RUTHFULLY YOURS

Waleed Al-Husseini is a Palestinian blogger and essayist, as well as the founder of the Ex-Muslim Council of France. He garnered international fame in 2010 when he was arrested by the Palestinian Authority, imprisoned and tortured for articles he posted, in which he criticized Islam. He has received threats and death threats. He is one of the most celebrated cyber-activists from the Arab world and now lives in France, where he sought refuge. He continues to be a defender of its secular, republican values.

“The world is changing, and more and more Muslims wish to live without the oppressing “tutelage” of Islam.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

“I find it difficult to speak of Muslim integration in France. In fact, except for a tiny minority, they are not really looking to integrate themselves.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

“The only ones who create stigmatization are the Muslims themselves… I cannot see one scintilla of evidence of a plot against Islam.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

“In addition, more and more Islamists refuse to integrate into a society that they deem godless and that they wish to convert.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

“Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, Muslims discreetly approve or at least try to justify the attacks.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

“According to their speeches, the Islamists indeed have set themselves the goal of conquering and ruling the entire world. If they manage to do it, they will owe their success not to their intellectual power or their faith, even less to their military force, but to their adversaries’ cowardice.” — Waleed Al-Husseini.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Could you start by reminding us of the circumstances and motives of your dissent?

Waleed Al-Husseini: My atheism is the result of a long quest for the truth about what I saw happening in front of me. Obviously, nobody holds all of the truth, but during my research, I realized that religion in general, and Islam in particular, was highly incompatible with the values of human life. That was the beginning of my rejection of Islam. As time goes by, the horrors and crimes committed against mankind in the name of Islam seem to have proven me right. They have strengthened my conviction that it was the right choice to make.

The government of Canada has been calling for greater work towards identifying the causes of extremism and radicalization in Canada.

One source of extremism is clearly in educational institutions. If the government of Canada is truly serious about attacking extremism in Canada, then having a national level investigation into educational institutions would be a good place to start.

Canada’s so-called feminists have remained silent on the issue of wife-beating, inequality for women and the generally misogynistic views advanced in schools, universities and public groups such as the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In certain circles, apparently, brown women’s lives do not rate as highly as white women’s lives. At the same time, the social justice warrior scale places Islam — even its Islamist variety — at the top of the protected scale. Therefore, feminists allow the advocacy of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and wife-beating while refusing to condemn those who advocate it, including Canada’s Minister for the Status of Women.

The government of Canada has been calling for greater work towards identifying the causes of extremism and radicalization in Canada. In an August 2016 statement, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale stated that, “We need to know how to identify those who could be vulnerable to insidious influences that draw certain people — especially young people — toward extremism leading to violence.”

One source of extremism is clearly in educational institutions. If the government of Canada is truly serious about attacking extremism in Canada, then having a national level investigation into educational institutions would be a good place to start.

Muslim children need to be stronger so they “won’t get mixed with the moral degeneration of the Canadian community.” At least this is the view of a teacher who explains why an Ottawa Islamic school uses the textbooks it does to keep Muslim youth firmly in the Sunni (Islamist) camp.[1] At York University in Toronto, the Muslim Student Association has handed out literature that says beating a wife is permissible and that some wives will enjoy the beating.[2]

Yoram Hazony’s “Nationalism and the Future of Western Freedom” is a bold and fiery piece. In what follows, even as I intend to question and complicate his argument, I remain grateful for its genuinely refreshing spirit of intellectual combat. http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2016/09/the-flaws-in-both-universalism-and-nationalism/

Hazony characterizes the idea behind modern nationalism, what he calls the “Protestant construction,” as at root a biblical idea. Although he doesn’t specifically mention it, I can’t help being reminded of the familiar story in Genesis of the tower of Babel (or “Baybul” as I was taught to pronounce it in the American South). That story perfectly encapsulates how I think about nationalism and universalism. On the one hand, the ambition of the tower’s builders was a noble one: they wanted to reach heaven. What could be a more appropriate human aspiration? On the other hand, that ambition challenged the majesty of God, trying to take for all mankind something that by right belonged only to the Creator, to the Transcendent.

The result of this human initiative is that God scatters the people into different nations and “confuses” their once-single language into many. Again: on the one hand, you might think of this as a kind of reward: independent nations, each able to determine its own unique identity and pursue its own purposes. On the other hand, you might—along with the displeased God of Genesis—see it as a punishment, and as a caution.

What this story powerfully suggests to me is that, as is often and perhaps usually the case in human affairs, we have here two alternatives—let’s call them, respectively, cosmopolitan universalism and national self-determination—and they’re both flawed. Really, deeply flawed: vulnerable not just to mistaken impulses but to vile and ugly deformations.

Thus, in the case of cosmopolitan universalism, you can get to the point where a king or emperor or supreme leader like Nebuchadnezzar decrees that anyone who doesn’t pay obeisance to the realm’s designated idol will be subject to punishment up to and including execution. That has surely happened more than once in human history, and there are significant numbers of people today who would like to make it happen again.

BERLIN—German Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted to her party’s latest electoral loss by sticking to her migration policy on Monday but acknowledging, more explicitly than before, that she had made mistakes along the way.

Ms. Merkel described her center-right Christian Democratic Union’s second-place performance in Sunday’s election in the city-state of Berlin as a “very unsatisfactory, disappointing” result. She acknowledged widespread public discomfort with the influx of more than a million asylum applicants to Germany this year and last and said that she heard voters’ concerns.

“If I could, I would turn back time many, many years to be able to better prepare myself and the whole government and all those in positions of responsibility for the situation that met us rather unprepared in late summer 2015,” Ms. Merkel said at a news conference at her party’s headquarters in the German capital.

Nevertheless, Ms. Merkel—whose steadfast refusal to close the German border to asylum seekers has become a focal point in the global debate over how to treat refugees—said she would stick to her current policy. She said she was guided both by a conviction that Germany has a duty to take in people in need but also that the sort of chaotic, mass influx of people as this country experienced last year had to be prevented.

The processing of asylum requests and deportation of those rejected needed to be sped up, she said, while conditions in Africa, Syria, and elsewhere needed to be improved to reduce the numbers of refugees.

“No one wants this to be repeated, and I don’t either,” Ms. Merkel said of last year’s refugee influx at Germany’s borders. “We have learned from history.”

The Alternative for Germany, an upstart, anti-immigrant party that took 14.2% in Sunday’s Berlin vote, has called for the country to turn away asylum seekers at the border and to limit immigration by Muslims. Ms. Merkel’s sister party in the state of Bavaria, the Christian Social Union, has sought an annual cap on how many refugees Germany accepts and called for precedence to be given to immigrants from Christian countries.
ENLARGE

Ms. Merkel rejected those calls in her remarks on Monday. Blocking all refugees or all Muslims, she said, would contradict not only “the German constitution and our country’s duties under international law, but also above all the ethical foundations of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and my personal convictions.”

The center-left Social Democrats won Sunday’s election in the city-state of Berlin with just 21.6% of the vote—the worst result for any winner in a state election in German postwar history. Both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, who came in second with 17.6%, saw their worst results in a Berlin state election and lost more than 5 percentage points compared with the previous Berlin election, in 2011. CONTINUE AT SITE

Long after I returned to the U.S. after living in Jerusalem I kept thinking about soft targets. The peak-hour commuter train that took me from Westchester to Grand Central. The snaking queue outside the security checkpoint at La Guardia Airport. The theater crowds near Times Square.

All of these places were vulnerable and most of them undefended. Why, I wondered, weren’t they being attacked?

This was in late 2004, when Jack Bauer was an American hero and memories of 9/11 were vivid. Yet friends who were nervous about boarding a flight seemed nonchalant about much more plausible threats. Maybe they expected the next attack would be on the same grand scale of 9/11. Maybe they thought the perpetrators would be supervillains in the mold of Osama bin Laden, not fried-chicken vendors like Ahmad Khan Rahimi, the suspected 23rd Street bomber.

Life in Israel had taught me differently. Between January 2002, when I moved to the country, and October 2004, when I left, there were 85 suicide bombings, which took the lives of 543 Israelis. Palestinian gun attacks claimed hundreds of additional victims. In a small country it meant that most everyone knew one of those victims, or knew someone who knew someone.

To this day the bombings are landmarks in my life. March 2002: Cafe Moment, just down the street from my apartment, where my future wife had arranged to meet a friend who canceled at the last minute. Eleven dead. September 2003: Cafe Hillel, another neighborhood hangout, where seven people were murdered, including 20-year-old Nava Applebaum and her father, David, on the eve of her wedding. January 2004: Bus No. 19 on Gaza Street, which I witnessed close-up before the ambulances arrived. Another 11 dead and 13 seriously injured, including Jerusalem Post reporter Erik Schechter.
Living in those circumstances had a strange dichotomous quality. Things were absolutely fine until they absolutely weren’t. Memories of bombings mix with other memories: jogs around the walls of the old city, weekend outings to the beach, the daily grind of editing a newspaper. The sense of normality was achieved through an effort of will and a touch of fatalism. Past a certain point, fearing for your own safety becomes exhausting. You give it up.

But it wasn’t just psychological adjustment that made life livable. Israelis recoiled after each bombing, mourned every victim, then picked themselves up. Cafe Moment reopened weeks after it was destroyed. CONTINUE AT SITE

A study led by Tel Aviv University’s Dr. Noam Shomron of the Sackler School of Medicine has discovered that delivery of a combination of genetic therapy with chemotherapy to a primary tumor site is extremely effective in preventing breast cancer metastasis.http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-scientists-discover-link-to-prevent-breast-cancer-metastasis/2016/09/19/

The research was carried out at TAU in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, led at MIT by Dr. Natalie Artzi, and the students of both principal investigators. Data on human genetics were provided by Prof. Eitan Friedman of TAU’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine and Chaim Sheba Medical Center.

In a TEDxTalk event in August of this year, Dr. Shomron discussed the study with a group of colleagues.

The findings were also published in the September 19, 2016 online issue of Nature Communications.

One in eight women worldwide are diagnosed annually with the disease. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women.

Hana Levi Julian

About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

As part of United Nations Week in New York there is a much heralded Day of Peace. This day has been announced at the moment weapons are converted into plowshares. The problem, however, is no one mentioned this to militant Palestinians. These people welcomed the week with four terror attacks: two stabbings, one car ramming, and an incident in which rocks and glass bottles were thrown at an Israeli bus.

More than 300 terror attacks have taken place in Israel this year, killing 40 and wounding more than 500. A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reacted to the attacks by condemning Israeli soldiers for shooting the attackers. P.A.’s criticism of Israeli self-defense raises obvious questions about everything from real motivation to any commitment to stability. Abbas has consistently refused to condemn terror attacks. In fact, he has visited the families of terrorists and told one group of mothers, “your sons are martyrs.”

Despite a movement afoot among several member states in the Security Council to reorganize an independent state of Palestine in Samaria and Judea, normalization is routinely condemned by P.A. leaders and those who advocate peace are denounced as traitors. Even though the Oslo Accords “called for the end of incitement and the encouragement of a process of normalization,” it has been ignored in practice by Abbas and his followers. Any overture at reconciliation has been rebuked.

Alas, the Palestinians are held hostage by the militants. Children are educated to hate Jews and Arab cities in the West Bank have become centers for destructive plots against Israel. Hamas extremists intimidate any overtures for moderation, despite their hatred of the P.A. For the extremists there is only one solution, a Palestinian state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Recently the Israeli Defense Force, recognizing the stockpiling of 150,000 missiles in Lebanon, issued a report indicating that as many as 10,000 missiles could evade anti-missile defenses killing as many as 400 Israelis citizens. Should Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah attack simultaneously dozens of missiles could strike Tel Aviv, notwithstanding David’s Sling and other sophisticated anti-missile defenses.

By criticizing and blaming the U.S. for not honoring the terms, Rouhani plans to exploit President Obama’s weak point, as the negotiating team has been doing all along, by invoking Obama’s fear that Tehran might pull out of the nuclear deal — a move that would highlight the failure of the accord. This tactic will, as usual, successfully pressure the administration to give Tehran even more geopolitical and economic “carrots,” and pursue a policy with Iran of agreeing to even more concessions.

Rouhani’s tactical shift is intended to reinforce Iran’s entrenched revolutionary ideal of anti-Americanism, appease Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, and ensure his second term presidency.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will be attending the 71st session of the UN General Assembly in New York this week.

Based on the latest developments, all signs point to a tactical shift by Rouhani, in which his messages and tone will be quite different this year.

In the previous sessions of the UN General Assembly, Rouhani and his team adopted a diplomatic tone in order to have the UN Security Council lift sanctions against Iran. He praised the success of the nuclear agreement, its contribution to peace and its prevention of more tension and potential conflagration in the region. Iran’s objective was achieved: a few months later, when all four rounds of the Security Council sanctions were removed, billions of dollars and billions of cover-up stories arrived, all cost-free gifts from the U.S.

In a recent press conference, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the media that Canada, having been tolerant enough to admit many Muslim immigrants, including some 25,000 Syrians this past year, should now go “beyond tolerance.”

I like press conferences and also debates because at such times it is hard for our politicians to be “scripted” and therefore they tend to say what they are really thinking, not what their PR people tell them to say. And so, Trudeau, whose response to Islamism seems to involve something called “inclusive diversity,” avoids the gist of the issue, which is to determine to what extent radical Islam and its political ideologies of jihad and sharia law are threats to Canadian values and rights. This politician, who never finished university, seemed rather uneducated in the matter of ideology. Should we welcome evil ideologies as part of our inclusive diversity? Do we still believe that some things are good and some are evil? Do we think that a nice Canadian welcome, together with conduct and words not just tolerant, but beyond tolerant, will turn intolerant jihadists into tolerant Canadians?

The problems we are facing are legion. Just last week, a report was issued on the extremist literature found in Canadian mosques. In The Lovers of Death? Islamist Extremism in our Mosques, Schools and Libraries, a former RCMP security analyst and an Egyptian-born expert on Muslim extremism concluded: “It is not the presence of extremist literature in the mosque libraries that is worrisome,” the new report contends. “The problem is that there was nothing but extremist literature in the mosque libraries.”

If our Prime Minister thinks the solution to jihadist pro-Sharia law extremism and terrorism is to be more and more “inclusive” and “beyond tolerant,” we may have a problem.

Let’s bring into the discussion the views of American President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The term “Islam” literally means “submission,” and whether that submission is confined to the personal realm of man-God relations or it extends to acceptance of not only a system of law (Sharia) but an entire political ideology of outer-directed Jihad, is a matter of much contention.