may not be hateful to another. What is hateful in one context may not be hateful in another.

British authorities have gone along with a definition of hate-crime which allows the victim (real or perceived) to be the arbiter of whether an offence has been committed. This privilege allows a list of people who believe they have been “trolled” or “abused” online over their “race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity” to be arbiters as well as reporters of any and all such crimes. It is worth considering where this can end up.

Can anyone daring to express dissent against any popular view be reported for “trolling”, “abusing” and “committing a hate crime”?

If you were a police officer what would you rather do: sit in the cold outside the house of a known extremist all day, or sit behind a desk with a cup of tea and scrolling through Twitter?

In May, just after the second of four Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK so far this year, British intelligence officials apparently identified 23,000 known extremists in the country. Of these, around 3,000 are believed to pose a present threat and are under investigation or active monitoring. The other 20,000 are categorised as posing a “residual risk”. Due to the strain on resources, those 20,000 are not under constant observation.

This is a subject which, since the terrorist attack in May, has caused some agonising among the British public, not least because of the identities of the attackers. Khalid Masood, the Westminster Bridge and Parliament assailant, for instance, as well as Salman Abedi (the young man of Libyan heritage who carried out a suicide bombing outside a concert in Manchester) had both been on the radar of the British authorities — both had been in the pool of people considered “former subjects of interest” but not an immediate threat. If the authorities had sufficient resources to follow everyone of interest, perhaps they would have been under observation at the time they were planning their attacks. Perhaps, also, a number of people killed in those attacks would still be alive.

The public, though, can be forgiving on these matters. They recognise that resources are not endless, that judgements have to be made and that departments have to choose where to allocate their budgets.

These choices are another reason why the public may judge dimly last week’s announcement from the Home Office. Last week, Britain’s Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the creation of a new national police hub to crack down on hate-crime and “trolling” online. The unit — which will apparently be run by specialist officers — will assess complaints and work out whether they amount to a crime or not. They will also recommend removing material from online platforms if they — at the official hate-crime hub — deem such material “hateful”.

Saudi women will first have to get permission from a male guardian just to apply for a driver’s license. Enabling women will still be mainly in the hands of their Saudi male guardians, and many will probably not allow their women to drive.

Any discontent felt by angry men who want total control over their women, household or other people will probably not allow their women to drive. If women are disappointed or frustrated by this domination, the blame will stay mainly within the Saudi family. The woman is not able to blame the government, but only her male guardian. Yes, the government may technically have annulled the driving ban but it has issued nothing actually to help women to drive.

The real challenge King Salman needs to face now is how to deal with calls for abolishing male guardianship — a far more urgent and significant reform that, after calculating the risks and rewards, might be postponed indefinitely.

On 27 September, the Council of Senior Scholars, the highest clerical council in Saudi Arabia, endorsed the royal decree allowing women to drive, thereby disrupting years of ultra-conservative fatwas and religious opinions by the kingdom’s leading religious scholars including current and former grand muftis and council members.

In a statement published by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA), the council said that King Salman had issued the decree to serve “the best religious and worldly interests of the country and people,” agreeing that Islam allows women the right to drive.

In attempt to defend previous fatwas banning driving and to avoid alienating dissatisfied hardline adherents to Wahhabi Salafism, the council said that the current fatwas are “based on the benefits and disadvantages of women driving” evaluated first by the ruler and then by clerics and the women’s male guardians: “Male guardians will have to consider both sides of this issue.” In short, women will first have to get permission from a male guardian just to apply for a driver’s license.

It seems that the main and only winner of all this is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

It seems that the main and only winner of the Saudi royal decree allowing women to drive is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (Photo by Nicolas Asfouri – Pool/Getty Images)

For a start, the council’s endorsement of the royal decree proves clearly that senior clerics’ fatwas and opinions are open to dramatic changes. Their fatwas are not fixed or unchangeable. Council members, including the current and former muftis, had banned women driving. The council’s endorsement also emphasizes that the king is more powerful in facing the clerics and cares more about his people. The new decree emphasizes the image of the new king as a powerful, great and disruptive reformer.

These developments also implicitly hurt the image of most of powerful clerics who previously banned women driving, whether they have changed their opinions or not. Such developments lead people to believe that clerics’ fatwas have been just reflections of what rulers want, that the clerics are yes-men and not independent.

Development such as allowing women to apply for drivers’ licenses throw into doubt all fatwas and statements issued by all clerics, dead or alive, who may contradict any of King Salman’s future decrees or decisions. The most challenging one is the kingdom’s possible formal recognition of Israel and normalizing relationships with it.

As for deceased clerics, such as the former grand mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz ibn Baz and the popular and influential Sheikh Mohamed ibn al-Uthaymeen, Saudi citizens think that if these clerics were alive today, they would have changed those fatwas exactly as the current council members and the current grand mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al-Alsheikh did. As head of the council of senior scholars, he endorsed the royal decree — in direct contradiction to his fatwa last year. Saudi people will now think that senior clerics change their fatwas and religious opinions after the king, and will realize that their authority is secondary to the king’s and therefore should not be their main reference.