The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120813085345/http://19.org/posts/
Skip to content

Theometer or Sectometer

Theometer or Sectometer

(First conducted on the participants of my lectures at Oxford University in November 3-5, 2008)

© Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

Name: _________________________________________________

Email Address: __________________________________________

Phone: ______________________________________ Age: ______

Occupation: _____________________________________________

Nationality: _____________________________________________

Have you read the Manifesto for Islamic Reform? ______________

Favorite Books/Authors: ___________________________________

Your Sect: (a) Sunni (b) Shiite (c) Salafi (d) Another sect (d) No sect

Please put a CIRCLE around the letter of your choice:

1. According to the Quran, which one of these is not and cannot be idolized by people?

  1. Prophet Muhammad
  2. Desires or Wishful thinking (Hawa)
  3. Crowds or peers
  4. Ancestors or children
  5. Reasoning (Aql)

2. Which one of these is a true statement?

  1. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; in addition we need Hadith and Sunna.
  2. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna and follow the teaching of a Sunni sect.
  3. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna and follow the teaching of a Shiite sect.
  4. The Quran is not sufficient to guide us; we need Hadith, Sunna, follow the teaching of a sect and join a religious order.
  5. The Quran is sufficient to guide us when we understand and follow it through the light of reason.

3. Which one of these hadiths narrated by Bukhari, Muslim and other “authentic” hadith books, do you think are fabricated?

  1. Muhammad was illiterate until he died.
  2. Muhammad married Aisha at age 54 while she was only 9 or 13 years-old.
  3. Muhammad dispatched a gang of fighters (sariyya) to kill a woman poet secretly during night in her home, for criticizing him publicly through her poems.
  4. Muhammad slaughtered 400 to 900 Jews belonging to Ben Qurayza for violating the treaty.
  5. All of the above.

4. Which one of these laws or rules does not exist in the Quran?

  1. Stone the married adulterers to death
  2. Do not play guitar
  3. Men should not wear silk and gold
  4. Men are superior to women
  5. All of the above

5. The Quran instructs us to follow the messengers. Following the messenger means:

  1. Follow Hadith and Sunna; Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Hanbal, etc.
  2. Follow his Ahl-al-Bayt.
  3. Follow hadith, sunna, consensus of sahaba, ijtihad of imams and fatwas of ulama.
  4. Follow Muhammad.
  5. Follow the message he was sent with, which was Quran alone.

6. The Quran is God’s word, because:

  1. There are verses of the Quran stating that it is God’s word.
  2. The Quran is a literary miracle. None can bring a sura like it surpassing its literary qualities.
  3. I do not need to have a reason. Reason is not reliable. I have faith in the Quran.
  4. The moral teaching of the Quran is the best for individual and humanity.
  5. The Quranic signs (aya) do not have internal contradiction nor does it contradict the signs in nature. Besides, it is numerically coded book with an extraordinary mathematical structure integrated with its composition and Arabic language.

7. Which one of the following is correct for Muhammad:

  1. Muhammad was the final messenger and prophet.
  2. Muhammad had the highest rank above all humans.
  3. Muhammad demonstrated many miracles such as splitting the moon, healing the sick, and crippling a child
  4. All of the above´
  5. Muhammad was a human messenger like other messengers.

8. In what year he Bukhari started collecting hadith for his hadith collection known as the Sahih Bukhari, the most trusted Sunni hadith collection?

  1. During the life of Muhammad inMedina
  2. Ten years after Muhammad’s death.
  3. 130 years after Muhammad’s death.
  4. 200 years after Muhammad’s death
  5. 230 years after Muhammad’s death.

9. According to Bukhari himself, he collected the 7,275 hadith among the 600,000 hadiths he collected. If each hadith, together with its isnad (the chain of reporters) and sanad (the text that was attributed to Muhammad) took about half a book page, how many volumes of books with 500 pages would they take to record all those 600,000 hadith allegedly collected by Bukhari?

  1. 7 volumes
  2. 10 volumes
  3. 70 volumes
  4. 100 volumes
  5. 700 volumes

10. What are the last statements in the Farewell Sermon (Khutba al-Wada) which was reportedly witnessed by more than 100,000 sahaba, making it by far the most authentic hadith among the thousands of hadiths?

  1. I leave you Abu Bakr; you should follow him.
  2. I leave you my sahaba; you may follow any of them.
  3. I leave you the Quran and Sunna; you should follow both.
  4. I leave you the Quran and Ahl-al- Bayt (my family); you should follow them.
  5. I leave you the Quran, you should follow it.

11. According to some “authentic hadith” found in Bukhari and other hadith books, there was a verse instructing muslims to stone the married adulterers to death: “Al-shayhu wal-shayhatu iza zanaya farjumuhuma nakalan…” According to hadith reports, what happened to those verses?

  1. After the Prophet Muhammad’s death, Umayyad governor Marwan burned the pages where those verses were written.
  2. Angle Gebrail came down and deleted it from the scripture.
  3. Ibni Abbas forgot it yet Abu Hurayra never forgot it.
  4. There is no reference to such a verse in any authentic hadith books.
  5. After the Prophet Muhammad’s death, the skin which the verse was written on was protected under Aisha’s bed. A hungry goat ate it. Thus, it was abrogated literally yet kept legally.

12. According to both Bukhari and Muslim, when Muhammad was in his death bed, he asked his comrades around to bring him a paper and pen to write something for them so that they would not divert from the right path. According to the same “authentic” Sunni hadith books, Omar bin Khattab stopped a sahaba who was hurrying for a paper and pen and said the following: “The prophet is sick and has fever. He does not know what he is saying. God’s book is sufficient for us.” According to the hadith, all the prominent comrades (sahaba) agreed with Omar and Muhammad passed away without writing down his advice. What do you think about this hadith?

  1. If it is narrated by both Bukhari and Muslim, then it must be true
  2. If it is true, then, Omar and all other Sahaba must have betrayed Muhammad and committed blasphemy.
  3. If it is true, then, Omar and all prominent Sahaba were followers of the Quran alone.
  4. If it is false then all other hadith too should be rejected.
  5. C and D must be true

13. Do we need to SAY “sallallahu alayhi wasallam” after Muhammad’s name?

  1. Yes, every time Muhammad is mentioned we have to praise his name.
  2. Yes, but we need to say only once in our lifetime.
  3. Yes, the more we say the better.
  4. Yes, and those who do not say it after Muhammad’s name disrespect him and they will not receive his intercession.
  5. No, the Quran does not ask us to say anything after Muhammad’s name; muslims were asked (salli ala) to support him, as he was also asked to support them (salli alayhim).

14. What is the correct Testimony (shahada) according to the Quran:

  1. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and the Quran is God’s word.
  2. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Muhammad is His messenger.
  3. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Muhammad is His messenger and His servant.
  4. I bear witness that there is no god but the God and Abraham, Jesus, Moses and Muhammad are His messengers.
  5. I bear witness that there is no god but the God.

15. Should Muslims who do not observe daily prayers be beaten in public?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

16. Should Muslims who are caught for consuming alcohol for the fourth time be killed?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

17. Did the prophet give permission to kill women and children in the war?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

18. According to the Quran, are women banned from reading Quran and pray during their menstruation periods?

  1. Yes
  2. No.

19. In the daily Sala prayers, do you recite “attahiyyatu lillahi wassalawatu …. as salamu alayka ayyuhannabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu”?

  1. Yes
  2. No

20. Does the Quran justify taxing Jewish and Christian population under Muslim authority with extra or different taxation called Jizya?

  1. Yes
  2. No.

21. Does the Quran instruct women to cover their hair?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

22. Are woman restricted from leading congregational prayers?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

23. Are women mentally and spiritually inferior to men?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

24. Does the Quran restrict women from initiating divorce?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

25. Is polygamy with previously unmarried women allowed?

  1. Yes, up to four women.
  2. No, polygamy is allowed only with the widows who have orphans.

26. Do pilgrims need to cast real stones at the devil?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

27. Is the black stone near Kaba holy?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

28. May a muslim own slaves?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

29. Is circumcision a required or encouraged practice in Islam?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

30. Should converts change their names to Arabic names?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

31. How much zaka charity one should give away?

  1. 2.5%
  2. As much as one can afford, without making themselves needy.

32. Are those who break their fast during Ramadan before the sunset required to fast 60 consecutive days as a punishment for not completing the day?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

33. Is leadership the right of Quraish tribe?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

34. Is drawing pictures or making three dimensional statutes a sin?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

35. Are there more dietary prohibitions besides pork, carcass, running blood, and animal dedicated to idolized names?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

36. Is displaying Muhammad’s name and the names of his closest companions next to God’s name in the mosques idol-worship?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

37. Did Muhammad advise some sick people to drink camel urine?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

38. Did Muhammad gauge people’s eyes with hot nails?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

39. After following the advice of Moses, did Muhammad, bargain with God about the number of prayers, lowering down from the impossible-to-observe 50 times a day to 5 times a day?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

40. Does Muhammad have the power of intercession?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

41. Was Muhammad sinless?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

42. Did God create the universe for the sake of Muhammad?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

43. Did Muhammad have sexual power of 30 males?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

44. Was Muhammad bewitched by a Jew?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

45. Do some verses of the Quran abrogate other verses?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Here is the story and the answer of this test:

Between November 3 and 10 of 2008, I traveled to UK and Turkey to deliver four lectures; first two at Oxford University, the third at Muslim Institute in London and the fourth one in Istanbul Book Fair. I had prepared a test containing 45 multiple choice questions just the night before my travel. I duplicated them on both sides of a single sheet and I distributed to the audience before the lecture… They were asked to write their name, age, occupation, email address, favorite authors, and their sectarian affiliation. It was a bit awkward to test an audience that consisted of students and professors at one of the world’s top universities. The multiple-choice test proved to be a powerful instrument to deliver the message of Islamic Reform under the light of the Quran. The correct answer for each multiple choice question was the E option, and for the Yes or No questions was the B option. So, it would take me a few seconds to evaluate the tests after they were returned to me.

The Sunni or Shiite test-takers found themselves in quagmire of contradiction with their own sectarian teachings. They learned that they were thirty, forty or even more than fifty percent infidels or heretics. Some of those who marked Sunni as their sectarian affiliation contradicted the Sunni teachings on most of the issues. According to their own confessed sects, their lives were worthless; they deserved to be killed! I did not let this mirror or sect-o-meter remain an individual experience; I publicly declared the overall results. Many got all answers correct, including Eric, a monotheist from Unitarian church who already had a copy of the Quran: a Reformist Translation in his possession. Eric knew the original message of islam better than all the mullahs and the so-called “ulama” combined.

If you have chosen the wrong option for any of the questions and you are wondering why you have contradicted the Quran, please visit www.islamicreform.org and read the full version of the Manifesto for Islamic Reform. If you prefer to have it in a book form, you may order it by visiting www.brainbowpress.com

Edip Yuksel’s Speech at European Parliament

Edip Yuksel’s Speech at European Parliament

7 June 2012

Below you will find the text and video of my speech at European Parliament in June 7, 2012. First time in my life, I made an obscene or insult gesture by showing my middle finger to the warmongers towards the end of the end of my speech:

“We are now using drones to assassinate people without trial, poor people who stand against our aggression and hegemony. The list of wars, covert operations and countries bombed by the USA-Inc, printed in 9 points Times Roman, single space, one line for each country, is five times longer than my middle finger. With Cognitive Dissonance every bloody list is possible!” 

The link to the youtube video is in the bottom of the text. I recommend you reading the submitted text to the conference before watching the video. I did not have sufficient time to share all in my speech. I received a few more minutes to list the solutions in the end of the panel, which is not in the video clip I posted on youtube.

 

Dear sisters and brothers, peace, salam, shalom, aşiti!

During my research on the Constitution of countries for a legal article I witnessed that the Turkish Constitution was the only constitution that contained an article, banning a language, the Kurdish language. The 1982 Turkish Constitution, ironically, referred to the “banned language” under the subtitle “Freedom of Expression.” Some resisted to this cultural genocide and some yielded and were assimilated. Unfortunately, I belong to the second group. I know, more or less 5 languages, and thanks to my Turkish brothers, my mother tongue is the poorest of all.

I know the evil of racism firsthand. I lost my brother, Metin Yüksel, to the cowardly bullets of Turkish nationalists. While in Turkish prison, I was put in the same ward with the murderers of my brother. And, one of them is now an elected member of Turkish National Congress.

I teach and lecture without reading from papers. It is boring, I know. But, knowing that I tend to wonder in details while talking, and knowing the time limitations I decided to share with you my thoughts and feelings by reading from the paper. Please bear with me and listen to me carefully.

I am not going to talk just about a massacre happened some years ago… I am not a good story teller and I think there is another way besides discussing the details of past atrocities followed by finger-pointing, since we are all criminals, we all contribute to the unfair, myopic, diabolic echo system that is doomed to generate this sorts of tragedies and even more. As long as we do not focus on the main causes, yes plural, of all conflicts, fights, and atrocities that is committed by our ancestors we will never be able to break the cycle. Remember we are the children of Cain, the children of the killers who survived, the children of winners, bullies.

But, I believe that we are in a threshold point in history, in which we cannot go beyond without destroying everyone including ourselves. We need to give support to the peacemaker gene of Abel and try our best to suppress the barbaric genetic code we have inherited from a portion of our bloody ancestors. It is time to use the software, the 19 rules of inference embedded in our brain, to do some reformation in our nature, in our-selves. We have to look at ourselves before pointing at the other.

I am not talking as a Kurd, or a Turk or an American or as a Lawyer here. I have decided to talk like my hero, Socrates. I know that I am far being in caliber of that great man, and also I know that the European Parliament is much better than the 501 jury members of the Athenian senate. Of course, I am not on trial, but I want to put myself as a member of humanity on a short trial here.

Thus I am taking off my turban, my tie and even my shirt to show you that I am a Homo Sapien like you, perhaps with the exception of a circular birthmark on my shoulder!

I will have a bad news first, which I will harp on it not to annoy you, like a gadfly, but to tickle your brain, your heart, and your consciousness. But I promise that it will follow with a few good news, very good ones, which might create a butterfly effect for a new era in global politics, starting from you, from this room.

In 1948 the United Nations issued Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with19 articles. In the 2nd article it defines genocide as:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. (a) Killing members of the group;
  2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Declaration of Human Rights, UN resolutions, International law…

Laws?

Who cares about the laws? Not even those who drafted, dictated and passed the laws care about those laws!

Laws?

Who cares about the laws?

Most countries are ruled by the children of Thrasymachus.

Long live Thrasymachus!

“Might makes it right”!

If we are the Exceptional Americans or the Chosen Ones in the Middle of Trouble of our own creation, why should we care about the laws? Neither the International Criminal Court can reach our exceptional people, nor can the UN resolutions stop our crimes. What happened to the war criminals of our decadent decade, such as Sharon, Bush, and his cabal, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Perle?

Who cares about the laws?

Perhaps, only the poor, the weak has to follow the laws! No wonder, our justice system is designed to absolve and respect the biggest thieves while punishes mercilessly the hungry who steals bread to feed himself and his children.

WE HUMANS are HYPOCRITES and Suffer from Cognitive dissonance. Unless we ACCEPT THE TRUTH we will not be free from hypocrisy and tragedies.

What goes around comes around and the entire humanity suffers as in the case of global warming, gang terrorism, wars, etc. And what is going around is coming around much faster and with vengeance.

Let me confess my sin as a human being. I am confessing our sins not to ask forgiveness from those few bullies who arrogate themselves to be the world’s leaders, or the representatives of God on earth. No. I will confess to unite us, to remind us our aggressions and hypocrisy, and also our common bond as humans, our common destiny as travelers on this crowded and troubled spaceship called Earth!

A massacre, a war or a human rights violation is not an isolated incident. They are part of a much bigger system, ideology and lifestyle that we choose. It is connected to how we treat women, how we treat the poor, the working people, how we treat the animals, how we treat the earth, how we value family, humanity… A massacre, a war or a human rights violation is the symptom of our way of life, our system, our paradigm.

  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We expect Bulgaria or Germany to give Turkish minority cultural rights while we first deny the existence, than we ban the language and culture, including the Holydays, of Kurdish minority and then we subject them to assassinations and massacres.
  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We blame Kurdish minority of treason for demanding and fighting for their lives, human rights and dignity and we adopt a policy of cultural genocide and then assassinations, imprisonment, burning towns, torture and massacres, against the Kurds, indigenous population of Turkey. And at the same time, we go to war on behalf of a Turkish minority in Cyprus to DIVIDE Cyprus. Ironically, the Turkish minority in Cyprus did not suffer even a fraction of fascist policies and actions we imposed on Kurds. Costing 60 thousand dead in recent years, 80 percent of them being Kurds.
  • We take it lightly of being the only country that has banned the language of a minority, comprising about 20 percent of its population. Ironically, we claim to be Muslims while Islam condemns racism and considers every language to be God’s signs deserving respect and appreciation.
  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We expect Europeans to cherish our mosques, to enjoy our minarets punching holes in their skies, and if they convert an old mosque into a church we protest with loud noises, yet we are not ashamed of trying to convert Hagia Sophia into a Mosque, as if we were in desperate need for another empty mosque.
  • We are criminals and in denial. We turned minorities against minorities and in 1995 we let the Turks and Kurds commit genocide against Armenians, exterminating more than a million Armenians. About a quarter million Assyrians became the victims of our spree of genocide.
  • We are oppressors, self-centered and self-righteous. We protest and condemn American and European atrocities and neo-colonialism, invasions and wars in the Middle East, while we shamelessly glorify the same aggression of our ancestors by celebrating Fatih and other Ottoman tyrants whose major contribution to humanity was to invade other people’s countries, plunder their riches, levy on them taxes, kidnap and draft their children to the imperial military for more wars, invasions, and plunder.
  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We condemn the genocides, atrocities of the past, big or small, especially if they were against our tribe, but we enjoy doing exactly the same thing even now while we are talking this issue.
  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We declare about a quarter of human population to be terrorists while our quarter itself is the biggest terrorist, even 666 times more violent, supported with the most sophisticated armies, monstrous killing machines and unending imperial wars that is cunningly presented to be promoting freedom, democracy and human rights.
  • We are oppressors, delusional and self-righteous. We fool ourselves to be Davids while we are the Goliaths. We have the audacity of depicting our fascist and well-nourished invaders and murderers-in-uniform inside a tank to be the victim and the poor teenager with a rock in his hand standing for his life, freedom, home and dignity against our tank to be the terrorist.
  • We are shameless in praising our former enemies, such as Gandhi, Martin Luther, Mandela as great moral leaders, yet we did not stop our crimes just because they were nice people singing peaceful songs. We hide from even ourselves that we were forced to stop our crimes because of logistics, the rising cost of committing those crimes and the violent groups and elements among our victims. By making a deal with the peaceful group among our victims, we wanted save face, and negotiate new terms and try to keep our advantages as much as we could.
  • We are cunning, delusional and self-righteous. We preach human rights to the people of poor countries which suffer under our SOB tyrants or friendly puppet regimes, while we had committed and still continue to commit the biggest atrocities in known human history: Holocaust, Carpet bombing, Use of nukes, Napalm bombs, Mines, Drones… So, it is not a surprise when we become the Geert Wilders, Robert Spencers, David Horowitzes, Neocons, Zionists, Rapture-freak crusaders and the 1 percent capitalists of the world and try every means and propaganda to escalate the conflict between the East and West. Our grandchildren should not be surprised if we repeat our bloody history by committing another major genocide, this time against Muslims, here in the West. With Cognitive Dissonance every evil is possible!
  • We are oppressors, ignorant and self-righteous. We preach the world about nuclear weapons, declare war against terrorism, but we do not even apologize for committing much greater state terror and atrocities around the world, including the biggest terrorism (targeting civilians) in known human history: Nagasaki and Hiroshima. With Cognitive Dissonance every atrocity is possible!
  • We talk about truth and justice, yet we are addicted with lies and we allocate multi-billion dollar funds to generate lies and propaganda through secret agencies and their puppets in the media and academia. No wonder we did not even regret for killing more than 1 million Iraqis while delivering our great democracy through bombs and bullets. We give Nobel Peace prize to the commander of the world’s biggest bloody military power that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people through euphemistic words such as surge, forward leaning, collateral damage, enhanced interrogation techniques.
  • We are now using drones to assassinate people without trial, poor people who stand against our aggression and hegemony. The list of wars, covert operations and countries bombed by the USA-Inc, printed in 9 points Times Roman, single space, one line for each country, is five times longer than my middle finger. With Cognitive Dissonance every bloody list is possible!
  • We brag with our civilization and technological advances, yet the Bosnian Muslims were massacred and raped in our midst for years. But our powerful military stood idle and perhaps we were busy pushing small countries around to plunder their natural resources and dictate our terms to continue our hedonistic consumerist life style. With Cognitive Dissonance all sorts of genocides are possible!
  • We brag to be nice and civilized people, yet we feed our children all sorts of violence and atrocities through video games and films, desensitizing them against human life.
  • We brag to have deserved our mansions and luxuries life style, while in fact, we made laws by legalizing usury, speculations, printing money out of hot air, crony capitalism, plutocracy and we stole most of our wealth from the services and products of those who worked hard day and night.
  • While at it, we also polluted our land, our oceans and our atmosphere. With Cognitive Dissonance every disaster is possible!
  • We brag with our technology and high-tech toys that come in fancy packages, we create mountains of trash from plastic bottles. A massive plastic garbage patch twice the size of the state of Texas circling in the North Pacific is growing faster than the power of big corporations over our so-called democracies.
  • We complain about not having enough to feed the poor, yet just several weeks ago we saw the picture of millions of tons of grain, a mountain of food without exaggeration, left to rot by the Indian government following the dogmas preached by the high-priests of capitalism.  Every year millions of tons of food are deliberately wasted by the capitalists while millions of people starve to death.
  • Besides greedy capitalism, detached governments, the world population is posing one of the greatest threat to the future of humanity, yet, our political and religious clowns among Catholics, Sunnis, Mormons and many other manmade religions are competing with each other in turning every mother to octomoms.
  • We brag to be Muslim (peacefully submitting to God and peacemakers) to be the followers of Muhammed, one of the most peaceful men in history, yet centuries after his death we make up volumes of lies about him thereby depicting him a warmonger, a torturer, a sexual maniac, a misogynist, a tyrant, an illiterate and superstitious medieval Arab. We demonstrate respect to the physical mediums where the Quran is recorded, yet we betray almost all its universal principles and instructions by promoting anti-rationalism, blind faith, intercession, by giving religious charlatans the power of making up rules in the name of God, by promoting violence, suicide bombing, antisemitism, the killing of apostates, oppressing our women, ignoring the plight of the hungry, homeless and jobless, stoning people to death, and many other appalling criminal acts. With Cognitive Dissonance every evil is possible!
  • We brag to be Christians, to be the followers of Jesus, one of the most peaceful and just men in history, yet soon after his death we became soldiers of Roman empire, we became slave owners, we burned “witches” and “heretics” on stakes, waged bloody Crusades, invented various torture machines, condemned thinkers through inquisition, fought two world wars, killed millions in holocaust, worked day and night to make bigger and even bigger bombs, invaded and destroyed numerous countries, killed millions around the world, and replaced the golden rule with the iron rule called “pre-emptive strike.”

Should we become CYNICAL? NO

  1. We cannot afford it. No more. With the increase in population and popularity of Internet and communication technology, what is going around is coming around much faster and bigger. The imperialist powers, which have mutated their skin and predatory method of sucking other’s blood, yet remain the same with all its greed, arrogance and delusions, can no more shed blood in the so-called third world countries and get away with it. The world cannot sustain our wars, our lies, our delusions, our robber banks, our Zionist propaganda, our capitalist-consumerist BS that wastes limited resources and pollutes and poisons this precious Blue Planet, God’s free gift to us.
  2. We cannot afford being cynical. There are some pockets of hope and examples of promises such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland…

We have proposals for solution:

First, we should diagnose the disease, which demonstrate the symptoms of aggression, arrogance, delusions and cognitive dissonance. We have to recognize the cancer tumors in our body that causes wars and genocide:

  • We should teach tolerance and respect to other people’s ideas as long as they are not used to harm others. We should question and reject the religious dogmas glorifying conquests, salvation through death and shedding blood.
  • We should require critical thinking and philosophy classes as a required curriculum in our elementary, middle and high schools.
  • We have to establish real democracy and ban lobbies from influencing our elected officials.
  • We must stand against warmongers and it must be the priority of every human on this planet, be it poor or rich, be it religious or atheist, black or blue, purple or pink, man or woman. Military Industrial Complex. Weapon merchants. These bloodsuckers (s)elect and bribe politicians to constantly create conflicts and ugly enemies with highly exaggerated powers, and declare wars here and there. We should make a list of top 10 war profiteers globally and locally, and declare them to be the enemies of humanity, and demand our politicians to dramatically reduce the military spending. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (FDR). We should listen to this historical warning, “… we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (Eisenhower).
  • To eliminate corruption, capitalistic exploitation and guarantee food, home, education and a reasonable health care for every human being, we should design a fair economic system without creating a totalitarian regime. We should bury capitalism and consumerism in the same graveyard that we buried authoritarian communism. Multinational big corporations through their news media, film industry, internet sites, lobbies, politicians and academia promote capitalistic dogmas, glorifies greed, usury, and the consumerism that is destroying the fragile echo system.
  • We should treat nationalism as a virus causing a mild disease that feigns as patriotism when in hibernation. But certain conditions, such as economic crisis or some provocations could trigger the virus to mutate into demonstrating the symptoms of jingoism and racism that may cause uncontrollable fatal complications and tragedies. These viruses are nourished and manipulated by inapt and evil politicians, weapon merchants, bigots and occasionally by global finance. Flags are used as idols. Waving flags triggers hormones of the subject thereby leading otherwise nice people to commit atrocities and genocides.

YouTube Preview Image

Muslim Enlightenment: How do we know when it happens?

Muslim Enlightenment:
How do we know when it happens?

Fereydoun Taslimi
www.19.org

This paper is an expanded version of a presentation by the author at
International Conference of Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform, Oxford University June-11-13, 2010

Every once in a while a new study surfaces in the United States or some other western country, indicating that the attitude towards Muslims is not only negative but is trending worse over time.  A tiny minority in some of these countries even believe that Muslim civil liberties should be curtailed.  The response of established Muslim organizations as well as some individual Muslims, generally, is outrage sprinkled with accusations of Islamophobia.

A prime example is the protest in London and elsewhere against the Danish Cartoonists or the murder of Theo Van Gogh the creator of the 10 minute movie “Submission.”  In Pakistan, several people died during demonstrations against the cartoonists, and in London one could hear crowds of protestors chanting slogans such as “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the Answer.”  Such behavior not only lends support and credibility to the critics of Islam but, rightly so, brings into question the peaceful nature of Muslims–and as a result Islam.

This further gives rise to frequently asked questions such as:  Why are such violent reactions as described above rare among Jews and Christians?  How many people in this century died because somebody drew a cartoon of Jesus or burned a Bible as a political statement?  How many Christians or Jewish coverts to Islam have had their lives threatened by their former congregants?  Why do many Muslim countries not allow churches to be built?  Why are Jews and Christians not allowed in Mecca whereas Muslims have no problem visiting almost all the holy places belonging to Jews and Christians? Why are many subjects such as archeological research related to the Quran and Islamic history viewed as “off limits” or if not proscribed, why does one rarely see scholarly works critical of the Quran by Muslims unless the author has been branded “mahareb” or the one who turned away from Islam?

Many Muslims in an attempt to answer these questions resort to apologetic tactics combined with poor excuses in the hope that the problem will go away quickly.  All this brings us to the question of this commentary–at what point in time will the Muslims be enlightened enough to accept responsibility for their behavior and condemn these actions en masse?  In addition, what factors are needed to bring about this enlightenment and how will we recognize that Muslims have embarked on this journey when it begins?

There are several examples throughout history to look at for clues.  The best way, perhaps, is to consider the period of Christian enlightenment.  By some accounts the age of reason or enlightenment in the West is pegged around the 18th century although some believe it started earlier in the 15th century and sprang up as a consequence of Luther’s Protestant movement.  However, many believe the greatest contributing factor to what made Christian enlightenment possible was the attack on religion. Paul Hazard the 19th century French Scholar states that the aim of the Enlightenment was to ‘put Christianity on trial’.  Similarly, Peter Gay Professor of History at Yale (The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (1969), described the Enlightenment as a ‘war on Christianity, and liberation of man from the tyranny of myth.’

When analyzing the Christian example these questions come to mind.  Are the right factors in place for an Islamic enlightenment?  Considering recent events, particularly after September 11, it is difficult to argue Islam and by association Muslims are not on trial.  Muslims have been involved in many high profile indiscriminate attacks in the west not mentioning thousands of Muslims killed and tortured in Muslim countries at the hands of Muslims.  It was Muslim terrorists, who bombed a train in Madrid Spain; who held a school hostage in Russia, killing scores of children or attacked a subway in London resulting in 55 people dead.

For Karl Popper, enlightenment is “the effort of men to free themselves to break out of the cage of the closed society, and to form an open society.”  It would be short sided and mistaken to assume that the majority of Muslims have an aversion to western globalization and structural changes required for modernity and an open society.  However, Muslims have to face the fact that in the twentieth century some of the most oppressive and inhumane societies happen to a be in Muslim countries; the Taliban being a good example.  Today, there are still Muslim societies that consider the West the greatest threat to their existence and root their survival in opposing an open society.  The philosopher, Henri Bergson who coined the term “closed society” in his writing in 1932, suggested that the reason societies are unable to evolve into “open”, is because religion acts as a mental habit binding human intellect.  Some societies are just simply incapable of freeing themselves from the chains of their “cultural constraints.”  One can see examples of these mini societies in some Muslim enclaves in Europe and elsewhere where repression of women and forced marriages are the norm.

Karl Popper goes further in ‘The Open Society and its Enemies.’  He states that ‘closed’ societies are profoundly inimical to the idea of human freedom.  A fact demonstrated over and over again in recent years in Muslim countries, which are not only slow to adopt new technologies but even try to ban the use of the technological tools of an open society such as Internet, Twitter, and Facebook .  When leaders of a closed society feel threatened, technologies such as the Internet and cell phone services are often the first to be shut down, even before the expulsion of reporters. This reinforces the fact that these countries  view the open society as a menace, as it encourage an informed population  supporting what Kant defines enlightenment to be, “the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error–a mental liberation and human self-knowledge no less.”  Open societies morph bigotry into tolerance and then to acceptance, marginalize the self righteous and are less susceptible to be tainted with self destructive dogma.

But what completes enlightenment and prevents its corruption according to the seminal 7 page essay by Kant (What is Enlightenment) in 1784 is Critical thinking, a “declaration of independence” for the open mind.  Critical thinking interrupts conversation with cultural norms and moves towards independence in pursuit of intellectual freedom and enlightenment.  Without a critical mind according to Kant we become “placid” and “dumb cattle” who cannot think for ourselves.  Man becomes incapable of using “his understanding without direction from another”, gravitates towards accepting other’s ideas as his falling into the trap of religious emulation and blind following.  ”I need not think” Kant writes, “if I can only pay.”  Enlightened man is not subject to any authority without the use of critical faculty and reason, will not surrender to ignorance and misguided.  This brings us to the sad state of critical thinking in Muslim countries. Any critical analysis of the Quran or Islam is generally frowned upon by the Muslim establishments. Up until a few years ago the few critical publications by Muslims had to be published under pseudonyms because of the real threat of physical harm by fellow Muslims that accompanied such writings. There is not a single skeptic organization similar to the internationally known organization “Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” (http://www.csicop.org/) in a Muslim country.  All archeological work that relates to the Quran or the Islamic theological past is either forbidden, destroyed or conducted undercover.  The results are invariably not published widely.  Kant correctly reminds us that the enlightened is not afraid of “shadows.”  How long would Nietzsche have survived had he been living in a Muslim country today writing “God is dead?”

Considering the factors necessary for the enlightenment to take hold as outlined above namely: attack on religion, open society and critical thinking, Muslims have barely begun the journey. Although some might argue that the attack on Islam is in full swing, there has been little progress in opening Muslim societies or embarking on any form of self criticism; one of the vital ingredients of critical thinking.

However, there is hope.  It took 16 centuries before the process of Christian enlightenment started and a few more centuries until as Gay describes in the  “Revolution of Reason” gave way to critical thinking and open societies. Muslims are approaching the mid 14th century, according to Islamic calendar and traversing through one of the most spectacular technological era in human history that leaves little room for closed or uninformed populations. Therefore, by all indications Muslim enlightenment is not only inevitable but will come to fruition faster than it did for our Christian brothers.

How will we know that we have reached the shores of enlightenment? The answer is simple; when the large demonstrations by Muslims turn into protests against miscreants like Ben Laden and Anwar Al Awlaki. When talk of enforcing Sharia law is reserved to a few outcasts without the general support of Muslims. When there is no talk of oppression of women in Muslim countries and women are afforded equal opportunity. When burning a Quran is not worthy of news anymore and Muslims can study the book with a critical eye and without the fear of persecution. When the news of rigged elections in Muslim countries is studied in history and not as contemporary events and no Muslim can arise and declare himself representative of God on earth.  When Muslims can freely condemn superstitious practices and realize salvation is through self reliance and not through reliance on a hidden Imam at the bottom of a well, as some believe.  When Geert Gildner can express his opinion freely while Muslims will engage him in a lively civil discourse.  When the right to choose ones path to hell is considered sacred and not interfered with.  When synagogues, churches and other non Muslim places of worship can be built in Muslim countries without government opposition. When Muslims can convert to any religion without fear of being murdered. When centuries of traditions (hadith) and Quranic exegesis are openly questioned by Muslims without fear of reprisal and ultimately the final test could be when in a Muslim country a Jew or Christian candidate has equal opportunity to participate in presidential elections or even better a gay parade in Saudi Arabia can occur without much of a fuss.

You would probably Lynch Socrates, Crucify Jesus and Evict Muhammad

You would probably Lynch Socrates,
Crucify Jesus and Evict Muhammad

Edip Yuksel
26 Semptember 2009
www.19.org

Yesterday in one of my Philosophy classes, we discussed Plato’s The Apology, the trial and defense of Socrates… One of my favorite books!. To demonstrate the feelings of Athenians against Socrates, I asked the class a provocative question. I asked them about their position against flag burning.

” If someone burns an American flag in public to express his or her dissenting political views what should be done? Those who burn the flag: (a) must get six months in prison; (b) must be banished from country for six months; (c) must publicly apologize and recite the national anthem in front of a flag and jury; (d) pay fine equivalent of the market value of the flag; (e) get no punishment. Please discuss your reason.”

Some students wished to impose penalties while others did not. I claimed that those who picked a punishment as their option were not much different than the jury members who condemned Socrates or the Pharisees that condemned Jesus to death or the Meccan mullahs that evicted Muhammad and waged several wars against him.

I dramatized my point by creating a scene, a frame in which they would hate to see themselves: “if you lived during those historic events, you would be among the mob that lynched and oppressed those brave philosophers.” Each mob had (and has) different idols, symbols, and sensitivities and they would not tolerate anyone who did not show respect to them… The idols and symbols might change but bigotry, oppression and suppression may not. Ironically, the victims of a previous violence of idol-worship may become the symbols of a new generation of idol-worshipers who feel justified to victimize others who may not respect their idols.

My provocation worked well, but some students got more excited than I hoped for. One student, Rachael M., whose father was reportedly a veteran, ended up crying. On one hand, I felt bad for allowing the discussion to end up with such an emotional confrontation among the students; but on the other hand, I am glad that I thought them through their own experience that they MAY NOT be much different than the people of the past that they feel at liberty to criticize. In other words, the color of some high horses were noticed not to be so white after all.

I asked them to never let their emotions and sentimental feelings to cloud their judgment and guide their actions. Never let the horses (emotions) determine the direction and speed of cart. I defended the wisdom of the US Supreme Court (though it was by a small margin) for not justifying penalty for burning flag. I argued that both consistency in theory of liberty and pragmatic/practical considerations should lead mature societies to tolerate fringe and annoying groups…

PS: About one year after this debate, the student who cried in the classroom contacted me via facebook and posted a message thanking me for opening her eyes. “It was the best class I have ever taken” she noted.

Why Trash All the Hadiths?

Why Trash All the Hadiths?

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

After witnessing the comparison between the hadith and the Quran, how can a sound mind still insist on hadith? How can still call those books sharif, or sahih, or authentic? How can they forgive the hadith narrators and collectors who sold them all kinds of lies and stories, containing so much ignorance and distortion? How can they get mat at Salman Rushdi, while much worse insults charged against Muhammad by hadith narrators and collectors?

When followers of hadith and sunna cannot defend the nonsensical and contradictory hadiths (narrations) abundant in their so-called authentic hadith books, they suggest picking and choosing those hadiths that are not contradictory to the Quran. The following brief argument with a Sunnite shows how deceptive and meaningless this apparently innocent suggestion. We call these people compromisers, or Selective Sunnis. Let’s now follow a debate between a Selective Sunni and a Monotheist Muslim:

Sunni:

1. How can you claim that several thousand sahih hadiths are necessarily false while you cite only a few sahih hadiths which have debatable contents? Is this not generalization from scanty data?

2. Why do you assume that either all sahih hadiths should be rejected or all of them should be accepted? Why not judge each hadith based on its individual merit according to all the available data about its isnad, its transmitters, and so on?

3. Suppose we cease to use hadith as a source of information about the Prophet, his life, and his career. Then we notice that the Qur’an itself says very little about the Prophet’s life. It also says nothing about how it was complied.

4. The historicity of the Quran is based on hadiths. It is from hadiths that we know how the Quran was complied. It is also from hadith that we know about the life of the Prophet.

Muslim:

1. If any book contains a few lies (and we have more than just “a few” examples), then, the endorsement of that book is not reliable. If you see dozens of repeated fabrications introduced as trustworthy (sahih) hadith, then how can you still rely on other narrations of the same book?

2. Judging each hadith on its individual merit may seem attractive for those who are not satisfied with God’s book, but it is a waste of time and a deceptive method. If the signature of narrators (sanad) cannot provide authenticity about the source of hadith, then our only guide to decide on the content of hadiths (matn) will be our personal wish or our current inclinations. How can we decide which hadith has merit? How can we decide which hadith is accurate? We may say “by comparing them with the Quran!” But, what does this really mean? If it is “me” who will compare a hadith to the Quran, if it is again “me” who will judge whether it contradicts the Quran or not, then, I will end up with “hadith” which supports “my” personal understanding of the Quran. In this case a hadith cannot function as an explanation of the Quran. It will be confirmation or justification of my understanding of the Quran; with literally tasteless, grammatically lame language…. Furthermore, what about hadiths that bring extra duties and prohibitions?

3. Again, there are many hadiths about the prophet’s life, which you cannot accept with a sober mind. They are narrated repeatedly in many so-called authentic books. We cannot create a history out of a mishmash of narration by a subjective method of pick and choose. We can create many conflicting portraits of Muhammad out of those hadiths. As for pure historical events that are isolated from their moral and religious implications, they are not part of the religion, and we don’t need them for our salvation. I never said “we should not read hadith.” In fact, we can study hadith books to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times. We can even construct a “conjecture” about the history, without attributing them to God or his prophet. Please don’t forget that “history” is not immune to filtration, censorship and distortion by the ruling class. You can see many different versions of histories (!) regarding the era of early Islam . Just read Sunni and Shiite histories.

4. We cannot disregard God’s frequent assertion that the Quran is sufficiently detailed, complete, clear, and easy to understand. What do you think about the verse 17:46? “When you preach your Lord, in the Quran ALONE, they run away with aversion.”

5. Hadith books are full of contradictory teachings. They eventually lead us to a sanctified and justified sectarian division in the name of the Prophet. Their very nature is another proof that hadith collections cannot be divine, since God, characterizes his word and religion as not having contradiction: “Why do they not study the Quran careful? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.” (4:82). This verse clearly refutes the traditional argument that hadith books contain other revelations besides the Quran, since the followers of Hadith and Sunna wrongly attribute verses about the Quran to hadith, such as: “Your friend (Muhammad) is not astray, nor is he deceived. Nor is he speaking out of a personal desire. It is a divine inspiration.” (53:2-4). Furthermore, verses 39:27-28 describes the Quran and the following verse to distinguish the divine teaching from other teachings. “God cites the example of a man who deals with disputing partners, compared to a man who deals with only one man. Are they the same? Praise be to God; most of them do not know.” (39:29). Obviously, hadith narrators and collections are “disputing partners,” while the Quran is a consistent source.

6. Our conviction regarding the divinity of the Quran and even its protection does not come from our trust in the number of people, but from the evidence contained in the book, which is another number, a number that is not appreciated by those who determine the truth based on the number of heads with turbans. (Wonder about that number? See 74:30).

7. We reject Hadith because we respect Muhammad. No sound person would like to have people born several centuries after him roam the earth and collect hearsay attributed to him. Besides, if Muhammad and his supporters really believed that the Quran was not sufficient for guidance, an ambiguous book, or lacked details, then, surely they would be the first ones who would write them down and collect them in books. After all, their numbers were in hundreds of thousands and they had plenty of wealth. They could afford some ink, papyrus paper or leather, and some brain cells, for such an important task. They would not leave it for a guy from far Bukhara or his ilk, more than two hundred years to collect hadiths in a land soaked with blood because of sectarian wars. Besides, Muhammad had many unemployed or handicapped people around who would gladly volunteer for such mission. The traditional excuse fabricated for Prophet Muhammad and his supporters is absurd. Supposedly, Muhammad and his followers feared that people would mix the Quran with hadiths. This is nonsense. They were smart enough to distinguish both, and there were enough people to keep track of them.

Besides, it is the followers of hadith and sunna themselves who claim that the Quran was a “literary miracle”. If their claim of “literary miracle” were true, then it would be much easier to separate the verses of the Quran from hadith. Let’s assume that they could not really distinguish the text of the Quran from Muhammad’s words, then couldn’t they simply mark the pages of the scripture with the letter Q for the Quran and letter H for Hadith, or let some record only the Quran, or simply color code their covers? Or allocate leather for the Quran and paper for hadith, or vise versa? They could find many ways to keep different books separate from each other. They did not need to study rocket science or have computer technology to accomplish that primitive task. The collectors of hadiths wished that people would accept their assertion that Muhammad and his supporters did not have ink, paper or leather, mind, and care to collect hadith before them. No wonder, they even fabricated a few hadiths claiming that Muhammad’s companions were competing with dogs for bones to write on the verses of the Quran!

Well, most likely, Muhammad feared that people would mix his words with the Quran. Not the primitive way that is depicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, since as we pointed out, there were many ways to eliminate that concern. But the real concern of Muhammad was different. Because of the warnings of the Quran, he feared that Muslims would follow the footsteps of Jews and would create their own Mishna, Gomorra, and Talmud: hadith would be considered as an authority, as another source besides the Quran, setting him as partner with God! Ironically, the followers of hadith and sunna accomplished exactly that. They did not need to publish the text of hadith together with the Quran–though they have done that in many commentaries–they have been doing worse. Though they usually have kept hadith separate from the Quran physically, as far as for the purpose of guidance and religious authority, they mix it with the Quran. Even worse, they make the understanding of the Quran dependant to the understanding of hadith, thereby elevating hadith to position of authority over the Quran. Thus, if indeed Muhammad was worried about people mixing his words with the Quran, the followers of hadith proved his worries right: centuries after him, they did not only mix his words with the Quran, they mixed thousands of fabrication and nonsense attributed to him. See 25:30; 59:7.

8. Give me one, only one “hadith” that you think is necessary for my salvation besides the Quran. If you are not ready to discuss the necessity and accuracy of a single hadith, then please give inviting people to hadith and Sunna.

Further Discussion

Sunni: The bound collection of testimony from any court is certain to contain some lies and some errors. The reliability of any piece of evidence remains debatable. Where the narrators agree, where there is no irreconcilable conflict with the Qur’an, where the hadith is not offensive to tawhid, etc., we may well be justified in accepting it as reliable.  And if a collector collects a thousand hadith and makes a few errors, neither is he to be condemned as unreliable.

Muslim: Not a single court will accept the testimony of Bukhari who collected contradictory hadiths about the Prophet Muhammad, narrated from generation to generation 200 years after his departure. You try to minimize the number and size of errors. There are hundreds lies, not “a few errors.” And they are grave ones. They attribute stupid and contradictory laws and words to God. They create a manmade religion in the name of God! They are full of insult to God and his messenger. They are not trivial, since God Almighty does not accept those “few errors” as trivial:

” . . . Who is more evil than the one who fabricates lies and attributes them to God?” (29:68)

Sunni: If the hadith are not mutawwatir, the monotheist Muslim should know by now that most scholars would say that one is free to disregard it, though not necessarily without peril. The issue the Muslim raises about the difficulties of decision regarding hadith also apply to personal interpretation of the Qur’an. No, the Qur’an makes it clear, we cannot disregard any evidence out of hand, not even the evidence of an unrighteous man; how much less the evidence of those against whom we have no evidence of unrighteousness or lack of caution?

Muslim: First, can you please tell us how many mutawatir (accepted with consensus) Hadith are there. What are they and where are they? Second, can you give me a few names of those “most scholars” who would say that I am free to disregard non-mutawatir hadiths? As far as for evidences…. Sure, we cannot disregard evidences for our daily affair, even of an unrighteous man. But, God’s religion is not left to the mercy of those evidences. God explained and sufficiently detailed his religion in his book, which is described as complete, detailed, and perfect. It does not contain any doubt. Furthermore, God promised to preserve it. An He did it with a unique mathematical system which hypocrites and disbelievers are unable to see.

Sunni: I have answered The Muslim about of a number of these hadith. Certainly, I personally have trouble with certain hadith; however, I must always ask myself whether or not it is my own view which is in error, rather than the hadith. Perhaps there is something I have not thought of.

For example, there is a hadith, which The Muslim loves to cite mentioning the drinking of camel’s urine, which he seems to believe, is particularly ridiculous. Does he base this on a scientific study of the virtues of drinking camel’s urine? I think not. Nor does he ever mention that nomadic peoples, not just Arabs but including them, often consume the waste products of their animals. So “cannot accept” is definitely culturally conditioned. But no one has claimed that drinking camels’ urine is required of any Muslim.

Muslim: Well, prescribing camels’ urine is the minor problem of that hadith. You can even find some Sunni doctors who pontificate that camel’s urine is a panacea for every disease. The big problem was about gouging their eyes after pruning all their legs and hands, etc. You craftily skipped that part.

Sunni: The Muslim confuses Hadith and Sunna. Hadith is only one of a number of major sources of Sunna, other major sources being the Qur’an and the practice of the community. The latter is how we generally learn to pray, by the way.  To answer the question about necessity of hadith without going deeply into the whole concept of necessity is impossible.

But I will answer this way: if a hadith transmits a wisdom necessary in a particular situation, and one turns away from that wisdom merely because it was a hadith (and not some other preferred modality), then one becomes culpable for failure to act correctly in the situation. This could, indeed lead to hell-fire. Of course, the same is true of the Qur’an, or even the preaching of a Christian.

Muslim: If you think that some one is wrong and even misguided because of his rejection of hadith and that person challenges you with that question you don’t answer like you did above. You did not or could not answer my challenge. Answering questions is not an act of writing irrelevant lines after the question. Please come to the point.

 

Arab Conspiracies

In Aidid’s Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) vanishes to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments;  ; the Sacred House Kaba mutates into “the ‘ankles’ the sanctioned in the system” (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and adverbs are ignored  whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act the same way in a “fundamental” way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories.

Conspiracy against Conspiracies or

Words in the Wonderland

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

 

The author, Aidid Safar, in The Arab Conspiracies Against Islam, expresses his position with an eloquent and powerful argument. I agree with some of his arguments and disagree with the most. His argument aiming to eliminate Salaat and Hajj rituals are radical, yet fragile and unsupported. His arguments against rituals occasionally appear strong when they are compared to the traditional corrupt interpretation of some verses. In other words, the strength of his position mostly relies on the weakness of mushrik Sunni and Shiite (mis)translation of Quranic verses.

Currently, I do not have time nor desire to evaluate all of his arguments, since it might take a similar book to demonstrate the numerous errors, speculations, and unjustified inferences. But, I would like to briefly note the following:

Aidid asserts that SaLLY means not prayer, but commitment. There is some truth in this statement. The word SaLLY, when it is not used together with the verb IQaMa, usually means support and encouragement. For instance, I translated the verse 74:43 in my Turkish translation, Mesaj:  “They will say: ‘We did not support’”. Similarly I translated the verse 75:31 in Mesaj: “He neither accepted the truth, nor he supported.” I also translated the word Salla to mean support in verses 2:157; 9:99,103; and 33:43,56. Furthermore, I agree with Aidid that in verse 5:106 the word Salla may not mean the salaat ritual. However, when the word Salat is used with verb IQaMa it refers to a timely ritual preceded by ablution. His arguments on those verses are not convincing.

In page 19 he provides a list of words claiming that their meanings have been distorted. Though I agree with him partially, for instance that the meaning of SaLLY has been distorted in verses I listed above, and the meaning of the word MaQaM (in re Abraham) is mistranslated as footprint; however he goes extreme in his fight against the conspiracy theory and reaches to bizarre conclusions.

For instance, Aidid want us stop “worshiping God” and start “serving God” on the basis that God does not need our worship. But, he ignores the validity of the same question for serving God. Surely, God does not need our service either. When a wrong question is asked you can be sure that the answer will also be wrong. We worship God not because God needs our worship, but because we need it. However, I do agree with his basic assertion that the “serve” reflects the meaning of the word “abd” better, since it involves every aspect of human life.

Aidid asserts that the word al-BaYT (singular form) which has been traditionally translated as THE HOUSE, usually referring to the public building raised by Abraham and his children inMecca, should be translated as SYSTEM. He claims that HaJJ, the annual PILGRIM to the House inMecca, should be understood as CHALLENGE OR DISCOURSE. He is suggesting new meanings to old words. I would welcome such a radical move if he had provided a substantial Quranic and logical reason to do so. The traditional meanings of the word BaYT and HaJJ explain all the verses where they occur without forcing our imagination, but the so-called “fundamental meanings” suggested by Aidid are usually beyond my imagination. Let me explain:

2:127 is about raising the foundation of the House. Like Aidid, I can imagine this to be about laying the foundation of a new system.

 

2:158 is about visiting the House. I cannot imagine this to be about “challenging or discourse to God’s system” (al-BaYT in the context of Hajj does not carry a negative connotation, but is associated to Abraham and God in the Quran.)

5:95 asks us making sure that offerings reach the KA’Ba. I cannot imagine  it to be about “to determine the ‘ankles’” or “guides maturity the ankle” meaning  “they must determine the maturity of the deer on its ankles” as suggested by the author. I do not even understand what the author means by these words.

5:97 tells us that God has consecrated the Ka’bah, the sacred House as a safety for people. But, Aidid wants us to understand it as “God has set the ‘ankles’ (ka’bata) the sanctioned in the system (baytil-harami) to be upheld for mankind”. If the word “ridiculous” or “nonsense” has a reference in human language and in real life, then Aidid’s translation of this phrase is one of them.

8:35tells us that the prayer of the mushriks by the House was merely hypocrisy (muka) and repulsion from truth (tasdiya). But Aidid Safar wants us to understand it as “their commitment to the system,” The author does not care about INDA (nearby) or other propositions. He ignores or distorts their meaning to fit his theory.

17:93 informs us about the demands of disbelievers from Muhammad, including his having a luxurious/adorned house (mansion). Though Aidid does not translate this verse, according to his “fundamental meaning” we should understand that mushriks expected Muhammad have a luxurious (zukhruf) system! Perhaps, Aidid will change the meaning of ZUKHRUF too, since he does not need much justification as long as it serves his pre-conceived conclusions.

28:12 tells the story of Moses being returned to his home/family and quotes his sister saying “May I show you a people of a HOUSE (family/home) that can raise him and take care of him for you?” According to Aidid this is an Arab conspiracy. The “fundamental meaning” suggested by Aidid, Moses’ sister is talking about a people of a SYSTEM. In Aidid’s imagination, all the individual BaYTs (house/building) are destroyed to build a SYSTEM with no rituals. BuYuT (Houses), on the other hand, are spared. They are houses!

In Aidid’s fundamentally non-Arabic semantic world, Pharaoh’s wife prayed not for a place in paradise/garden (jannah) but a system in paradise (66:11). I suppose, Aidid has all the skills to change the meaning of every word in the Quran, including the word Jannah. The house of the lady transforms to the lady’s system dwelled by Joseph (12:23), and God’s system needs to be cleaned by people (2:125;22:26). Again, according to Aidid’s dictionary, God caused the Prophet get out of his system with the Truth (8:5)! Whatever it may mean? If you do not understand Aidid, it is because you are brainwashed by Arab conspiracies.

In short, in Aidid’s Wonderland, place of worships (masaajid) vanishes to submissions (yes, plural!); timely prayers transform to timely commitments; the Sacred House Ka’ba mutates into “the ‘ankles’ the sanctioned in the system” (the ankles are literally the ankles of deer and goats!); verbs and adverbs are ignored  whenever they do not conspire with Aidid against Arab Conspiracies; nouns and verbs act the same in a “fundamental” way where the meanings are freshly assigned by Aidid to justify his bizarre theories.

This is another abuse and exploitation of the Quran Alone message. Aidid is not the first nor will be the last brave warrior who will use the powerful message of the Quran Alone against tradition to justify esoteric and absurd claims. In an overpopulated world any conspiracy theory and any absurd idea will find some followers. We should let the Arab conspirators and non-Arab counter-conspirators deal with each other. As long as there are wind mills there will be Don Quixotes and their admirers. Peace for all of them!  Thank God, I do not own any wind mills;-)

Eternal Hell and the Merciful God?

Eternal Hell and the Merciful God?

Edip Yuksel
© 2003
www.19.org

(Published in the Appendix of the Quran: a Reformist Translation, Brainbow Press)

 

As a monotheist, I have compelling scientific, philosophic and spiritual reasons to believe in the Quran, yet I have to admit that I have not digested all the verses of the Quran. Some verses challenge my cultural norms or the mainstream ideology, and a few also appear to contradict other clear verses of the scripture and/or the laws of nature. Knowing that my culture is relative, I usually handle well the first category, but those that create contradiction among God’s signs (ayat) of the scripture or of nature act like viruses infecting my faith. Those who have no intellectual problem with any verses of the Quran are, in my opinion, either gullible people who happened to inherit/acquire their faith because of peer pressure, geographic proximity, or any other extraneous reason; or they are hiding their intellectual problems from others and perhaps from even their own cognition. Neither type, however, can set a good example.

My doubt is not about the veracity of the Quran, but about the veracity of my understanding of some verses of the Quran. Since I rejected Sunni precepts that require blindly following the opinion of orthodox scholars and clerics, and since I accepted the Quran as the only source of my religion, whenever I encounter a problem with my understanding of a verse that puts it at odds with 4:82, I follow the divine advice to act patiently in seeking knowledge (20:114), ask the experts (21:7) without following them blindly (17:36), avoid wishful thinking and hearsay (53:28), and know that God is the one who will ultimately provide explanation (75:16-19). Sometimes, I attain a coherent understanding within months, but sometimes it takes years and even decades. Each of my intellectual and spiritual experience is a testimony to the following facts:

7:52      We have brought them a book that we have detailed with knowledge to be a guidance and mercy for the people who believe.

55:1-2  The Gracious Teaches the Quran

Before sharing with you my observation about the duration of Hell, I would like to share with you several examples of my intellectual struggle and their results. (If you do not have patience with this lengthy introduction or preparation, please jump to the subtitle Is Hell Eternal.)

For instance, my inquiry on 5:38 evolving about fifteen years resulted in three understanding,: (a) cutting or marking a thief’s hand as a means of public humiliation and identification, (b) physically cutting off a thief’s hand, or (c) cutting off a thief’s means to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment). Depending on the economic and social circumstances, frequency of theft, its risk to the society, and the economic, social and psychological cost of punishment, a society may pick any of the suggested punishments. In other words, I am now convinced that the deliberate use of a semantically flexible key word, QaTTa’A, is to accommodate time, mood, culture, and circumstances of diverse populations. Freezing the message of the Quran with the understanding and practice of the first generation (including Prophet Muhammed and his companions) is stripping the Quran from its prophetic divine nature that makes its message universal.

My inquiry on the apparent contradiction between 2:233 and 46:15, within several months led me to a conclusion that I never wished to reach: taking the normal length of pregnancy as 266 days (or 38 weeks), abortion within 86 days of pregnancy would not be considered murder. In the first trimester, the fetus was not considered as a person. Becoming a person is with the emergence of consciousness (that is, Nafs, which is usually wrongly translated as Soul, because of Plato’s influence on later Muslim scholars). “Personhood” is described as the stage of “new creation” that follows the stages of being a sperm, embryo, bite-size fetus forming bones and flesh, and finally a new creature (23:14; 22:5). My problem with the traditional understanding of4:34, and reconciling it with 30:21 was solved within a year through research and “accidental” events. I learned that men were not rulers over women, but providers for them; women were described not as devotees of their husbands, but of their Creator; the issue was not disobedience to husband but disloyalty to the marriage contract; and husbands were not advised to beat their wives, but were advised to separate from them before deciding on divorce.

Similarly, my problem with reconciling traditional understanding of 4:3 and 4:129 was solved decades later when I noticed a universal mistranslation of a phrase in 4:127. Though the Quran permits polygamy (4:3), it discourages and restricts its actual practice by requiring significant preconditions: men may marry more than one wife only if the latter ones are widows with orphans, and they should treat each wife equally and fairly. (See 4:19-20, 127-129.) Unfortunately, verse 4:127 has been traditionally misinterpreted and mistranslated in such a way as to suggest that God permits marriage with juvenile orphans. This was clearly not the case.

Let me give you one more example. I had a problem with the traditional mistranslation of a key word in verse 2:106, since it implied contradiction in the Quran and made any verse in the Quran a vulnerable subject to the claim of abrogation. The word “ayat”, the plural of “ayah,” is used in the Quran to mean both (a) signs/miracles, and (b) verses/revelations of the Quran itself. Since verses of the Quran are considered to be miracles/signs, the plural form occasionally conveys both meanings simultaneously. A single verse of the Quran is not deemed to be a miracle since some short verses of the Quran (for instance: 55:3; 69:1; 74:4; 75:8; 80:28; 81:26) are not unique and can be found in daily conversation of Arabic-speaking people. In fact, the Quran determines the minimum unit of miraculous nature as a chapter (10:38), and the shortest chapters consist of 3 verses (103; 108; 110). Therefore, only the plural form of “ayah”, that is, “ayat”, can be used as reference to the verses/revelation of the Quran. However the singular form, AYAH, in all its 84 occurrences in the Quran is always used to mean sign or miracle. Therefore, I choose to translate the singular form “ayah” in verse 2:106 as “sign.”

Is Hell Eternal?

God, as demonstration of ultimate creation, chose to test the results of creating a being with the ability to freely choose its own destiny (18:29; 6:110; 13:11). God downloaded His revelation/commands/logic (ruh) to the prototype human that would provide him with innate rules of reasoning to distinguish falsehood from truth, bad from good (15:29; 32:9; 38:72;). Messengers and books containing ruh were only a bonus mercy, mere reminders of the facts that could be discovered by reason (2:37-38; 10:57; 11:17; 16:89; 21:107; 29:51; 16:2; 36:69; 37:87; 39:21; 42:52; 58:22). Though believing that we humans have freedom of will is one of the paradoxes most difficult to digest, I accept it on faith (18:29; 57:22). God, created life and death on this planet to test His ultimate creature (67:2). After a certain age, an individual is deemed accountable by God (46:15). God decided to punish those who freely choose a path contradictory to its original program as they corrupt it through false ideas and actions (2:57; 4:107; 6:12,20,26; 7:9,53177; 59:19). The programs that are infected with viruses will experience and a regretful stage called Hell (Hell and Paradise are allegories: 13:35; 17:60; 37:62-64; 7:44-50). In this stage the corrupt programs and their chief infector (Satan) will be penalized (7:11-27; 38:71-88), and then altogether they will be annihilated. The only virus that will not be healed on the day of Judgment is the virus that creates a schizophrenic personality, a personality that submits itself to others besides God, a personality that does not free itself from false gods thereby alienating itself from its origin, that is God (4:48,116).

The popular belief that Hell will burn eternally bothered me for decades, but I suppressed my problem by saying “God is Merciful and Just; He knows something that I do not know.” Of course, God knows many things that we do not know. But, what if we are protecting our superstitions and false beliefs through such an excuse? What if we are stopping ourselves from using God’s greatest gift: reason, which distinguishes a believer from a disbeliever, a human from an animal? (2:73, 170, 171, 242, 269; 3:118, 190; 7:169; 8:22; 10:42, 100; 11:51; 12:2, 111; 13:4, 19; 16:67; 21:10, 67; 23:80; 24:61; 29:63; 30:28; 38:29; 39:9, 18, 21; 40:54; 59:14). Sure, there was a danger in confusing “reason” with my personal wishes, ignorance and cultural biases. I could distort the meaning of God’s Word to appease my wishes or to conform to my limited knowledge. There was a fine line. Should I use my reason to question an understanding that I inherited from a particular sect, or should I follow everything without using my mind? Knowing that the Quran strongly admonishes us from following the crowd, the footsteps of our parents, or religious scholars blindly, (6:116; 2:170; 9:31; etc.). I rejected blind faith and chose faith based on knowledge and reason (17.36). To prefer an unorthodox understanding, I have adopted a two-pronged rule: I should be able to support it by the original language of the scripture,ANDthe unorthodox understanding should not create a contradiction either among the divine laws and precepts in the scripture or between scripture and divine laws in nature.

About six years ago, I read a Turkish translation of a booklet, The Universal Salvation, written by Musa Jarullah Bigiyev (1874-1949). In that booklet, Bigiyev argued that according to the Quran and Hadith, Hell was not eternal. When I finished the booklet my excitement and hope faded as the author had not dealt with the many pertinent verses that led hundreds of millions of Muslims to believe that hell was eternal. He was making a radical assertion but he had little persuasive argument to support it. He was utilizing more emotional appeal than scholarly evaluation of related verses. Disappointed, I continued in my belief in eternal Hell, albeit as a contradictory concept which continuously irritated my faith and intellect lurking in the background. I could not ignore numerous Quranic verses/signs that were threatening disbelievers or mushriks with suffering in hell for eternity. But I also could not ignore the other fact that God’s most repeated attribute in the Quran was God’s mercy (RaHYM 114 times, RaHMaN 57 times, etc). God had decreed mercy as His attribute (6:12,54) and His mercy was immense (6:147; 40:7). I frequently took solace in the implication of the following dialogue between Jesus and God that will take place on the day of judgment:

5:118-119 ‘If you punish them, they are your creatures. If you forgive them, you are almighty, wise.’ God will say: ‘This is a day when their truth will benefit the truthful ones.’ They have deserved gardens with flowing streams. They abide there forever. God is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. This is the greatest achievement.

His justice was also reminded frequently (3:182; 4:40; 8:51; 11:101; 16:33,118; 22:10; 41:46; 43:76; 50:29; 99:7-8). How can a merciful and just God torture his creatures in eternal hell for their crimes committed in a very short time, a period that is almost zero compared to eternity?! How could divine mercy and justice be challenged by my limited mercy and justice? If I had a part of God’s revelation/knowledge/logic (ruh) in my genetic program, then I should be able to find a way to embrace, not necessarily comprehend, God’s mercy and justice without reservation.

Mushriks And Ardent Disbelievers Are Condemned To Stay In Hell Eternally!

Please note that the subtitle does not assert that “Mushriks and Ardent Disbelievers Are Condemned To Stay In Eternal Hell!” And, according to the language used in the Quran there is a difference. Let me explain:

All forms derived from the root of KHaLaDa (to be eternal, live forever, to remain for ever in place, or to stay for long time, or life time) occur 87 times in the Quran. If my preliminary count is correct, in 40 occurrences it describes the duration of reward in Paradise (2:25; 2:82; 3:15; 3:107; 3:136; 3:198; 4:13; 4:57; 4:122; 5:85; 5:119; 8:42; 9:22; 9:82; 9:89; 9:100; 10:26; 11; 23; 11:108; 14:23; 18:108; 20:86; 21:102; 23:11; 25:15; 25:16; 25:76; 29:58; 31:9; 39:73; 43:71; 46:14; 48:5; 50:34; 57:12; 58:22; 64:9; 65:11; 98:8; 50:34 ), and in 40 occurrences it describes the duration of punishment in Hell-fire (2:39; 2:81; 2:162; 2:217; 2:257; 2:285; 3:88; 3:116; 4:14; 4:93; 4:169; 5:80; 6:128; 7:36; 9:17; 9:63; 9:68; 10:26; 10:27; 10:52; 11:107; 13:5; 16:29; 20:101; 21:99; 23:103; 25:29; 25:69; 32:14; 33:65; 39:72; 40:76; 41:28; 43:74; 47:15; 59:17; 64:10; 72:23; 85:17; 98:6).

The word KHaLaDa also conveys the meaning of long duration. For instance, the classic Arabic dictionary Lisanul Arab lists the plural form KHawaLiD to mean mountains and rocks since they last very long. The Quran, at least in one instance, uses the past tense of the word to describe an act lasting lifetime (7:176). The verse describes a fanatic disbeliever and tells us that he “Akhlada ilal ardi.” that is, stuck to the ground, stuck to lowly ideas! In this article I do not argue that the meaning of the word KHaLaDa and all its derivatives convey only the idea of a very long time or a period of a particular life time. Though there might be some evidence for such an argument, and the lack of usage of this word for God might be considered supportive evidence, at present I am not convinced.

As for the adverb ABaDa (eternally, ever, forever), it occurs 28 times in the Quran, and out of these, in nine occurrences it is used to describe the duration spent in paradise (4:57; 4:122; 5:119; 9:22; 9:100; 18:3; 64:9; 65:11; 98:8) and in three verses this word is used for the duration spent in hell (4:169; 33:65; 72:23). Verses 5:37; 22:22; 32:20 state that the disbelievers will want to exit Hell, but they will never be able to do so. The arguments of those who reject eternal punishment is rejected (3:24).

ABaDa is used in 9:84; 9:108; 24:4; 33:53; 59:11; 62:7 to mean eternity contingent with the life of the subject:

“You shall never (La…. ABaDa) pray for any of them when he dies… ” (9:84) “You shall never (La … ABaDa) pray in such a masjid…” (9:108) “… and never (La … ABaDa) accept t any testimony from them…” (24:4) “… You shall never (La … ABaDa) marry his wives after him.” (33:53) “… We will never (La … ABaDa) obey anyone who against you…” (59:11) “… They will never (La … ABaDa) long for it… ” (62:7)

All these negative statements use ABaDa to express a prohibition that will last forever. More accurately, as long as the conditions exist. For instance, when the person prohibited from a funeral prayer himself dies, the prohibition too ends naturally. A dead person cannot pray at the grave of another dead person and therefore, this prohibition does not practically last for eternity. Similarly, when the wives of the Prophet all died, the prohibition to marry them ceased to exist. Therefore, the eternity of prohibition was, in fact, limited by the condition or life-time of the subject. In other words, in the above examples, the word ABaDa indicates the entirety of a particular period.

Eternal Punishment In Hell Does Not Necessarily Mean That The Hell Or Its Inhabitants Are Eternal

Remember Jonah. When he escaped from his duty he was swallowed by a whale.

37: 143-144 But had he not been of those who glorify, he would have stayed in its belly to the day of resurrection.

It is a fact that neither Jonah nor the whale was immortals that could live to the day of resurrection. God knows this. Thus, this Quranic expression simply informs us that Jonah would die or end up in the belly of the whale. Although both would perish in a short time, the whale would be the ultimate destiny of Jonah until the day of resurrection. Had Jonah not intended to be resurrected (together with the whale,6:38), using the same logic, the verse would state: “he would have stayed in its belly eternally.”‘

Similarly, verses informing us about disbelievers or idol worshipers staying in Hell eternally, does not necessarily mean that the Hell is eternal, unless we are informed that Hell itself is eternal. It simply means that disbelievers and idol worshipers would end up in Hell and nothing else. If Hell, together with its inhabitants, one day ceased its existence, then the disbelievers or idol worshipers would still stay in Hell eternally. Their punishment would be the entire life of Hell.

In fact, the Quran informs us that both the eternal punishment in Hell and reward inParadiseis conditioned with their life span:

11:107  Eternally they abide therein (Hell), for as long as the heavens and the earth endure, in accordance with the will of your Lord. Your Lord is doer of whatever He wills. As for fortunate ones, they will be inParadise. Eternally they abide therein, for as long as the heavens and the earth endure, in accordance with the will of your Lord-an everlasting reward.

The Quran informs us that the Earth and Heavens will be changed to different Earth and Heavens (14:48). If the re-creation referred to in this verse is the one before the Day of Judgment, then there is possibility of another re-creation. There are indications thatParadisewill be preserved or created again. For instance, the word KHuLD (eternal, everlasting) is not used for Hell, but it is used as an adjective to describe Paradise (25:15). On the other hand the same adjective is not used to describe Hell, but to describe the punishment IN HELL (10:52; 41:28).

Hell, Together With Its Inhabitants, Will Be Annihilated

Our language contains synonyms, antonyms, complements, counterparts, etc. The Quran frequently uses pairs of words/concepts to contrast, compare, or complement each other. Usually, the frequencies of semantically related words also demonstrate mathematical harmony, which is another subject I extensively demonstrated in my books. For instance, Akhirah (Hereafter) and Dunya (Lowly World) , Malak (Angel) and Shaytaan (Satan), Rahmah (Mercy) and Huda (Guidance), Qul (Say) and Qalu (they said), Khalq (Creation) and Helaak (Annihilation), Hayat (Life) and Mawt (Death) are semantically and mathematically related words.

Let’s reflect on verse 40:11 and 67:2. The first verse refers to two creations and two deaths and the second refers to creation of death and life. These two verses can be understood better if we know that in the Quranic language death cannot exist without life and vise versa. They exist together, since Death is permanent halt of the brain’s conscious activity (39:42; 16:21), but a temporal stage to be followed by resurrection (29:57; 10:56; 22:6). Death is a process leading to life. A living creature will die and a dead creature will get a new life (22:66). Vegetation experiences successive lives and deaths through seasons (2:64; 3:27; 6:95; 16:65; 22:5-6; 30:19-50; 35:9). With the first creation there was neither death nor life; we just existed. But God decided to create death, and life (67:2). Creation, death, life (current), death, life (resurrection). In other words, two deaths and two lives (40:11). The word HaLaKa, on the other hand, is occasionally used to describe the death of an individual (40:34), but it usually means irreversible destruction and annihilation, or total existential extinction of an entity (5:17; 6:6; 6:47; 8:42; 20:128; 21:95; 22:45; 28:59; 36:31; 69:5; 77:16).

8:42      . . . whereby those destined to be perished/annihilated were perished/annihilated for an obvious reason, and those destined to be saved/revived were saved/revived for an obvious reason (or clear argument)

The above verse not only refers to the loss of lives and surviving in a particular battle, but also to a higher cosmic event: disbelievers will perish forever since they relied on falsehood while believers will last forever since they relied on a clear argument No wonder life and death are used as metaphors for attaining truth or falsehood (6:122). In fact, witnessing and acknowledging the truth leads to life, both metaphorically and literally:

8:24      O you who believe, respond to God and the messenger when he calls you to that which grants you life. You should know that God in between a man and his heart, and that before Him you will be gathered.

From the above verse, it is fair to infer that those who reject the divine message will lose eternal life. Will they die in Hell? The answer is No:

20:74    Anyone who comes to His Lord guilty will deserve Hell, wherein he never dies, nor stays alive.

Then, the alternative is obvious: total annihilation, ontological extinction, together with Hell. Those programs with free choice that chose to corrupt themselves with the worst diabolic “viruses” (such as associating partners with God or killing an innocent program) will be sentenced to an eternal punishment: after resurrection they will experience a period of diagnosis, justice, regret and then, with the creation of a new earth and heaven, they will be hurled to non-existence together with Hell. Perhaps, their memories as well will be erased from the minds of their relatives who chose eternal life by dedicating their religion to God alone and by leading a righteous life with the Day of Judgment in mind. It is interesting that the only exception for God’s never forgetting is in connection with the people who deserved Hell:

32:14    So taste the consequences of your ignoring/forgetting this day; for We have now ignored/forgotten you. Taste the eternal retribution in return for what you used to do.

GOD IS JUST AND MERCIFUL

The Quran repeatedly comforts us by reminding us of God’s perfect justice. The following verse provides us with a precise idea of God’s justice and mercy:

10:27    For those who did good work there will be the best and more. . . As for those who earned evil, they will receive equivalent evil.

Suffering in an eternal Hell creates a contradiction between this divine justice, since eternity can not be equal to an evil committed during the limited life span of a human. However, eternal punishment in a life time of a non eternal Hell avoids such a contradiction. After receiving an equivalent punishment, the chief evil-doers like those referred in verse4:48, will be eliminated from existence. They will end up in Hell and Hell will end up in oblivion, eternally.

No wonder the first and the most repeated verse of the Quran reminds us over and over that God is Gracious, Merciful (1:1).

Sala: With Both Mind And Body

Sala: With Both Mind And Body

Edip Yuksel
29 May 2004
www.19.org

 

The moment I joined the forums of free-minds.org and posted the first message about the FIVE PROJECTS (not five prayers!) we were working on, my faith was questioned by several people and I was immediately challenged regarding my opinion on Sala, (or spelled as Salah or Salat). On any subject I wrote, I was harassed and was demanded to indulge in their favorite argument. It seems that several people were so excited from freeing their minds and their bodies from performing a ritual; they just wanted to PROHIBIT such a ritual in the name of God. According to these people, anyone disagrees with their INTERPRETATION, INFERENCES and SPECULATIONS on some Quranic verses or words, or someone prays differently, he or she must be a MUSHRIK or DISBELIEVER. According to them I should not spend much time to think and study their claims. They did not even recognize a right for me to spend time on anything else in my life. I was expected either to reject their position IMMEDIATELY or accept IMMEDIATELY. Studying their argument was either a luxury, or evasion of absolute truth! I should have had acted reflexively, with a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps like they have done it.

As a response, I told them that I was taking their position seriously, and I even acknowledged that though I have heard the argument 30 years ago when I was living in Turkey, I learned a few new good points raised in their argument, and I added that after studying their assertions, if I find their argument to be factual and coherent I would not hesitate to change my position.  I never accused them of committing sin by NOT observing Salat prayers physically. I was simply following the instructions in 20:114;17:36; 39:38.

I would like to share two incidents with you before I venture to briefly state my reasons why I disagree with their RIGID position (accusing those who observe prayers mentally and physically of being mushriks), and why I am not so far persuaded by their SOFT position (that the Salat prayers should be observed mentally).

Several years ago, when I came to the conclusion that according to the Quran the number of Salat prayers were not FIVE, but THREE, I started praying three times a day. I shared my view with the members of my small congregation, and some of them, including my wife, did not want to change their routine of praying 5 times a day. They found my argument difficult to follow, and they had some arguments supporting their position. Yet, I never questioned their faith. I knew that it was still possible that a group of people following the Quran alone could have some differences in their understanding of its verses, since their knowledge, experience, and background were not all the same. The most important thing was their intention to devote their religion to God alone. Perhaps, with more research and some friendly discussion their differences would fade out with time. I did not and do not expect that every believer in Quran Alone must understand every verse, every word and their implications the same. My wife still prays five times a day and follows the traditional numbers of units. If I listened to these people and did not mind my own business and demanded her to accept my version of understanding some verses, I would have accused her of committing SHIRK, the ultimate crime. How could a believer blame another for merely observing EXTRA prayers based on their differences in understanding of the Quran?

The second incident I want to share with you involves a spin-off group ofTucsonsubmitters. Some submitters led by a couple of messenger claimants (Yes, after Rashad Khalifa dozens of people claimed to be messengers) came to believe that uttering Allah-u Akbar was wrong, since AKBAR was not a Quranic attribute of God. Instead, they started using Allah-ul Kabeer in their prayers. I preferred the attribute used by the Quran to the one that was not, and I started uttering Allah-ul Kabeer; but unlike them I did not have problem with someone who uttered Allah-u Akbar. Though AKBAR was not used in the Quran as an attribute for God, it shared the same root KBR with KABEER and there was no problem with its meaning. It was a beautiful attribute and all beautiful attributes, regardless of language, belonged to God. However, most of those who converted to Kabeer acted divisively and started condemning those who uttered Akbar. The other group also reacted similarly. They claimed that Kabeer was an innovation and switching from Akbar to Kabeer was a diversion from their late messenger’s practice (that is Rashad Khalifa’s Sunnah! Ironically, these people were the same people who rejected Hadith and Sunnah attributed to Muhammad arguing that the Quran alone must be the ONLY authority of their religion).

Turning back to present topic…. The same extremism or desire for schism is at work among some members of free-minds. A group of people come to believe and practice a particular issue differently than others; and they start turning that issue to a sales-pitch for their cult or group.  They develop and sharpen their arguments and use it like a holy sword. They might have some good points, they might be even totally correct; but they start abusing their newly discovered DIFFERENCE by exaggerating the issue and by making it a categorical measure of faith. It is curious dynamic that comes into play in every new religious or political group. Desire to create a separate identity overwhelm their rational thinking and blinds them to see the common values. Soon after Jesus, Paul the Pharisee distorted many facts to divorce Jesus’ message from of Moses. Soon after Jesus departure the followers “of the Pharisee son of Pharisee” started calling themselves Christians. This divisive pattern is common in almost all groups that advocate a particular religion, sect, or cult.

I would also make one point clear. Understanding and accepting differently is not the same as rejecting God’s ayaats/signs in the Quran and/or in the nature. Rejecting to believe an ayat (sign) or ayaat (signs/revelations) is disbelief and considered a great sin. For instance, if 9:128-129 were verses of the Quran, rejecting them would be important. Similarly if 9:128-129 were not verses of the Quran, accepting them would be important too. (I am deliberately using the word VERSES rather than AYAAT, since the singular word Ayat is used 84 times in the Quran and in all those occurrences it is used to mean signs and miracles, and never in its singular form refers to the verses of the Quran. However, both signs/miracles and revelation is referred with the plural of the word, that is Ayaat. Knowing that the Quran challenges disbelievers to produce minimum 1 chapter similar to the Quran, and knowing that the shortest chapter has three verses, then it is appropriate to use the plural word AYAAT for at least three verses. ) Since, the Code 19 involves this issue and also is considered as one of the greatest miracles (AYAAT) and a test, the very witnessing or understanding becomes a matter of faith. (I will inshallah later post an article on this issue).

What is Sala?

After this lengthy introduction, here are my reasons why I still continue observing the Salat prayers both mentally and bodily. I will focus on brother Layth’s article titled What is Salat”:

  1. It is true that SaJDa means obedience, submission to God’s law (16:49). From this verse we should not necessarily infer that everything has mind like humans. Even if we subscribe to such a fancy assumption, mental events too are physical events; they are the consequence of interaction of electrons. In fact, the prostration of all the creatures we perceive is PHISICAL. Any event that can be sensed by our five senses is a physical event. Atoms physically (chemical reactions too are physical events in this sense) surrender to God’s laws when they interact with each other. When water freezes it surrenders to God’s law and expands, when it is heated to a certain degree it evaporates. When Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms come together in a particular order and create bases called Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine, and when these bases join each other in a particular order, pre-ordained by God, they create DNAs that produce new qualities and events, including life. Every cell and organ in our bodies submits to God’s law. These are all physical demonstration of SaJDa to God. No wonder, the entire universe is stated to have submitted to God (3:83; 13:15). Interestingly, in these two verses the same idea is depicted yet in 3:83 the verb aSLaMa (submitted)  is used while in 13:15 the verb yaSJuDu (prostrating) is used. This is a strong evidence that botq verbs belong to the same semantic field. As we know submission to God is not just a mental activity but a physical action, such as working hard, delivering God’s message, feeding the poor, etc.
  2. On verse 41:37 Layth makes the following inference: “We are commanded not to prostrate before sun and moon, which means DO NOT GET ON THE GROUND AND BOW BEFORE PHYSICAL CREATIONS thinking you are worshiping The God. The God uses Sun and Moon as examples to represent all day and night.”

    This is not only a far-fetched speculation; it is also based on misunderstanding of the Arabic suffix Li. The verse does not say “BEFORE sun and moon,” but “FOR/TO sun and moon.”  In connection to Layth’s argument, the difference is huge. Furthermore, to describe time the Quran frequently uses day and night, not sun and moon. The verse does not prohibit physical prostration for God, but physical and mental prostration to others than God.

  3. I agree with Layth that the word SaJDa in some verses means ONLY mental (in quantum, electronic or neural level) prostration while in other verses it means ONLY bodily (atomic and molecular level) prostration. (I do not deliberately use the word PHYSICAL since both mental and bodily events are physical). I agree with Layth in his excellent observation on 27:20-24 and deduce that the prostration in question must be physical. I also agree with Layth that 77:48 most likely refers to mental prostration.
  4. As for verse22:18, it describes both mental and bodily submission to God. After quoting this verse Layth asks a rhetorical question, “Has anyone ever seen any of these creations bow and prostrate on the ground (animals excluded)?” He claims that since all things in heavens and earth do not prostrate to God by casting themselves facedown on the ground in humility, then we should not prostrate that way either. But, this conclusion is based on a false assumption that ALL creatures prostrate the same way. Every creature in heavens and earth glorifies God (24:41; 57:1; 59:1,24; 61:1; 62:1; 64:1). But we do not understand their glorification (17:44).  We are also instructed to glorify our Lord day and night, not like birds or planets, but like humans, in our language (3:41; 5:98; 7:206; 19:11; 20:130; 32:15; 40:55; 50:39-40; 52:48-49; 56:74,96; 69:52; 76:26; 87:1; 110:3).

    Hence: “Do you not see that everything in heavens and earth glorify God, including the birds in columns. Each knows his/her/its prayer (Salat) and glorification. God is fully aware of everything you do.” (24:41).

    The following verse is also important: “Are they seeking other than God’s religion, when everything has submitted (aSLaMa) to Him in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned?” (3:83). Now Layth should ask similar question about how to be a muslim as he asked about how to perform prostration: “Has anyone ever seen any of these creations give charity or deliver God’s message or study the Quran?” So, according to Layth, muslims also should not give charity, should not deliver the message, should not study the Quran, and should not use computers?!!

  1. After quoting verse 2:62 Layth adds: “No, not all of the mentioned people bow and prostrate on the ground. Will they be punished? No, it is the people who do not SUBMIT to The God and FOLLOW HIS COMMANDS that will deserve His punishment.” Again, Layth reaching conclusions hastily. The groups mentioned in the verse (believers, Jews, Nazarenes, and those from other religions) attain salvation as long as they believe in God, do righteous work and believe in hereafter. Perhaps not all these groups bow and prostrate, and perhaps not all these groups believe and follow the Quran, either. First, we should remember that God hold responsible depending on their circumstances. As those who witnessed Moses’ miracles will be hold responsible for their reaction to them, similarly those who are instructed to bow and prostrate will be held responsible for their reaction. Each nation received a messenger and each received their instruction (10:47; 22:34; 40:28).
  2. Referring to verse 18:50, Layth concludes: “There is no need to get on the ground to worship your Lord because He has not commanded us to do this. He wants us to Bow and Prostrate our WILLS to that of HIS WILL.”  This is a reasonable conclusion. However, knowing that the word prostration was also used to mean humbly getting on the ground, we cannot equate the prostration in this verse to all others. The verse refers to an event took place before the creation of life on earth. Besides, the instruction is to Satan, a creature made of energy not matter like us. The nature of prostration asked from Satan or angels might be little different than the one asked from us. Or, more accurately, the form, way or style of our prostration might not necessarily be expected to be the same with angels.­
  3. Layth makes an interesting point: “Most times it is preceded by the word “Khar’a” (fall down), which adds to “prostration” to let us know that it is indeed physical prostration. If “prostration” was automatically understood as physical, there would be no need to add “Khar’a” along with it.” He later quotes verse 12:100 which describes how Joseph’s vision/dream was fulfilled. That verse uses the words “fall” and “prostrate” together. But, Layth forgets that in the beginning of the chapter, Joseph’s vision that describes the very event described in 12:100 uses ONLY one word: SaJeDeen, which means “they were prostrating.
  4. Furthermore, David who was observing Salat prayer is described by the Quran as: “… He then implored his Lord for forgiveness, bowed down (KhaRra RuKka’An), and repented.”  (38:24). David’s repentance is clearly described as bowing down, BOTH MENTAL AND BODILY.
  5. I do not know Layth, but some of his friends are not only reaching the wrong conclusion about the nature of Salat prayer, they further arrogate themselves by insulting, harassing and condemning those believers who observe Salat prayer BOTH MENTALLY and BODILY.
  6. I hope that Layth will carefully re-visit this issue and reform his position. I would like to remind him and others who are trying hard to eliminate the formal component of Salaat prayer the following verse:

“… When the revelations of the Gracious are recited to them, they fall prostrate (KhaRRu SuJjaDan), weeping.” (19:58)

 

Divine Will and Human Freedom

Divine Will and Human Freedom

Abdur Rab

 align=

Shakespeare writes: “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.” This pretty much sums up the role of the three groups of factors that shape human destiny: heredity, human effort, and environment. This also echoes what Scriptures would tell us.

Influenced by Muslim traditions and Muslim and Christian scholars and theologians, Muslims and Christians widely believe that God predestines the fate of human beings – how long they live, how they live, what fortune or misfortune they enjoy or suffer in life — no matter what they actually do during their time on earth. But if this were true, as I concluded in an earlier article, the whole case for religion that makes man responsible for his actions would crumble. Destiny plays a part in human life, but man largely shapes his own destiny.

The Quran states that God has created everything in due measure (taqdir, proportion or destiny) (25:2). Shakespeare puts it: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends.” The German Philosopher Goethe says: “Man supposes that he directs his life and governs his actions, when his existence is irretrievably under the control of destiny.” David Eagleman notes in his book Incognito: “Most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control.” He documents how human biology, especially the brain’s constitution and health, affects human behavior.

Certainly, though, destiny is a tricky term to understand. Often what we may call destiny or fate befalling us is nothing but the outcome of what we (or our forefathers or society) have done. The Quran states along these lines: “Whatever misfortune strikes you is due to what your hands have earned” (42:30) and “Laisa lil insani illa ma sa’a – There’s nothing for man without effort” (53:39; also see 20:15; 2:286).

The history of human civilization is that of human endeavor: unprecedented material prosperity, immense improvement in human living standards, impressive development in prevention and control of diseases, and a sharp increase in human longevity. Also look at man-caused fires, massacres, injustice, humiliation, inequality, poverty, and misery. This dark record of what man has done made Wordsworth lament “what man has made of man!” With all the arms build-up worldwide and arms race and nuclear proliferation going apace, the world stands at a tipping point. World peace hangs on a very delicate balance.

In their dreams and visions, individuals sometimes see things that foretell future events. The Quran also announces some important events in advance: the birth of Jesus who would be worthy of respect in both worlds (3:45); the birth of John (Yahya) who would be an honorable prophet to his people (3:39); Muslims’ victory at the Badr battle (3:124-126; 8:9-12); and the fall of the Roman empire (30:2-4). Call, if you will, such dreams, visions, and announcements vindications of Divine will. However, an analysis of such predicted events may suggest that underlying factors at play in most cases are rather hereditary or environmental, reflecting the predominant role of human effort, present or past.

That God does not directly will or influence events is brought out by several verses of the Quran. A key passage reads as: “Surely God does not change the condition of people until they change their own selves (nafs)” (13:11). Still another states that God lands one where one chooses to turn (4:115). God mocks those who do not feed the poor and says that if God willed, He could have fed them (36:47). Also: “If God willed, He could have guided us all” (6:149), “If He willed, He could have made humankind one nation” (5:48), and “If He willed, all would have believed” (10:99). The import of all these verses is that God does not directly determine our affairs.

Look at another important Quran verse that unequivocally upholds freedom of human choice: “The Truth (has now come) from your Lord; let, then, him who wills believe (in it), and let him who wills reject (it)” (18:29). There are other verses that categorically make human beings accountable for their own actions: “You are responsible for your own selves” (5:105) and “Spend in God’s cause, and let not your own hands lead you to ruin” (2:195).

But what do you make of such statements in the Quran that say that nothing happens without God’s knowledge (2:33) and that everything is in the Book (78:29)? Is human freedom limited by God’s knowledge and power? A great Islamic thinker Indian-Pakistani poet, philosopher Muhammad Iqbal does not think so. In his seminal work Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, he forcefully and beautifully describes God’s knowledge and power in a way that admits of freely exercised creativity on the part of humankind: “If history is regarded merely as a gradually revealed photo of a predetermined order of events, then there is no room in it for novelty and initiation. Consequently, we can attach no meaning to the word ‘creation’, which has a meaning for us only in view of our own capacity for original action. The truth is that the whole theological controversy relating to predestination is due to pure speculation with no eye on the spontaneity of life, which is a fact of actual experience. No doubt, the emergence of egos endowed with the power of spontaneous and hence unforeseeable action is, in a sense, a limitation on the freedom of the all-inclusive Ego. But this limitation is not externally imposed. It is born out of His own creative freedom whereby He has chosen finite egos to be participators of His life, power, and freedom.” He further aptly notes:

It is the lot of man to share in the deeper aspirations of the universe around him and to shape his own destiny as well as that of the universe […] And in this process of progressive change God becomes a co-worker with him, provided man takes the initiative.

Several Quran verses encapsulate this idea of God becoming a co-worker with man (13:11; 8:53; 19:76; 42:23; 2:26). God adds good to those who do good (42:23). This is a God’s Law: If you start doing something good, you’re further inclined to doing the good things and if you start doing evil, you’re further attracted to the evil.

Man, as all the creation, is subject to the Laws of God, which scientists call the Laws of Nature. But note: God Himself is subject to such Laws. He never changes His Sunnah or Ways (35:43, 17:77). This Divine will, of course, constrains human freedom. None can work in contravention of such laws. But this is a general constraining factor as well as a blessing for humankind. If things hadn’t been that way, we couldn’t have ever known for sure what works for us and what does not and all scientific research would have come to a standstill.

Evolution is a natural process, taking place throughout the universe. Evolution is a manifestation of Divine will.

[For a related article by Edip Yuksel see: Free Will or Predestination? ]

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

Abdur Rab is the author of Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from the Quranic Perspective, 2010

First Published at AslanMedia in 29 July 2012
*Photo Credit: Usman Ahmed

 

Free Will or Predestination?

Free Will or Predestination?

Edip Yuksel
31 July 2012
www.19.org

 

From Quran a Reformist Translation:

57:22 No misfortune can happen on earth, or in yourselves, except it is decreed in a record, before We bring it about. This is easy for God to do.*

57:23 In order that you do not despair over anything that has passed you by, nor be exultant of anything He has bestowed upon you. God does not like those who are boastful, proud.

Edip Yuksel’s Note:

057:022-23 Proving the existence of free will is philosophically and scientifically impossible. Considering Gödel’s incom-pleteness theorem, it is impossible to eliminate axioms in axiomatic deductions. The assertion, “I have freedom of will” is not only nonfalsifiable, but also contradicts the deterministic laws governing matter and energy. As Nietzsche and Blanchard argued, it might be impossible to predict the interactive motion of hundreds of billiard balls, yet the motion of each ball depends on the mass and velocity of the ball colliding it. The motion of all balls depends on the motion of the first ball, and its motion depends on the angle and kinetic energy of the cue, which passes it to the balls during the impact. Sartre and other atheistic existentialists assumed the existence of freedom of will by asserting that “existence preceded essence” yet they never explained why one egg ended up with a snake while another with a bird; they ignored the fact that there could not be existence without essence.

Nevertheless, if there is freedom of will, it cannot be possible without an omnipotent, the greatest paradox-solver God. Without God, there is no justification for believing in one’s freedom in a world where every atom and molecule works in a deterministic way. Does the human brain function according to the quantum laws governing quarks? So far, there is no scientific evi-dence showing such a relationship. Mus-lims cannot be accused of being fatalistic; to the contrary, freedom of will is only possible with the existence of God, and muslims can only be accused of believing in freedom of will. See 6:110; 7:15,30; 13:11; 18:29; 42:13,48; 46:15; 57:22.

However, acceptance of freedom of will based on divine communication creates other logical problems or paradoxes. Leaving aside the uncertainty principle and speculations related to quantum physics, it seems impossible to assert the freedom of an agent who did not even choose his or her genetic makeup, the time, the space, and the conditions where he or she would be born. Obviously, this is a paradox, since it is impossible to choose existence or the qualities of existence without having an existence or the qualities for choosing qualities! In other words, the paradox of freedom of will is triggered at the moment of creation. Did God ask us whether to give us freedom of will and subject us to a test? If yes, then how could we have the freedom to choose or reject freedom, if we did not have it in the first place? If no, then, how can we have freedom of will, while we were forced to have it in the first place?

Though believing that we humans have freedom of will is one of the paradoxes most difficult to digest, I acknowledge it because of the proven book (18:29; 57:22).

God, as a demonstration of His creative powers, chose to test the results of creating a being with the ability to freely choose its own destiny (18:29; 6:110; 13:11). God downloaded His ruh (revelation/ information/logic) to the prototypical human that would provide him with innate rules of reasoning to distinguish falsehood from truth, bad from good (15:29; 32:9; 38:72;). Messengers and books containing ruh were only a bonus mercy, mere reminders of the facts that could be discovered by reason (2:37-38; 10:57; 11:17; 16:89; 21:107; 29:51; 16:2; 36:69; 37:87; 39:21; 42:52; 58:22). After the two human prototypes failed the first test (2:11-27), God created life and death on this planet to give another chance, to reform ourselves, this time subjecting billions of individuals inheriting and operating the same basic program to the same test (67:2). After letting the program run for a period, an individual is deemed accountable to God (46:15). God decided to punish those who freely choose a path contradictory to its original program as they corrupt it through false ideas and actions (2:57; 4:107; 6:12,20,26,110; 7:9,30,53,177; 59:19). The programs that are infected with viruses will experience a regretful stage in a quarantine called Hell (Hell and Paradise are allegories: 13:35; 17:60; 37:62-64; 7:44-50). In this stage the corrupt programs and their chief infector (Satan) will be penalized (7:11-27; 38:71-88), and then they will altogether be annihilated there (87:13). The only virus that will not be healed on the day of Judgment is the virus that creates a schizophrenic personality, a personality that submits itself to others besides God, a personality that does not free itself from false gods thereby alienating itself from its origin, that is God (4:48,116).

Destroying the Commons: On Shredding the Magna Carta

Published on Monday, July 23, 2012 by TomDispatch.com

Destroying the Commons:
On Shredding the Magna Carta

by Noam Chomsky

Down the road only a few generations, the millennium of Magna Carta, one of the great events in the establishment of civil and human rights, will arrive.  Whether it will be celebrated, mourned, or ignored is not at all clear.One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106 (Property of the British Library)

That should be a matter of serious immediate concern.  What we do right now, or fail to do, will determine what kind of world will greet that event.  It is not an attractive prospect if present tendencies persist — not least, because the Great Charter is being shredded before our eyes.

The first scholarly edition of Magna Carta was published by the eminent jurist William Blackstone.  It was not an easy task.  There was no good text available.  As he wrote, “the body of the charter has been unfortunately gnawn by rats” — a comment that carries grim symbolism today, as we take up the task the rats left unfinished.

Blackstone’s edition actually includes two charters.  It was entitled The Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest.  The first, the Charter of Liberties, is widely recognized to be the foundation of the fundamental rights of the English-speaking peoples — or as Winston Churchill put it more expansively, “the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land.” Churchill was referring specifically to the reaffirmation of the Charter by Parliament in the Petition of Right, imploring King Charles to recognize that the law is sovereign, not the King.  Charles agreed briefly, but soon violated his pledge, setting the stage for the murderous Civil War.

After a bitter conflict between King and Parliament, the power of royalty in the person of Charles II was restored.  In defeat, Magna Carta was not forgotten.  One of the leaders of Parliament, Henry Vane, was beheaded.  On the scaffold, he tried to read a speech denouncing the sentence as a violation of Magna Carta, but was drowned out by trumpets to ensure that such scandalous words would not be heard by the cheering crowds.  His major crime had been to draft a petition calling the people “the original of all just power” in civil society — not the King, not even God.  That was the position that had been strongly advocated by Roger Williams, the founder of the first free society in what is now the state of Rhode Island.  His heretical views influenced Milton and Locke, though Williams went much farther, founding the modern doctrine of separation of church and state, still much contested even in the liberal democracies.

As often is the case, apparent defeat nevertheless carried the struggle for freedom and rights forward.  Shortly after Vane’s execution, King Charles granted a Royal Charter to the Rhode Island plantations, declaring that “the form of government is Democratical,” and furthermore that the government could affirm freedom of conscience for Papists, atheists, Jews, Turks — even Quakers, one of the most feared and brutalized of the many sects that were appearing in those turbulent days.  All of this was astonishing in the climate of the times.

A few years later, the Charter of Liberties was enriched by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, formally entitled “an Act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas.” The U.S. Constitution, borrowing from English common law, affirms that “the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended” except in case of rebellion or invasion.  In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the rights guaranteed by this Act were “[c]onsidered by the Founders [of the American Republic] as the highest safeguard of liberty.” All of these words should resonate today.

The Second Charter and the Commons

The significance of the companion charter, the Charter of the Forest, is no less profound and perhaps even more pertinent today — as explored in depth by Peter Linebaugh in his richly documented and stimulating history of Magna Carta and its later trajectory.  The Charter of the Forest demanded protection of the commons from external power.  The commons were the source of sustenance for the general population: their fuel, their food, their construction materials, whatever was essential for life.  The forest was no primitive wilderness.  It had been carefully developed over generations, maintained in common, its riches available to all, and preserved for future generations — practices found today primarily in traditional societies that are under threat throughout the world.

The Charter of the Forest imposed limits to privatization.  The Robin Hood myths capture the essence of its concerns (and it is not too surprising that the popular TV series of the 1950s, “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” was written anonymously by Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted for leftist convictions).  By the seventeenth century, however, this Charter had fallen victim to the rise of the commodity economy and capitalist practice and morality.

With the commons no longer protected for cooperative nurturing and use, the rights of the common people were restricted to what could not be privatized, a category that continues to shrink to virtual invisibility.  In Bolivia, the attempt to privatize water was, in the end, beaten back by an uprising that brought the indigenous majority to power for the first time in history.  The World Bank has just ruled that the mining multinational Pacific Rim can proceed with a case against El Salvador for trying to preserve lands and communities from highly destructive gold mining.  Environmental constraints threaten to deprive the company of future profits, a crime that can be punished under the rules of the investor-rights regime mislabeled as “free trade.” And this is only a tiny sample of struggles underway over much of the world, some involving extreme violence, as in the Eastern Congo, where millions have been killed in recent years to ensure an ample supply of minerals for cell phones and other uses, and of course ample profits.

The rise of capitalist practice and morality brought with it a radical revision of how the commons are treated, and also of how they are conceived.  The prevailing view today is captured by Garrett Hardin’s influential argument that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to us all,” the famous “tragedy of the commons”: what is not owned will be destroyed by individual avarice.

An international counterpart was the concept of terra nullius, employed to justify the expulsion of indigenous populations in the settler-colonial societies of the Anglosphere, or their “extermination,” as the founding fathers of the American Republic described what they were doing, sometimes with remorse, after the fact.  According to this useful doctrine, the Indians had no property rights since they were just wanderers in an untamed wilderness.  And the hard-working colonists could create value where there was none by turning that same wilderness to commercial use.

In reality, the colonists knew better and there were elaborate procedures of purchase and ratification by crown and parliament, later annulled by force when the evil creatures resisted extermination.  The doctrine is often attributed to John Locke, but that is dubious.  As a colonial administrator, he understood what was happening, and there is no basis for the attribution in his writings, as contemporary scholarship has shown convincingly, notably the work of the Australian scholar Paul Corcoran.  (It was in Australia, in fact, that the doctrine has been most brutally employed.)

The grim forecasts of the tragedy of the commons are not without challenge.  The late Elinor Olstrom won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009 for her work showing the superiority of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins.  But the conventional doctrine has force if we accept its unstated premise: that humans are blindly driven by what American workers, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, bitterly called “the New Spirit of the Age, Gain Wealth forgetting all but Self.”

Like peasants and workers in England before them, American workers denounced this New Spirit, which was being imposed upon them, regarding it as demeaning and destructive, an assault on the very nature of free men and women.  And I stress women; among those most active and vocal in condemning the destruction of the rights and dignity of free people by the capitalist industrial system were the “factory girls,” young women from the farms.  They, too, were driven into the regime of supervised and controlled wage labor, which was regarded at the time as different from chattel slavery only in that it was temporary.  That stand was considered so natural that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, and a banner under which northern workers carried arms during the American Civil War.

Controlling the Desire for Democracy

That was 150 years ago — in England earlier.  Huge efforts have been devoted since to inculcating the New Spirit of the Age.  Major industries are devoted to the task: public relations, advertising, marketing generally, all of which add up to a very large component of the Gross Domestic Product.  They are dedicated to what the great political economist Thorstein Veblen called “fabricating wants.” In the words of business leaders themselves, the task is to direct people to “the superficial things” of life, like “fashionable consumption.” That way people can be atomized, separated from one another, seeking personal gain alone, diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves and challenge authority.

The process of shaping opinion, attitudes, and perceptions was termed the “engineering of consent” by one of the founders of the modern public relations industry, Edward Bernays.  He was a respected Wilson-Roosevelt-Kennedy progressive, much like his contemporary, journalist Walter Lippmann, the most prominent public intellectual of twentieth century America, who praised “the manufacture of consent” as a “new art” in the practice of democracy.

Both recognized that the public must be “put in its place,” marginalized and controlled — for their own interests of course.  They were too “stupid and ignorant” to be allowed to run their own affairs.  That task was to be left to the “intelligent minority,” who must be protected from “the trampling and the roar of [the] bewildered herd,” the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” — the “rascal multitude” as they were termed by their seventeenth century predecessors.  The role of the general population was to be “spectators,” not “participants in action,” in a properly functioning democratic society.

And the spectators must not be allowed to see too much.  President Obama has set new standards in safeguarding this principle.  He has, in fact, punished more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined, a real achievement for an administration that came to office promising transparency. WikiLeaks is only the most famous case, with British cooperation.

Among the many topics that are not the business of the bewildered herd is foreign affairs.  Anyone who has studied declassified secret documents will have discovered that, to a large extent, their classification was meant to protect public officials from public scrutiny.  Domestically, the rabble should not hear the advice given by the courts to major corporations: that they should devote some highly visible efforts to good works, so that an “aroused public” will not discover the enormous benefits provided to them by the nanny state.  More generally the U.S. public should not learn that “state policies are overwhelmingly regressive, thus reinforcing and expanding social inequality,” though designed in ways that lead “people to think that the government helps only the undeserving poor, allowing politicians to mobilize and exploit anti-government rhetoric and values even as they continue to funnel support to their better-off constituents” — I’m quoting from the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, not from some radical rag.

Over time, as societies became freer and the resort to state violence more constrained, the urge to devise sophisticated methods of control of attitudes and opinion has only grown.  It is natural that the immense PR industry should have been created in the most free of societies, the United States and Great Britain.  The first modern propaganda agency was the British Ministry of Information a century ago, which secretly defined its task as “to direct the thought of most of the world” — primarily progressive American intellectuals, who had to be mobilized to come to the aid of Britain during World War I.

Its U.S. counterpart, the Committee on Public Information, was formed by Woodrow Wilson to drive a pacifist population to violent hatred of all things German — with remarkable success.  American commercial advertising deeply impressed others.  Goebbels admired it and adapted it to Nazi propaganda, all too successfully.  The Bolshevik leaders tried as well, but their efforts were clumsy and ineffective.

A primary domestic task has always been “to keep [the public] from our throats,” as essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson described the concerns of political leaders when the threat of democracy was becoming harder to suppress in the mid-nineteenth century.  More recently, the activism of the 1960s elicited elite concerns about “excessive democracy,” and calls for measures to impose “more moderation” in democracy.

One particular concern was to introduce better controls over the institutions “responsible for the indoctrination of the young”: the schools, the universities, the churches, which were seen as failing that essential task.  I’m quoting reactions from the left-liberal end of the mainstream spectrum, the liberal internationalists who later staffed the Carter administration, and their counterparts in other industrial societies.  The right wing was much harsher.  One of many manifestations of this urge has been the sharp rise in college tuition, not on economic grounds, as is easily shown.  The device does, however, trap and control young people by debt, often for the rest of their lives, thus contributing to more effective indoctrination.

The Three-Fifths People

Pursuing these important topics further, we see that the destruction of the Charter of the Forest, and its obliteration from memory, relates rather closely to the continuing efforts to constrain the promise of the Charter of Liberties.  The “New Spirit of the Age” cannot tolerate the pre-capitalist conception of the Forest as the shared endowment of the community at large, cared for communally for its own use and for future generations, protected from privatization, from transfer to the hands of private power for service to wealth, not needs.  Inculcating the New Spirit is an essential prerequisite for achieving this end, and for preventing the Charter of Liberties from being misused to enable free citizens to determine their own fate.

Popular struggles to bring about a freer and more just society have been resisted by violence and repression, and massive efforts to control opinion and attitudes.  Over time, however, they have met with considerable success, even though there is a long way to go and there is often regression.  Right now, in fact.

The most famous part of the Charter of Liberties is Article 39, which declares that “no free man” shall be punished in any way, “nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”

Through many years of struggle, the principle has come to hold more broadly.  The U.S. Constitution provides that no “person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [and] a speedy and public trial” by peers.  The basic principle is “presumption of innocence” — what legal historians describe as “the seed of contemporary Anglo-American freedom,” referring to Article 39; and with the Nuremberg Tribunal in mind, a “particularly American brand of legalism: punishment only for those who could be proved to be guilty through a fair trial with a panoply of procedural protections” — even if their guilt for some of the worst crimes in history is not in doubt.

The founders of course did not intend the term “person” to apply to all persons. Native Americans were not persons.  Their rights were virtually nil.  Women were scarcely persons.  Wives were understood to be “covered” under the civil identity of their husbands in much the same way as children were subject to their parents.  Blackstone’s principles held that “the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, andcover, she performs every thing.” Women are thus the property of their fathers or husbands.  These principles remain up to very recent years.  Until a Supreme Court decision of 1975, women did not even have a legal right to serve on juries.  They were not peers.  Just two weeks ago, Republican opposition blocked the Fairness Paycheck Act guaranteeing women equal pay for equal work.  And it goes far beyond.

Slaves, of course, were not persons.  They were in fact three-fifths human under the Constitution, so as to grant their owners greater voting power.  Protection of slavery was no slight concern to the founders: it was one factor leading to the American revolution.  In the 1772 Somerset case, Lord Mansfield determined that slavery is so “odious” that it cannot be tolerated in England, though it continued in British possessions for many years.  American slave-owners could see the handwriting on the wall if the colonies remained under British rule.  And it should be recalled that the slave states, including Virginia, had the greatest power and influence in the colonies.  One can easily appreciate Dr. Johnson’s famous quip that “we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes.”

Post-Civil War amendments extended the concept person to African-Americans, ending slavery.  In theory, at least.  After about a decade of relative freedom, a condition akin to slavery was reintroduced by a North-South compact permitting the effective criminalization of black life.  A black male standing on a street corner could be arrested for vagrancy, or for attempted rape if accused of looking at a white woman the wrong way.  And once imprisoned he had few chances of ever escaping the system of “slavery by another name,” the term used by then-Wall Street Journal bureau chief Douglas Blackmon in an arresting study.

This new version of the “peculiar institution” provided much of the basis for the American industrial revolution, with a perfect work force for the steel industry and mining, along with agricultural production in the famous chain gangs: docile, obedient, no strikes, and no need for employers even to sustain their workers, an improvement over slavery.  The system lasted in large measure until World War II, when free labor was needed for war production.

The postwar boom offered employment.  A black man could get a job in a unionized auto plant, earn a decent salary, buy a house, and maybe send his children to college.  That lasted for about 20 years, until the 1970s, when the economy was radically redesigned on newly dominant neoliberal principles, with rapid growth of financialization and the offshoring of production.  The black population, now largely superfluous, has been recriminalized.

Until Ronald Reagan’s presidency, incarceration in the U.S. was within the spectrum of industrial societies.  By now it is far beyond others.  It targets primarily black males, increasingly also black women and Hispanics, largely guilty of victimless crimes under the fraudulent “drug wars.” Meanwhile, the wealth of African-American families has been virtually obliterated by the latest financial crisis, in no small measure thanks to criminal behavior of financial institutions, with impunity for the perpetrators, now richer than ever.

Looking over the history of African-Americans from the first arrival of slaves almost 500 years ago to the present, they have enjoyed the status of authentic persons for only a few decades.  There is a long way to go to realize the promise of Magna Carta.

Sacred Persons and Undone Process

The post-Civil War fourteenth amendment granted the rights of persons to former slaves, though mostly in theory.  At the same time, it created a new category of persons with rights: corporations.  In fact, almost all the cases brought to the courts under the fourteenth amendment had to do with corporate rights, and by a century ago, they had determined that these collectivist legal fictions, established and sustained by state power, had the full rights of persons of flesh and blood; in fact, far greater rights, thanks to their scale, immortality, and protections of limited liability.  Their rights by now far transcend those of mere humans.  Under the “free trade agreements,” Pacific Rim can, for example, sue El Salvador for seeking to protect the environment; individuals cannot do the same.  General Motors can claim national rights in Mexico.  There is no need to dwell on what would happen if a Mexican demanded national rights in the United States.

Domestically, recent Supreme Court rulings greatly enhance the already enormous political power of corporations and the super-rich, striking further blows against the tottering relics of functioning political democracy.

Meanwhile Magna Carta is under more direct assault.  Recall the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which barred “imprisonment beyond the seas,” and certainly the far more vicious procedure of imprisonment abroad for the purpose of torture — what is now more politely called “rendition,” as when Tony Blair rendered Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhaj, now a leader of the rebellion, to the mercies of Qaddafi; or when U.S. authorities deported Canadian citizen Maher Arar to his native Syria, for imprisonment and torture, only later conceding that there was never any case against him.  And many others, often through Shannon Airport, leading to courageous protests in Ireland.

The concept of due process has been extended under the Obama administration’s international assassination campaign in a way that renders this core element of the Charter of Liberties (and the Constitution) null and void.  The Justice Department explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone.  The constitutional lawyer in the White House agreed.  King John might have nodded with satisfaction.

The issue arose after the presidentially ordered assassination-by-drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of inciting jihad in speech, writing, and unspecified actions.  A headline in the New York Times captured the general elite reaction when he was murdered in a drone attack, along with the usual collateral damage.  It read: “The West celebrates a cleric’s death.” Some eyebrows were lifted, however, because he was an American citizen, which raised questions about due process — considered irrelevant when non-citizens are murdered at the whim of the chief executive.  And irrelevant for citizens, too, under Obama administration due-process legal innovations.

Presumption of innocence has also been given a new and useful interpretation.  As the New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” So post-assassination determination of innocence maintains the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.

It would be ungracious to recall the Geneva Conventions, the foundation of modern humanitarian law: they bar “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

The most famous recent case of executive assassination was Osama bin Laden, murdered after he was apprehended by 79 Navy seals, defenseless, accompanied only by his wife, his body reportedly dumped at sea without autopsy.  Whatever one thinks of him, he was a suspect and nothing more than that.  Even the FBI agreed.

Celebration in this case was overwhelming, but there were a few questions raised about the bland rejection of the principle of presumption of innocence, particularly when trial was hardly impossible.  These were met with harsh condemnations.  The most interesting was by a respected left-liberal political commentator, Matthew Yglesias, who explained that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers,” so it is “amazingly naïve” to suggest that the U.S. should obey international law or other conditions that we righteously demand of the weak.

Only tactical objections can be raised to aggression, assassination, cyberwar, or other actions that the Holy State undertakes in the service of mankind.  If the traditional victims see matters somewhat differently, that merely reveals their moral and intellectual backwardness. And the occasional Western critic who fails to comprehend these fundamental truths can be dismissed as “silly,” Yglesias explains — incidentally, referring specifically to me, and I cheerfully confess my guilt.

Executive Terrorist Lists

Perhaps the most striking assault on the foundations of traditional liberties is a little-known case brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama administration, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.  The Project was condemned for providing “material assistance” to the guerrilla organization PKK, which has fought for Kurdish rights in Turkey for many years and is listed as a terrorist group by the state executive.  The “material assistance” was legal advice.  The wording of the ruling would appear to apply quite broadly, for example, to discussions and research inquiry, even advice to the PKK to keep to nonviolent means.  Again, there was a marginal fringe of criticism, but even those accepted the legitimacy of the state terrorist list — arbitrary decisions by the executive, with no recourse.

The record of the terrorist list is of some interest.  For example, in 1988 the Reagan administration declared Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress to be one of the world’s “more notorious terrorist groups,” so that Reagan could continue his support for the Apartheid regime and its murderous depredations in South Africa and in neighboring countries, as part of his “war on terror.” Twenty years later Mandela was finally removed from the terrorist list, and can now travel to the U.S. without a special waiver.

Another interesting case is Saddam Hussein, removed from the terrorist list in 1982 so that the Reagan administration could provide him with support for his invasion of Iran.  The support continued well after the war ended.  In 1989, President Bush I even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production — more information that must be kept from the eyes of the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders.”

One of the ugliest examples of the use of the terrorist list has to do with the tortured people of Somalia.  Immediately after September 11th, the United States closed down the Somali charitable network Al-Barakaat on grounds that it was financing terror. This achievement was hailed one of the great successes of the “war on terror.” In contrast, Washington’s withdrawal of its charges as without merit a year later aroused little notice.

Al-Barakaat was responsible for about half the $500 million in remittances to Somalia, “more than it earns from any other economic sector and 10 times the amount of foreign aid [Somalia] receives” a U.N. review determined.  The charity also ran major businesses in Somalia, all destroyed.  The leading academic scholar of Bush’s “financial war on terror,” Ibrahim Warde, concludes that apart from devastating the economy, this frivolous attack on a very fragile society “may have played a role in the rise… of Islamic fundamentalists,” another familiar consequence of the “war on terror.”

The very idea that the state should have the authority to make such judgments is a serious offense against the Charter of Liberties, as is the fact that it is considered uncontentious.  If the Charter’s fall from grace continues on the path of the past few years, the future of rights and liberties looks dim.

Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

A few final words on the fate of the Charter of the Forest.  Its goal was to protect the source of sustenance for the population, the commons, from external power — in the early days, royalty; over the years, enclosures and other forms of privatization by predatory corporations and the state authorities who cooperate with them, have only accelerated and are properly rewarded.  The damage is very broad.

If we listen to voices from the South today we can learn that “the conversion of public goods into private property through the privatization of our otherwise commonly held natural environment is one way neoliberal institutions remove the fragile threads that hold African nations together.  Politics today has been reduced to a lucrative venture where one looks out mainly for returns on investment rather than on what one can contribute to rebuild highly degraded environments, communities, and a nation.  This is one of the benefits that structural adjustment programmes inflicted on the continent — the enthronement of corruption.” I’m quoting Nigerian poet and activist Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, in his searing expose of the ravaging of Africa’s wealth, To Cook a Continent, the latest phase of the Western torture of Africa.

Torture that has always been planned at the highest level, it should be recognized.  At the end of World War II, the U.S. held a position of unprecedented global power.  Not surprisingly, careful and sophisticated plans were developed about how to organize the world.  Each region was assigned its “function” by State Department planners, headed by the distinguished diplomat George Kennan.  He determined that the U.S. had no special interest in Africa, so it should be handed over to Europe to “exploit” — his word — for its reconstruction.  In the light of history, one might have imagined a different relation between Europe and Africa, but there is no indication that that was ever considered.

More recently, the U.S. has recognized that it, too, must join the game of exploiting Africa, along with new entries like China, which is busily at work compiling one of the worst records in destruction of the environment and oppression of the hapless victims.

It should be unnecessary to dwell on the extreme dangers posed by one central element of the predatory obsessions that are producing calamities all over the world: the reliance on fossil fuels, which courts global disaster, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.  Details may be debated, but there is little serious doubt that the problems are serious, if not awesome, and that the longer we delay in addressing them, the more awful will be the legacy left to generations to come.  There are some efforts to face reality, but they are far too minimal. The recent Rio+20 Conference opened with meager aspirations and derisory outcomes.

Meanwhile, power concentrations are charging in the opposite direction, led by the richest and most powerful country in world history.  Congressional Republicans are dismantling the limited environmental protections initiated by Richard Nixon, who would be something of a dangerous radical in today’s political scene.  The major business lobbies openly announce their propaganda campaigns to convince the public that there is no need for undue concern — with some effect, as polls show.

The media cooperate by not even reporting the increasingly dire forecasts of international agencies and even the U.S. Department of Energy.  The standard presentation is a debate between alarmists and skeptics: on one side virtually all qualified scientists, on the other a few holdouts.  Not part of the debate are a very large number of experts, including the climate change program at MIT among others, who criticize the scientific consensus because it is too conservative and cautious, arguing that the truth when it comes to climate change is far more dire.  Not surprisingly, the public is confused.

In his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama hailed the bright prospects of a century of energy self-sufficiency, thanks to new technologies that permit extraction of hydrocarbons from Canadian tar sandsshale, and other previously inaccessible sources.  Others agree.  The Financial Times forecasts a century of energy independence for the U.S.  The report does mention the destructive local impact of the new methods.  Unasked in these optimistic forecasts is the question what kind of a world will survive the rapacious onslaught.

In the lead in confronting the crisis throughout the world are indigenous communities, those who have always upheld the Charter of the Forests.  The strongest stand has been taken by the one country they govern, Bolivia, the poorest country in South America and for centuries a victim of western destruction of the rich resources of one of the most advanced of the developed societies in the hemisphere, pre-Columbus.

After the ignominious collapse of the Copenhagen global climate change summit in 2009, Bolivia organized a People’s Summit with 35,000 participants from 140 countries — not just representatives of governments, but also civil society and activists.  It produced a People’s Agreement, which called for very sharp reduction in emissions, and a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.  That is a key demand of indigenous communities all over the world.  It is ridiculed by sophisticated westerners, but unless we can acquire some of their sensibility, they are likely to have the last laugh — a laugh of grim despair.

This is the full text of a speech he gave recently at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.His web site is www.chomsky.info. To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Chomsky discusses the recent shredding of the principles of the Magna Carta, click here or download it to your iPod here.

© 2012 Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT. He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. His most recent books include: Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance (City Lights Open Media), Hopes and Prospects, andProfit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order. Previous books include: 9-11: 10th Anniversary EditionFailed StatesWhat We Say Goes (with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and the Essential Chomsky.

Three Big Lies Perpetuated by the Rich

Published on Monday, July 23, 2012 by Common Dreams

Three Big Lies Perpetuated by the Rich

 The richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stock market.

When it comes to the economy, too many Americans continue to be numbed by the soothing sounds of conservative spin in the media. Here are three of their more inventive claims:

1. Higher taxes on the rich will hurt small businesses and discourage job creators

A recent Treasury analysis found that only 2.5% of small businesses would face higher taxes from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

As for job creation, it’s not coming from the people with money. Over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, real estate, and personal business accountsAngel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011. The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey agreed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups.

The Wall Street Journal noted, in way of confirmation, that the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to the “worst track record for jobs in recorded history.”

2. Individual initiative is all you need for success.

President Obama was criticized for a speech which included these words: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

‘Together’ is the word that winner-take-all conservatives seem to forget. Even the richest and arguably most successful American, Bill Gates, owes most of his good fortune to the thousands of software and hardware designers who shaped the technological industry over a half-century or more. A careful analysis of his rise shows that he had luck, networking skills, and a timely sense of opportunism, even to the point of taking the work of competitors and adapting it as his own.

Gates was preceded by numerous illustrious Americans who are considered individual innovators when in fact they used their skills to build upon the work of others. On the day that Alexander Graham Bell filed for a patent for his telephone, electrical engineer Elisha Gray was filing an intent to patent a similar device. Both had built upon the work of Antonio Meucci, who didn’t have the fee to file for a patent. Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb was the culmination of almost 40 years of work by other fellow light bulb developers. Samuel Morse, Eli Whitney, the Wright brothers, and even Thomas Edison had, as eloquently stated byJared Diamond, “capable predecessors…and made their improvements at a time when society was capable of using their product.”

If anything, it’s harder than ever today to ascend through the ranks on one’s own. As summarized in the Pew research report ”Pursuing the American Dream,” only 4% of those starting out in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile as adults, “confirming that the ‘rags-to-riches’ story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality.”

3. A booming stock market is good for all of us

The news reports would have us believe that happy days are here again when the stock market goes up. But as the market rises, most Americans are getting a smaller slice of the pie.

In a recent Newsweek article, author Daniel Gross gushed that “The stock market has doubled since March 2009, while corporate profits and exports have surged to records.”

But the richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stock market. What Mr. Gross referred to as the “democratization of the stock market” is actually, as demonstrated by economist Edward Wolff, a distribution of financial wealth among just the richest 5% of Americans, those earning an average of $500,000 per year.

Thanks in good part to a meager 15% capital gains tax, the richest 400 taxpayers DOUBLED their income and nearly HALVED their tax rates in just seven years (2001-2007). So dramatic is the effect that anyone making more than $34,500 a year in salary and wages is taxed at ahigher rate than an individual with millions in capital gains.

There’s yet more to the madness. The stock market has grown much faster than the GDP over the past century, which means that this special tax rate is being given to people who already own most of the unearned income that keeps expanding faster than the productiveness of real workers.

And one fading illusion: People in the highest class are people of high class.

Scientific American and Psychological Science have both reported that wealthier people are more focused on self, and have less empathy for people unlike themselves.

This sense of self-interest, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and other sources, promotes wrongdoing and unethical behavior.

Can’t help but think about bankers and hedge fund managers.

Paul Buchheit

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of “American Wars: Illusions and Realities” (Clarity Press). He can be reached at [email protected].

Why Israel Receive such Global Attention

Why Does Israel Receive Such Global Attention
for its Attrocities?

 

EDIP YUKSEL: The New York Times columnist pulls the tail of the Zionist sacred bull… It is shame that no US president dares to criticize Israeli atrocities, terror, and crimes against humanity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/06iht-edcohen06.html?

OBJECTION: “Yes, Israel does, but the world has double standards concerning the Middle East:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-how-can-dogooders-possibly-think-that-gaza-is-the-primary-centre-of-injustice-in-middle-east-2804748.html “

EDIP: Brother, here is why Israel’s occupation and atrocities invoke such a strong reaction around the world:

1. LENGTH OF TIME: The Jewish aggression in Palestine, starting with smuggling weapons and terrorizing Palestinian farmers through Zionist terrorist organizations such as Irgun, Hagana, Lehi has been about 100 years. That makes it the longest unresolved conflict in modern history.

2. NUMBER OF PEOPLE/COUNTRIES: Almost all the neighboring countries, especially Lebanon, have suffered from Israeli aggression. The war of 1967 was not initiated by Arabs as the Zionist propaganda machine wants us to believe, but it was a “preemptive strike” chosen by Israel.

3. DAVID VERSUS GOLIATH: There is a huge disparity between the military powers of parties. Israel is the world’s top military power. It has sophisticated weapons such as tanks, jets, drones, and weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear missiles. The people who are subjugated by Israel have nothing except little guns, primitive rockets that even thousands of them unable to kill a single Israeli, and rocks, yes rocks! Have you seen the Palestinian children with rocks in their hands against Israeli tanks? Look at those pictures and tell me who the David is and who the Goliath is!

4. DIVERSITY OF OPPRESSION: Palestinians have been subjected to massacres, banishment, torture, kidnapping, imprisonment, check-point harassment, racial discrimination, destruction of their homes and farms, confiscation of their lands, assassination, covert operations, poisoning, and all the rest.

5. SUPPORT OF THE WORLD POWERS: Israel has been supported unconditionally by the USA and the UK and thus has gotten away with every crime against humanity. Dozens of the United Nations condemnation and sanctions against Israel are vetoed by the world’s super power, which is the biggest arms manufacturer and dealer in the world and the world’s biggest terrorist that have invaded dozens of countries, killed millions of people around the world! BTW; Israel was the number one supporter of the racist South African government before the revolution led by Mandela!

6. DIVERSITY OF DISCRIMINATION: Pals are subjugated, killed, and imprisoned in concentration camps for both their race AND religion by a military state. This double discrimination and subordination increases the suffering dramatically. Palestinian Children witnessing their parents being insulted, harassed, beaten and occasionally kidnapped by the occupying gestapo are traumatized daily.

7. ECONOMIC SUFFOCATION: Pals cannot import or export goods and all their economic and financial activities are controlled and impeded by the occupying illegal Israeli blockade.

8. GLOBAL ZIONIST HEGEMONY: Zionists have infected the financial and political system in the many countries. The United States is no more a democracy nor a republic, since the members of its congress and presidents follow the instructions of AIPAC and other Israeli lobbies. The media too has been infected by the Zionist gangs and the bloody bully is depicted as victim and the powerless victim as the terrorist! Thus, there is a backlash of conscious and sense of justice against this global cancer.

9. BETRAYING THE NAMESAKE: Israel or Jacob, the son of Abraham, was a prophet with model sense of justice and peace. A nation using its name should live by Israel’s principles. Yet, the state of Israel has been betraying the Abrahamic system, which is Peace, and thus creates great disappointment. Besides, it betrays the memories of the victims of one of history’s greatest tragedies, the Holocaust. Those who claims to be the children or kins of those victims have unfortunately have become looking like the Nazis. So, there is double betrayal. Betrayal to recent history and betrayal of ancient history of their ancestors.

10. SEE THE DOCUFILM: OCCUPATION 101 and VISIT http://ifamericansknew.org/

So, my brother, before wondering about why the world is fed-up with the Zionist cancer, you should reflect on ALL OF THESE FACTORS before asking your question.

Questions for Persuasive Paper

DEBATE: Questions for Persuasive Paper

(Edip Yuksel)

  1. Do humans have souls?
  2. Can psychics know the future?
  3. Do we have free will or is everything, including our choices, destined since the Big Bang?
  4. Should eugenics be legalized?
  5. Are the skills and intellectual aptitude of boys and girls grounded in their biological differences?
  6. Should affirmative action continue?
  7. Is capitalism the best economic system?
  8. Does American foreign policy serve Americans or only the short term interest of weapon, oil and other multinational big industries?
  9. Are American kids really spoiled?
  10. Who is right: Palestinians or Israelis?
  11. Should students have longer breaks between the classes?
  12. Do American TV stations and films contribute to violence?
  13. Should we ban guns?
  14. ShouldAmericacontinue spending billions of dollars on making more nuclear weapons?
  15. Should we have a national health care system where every American will have the right for primary health insurance?
  16. Should we restrict immigration further, or open our borders withMexicoandCanada?
  17. Is gambling and lotteries beneficial to the society?
  18. Is drinking wine really healthy?
  19. For a better democracy should we ban campaign contributions dramatically and let the tax money and TV airways to be used to inform public about candidates?
  20. Which one is true? Blind evolution or Intelligent Designer as the cause of first human.
  21. Should computer manufacturers be forced by the government to contain code recognition that will not allow copying of copyrighted music?
  22. Is there a Green House effect?
  23. Should we claim the right of preemptive nuclear strike?
  24. Should government have access to all our personal information, including bank accounts, health records, marriage, etc?
  25. What is nothingness?
  26. Should we open our South Borders?
  27. Is global economy beneficial to America?
  28. How can we fight against international terrorism?
  29. Is there life beyond Earth?
  30. Are UFO’s extra terrestrial vehicles from outer space?
  31. Are commercials and ads useful or harmful to customers?
  32. Should we open the market for transgenic crops?
  33. Are Americans growing horizontally each year? Why?
  34. Should homosexuals be allowed to work in the military?
  35. Is flex time useful?
  36. Should we give capital punishment to murderers?
  37. Should FDA regulate McDonalds and other fast food restaurants?
  38. Should fat and fatty foods be taxed like tobacco?
  39. Should we ban imports that are manufactured in countries with bad human rights records?
  40. Should we ban automobiles in inner cities?
  41. Is the prison population per capita inAmericanormal? What can be done to change it?
  42. What are the most common logical fallacies?
  43. Should we put more tax on inheritance, which are more than a million dollars, per person?
  44. Should we reduce the period for patent protection of medicine?
  45. Should we release criminals because of criminal procedure technicalities?
  46. Should we interfere with the internal affairs of the other countries if they abuse women or practice “unusual and cruel” punishment?
  47. How can we improve secondary education?
  48. When a student is “bored” is it the teacher’s fault or the student’s?
  49. Is Robert Spencer’s “Infidel’s Guide … ”  a scholarly work or bogus intended to create hatred against muslims and justify invasions, massacres, and torture against them?
  50. Are some Christians 666 times more violent than the Salafi extremists?
  51. Is it ethical to shave the beautiful beard and then trim the mustache of a warmonger, such as Robert Spencer, to reflect his mission?  Should it be considered a hoax or the visual version of the figure of speech, such as simile?

Are these Zionist Quotes really Authentic?

Are these Zionist Quotes really Authentic?

Edip Yuksel
22 July 2012
www.19.org

 

 

Does anyone know about the veracity of the following quotes? Some of them are so outrageous that I doubt they were ever uttered by the Israeli politicians as it is claimed. We know that whenever Israel attacks Palestinians and kills dozens or hundreds of children, the Israeli leaders usually issue an official apology for the “collateral damage”.  On the other hand, when we look at how the Israeli’s map has been growing since 1948, how Palestinians are massacred, their homes being destroyed, their lands are grabbed and turned into “settlements” in defiance of numerous United Nations resolution, and how Israel has been playing victim and has done great job in portraying its victim as aggressor, then it seems these statements explains everything. For more inormation, see:

http://ifamericansknew.org/ 

I would appreciate if you check the authenticity of the  following statements by the Israeli Zionist leaders and let me know what you find. (For the responses to my request, see the second page, by clicking at the number 2 in the bottom of the page, for responses):

  • “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.” — Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
  • “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” — David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
  • “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” — David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
  • “The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It’s that simple.” — Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
  • “(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” — Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
  • “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” — Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
  • “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” — David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
  • “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.” — David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
  • “If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” — David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).
  • “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” — Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
  • “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
  • “Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen.” — Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961
  • “This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.” — Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971
  • “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!” — Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
  • ” create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.” — Yitzhak Rabin (a “Prince of Peace” by Clinton’s standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen‘s remarks to the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)
  • ” are beasts walking on two legs.” — Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25, 1982.
  • “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” — Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
  • “The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.” — Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

AND some FACTS*

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation.

It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power – and duty – to bring a resolution.

Please click on any statistic for the source and more information.*
Statistics Last Updated: April 25, 2012

  • 126 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,476 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
  • 1,096 Israelis and at least 6,568 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
  • 10,792 Israelis and 59,575 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.)
  • During Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $8.2 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians.
  • 0 Israelis are being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 5,604 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Sources & More Information)
  • The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.4%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.5% and 40% in Gaza. (View Sources & More Information)
  • Israel currently has 236 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Sources & More Information)

* These and more facts on this long-lasting bloody conflict are published and updated at: http://ifamericansknew.org/

A Warning and Invitation to Muslim Women!

A Warning and Invitation to Muslim Women!

Edip Yuksel
19 January 2011
www.19.org 

 

Dear sisters:

As the daughters, sisters, spouses, aunts and mothers of the so-called Muslim population that brags to be more than a billion, I salute you with greetings of peace and respect, and expect you to take this warning seriously.

You have a critical mission. Your decision to declare your intellectual freedom might in turn rescue the so-called Muslim population from the numerous miseries and diseases that have inflicted them since they betrayed reason and the progressive message of the Quran several centuries after its revelation. As it seems, your men will not be able to change the situation. They are unhappy, angry, clueless, and stuck in their own hell of ignorance and arrogance. I know that a great majority of you are unhappy with your men and with yourself. I invite you to take the challenge. I invite you to think critically and then act accordingly.

You would be betraying your God, His messengers, yourself, your children and your society, if you continue following the lies falsely attributed to Muhammad and his companions under the title of “Holy Hadith” or “Authentic Hadith”.

How can you follow the diabolic teachings of those books? Those books consider you equal to dogs, donkeys and pigs; fill the Hell of their imagination with your gender, expect you to do even more after licking your husband’s body even if it were covered with pus; befits you slavery to your husband after God; insulting your honor and integrity by rejecting you from participation in social and political life by labeling you “deficient of reason and religion”; handicap you for life and deprive you from God-given identity by burying you alive in black sacks; instructing your husband beat when you do not obey their capricious demands or when they feel jealous; inspiring your males with a prophet who was a super-sexy superman and who had sexual intercourse with nine wives in one night; deeming you or your daughter to be fit to become the wife of a 54 year-old man while she is only a 9 or 13 years-old girl; yes, how long will you continue following those books that are fabricated centuries after the revelation of the Quran? How long you will sacrifice your worldly and eternal lives for these satanic teachings?

You should also beware of the other extreme, and not become a slave of the capitalistic system, which exploits women by reducing them to sex objects. Modern corporations and their media (movies, advertisement, songs, reality shows, magazines, websites) are very skilled in turning women to perpetual consumers of their wasteful enterprise, to their junk called fashion. Some women in modernized societies that are inflicted with the curse of consumerism, greed and skin-worship, suffer in many ways. They walk in pain on high-heeled ridiculous shoes, in order to be as tall as man.  They undergo multiple cosmetic surgeries and place toxic rubber under their skin, to fit the fabricated role models. Many are forced to compete with men outside in the jungle and are put under great stress to attain their natural goal to have children and be respected mothers in their homes.

Please check this site and download/read the Manifesto for Islamic Reform, which has been also published as a book by Brainbow Press.

In that book, you will see an extensive comparison between the so-called authentic hadiths and the verses of the Quran. I would like to learn whether you are still going to continue following the collections of lies and fabrications as a source of your religion.  Of course, if you react reflexively without even reading the Manifesto, then I would too not read your responses and ignore them.

After reading the Manifesto, I invite you to answer the 45 multi-choice questions titled, Theometer or Sectometer. Those questions will help you to assess your progress in the light of reason.

Do not be scared of using your mind, your critical thinking skills. Your intellect is the greatest blessing of your Creator. Those who would like to deprive you from such a gift are devils, be it the invisible or visible ones. In order to free yourself from the diabolic hypnosis you must decide to use your mind. A religion or teaching without mind and reason is the religion and teaching of satan. Please take your time and see the following verses if you wish to support these common sense facts with the Reminder. 17:36; 10:100; 39:17-18; 41:53; 42:21; 6:114-116; 10:36; 12:111; 20:114; 21:7; 35:28; 38:29 and 25:30.

Do not be afraid. You have to decide to change the direction of your fate. You owe it to yourself, to your mother, to your sister, and to your children. Start to question the religious or sectarian dogmas you have inherited from your parents. You will see that they will crumble even with the softest touch of the light of reason and facts. After you break the lock of the cage of ignorance, you will be astonished how you could stay in that dungeon for so long. Accept the truth my sister, so that the truth will set you and your family free!

Fethullah Gülen: a Dangerous Cult Leader

Fethullah Gülen: a Dangerous Cult Leader

Edip Yuksel
2 March 2012
www.19.org

 

Fethullah Gülen has multiple personalities. The first personality, which is the most visible one, is a humble spiritual leader, like the good son of Ghandi and Mother Theresa. The other personality, however, is a calculated Machiavellian who secretly plans and establishes political alliances to pursue his long-term goal of grabbing power in Turkey so that to realize his longer-term dream of resurrecting a Sunni theocratic empire akin to Ottomans. He is a fan of Ottoman dictators, such as Fatih Sultan Mehmed, who killed their baby brothers to keep their throne! That aspiration alone should tell plenty about the real person behind his peaceful and humble facade.

His recent video statement regarding the Kurdish issue was one of the rare public expositions of his second personality, in which he prayed passionately for the destruction of the Kurdish rebels. This, of course would not be a sufficient reason for our inclusion him as an instigator. But in the same video he gave a number, 50 000, and asked the Turkish military ant its overt and covert allies, to destroy them all. Furthermore, in that public speech, he wished that their HOMES WOULD BE BURNED DOWN and uttered similar emotional condemnations that signalled for justification of a civilian massacre or controlled genocide.

Fethullah is more dangerous than Pat Robertson or similar power hungry evangelical charlatans, since he is master in tickling both religious and nationalistic hormones to attract and manipulate masses.

I know him personally since I was in my twenties, through my father who was a prominent religious scholar respected by him. In 1985-1986, I wrote a few articles at his first publication in Turkey, Sızıntı (the seepage, the trickle or the devious!), when I was a best-selling young author.

More than a year ago, I wrote a lengthy article questioning his intention, goals, theology, political standing and alliances. The title of the article was: “Fethullah Gülen’e 19 Soru” (19 Questions for Fethullah Gülen) which was widely circulated on Internet and Facebook. They were challenging questions, meant to expose him. I gave him a few months to respond.

As I expected, he did not, except he let his followers to respond without saying anything :) . All those who defended (!) him focused on my mentioning his name as Fethullah, without fancy titles and praises that is aimed to create a holy shield around his persona, such as Efendi, Hoja, Hazretleri… :) As one who appreciates the French thinker Bourdieu’s book “Language & Symbolic Power”, of course, I would not call him with the titles attributed to him by his cult. In fact, I ask my students not to call me with the title Professor, but by my first name so that we could have philosophical arguments free of hierarchical barriers.

Then, several months ago, I wrote the responses of each question that I thought he would or should have given… I am sure that after the publication of that article my name is on the list of wanted in Turkish courts and police records, which Fethullah Gülen’s cult have recently infiltrated.

I have not yet translated those 19 Questions. Perhaps, I should start doing that. Fethullah is a very dangerous men!

(See the other articles of this and other cults at the category titled Sects and Cults)

 

Robert Spencer: a Crusader Riding a Catholic Zebra

Robert Spencer:
A Crusader Riding a Catholic Zebra

Is the Zionist-Crusader who Inspires Terrorists and Warmongers, in fact:
an Intellectual Coward With a Plastic Sword Riding a Zebra?

(Robert Spencer was cited by Anders Behring Breivik, the Christian Terrorist, as his main source of inspiration. On 22 July 2011 Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers’ Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers. Robert Spencer himself is a coward, yet his sole mission is to inspire torture, massacre, wars against one billion Muslims and anyone who defends them. Robert is a Zionist-Catholic, a new mutation of Crusaders.)

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

 

Well, from the silly title above, what I really mean is this: Robert Spencer is pretending to be an intellectual islamophobe, while he is a coward and a liar. Several years ago, I had two Internet symposium with Robert, which was moderated by the online Frontpage Magazine founded by David Horovitz, a Zionist who argues that torture and massacres are kosher as long as in the receiving end are muslims. During that symposium, Robert and his friends were exposed as bigots and ignorant hatemongers. The symposiums are published online at www.19.org and also as two chapters of my book, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers.

Upon the suggestion of some hyperactive islamophobes, such as, Chris Logan and his gang, Robert accepted my challenge of a face-to-face live debate. For some of the tweets see:

http://19.org/1813/warmongers/

Knowing his disappointing performance in those two symposiums, Robert then started having fear and perhaps panic attacks. Below are the Twitters he started sending around and our email conversation regarding the debate. As you will see, he tried every excuse to escape from a face-to-face live debate, since he is smart enough to know that he would be exposed as a liar and fake expert through the Socratic Method.

Today Robert Spencer tweeted several messages about our potential debate and falsely accused me:

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@OccupyBawlStree Dont know; it happens often @loonwatchers is notorious coward; @edipyuksel ran away when asked to formulate topic properly

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@Bill21594045 @OccupyBawlStree @loonwatchers @edipyuksel I am ready if any of these clowns ever work up the courage. @harris_zafar as well.

And from some of the responses to his tweeter, I learned that, thank God, there were some people who were watching him:

LoonWatch ‏@loonwatchers
@Bill21594045 @jihadwatchRS @OccupyBawlStree @edipyuksel @harris_zafar All you need to know about the bigot Spencer: spencerwatch.com

LoonWatch ‏@loonwatchers
@Bill21594045 @jihadwatchRS @OccupyBawlStree @edipyuksel @harris_zafar SpencerWatch: http://www.spencerwatch.com #Islamophobia

Robert is MISREPRESENTING the truth, as you will see in the 21 EMAIL communication below:

***

A SAMPLE OF TWEETS BY ROBERT SPENCER
LEADİNG TO THE CHALLENGE (June 19-23, 2012)

Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Mysterious money and motive behind monster mosque in Murfreesboro: Why is a huge Muslim compound going up where … http://tinyurl.com/7fqcnzp

6h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@edipyuksel My email is [email protected]. Dearborn is near Detroit.

14h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@LogansWarning @edipyuksel Fly to Dearborn, I’ll be there to film ABN show & we can both do debate in-studio. Email me to set date & topic.

16h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Please help us stand for freedom against violent intimidation and Hamas-linked CAIR: Who stands for the right of… http://tinyurl.com/7djsoap

16h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@GroverNorquist …or with the Muslim Brotherhood (cf. that check Abdurrahman Alamoudi wrote out to you a few years back).

17h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Muslim convert gets 11 1/2 years of prison dawah for misunderstanding Islam, threatening “South Park” creators f… http://tinyurl.com/7pep9a4

22h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Tunisia: Muslim leader calls on Tunisians to wage jihad against the government, establish an Islamic state and w… http://tinyurl.com/78j4ewa

23h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
German neo-Nazis helped Islamic jihadists murder 11 Israeli athletes at 1972 Munich Olympics: Nazis and jihadis … http://tinyurl.com/7pnfxm2

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
“Time for jihad”: Misunderstander of Islam accused in US jihad bomb plots including dams, nuclear plants and hom… http://tinyurl.com/7jzhmte

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Sharia in action: Teenager lashed 100 times in Timbuktu for having child out of wedlock: Imam Rauf must already… http://tinyurl.com/85emlyn

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
First Apostasy Lawsuit Comes to Jordan: The true face of the “Arab Awakening’ continues to manifest itself. Acco… http://tinyurl.com/7q8fwkz

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@cairchicago “Director of the anti-Sharia movement,” eh? You clowns are good fiction writers.

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@Infiltrator4JC Thank you. Just answered: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/useful-idiot-cathy-young-wonders-which-is-the-more-serious-problem-today-islamic-extremism-or-anti-i.html

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Radical Christians murder two children at Sunni shrine — no, wait…: It seems actually to have been an explodi… http://tinyurl.com/7r75mm4

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Waqf tells UK student to remove kippa on Temple Mount: Islamic antisemitism: the student was told that he was no… http://tinyurl.com/7hfxf62

21 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Islamic Radicalization in America — on The Glazov Gang: On this week’s Glazov Gang, Dr. Nancy Bonus, Eric Allen … http://tinyurl.com/7rg4e5l

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Military instructor suspended over Islam course: Of course we are not at war with Islam. Obviously we aren’t, as… http://tinyurl.com/6wms6xg

20 Jun WND News ‏@worldnetdaily
@pamelageller rips #DOJ for ‘engaging in collusion’ with #jihad groups http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/aps-war-on-national-security/ @jihadwatchRS @frankgaffney #tcot #sharia #ocra

Retweeted by Robert Spencer

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Obama’s Justice Department secretly drops terrorism charges in Taliban case: One thing you can say about Obama: … http://tinyurl.com/88bqly3

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@ZNovetsky Not low enough to read your self-important dhimmi nonsense.

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
St. Louis: Iranian ex-Muslim and his Christian pastor receive death fatwa from Islamic Revolutionary Army in Ira… http://tinyurl.com/7zcpxtj

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Discipline recommended for 7 U.S. troops in Qur’an burning: Administrative punishments for doing their job. Thes… http://tinyurl.com/75q6yu3

20 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Islamic honor killings in America — on The Glazov Gang: Dr. Nancy Bonus, Eric Allen Bell and Karla Moxley battle… http://tinyurl.com/749mg9b

19 Jun Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
Sharia in action: Saudi man beheaded for witchcraft, sorcery: Imam Rauf, call your office. Somehow the Saudis ha… http://tinyurl.com/cx9j24w

EMAIL COMMUNICATION between EDIP YUKSEL and ROBERT SPENCER

1. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: [email protected]
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

6h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@edipyuksel My email is [email protected]. Dearborn is near Detroit.

14h Robert Spencer ‏@jihadwatchRS
@LogansWarning @edipyuksel Fly to Dearborn, I’ll be there to film ABN show & we can both do debate in-studio. Email me to set date & topic.

Robert,

I will be teaching an accelerated summer class in weekends between June 9 – August 12.

Thus, I might be available during the first week of June, from June 3-8 inclusively. This is a possibility.

During the month of June, I will be available in weekdays.

We had debated extensively via an Internet Symposium facilitated by the Frontpage.org. Though we had frank and occasionally heated debate, I found you a worthy adversary to deal with. However, I was surprised to see you in the company of Christopher Logan, Jarrad Winter and their ilk in the TWEETER world. I do not know about the nature of your affiliation with these bigots, but I did not expect such a cozy relationship…

These people have been bombarding Brook Goldstein and me throw twitters and website articles. They have been calling me all sorts of names. Their attitude and language does not invite intelligent conversation or debate. They are attacking everyone who is Muslim, even those who support the American warmongers and Neocons, such as  Daniel Pipes, Zuhdi Jasser, and many other anti-Islamists such as Tarek Fatah.  See: http://19.org/1813/warmongers/

These people are ignorant, bigoted, rude, aggressive, racist and bigoted. They are the Christian version of Taliban. All they want, is to create fear and hate against more than a billion Muslims and justify all sorts of discrimination and military aggression against them. This attitude might bring short-lived popularity among American jingoists, knee-jerk rapture-freak evangelists and the Zionists, but it is invitation to a total annihilation of both East and West. The Western world, or Christendom, will not survive through this attitude against a quarter of world population. We already know the financial and moral cost of the warmongering attitude of Neocons. The USA-Inc is in recession and prognosis is not promising. The USA is falling way behind of other industrialized countries in education, health care, infrastructure.

2. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

Why do you lie? I know Logan slightly, but I do not know Winter at all, and do not work with either.

I know well who you are and what you are trying to do.

You mean July, not June below, right? If so let’s set it up for early July.

3. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>

Lie? Lie involves intentional distortion. Where did you get evidence regarding my intention? I noticed that Logan was tweeting you as an ally. Thus, I wrote this: “I do not know about the nature of your affiliation with these bigots, but I did not expect such a cozy relationship…”

As it seems, my perception and interpretation of your relationship was wrong. Thus, I apologize for making such an error. In fact, I am glad that you are not affiliated with those bunch.

Yes, I meant July…

After consulting my agent, I will contact you again, soon.

4. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

We can do it anytime on skype. ABN will broadcast it. I just learned that they are not available for us both to be in studio. I apologize, as I thought they would be. If you find a face-to-face venue, let me know.

5. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

No problem Robert… I really prefer a face-to-face and friendly discussion.

It is important to hear and feel each other. I am tired of sound-bites, finger-pointing. We should talk not only on problems, but on solutions.

So, if you are okay with it, I will try to find a location to meet each other. Would you mind travelling to Tucson Arizona? We could have the debate here at the University of Arizona or Pima Community College.

I will respect your wish if you prefer no audience at all.

6. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Irshad

An audience is fine. Would need expenses covered — flight, hotel.

7. A SPONSOR

From: ……
Date: Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Setting up time for a face-to-face debate with Robert Spencer at Dearborn
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

I will cover the expenses. Flight, lodging and cameraman.

8. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Subject: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

Robert, peace:

We have reserved a studio in Salem, one-hour distance from Portland/Oregon, for Tuesday July 17th from 1-5 p.m.

The debate, God willing, will be recorded by an experienced crew in HD in a studio. The moderator will let us discuss the theological, political and philosophical issues with minimum interruptions. We might have a few audiences so that they could ask us questions for further explanation, etc.

If that is okay with you, then we should get you a round trip ticket from where?

Would you prefer to come the night before and leave on 18th of July? You will be picked from Portland airport to the studio.

In case, this arrangement is approved, we are considering to reserve a room for you at: http://www.grandhotelsalem.com/

If you would like to invite some friends or your readers to the studio as an audience please feel free do to so.

9. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

Why are you cc’ing all these people?

Need to settle topic, moderator, etc.

10. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>

I cc’d some of the people who might wish to join us there. Perhaps many will not be make it.

Here are some of the topics:

  1. The theological, political and economic causes of terror and violence.
  2. Does Islam/Christianity promote peace or violence?
  3. What are the solutions for the current conflict/clash between the Western world and the Muslim World?
  4. The present and future of the Middle East.
  5. Muhammad, his life and message.
  6. Reason versus Faith
  7. Freedom of Expression and Islam
  8. Zionism and End Times Evangelism
  9. ….

If you have other topics in your mind, please let me know.

As for the moderator, he is Henry Najaf. He has produced numerous educational interviews with moderate Muslims and Christians.

I would appreciate if you confirm the date(s) so that we could purchase the ticket and reserve the room. If you wish to talk via phone, you may reach me via 520 … ….

11. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

Too many topics.

None of them are debate topics.

Do you know how to formulate a debate topic? I agreed to one debate, not eight. Please formulate one debate topic properly, and propose it, and I’ll evaluate it.

Why are you choosing the moderator without any input from me? I just have to accept dictated terms?

12. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

These were the possible set of topics, I thought worth discussing… You could choose one or two of them… Or you could come up with your own. We have a whole world of differences. Since, it appears that you are expert in formulating topics, I welcome your help.

“Please formulate one debate topic properly, and propose it, and I’ll evaluate it.”

Okay, what about discussing your book; The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran? Here, how we might word this topic:

  1. Robert Spencer, Defending the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran against a Complete Muslim, Edip Yuksel.
  2. A Muslim’s Challenge to the Author of the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran
  3. An infidel Challenges the translator of the Quran: a Reformist Translation
  4. Which one to believe? The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran, or the Quran: a Reformist Translation?
  5. Did Robert Spencer, the author of the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran, influence Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist?

So, that is the topic. Yes, perhaps with the exception the last one, they are just different statement of one topic, to provide you with choices. If you know how to “formulate” it better, please go forward and come up with your formula.

“Why are you choosing the moderator without any input from me? I just have to accept dictated terms?”

Well, what should I have done? This is the time for your input. I was ready to fly to your “anti-islam evangelist den”, the IBNSAT studio in Detroit. I did not mind which Evangelical Christian or islamophobe, Crusader or warmonger you would be having as a moderator, did I? After you told me that the facility of IBNSAT was not ready for our debate, upon your request,  I looked for a professional studio with a moderator; and I found one in Salem, which is a perfect name for this debate. Salem = Salaam = Shalom = Peace = Ashiti…

Okay, as it seems, you are nervous. Knowing your performance during the two symposium, which I published in Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers, I understand. Since you have problem with a moderator with Persian last name; then should I suggest someone with an Anglo last name? I am serious. I can find a fantastic Anglo or Italiano with a last name and skin color that would make you feel at home. If you insist, I can search for a Catholic, a Zionist, or even a Rapture-freak Evangelist.

Or would you like to bring your moderator, your assistants, your managers, your agents, and some of you reader’s with you? No problem. You may even bring with you an American version of Anders Behring Breivik!

As I told you from beginning, Robert, I am ready to meet you anywhere, except in places such as Infidel’s Hell, Las Vegas or a pig farm. So, you have three choices in this regard:

  1. Pick your studio, your moderator, your producer, your city, your whatever; and I will fly there solo.
  2. Let me pick the studio and moderator.
  3. Come up with a constructive suggestion, modification.

If you know a fourth option, let me know.

So, are you ready for the debate, or are you going to find excuses?

PS: I really wanted to a more friendly tone, which was evident in my previous email. But, the language and tone of your two recent emails led me to respond in the same way in accordance to the Quranic rule, Golden-plated Brazen Rule. Now, it is up to you to soften the tone and language of this debate even before it starts.

Peace; and I mean it.

13. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

Find out how to formulate a debate topic and get back to me. You challenged me, it is up to you to do it.

14. MIKE

From: Mike
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew

Edip:

Spencer is shrewd; I have dealt with him many times.

Your goal is to clarify things and find the truth; his goal is the opposite, to slander Islam, that is his business and reason for making money.

However, one thing he is not; dishonest and that goes strongly in his favor.

He will quote Ibn Kathir and other short sighted Islamic scholars whose words are considered Gods words by many Muslims.  He will make it between you and Ibn Kathir. Ultimately it will end up Edip against established Islamic scholars, a losing proposition.

We need to establish mis-information, and mis-interpretations of them old boys, and get it authenticated by major known names. You are a scholar, absolutely with the reformed translation, but to an average muslim a paved way is safer than yet to be concretized road.

A symposium is a much better format as a first step towards the process of sinking in the reforms. You say your things, and he says his….make a few attempts to see a different point of view, but largely, leave Muslims in a thinking mode and non-Muslims in a similar mode… That would be a advancement, rather than righting or wronging the other.

That’s been my experience. I’m embedded with every religious group, neocons as well as the liberals… My message of pluralism is advancing instead of getting challenged… Let’s win by not letting others loose, that would be a significant gain.

Just my thoughts, Thanks

15. MATT

From: Matthew
Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Mike
Cc: Edip, Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond

I agree with everything Mike says.

Make sure you clarify all the logistical details on paper beforehand w Mr. Spencer. Get a contract in which he agrees to publication of the video/interview. Might need to make sure that you don’t make him overly antsy when you’re describing these details to him.

And for the speech – stay positive and avoid ad hominem attacks. As Quran says (I paraphrase), argue your points in a reasoned and beautiful manner. … Make sure that his logical fallacies are hammered HOME to the audience. This guy needs a cold-water wake up call.

16. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Aslbek
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike

I am not sure what is Robert talking about? He is patronizing me with an enigmatic “formula”? I thought we were NOT going to discuss algebra, physics or chemistry.

Any help to satisfy Robert’s obsession with the formula?

17. MIKE

From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: Aslbek, Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew

Salaam Edip,

Start off with this and modify as you go:

Format: Symposium
Topic: Status of Women in Islam
Source: Qur’aan
Participants: Robert Spencer & Edip Yuskel
Moderator:
Time: 2 Hours
Venue: College Campus
Recording: Will be videotaped and made available to the public through net
Audience: Open invitation
Registration: All guests need to register in advance

Guidelines:

  1. Issues to be listed and exchanged in advance
  2. Focus on a singular point with reference to specific verse from Qur’aan
  3. Each participant will present the issue, and the other will respond, then two more exchanges
  4. If the disagreement is on the source, conversation concludes
  5. Add more…

18. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>

Format: Live one-to-one debate
Topic: Peace, war and violence according to the Quran
Source: Quran
Participants: Robert Spencer & Edip Yuskel
Moderator: Henry Najafi (or you choose)
Time: 2 Hours
Venue: Film studio, Salem, Oregon
Alternative venue: A church in Tucson
Recording: Will be videotaped and made available to the public through net
Audience: Open invitation
Registration: All guests need to register in advance

Guidelines:

  1. Issues, upon request, to be listed and exchanged in advance
  2. Focus on a singular point with reference to specific verse from Quran
  3. Each participant will present the issue for 15 minutes each. Then, each will respond for 10 minutes. Then free discussion on unsettled important points for 30 minutes. The rest of the 50 minutes will be used to answer the questions from the moderator/audience.

19. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>

I told you before: formulate the debate topic properly, and then we will have something to discuss. Until then, you’re wasting my time.

Obviously you don’t know how to formulate a debate topic. Do some research and figure it out.

20. EDIP

From: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike, Aslbek

I see, Rorbert. You remind me the Turkish proverb:

“Oynamayı bilmeyen gelin, yerim dar dermiş. yerini genişletmişler, yenim dar demiş.”

No problem, I will, God willing, start writing a book refuting your distortions of the Quran in your Infildel’s guide. Then, perhaps you will be interested in “formulating a debate” and paying for my expenses too :) )

Joke aside, you did not need to be afraid of an oral debate on your book, especially after receiving all the concessions you wanted. I am sharing this conversation with a few colleagues of mine and please feel free to share it with yours too.

PS: I am still open to the live debate, anytime you feel that you can endure the Socratic method. For instance, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAA873FE111650014&feature=plcp

21. ROBERT

From: Robert Spencer <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: Robert let me know whether the location and time is okay for the debate?
To: Edip Yuksel <[email protected]>
Cc: Ahmet, Caner, Layth, Arnold, Najafi, Irshad, Raymond, Matthew, Mike, Aslbek

Whatever. Write all the books you want. I am perfectly willing to debate you. All I asked is that you suggest a debate topic formulated properly. If that is too much for you, that’s your affair.

Robert Spencer and other Bloody Warmongers

Years ago, I Warned against
Robert Spencer and other Bloody Warmongers

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

In April 2008, I had extensive debates in two symposiums organized by the Frontpage Magazine with a group of Zionists and wrong-wing Evangelical authors who have been calling for invasions and destruction of Muslim lands. One of the hatemongers that defended the new Crusades was Robert Spencer. I published those lengthy but very important and relevant debates in my 2009 book, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers: Exposing Robert Spencer, Osama bin Laden, David Horowitz, Mullah Omar, Bill Warner, Ali Sina and other enemies of Peace (Brainbow Press). Now the world learned that Robert Spencer was the major source of inspiration for Anders Behring Breivik, the “Christian Terrorist” who recently massacred dozens of children in Norway.  No surprise. In order to justify and promote another Holocaust, this time against Muslims, Robert Spencer was employing every tools and tricks of propaganda. He distorted facts; he blamed the 99.9 percent of Muslims for the violence committed the few. He ignored the invasions, massacres, atrocities, torture, and terrorism committed by his favored states and their support of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and beyond. He defended the aggression and oppression of the fascist Zionist regime against Palestinians. In sum, he had an incredible thirst for the blood of Muslims. The following paragraphs are from the introduction of the book: I have written more than 20 books in Turkish and English, and this is a book with the longest and ugliest title I have ever written. Without the names in the subtitle and the following list, the world would be a much better world. Of course, many would claim the same thing about my name too, since I have offended the religious and political sensitivities of millions, if not billions. However, the people, organizations and corporations in my incomplete and casually compiled list have the following common characteristics: they directly or indirectly support or promote violence, aggressions, occupations, and wars. We need to act and become catalysts for reform in ourselves and in the political system of our countries, before the religious and nationalist zealots of all colors and creeds hurl humanity towards an irreversible course of self-destruction. There are many evil forces, both in the east and west, which work to inflame animosities and provoke another major calamities. They will not hesitate to engage in covert operations in order to incite hatred and atrocities. On the other hand, there are bystanders which make up the majorities of people in every country. Yet they can easily be manipulated by warmongering politicians, media, religious leaders and war-profiteering corporations to cheer for bloody wars and atrocities. If they are scared by politicians and provocateurs, they would support every bloody conflict without hesitation, as they did when Hitler or Stalin incited them. The same people and the same Hitler and Stalin are still alive among us. They just come in different colors and shapes, but they think (well, more accurately, they feel) and behave exactly the same. Therefore, it is no surprise to see incarnations of Hitlers and Nazis on the one hand condemning the Holocaust and on the other hand treating other people exactly like Hitler and Nazis did in the past.

If these gentlemen men have the right to depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped, then I should also have the right to expose their so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories. For instance, brother Spencer generously uses the hearsay stories fabricated centuries after Muhammad’s life to assassinate Muhammad’s character, while he knows well that according to the same sources which he trusts, Muhammad reportedly split the Moon causing half of it to fall in Ali’s backyard, or Muhammad reportedly made trees walk, Muhammad ascended to the seventh heaven with his body, and many other stories. Scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality. But, your gentlemen crusaders pick and choose from those books as they wish. They take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims. I consider the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history.”

This is a modified quote from my debate with the most rabid Crusaders, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and other allies of the notorious torture-promoter Zionist David Horowitz. I later regretted using kind words to describe them. It was they who first reminded me of my naiveté; they were disturbed by my use of the word “brother” to depict them. In retrospect, I know that I was naïve to consider them “gentlemen” or “brother,” as they were a troop of bloodthirsty warmongers with clandestine missions and connections. All they were after was the promotion of a new Crusade through their depictions of all Muslims as threats to civilization (read: Christian hegemony and imperialism!). Bill Warner is a rabid enemy of peace. In a recent article published at his website under the title Losing Israel, he criticized Israeli Zionists for not fabricating enough propaganda! Israel, doesn’t fabricate enough propaganda?! It is like criticizing of a braying donkey for not making a louder noise, or Fox News for not hiring enough rightwing demagogues, or a serial killer for not killing more! Towards the end of the article, Bill ensures his place in the short list of warmongers:

“Now, which one of the two maintains a stronger position — peace or victory? Today Israel desires peace and the Palestinians insist on victory. Guess who wins? Peace is for losers. Regrettably, Israelis and American Jews are choosing to be the losers. The consequences however are too dire; ultimately, Israel may get their peace, but it may be the peace after jihad’s victory.”

www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/losing_israel_1.html

Ironically, in the very article asking Israel to construct more propaganda, a coded way of asking for production of more lies, Bill Warner demonstrates his skills by subliminally peddling the loudest Zionist propaganda in the century: “Israel desires peace…” Perhaps, the main purpose of the article was to sneak in this bloody lie while diverting the attention of his readers. We may never know. But we know that his readers congratulated him for discovering the formula for victory: No peace! One of his readers commented, “I, for one, will no longer utter the word Shalom (peace) when hailing or farewelling Jews. Rather, I will say Netzah (victory). Who will join me?!” The fascist propaganda machine is working: it is turning peace into an ugly word and it is making his bigoted and fanatic followers salivate for victory without peace. Robert Spencer is another member of this bloody cabal. He is one of the most active Crusaders and he has authored a few best-selling propaganda books to justify genocide against Muslims, such as: The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), and Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t. Of course, the Horowitzs, Spencers and Bills of the world have a right and even a duty to criticize religious teachings and practices they deem harmful. I too have written numerous books exposing the problems with Sunni, Shiite, Jewish and Christian religions. But their agenda is much beyond an intellectual combat; it is ugly, devious, hypocritical, and bloody. Modern Crusaders do not directly fight as they used to in medieval times. They now sing peace in their churches while voting for warmongers and promoting militarism. Instead of quoting verses from their holy books that instructs its adherents to burn and stone infidels, destroy cities and kill every living being including babies, they now use modern secular propaganda filled with euphemism and doubletalk. They do not hesitate to establish coalitions with nationalists, capitalists, or Zionists. They have mutated with time and learned how to use secular governments and their militaries as proxy warriors for their bloody crusades. In fact, nothing has changed much: the king and the pope are toasting blood and these stooges are their public relation knights and bishops![1] Thank God there are reasonable and progressive people who promote peace and stand against the destructive attitudes and actions. For instance, there are numerous religious or non-religious pro-peace organizations in the West such as, Unitarian Universalists, Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Jews for Peace, Muslims for Peace Justice and Progress, Progressive Muslims, and Code Pink, just to name a few. They are brave and resolute activists for peace. I compiled the following list of U.S.-based peace organizations: …   For the Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979671531/ http://19.org/books/brainbow-book-list/Read, Barry Lando, Mounting Anti-Semitism in Europe, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-lando/norway-mounting-antisemit_b_908126.html



[1]        As of July 2011, the Iraqi Death Estimator at www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq estimates 1,455,590 Iraqi deaths due to U.S.-led invasion, which deliberately started a civil war between the Shiite and Sunni Iraqis in order to crush the popular uprising against its brutal invasion, massacres, plundering, rape and torture. This is only Iraq! For the list of other atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by the West and Church see the article From Wounded Knee To Iraq: a Century Of U.S. Military Interventions.

The US-Appointed Sunni Caliph is Naked

The US-Appointed Sunni Caliph is Naked

Edip Yuksel
12 July 2012
www.19.org

 

No, I am not the only child who has been screaming this; but if you read this article, you will see that my voice is perhaps the loudest and clearest one. Let’s start with a piece of old news. The reputed American magazine Foreign Policy, in its August 4, 2008 issue, had declared “Fethullah Gülen, the World’s Top Public Intellectual.” The announcement started with the following introduction:

“When Foreign Policy and Prospect magazine asked readers to vote for the world’s top public intellectual, one man won in a landslide: Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, an inspirational leader to millions of followers around the world and persona non grata to many in his native Turkey, where some consider him a threat to the country’s secular order.”

Top public intellectual? Did they really mean it? Yes, they really meant it. I checked the date on the magazine and it was not April 1st! Let’s ask a few more serious questions. First, who are those “readers”? How do they know him? Which book or lecture of him makes him deserving such a title? Could it be a promotional service for the America’s new Caliph? Anyone who knows Fethullah Gülen closely will know that the word “intellectual” befits him as much as the word “fast” befits a turtle, or the word “person” befits a corporation. Fethullah might be the top business person; since he created a foundation that now owns big corporations, newspapers, television channels, hundreds of schools, and is valued in Billions of dollars. Fethullah might be the leader of the biggest, yet the most secretive and the least transparent cult. Fethullah might be the most successful politician in Turkey;

He is perhaps the world’s best living politician, since from being a preacher, he managed to gain the control of the nation’s political system; without even establishing a political party, without debating against a single opponent, without being cross-examined by a journalist; not even once. How such a person becomes a top public figure without being subjected to neither intellectual nor political scrutiny is beyond me.

From leakage to a stream, brook, river, and into a dam

Fethullah Gulen's Letter to Edip Yuksel's fatherFethullah Gülen was our family friend. He and my father, Sadreddin or Sadrettin Yüksel, knew each other well. Though they had differences in their style and political attitudes, there was a mutual respect between them; both were sharing the desire for a theocratic regime (sharia) in Turkey. Both were students and admirers of the Kurdish mullah, Said Nursi. (Said Nursi was born in our town, Bitlis, and he studied in the same madrasa where my father would study later. The madrasa in the town of Norşin was run by my mother’s family). Fethullah was found of Ottoman glory so much so that he would write his private letters in Arabic alphabet. His letter of condolences to my father, after my brother’s assassination by the Turkish nationalists, was in Ottoman.

In 1980s, when I was a best-selling Islamist author, I met Fethullah several times and wrote a few articles in his first monthly magazine, Sızıntı (Leakage, Ooze, or Seepage). He was writing editorial articles and poems, filled with Arabic and Persian vocabulary, under the nickname Dahhak, which was the exaggerated form of the Arabic translation of his last name, Gülen, that is ‘the one who laughs a lot’. From the title of his first magazine, it was obvious that he intended to infiltrate the Turkish institutions such as education, media, business, police, military, in a clandestine manner. His organization steadily flourished; starting from leakage it turned into a stream, brook, river, and currently has become a dam, perhaps the biggest one in the Muslim world. Years ago, the highly paranoid anti-religious Turkish generals were alarmed and they detected infiltration of the cult and they kicked them out in waves. But, the cult has been very successful in other fronts, including police. Today, the Turkish police force is dominated by Fethullah’s followers and many of the recent raids against high ranking military officials, including generals who are accused of planning military coups are considered to be the power struggle between Fethullah and the Turkish generals.

The fate of this colossal dam is difficult to predict, but the exponential growth of this movement was noticed by the USA-Inc long time ago, and apparently it has struck a deal with its leader, who is enjoying his life since 1999 in a ranch in Pennsylvania. Remember Khomeini was in Paris and led the revolution in Iran? Fethullah is leading a revolution in Turkey, albeit a stealthy one. Khomeini’s revolution was loud and obvious; but Fethullah’s cult is working like termites. I know what you might think, “Edip, you too live in the USA and you too have some controversial ideas. Then, what about you?” Well, I am open as one can be. My connections, income, wealth, history, character, and plans all are open. And some of my enemies, who wish to drawn me in a teaspoon, would not doubt about my integrity and bravery to stand for what I believe to be the truth. As for Fethullah and his cult, they are secretive, opaque, cunning, and full of hideous surprises.

Fethullah Gülen’s movement or the FG Cult

The members of Fethullah’s Nurcu (read, Nurju) cult do not rally or protest on the streets, but they are savvy and effective behind doors as well as in managing businesses. Ironically, two rival camps, both the secular and the anti-imperialist Islamist segment of the Turkish population, are in agreement that Fethullah is used as a pawn to create a model of “Cool Islam” (read it, imperial-friendly) in the Middle East. Of course, I have no hard evidence for the existence of such a deal, but regardless, Fethullah is a perfect choice for the USA’s imperialistic policies in the Middle and Far East. Fethullah might be justifying his alliance with the USA as “taqiyya.” Knowing both, I see who will be used in the end.

FG had a well-calculated plan to take over every major institution in Turkey. He used emotional appeal while preaching in mosques or private meetings. He would tell the stories of courage and dedication of Sahaba, (the idealized and idolized friends of the Prophet Muhammad) and weep and make his audience weep together. In those years, I noticed the prophetic irony between his last name and his style of communication. He was always crying in front of crowds.

He would raise funds and more funds. Soon, his organization and foundation became the wealthiest religious Sunni organization in Turkey, and now, in the world. Thanks to Fethullah’s talent of exploiting the religious and then the nationalistic emotions with sob stories aspiring to the golden days of the past. The power of his exploitation increased exponentially parallel to the number of people he influenced. Like an avalanche, more people attracted more people. It is a fact that a great majority of people prefer to follow a band wagon, especially the ones run by charismatic megalomaniacs.

The Mahdi and his soldiers

I found myself neither close to him nor to the people around him. I found them too calculating and sneaky. Too timid and obedient to their leader… They were a troop of nice “yes men”. I found FG too manipulative and dangerously charismatic for the naïve, and on top of that, too delusional. When his maudlin disposition, sobbing and crooning moved his audience and allowed him to raise big money for his foundation, he diversified his preaching style with sobbing, blubbering, weeping, sniveling, bawling and vociferating. Once, he added even more drama by throwing the holy book to his audience, but after receiving too many negative reactions, he did not repeat that gimmick again.

If you do not know about FB’s backward and dangerous theological dogmas and his infinite thirst for power, you might try to defend him based on Psalms 126:5-6. If you are an American, you may imagine Saint Paul, Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, Tim Lahaye, Glenn Beck , Sai Baba, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Deepak Chopra, Robert Tilton, Robert Tilton II, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart.  Mix them in a blender and add a gallon of tears and a sack of secrecy, replace the names of Jesus or Hindu gods with Muhammad, and the names of Christian and Hindu saints with the Sunni ones, you get our maudlin preacher whose last name laughs, even while he cries in public most of the time.

His cult also could be likened to a composite of Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Cabbalists, Discovery Institute, and the Left-Behinders. Fethullah, who is inspired by Said Nursi, has a messianic conviction. His followers pray daily for the coming of Mahdi who would be supported by Christ. Though there is no public declaration, but many among his followers believe that Fethullah is the Promised Mahdi.

Fethullah and his cult has become a major political and economic force in Turkey. He transformed Turkey, and his support for Tayyip Erdoğan’s AKP is vital. Fethullah and his followers focused on education system and opened private schools with dormitories in Turkey and also in former Russian Turkic republics, where he attained great success and respect for his cult. They are now operating dozens of secondary Charter Schools (privately run, yet funded by the USA government) here, in the USA. In city where I live, they run one of the top secondary schools and they recently built a huge campus of their own. Gülen’s cult has also been organizing Turkish businessman in the USA and they are getting successful, gaining the respect of many secular-minded Turkish expatriates. A Turkish lawyer and her businessman husband last year consulted me whether should they accept their invitation to join their business organization, I found myself in difficulty to say yes or no. Like a doctor prescribing a medicine, I told her about the benefits and side effects.

I am always impressed by their diligence, focus, hard work, and peaceful rhetoric and demeanor. Yet, I also find the cult extremely dangerous, since today’s good robots could easily turn to monster robots of tomorrow by the push of the button.

Top religious actor

In 3 October 2010, I published an article titled, “Fethullah Gülen’e 19 Soru” (19 Questions for Fethullah Gülen). I gave him and his close circle several months to respond. Yet, as I expected, he ignored my questions. I am almost sure that his lieutenants had informed him about my questions, since I am a well-known author in Turkey and my questions were on vital political and theological issues with important background information; they were a sort of indictment. Instead, I received ad hominem attacks, from his followers and admirers. Then, about a year after that article, I decided to answer them according to his religious and past political positions. I added that I would be gladly correcting any statement if he or his inner circle sends me a correction.

So far, they have been totally silent. Why? One might say, “Well, Edip who you think you are? Fethullah is a saint, he is the world’s top intellectual, he is the leader of hundreds of thousands followers. He is the most powerful man in Turkey and beyond! He even shook hands with Pope. He does not have time to respond questions by an author who dares to call him by his first name.” I understand. But, I still do not understand why anyone, any reporter would not be curious about those questions. Why all the reporters who interview him turn into zombies or sheep, and ask questions only to boost his image.

In other words, one of the secrets in Fethullah’s accomplishment is the truth-proof, the Socrates-proof walls of protection around him. It is an incredible achievement, which makes him the “World’s most powerful and the most protected religious/political leader.” This protection was initially accomplished through his well-calculated behind-the-scene dealings, and his loyal followers. But, since the moment he accepted the role of being the American Caliph in the Middle East, he has been protected and even promoted through his handlers, the WLTV, which stands for… Well, read on.

Fethullah might be a great preacher and cult leader. Fethullah might be a gifted orator who knows how to impress his audience by talking in Ottoman language which is fully understood by almost none of his audience. Fethullah might be the reincarnation of St. Paul or Machiavelli. Fethullah might be Pope’s best hope and America-Inc’s dope in the Muslim world. But, “the world’s top public intellectual”? You must be kidding.

The crying, sobbing, wailing, weeping, bawling, howling, yowling, and snivelling preacher

While preaching his congregation, like some American televangelists with mega churches, Fethullah displays a one-man show. As a strange irony, contrary to the meaning of his last name (Güler = Laughs), he almost always cries, and after each crying, he collects thousands and sometimes millions of dollars for his foundations, or more accurately, cult. Pavlov! Some video clips at youtube that allow us to study his face gestures, his quick and freaky look at the camera in the middle of crying, the well-calculated timing, diction and tone of the sound-bites that he hurls during his hysterical crying sessions to elicit emotional reactions, etc., are textbook examples of not public inspiration or intellectual enlightenment but cunning manipulation. He is another proof for Marxist maxim, that Religion is opium of masses…  He would be a good actor in Broadway or Hollywood. Take away the ostentatious archaic language from his articles, you will end up with a mediocre rambling, bumbling, ranting of a town preacher.

Fethullah indeed should receive the World’s Top Naked Intellectual award. He has only elementary school education, yet he compensates with his smarts. He is capable of fooling his admirers and cheerleaders by mixing some scientific terminology into the mix, like new age gurus mix quantum physics into their mumbo-jumbo. He is a mediocre Sunni preacher who has the ability to peddle the most bizarre and stupid religious stories, and promote the VERY SAME backward and despotic religious dogmas and teachings that gave birth to various flavors such as Salafi version in Saudi Arabia, Shiite version in Iran, and Sunni version in Afghanistan. He has never directed any criticism to the source of multifold problems, Hadith, Sunna and Sectarian jurisprudence, afflicting Muslims for centuries. Yet, our Naked Sunni Mullah or Beardless Khomeini fools the world by the help of four distinct groups:

  1. His handlers (WLTV).
  2. The core cult lieutenants who enjoy the perks and power bestowed on them.
  3. A growing crowd of admirers who are impressed by the growing number of the crowd; a fascinating loop, a perpetual machine, or self-fulfilling prophecy!
  4. The tailors; in this case, the Western and Eastern “intellectual and academic prostitutes.” Some are paid well by the cult and others work for WLTV.
  5. Great talent to sell himself.

What has he done? He has opened hundreds of schools. So what? Governments and private companies and charter schools do the same, and some do much better job than his followers, with much less financial resources. He has opened numerous secondary schools in many countries, including the United States. How? By collecting money from religious people! How? By weeping, bawling, howling, yowling, and sniveling!

F and his cult has also done some little PR work for Turkey, which in fact is a fantastic PR work for him and his cult. Of course, with the fraction of the money any advertising company could do a much better job, but that is another issue. The teachers serving in the cult’s school abroad pick some students and help them memorize Turkish poems. Then, they offer the best ones a free round-trip to Turkey to participate in the so-called Turkish Olympics, where teenagers from different countries recite poetry in Turkish. Of course, only a few people outside of Turkey know about this event, but the event is televised in Turkey and it attracts the attention of every Turk, from a student to the President. It is all about selling Turkishness to Turks. Unfortunately, the Turkish population have major psychological trauma since the demise of the Ottoman Empire. They have not yet accepted the defeat, the loss of so many lands. A great majority of Turks still angry with Arabs, accusing them of betraying Ottomans during the World War I. They just cannot accept their decline, from being the number one bully of the world, to have become a third world country. There is deep down nostalgia and anger in Turkish population. Thus, the nationalistic and jingoistic hormones are abundant. The expression of bragging about Turkishness is ubiquitous. You can see “Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene” (Happy is he who can call himself a Turk) at almost every corner, at every government institution. Millions of Turks repeat this mantra daily like a prayer. Thus, they are the easiest to be tickled by charlatans, by religious and political leaders. A few dozen foreign students who recite Turkish poetry on television screens, feed the inferiority complex of Turkish nationalists. By recognizing this demand and providing a cheap supply, Fethullah and his cult have received great sympathy and support from the population.

That’s it? No, he does the crying while he tells the exaggerated stories of idolized companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Why? To recruit the brightest of them and indoctrinate them in houses and dormitories controlled by the cult, turning them into nice robots, albeit until the master hits the red button to activate. If making a religious congregation hysterically cry in chorus for their miserable lives, for not having married, for their sins, or for losing the glorious days of the Ottoman Empire, and then afterwards collecting buckets of money is an intellectual activity, then Fethullah deserves the first place as the “Top Public Intellectual”.

No, I am not making it up nor I am exaggerating. Search youtube for Fethullah Gülen and watch 5 to 6 videos randomly. You will understand what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3O9qtgEAYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPnHQxEHEuY

“The Quran is Orphan, The Quran is orphan. Quran’s father died!”

The following video is hilarious. Fethullah is manipulating his audience as usual, through a well-timed mix of weeping, sobbing, repetitions, literary eloquence, and provocative statements to elicit emotional reactions. At one point, he makes a ridiculous statement and repeats it over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s8Lv4q_4CQ

YouTube Preview Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lofgsQW6rhM

He repeats: “The Quran is orphan, the Quran is orphan!” What? The Quran is orphan? It is an utter disrespect to God’s word. But, when he notices that his statement excites his audience and make them cry loud, he takes advantage of the moment. He knows that he has now full control of their emotions. They are in a hypnotic trance, crying, weeping, sobbing, and screaming. He continues, “It does not know the language of this world!” and repeats it to get more reaction. What? How in the world an imam could claim that God does not know the language of this world!  He then turns the metaphor into pure nonsense, buy declaring the following: “Quran’s father died!” Quran’s father? His first statement could be taken as a metaphor, but his second statement turns the metaphor to a stupid claim, to an insult to God’s word. Then, witnessing the impact of his silly statement, he start repeating the same statement “Kuran Yetim, Kuran yetim” (The Quran is orphan, the Quran is orphan).  His audience goes bonkers. The manipulation and the act is basically no different than of a stand-up comic in front of an audience.

During that speech he also wishes to repair one of the oft-criticized actions years before. Ten years before he declared the holy book orphan without father, he had flung the Quran to his flock. The Sunni and Shiite population might care less about the message of the Quran, but they worship its physical form in book format. Sunni and Shiite masses consider touching the manuscript without ablution or holding it below waist to be a great sin; they kiss the book an hang it to the wall with utter respect… Thus, hurling the manuscript of the Quran in the middle of the mosque was an outrageous sin. If any other preacher had done such a thing, he would receive a long term condemnation. But, Fethullah survived and continued increasing the number and power of his cult. Yet, he was aware of the negative impact of that action. His opponents would always cite that scene to criticize him. So here, while his audience are crying compulsively, he tries to repair his tarnished image. Hem turns it to the opposite, a wise act, a prophetic event: “Ten years ago, I had flung the Quran to your chests…” and now I see that you have owned the Quran….

A Compassionate Peacemaker or a Jingoist Instigating Mass Murder

Fethullah has both in him. The sins of the America’s Caliph or the Promised Mahdi, is not limited with manipulating his audience through emotional exploitation, or recruiting members for his cult from among students ending up in cult’s dorms because of their financial need, or exploiting the teachers by paying them half of what is on their official contract, or similar tactics common in every cult and religious organization… Fethullah is a Janus; he has two faces. Besides being a peaceful preacher, he is a racist instigator.

Don’t be fooled by his weeping in public and by his religious garbs. He is a man who is extremely talented to dance between extremes; between extreme show of compassion and extreme expression of cruelty, between humility and enormous hunger for power by any means possible. Thanks to his handlers, he is one of the most influential public figures in Turkey and beyond.

Last October (2011), Fethullah Gülen, issued a fatwa and political instruction by calling on the Turkish government to pursue a draconian policy towards the Kurds. His statement can be found on his website, herkul.com or youtube.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_kS-NZeLKE

There he advised and urged the Turkish government to kill up to 50 000 (Fifty Thousand) Kurds. He invoked God’s name with an emotional appeal by praying “May God rain fire on their homes,” and “May He uproot them root and branch.”  You do not need even to know Turkish to understand that he is in provocation mode; he is pushing the red button. With both of his hands he makes the gesture of grabbing someone from the neck and suffocating him or her to death, like the cartoon character Simpson does to his son, Bart. But, unlike Simpson, Fethullah is no cartoon character and his words have real life consequences: soon after his instruction to kill the dissident Kurds, the Turkish military massacred dozens of civilians in Uludere. 

Fethullah has always been with the powerful. He supported the Turkish military, in both military coups. No wonder, this, arguably most powerful Sunni Muslim leader, dared to criticize the Turkish human rights activists who tried to take medicine and other humanitarian aid to people in Gaza concentration camp through Mavi Marmara flotilla. The Israeli gestapos, in violation of both the Sixth Commandment and the international law, raid in international water massacred 9 of the activist and wounded many. According to our Pope-friendly Sunni evangelist, “they should have received permission from Israeli authorities” before sailing towards Gaza concentration camp.

Before Fethullah, there was Khomeini

Now let’s see a few examples about Fethullah’s intellectual capacity. He is no better than Khomeini. Once when I was an Islamist youth leader Khomeini was my hero. He led a historic revolution. Though he should get some credit for leading the revolution but most of the organization and work were done by his lieutenants, handlers, allies, merchants, and people on the street. So, we tend to unjustly distribute the credit to the lead person, while forgetting about many leaders and followers that support and manage the activities in his name. Sometimes, the success of activities has little to do with the visible leader; it is more due to chance and circumstances, such as the unfolding events, the factors, players, circumstances, the power struggle among competing groups, and pure luck.

Khomeini, in fact, was more a symbolic leader and an ignorant clergyman and the most important decisions, activities were carried out by a group of well-educated dissidents who were somehow forced to unite around him. As we know, after obtaining power, this clergyman sided with the worst party among his supporters and eliminated the progressive groups in the coalition that led to the revolution.

Later, when I discovered the backwardness of the Sunni and Shiite teaching, for the first time I got a chance to read a religious book authored by Khomeini. I was disappointed greatly. This mullah, who supposedly led a revolution in Iran, could not get his head out of the toilet seat. In his book Towzihul Masail he had obsession with pedantic details.

More than a quarter of the questions in Resaleh (846 out of nearly 2900), talk about purity and impurity. Khomeini relates

how many times to wash a container contaminated by a dog (three times in “small water” (a quantity of water less than about 380 liters [5C]) after first rubbing it with dirt, #150);

how many times to wash a container “from which a pig has drunk fluid” (seven times “with small water as well as with Kor (“big water,” i.e. greater than 380 liters) or running water,” #152);

that running water (from a stream or river) with excrement or urine in it is pure provided the “odor, color, or taste” hasn’t been changed by the excrement or urine (#29, #30). If it has, it can purified by “running water of rainwater which falls directly into it, or rainwater driven into it by the wind, or carried to it by a drainpipe.” (#53, (Resaleh p.66)

… but says not a word about purifying water by boiling or adding iodine. In fact soap is only mentioned in regards to how to clean IT (soap) once IT’S been contaminated. (#164, #165)

COMMENT: Should we care? After all these are religious definitions of cleanliness for religious rituals and duties. You want laws of religion you listen to a religious scholar. You want disease prevention or control you go to a public health worker … right? Not quite.

More on Purification

If a person crushes a mosquito on his skin and cannot determine whether the blood there from is the insect’s or his own, this blood is pure; but if the time between the bite and the death of the mosquito is so short that no such distinction can be made, the blood is impure. (#206, Resaleh, p.61)

What difference does it make? If it’s the person’s own blood, it’s impure and the person must wash himself. If it’s the mosquito’s blood, there’s no such need because it’s an insect and their blood is not impure.

**

Khomeini on Urinating and Defecating

Urinating and defecating are forbidden in four places: blind alleys, except with the permission of those living along them; the property of a person who has not given permission to do so; places of worship, such as certain madrasas; graves of believers, unless one does so as an insult to them. (#64, (Resaleh p.40))

It is not necessary to wipe one’s anus with three stones or three pieces of fabric: a single stone of single piece of fabric is enough. But if one wipes it with a bone, or any sacred object, such as for example, a paper having the name of God on it, one may not say his prayer while in this state. (#69, (Resaleh p.41))

Ayatollah Khomeini’s Gems of Islamism, (Excerpts from some of the legendary Ayatollah’s  books, speeches, comments [1A] ), Elmer Swenson,  accessed on 3 July 2012.

http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/khomeini_works.html#answer_resaleh

Since the similarities between Khomeini, who appeared to be a peaceful man before the revolution whose supporters were hurling slogans like, Istiqlal, Azadi, Hukumeti İslami, that is, Independence, Freedom, Islamic Government. Many intellectuals, such as Bazargan, Bani Sadr, were duped by Khomeini’s preaching and his apparently peaceful nature. They ignored the real-life consequence of the sectarian dogmas and literature he was advocating. Here, I would like to share with you one more article to demonstrate Khomeini’s intellectual level and state of dogmatic mind, which is no different than our America’s choice of the “top intellectual” for the Sunni world.

New versions of the Tahrir-al-Waslah have been published with all references to Khomeini’s perversions taken out. In fact, it is now illegal in Iran to publish Khomeini’s first edition of his book because of its blunders or that young generations of Iran’s ‘revolutionary society’ will ask, “Did the Imam sleep with sheep …. or small girls … or both”.

Anyway, I think it is the duty of all Iranians to know exactly how bonkers Khomeini was. Here are some of my favorite excerpts from Khomeini’s book:

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable.  If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.”

Or how about this gem:

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on.  However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm.  He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed.  The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.”

(http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/simorgh555/mullah-slept-sheep;
The Mullah that slept with sheep, Simorgh555, 30-Aug-2010 , accessed on 3 July 2012.)

Unfortunately, many people who supported Khomeini in the beginning of revolution did not care about his distorted state of mind, his multiple personality.

Pandora’s Box of Theological and Political Contradictions

Fethullah is a Muqallid, that is, an adherent of Hanafite sect. He has never questioned a single hadith in the so-called Six Books. He frequently sites Buhkari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Hanbal… He relies on many other books, including Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Abidin, and of course, his main source of inspiration, Said Nursi. Said is notorious for his delusional statements that he received the 114 booklets as a revelation, and other claims that contradicts with the dogmas of all the four Sunni sects. In other words, Fethullah is a Pandora’s Box of Contradictions, both theological and political. The following statements, according to the numerous Quranic verses are idolworship and are exactly the statements of ingrates quoted in the Quran:

“God does not allow the corpses of his messenger to rot under the ground. The Most Honorable Messenger (PBUH), according to the statements of those who discover is “alive” and lives like martyrs. He is always aware of the situation of his people. Thus, when you say “Peace and praise to you O the Messenger of God” you should say it with respect and reverence as if you have kneeled next to the knees of the Sultan of Great Glory, as if you are in direct presence of him. Do not forget! If you become less aware, you may feel your knees touching his knees. And if you establish such close relationship, you may witness that his soul reincarnated there in front of you. (Seyyar (Gezginci) Melekler, Fethullah Gülen, 22 May 2006, http://tr.fgulen.com/content/view/10826/150/ Last accessed on 10 July 2012)

Our weeping preacher’s books and articles contain many stories in which he or his grandfather frequently meet and talk to his lord, Prophet Muhammad and other idolized figures in Sunni history, and they experience numerous miraculous events… For instance, in Küçük Dünyam (My Little World), he tells the story of Muhammad and Ali bin Abi Talib visiting his grandfather visiting his grandfather. Ali, according to Fethullah’s story, was carrying stakes in his hand and hammering in the ground to stop the earthquakes. He does not tell these stories as dreams, but real life events.

Fethullah is a clone of St. Paul. Both are endowed with delusional mind capable of making up stories of meeting the incarnations of their idols, oratory and acting skills to peddle every ridiculous story as profound wisdom, cunning ability to manipulate impressionable people, becoming everything to everyone in order to reach their end, unrelenting desire to collect money and more money from their flock, and keen interest in carving idols.

Fethullah knows how to move and manipulate his religious audience. He tickles the raw religious emotions of his flock. For instance, in the link below, you will see him talking with cadence and great story telling skills. He hits the names of carefully selected three idolized heroes. He tells another delusional or schizophrenic story. He claims that three great saints of the past, who died centuries before, visited him on the land of his first K-12 school in Fatih, Istanbul. He tells them about his conversation with these dead people. Each time he mentions the glorious names of Hasan Basri, Abu Hanifa Numan bin Sabit, and Mevlahum Celaleddin Rumi, his flock cries and screams in chorus.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pxyy_hasan-basri-ebu-hanife-mevlana-okul_people

In another speech, he tells his flock that the Prophet Muhammad appeared to him, not in a dream, but in real life as a real person, and talked to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcD1uvbnMvk

Fethullah, in one of his books, writes the following “intelligent” comments on verse 19:17. Note that he refers to Muhammad as “Efendimiz” (Our Lord), which is condemned by the Quran as idolworship. Using God’s attribute Lord (Rabb) for Muhammad has recently become very popular in Turkey among the religious leaders.

“Mary took to a barrier which separated her from them, so We sent Our Spirit to her, and he took on the shape of a human in all similarity.”

So what was that spirit? Almost all commentaries consider the “spirit” as the angel Gabriel (peace be upon him). However, the Quran uses the word “rooh” (spirit) here, and there is disagreement regarding its meaning. The limits of probabilities are beyond the limits of disagreement; it is as wide as including the spirit of our Lord. Yes, this is a possibility; since the Honorable Mary was a very chaste and pure woman. Thus, no other image entered her eyes, nor it should have. Only someone who was morally acceptable could look at her. And that person could only be our Lord, since he once stated that the Honorable Mary was married to him [6]. Accordingly, it is a possibility that the “spirit” is the spirit of our Lord. But, this is not certain. The possibilities do not amount to certainty until they are supported by evidence.

[6] Taberânî, el-Mu’cemü’l-kebir, 8/258.
(Kuran’dan İdrake Yansıyanlar, Fethullah Gülen, Meryem, 19/17, 25 May 2006, http://tr.fgulen.com/content/view/1568/3/ Last accessed on 10 July 2012)

Fethullah suggests Prophet Muhammad as most likely candidate to be the father of Jesus appears to be in love with Muhammad, whom he frequently calls as Efendimiz (our lord), exactly like evangelical preachers call Jesus. (According to the Quran, we can call only God as “our lord”). Fethullah strives to emulate his role model. To find the examples of his role model he relies on hadith books and he uses them as a holy sources besides the Quran. Yet his Holy Hadith collections, depict Muhammad as violent, coward, cold-blooded murderer, sex-crazy, misogynist, perverted, superstitious, plunderer, hedonistic, retarded, racist, duplicitous, ungrateful, and manipulator. Hadith reporters and followers are the real enemies of Muhammad (For instance, see verse 6:112-116 and 25:30).

Below are the hearsay reports from Sunni sources respected and frequently cited by Christians and atheists. Keep in mind that Fethullah endorses all the 6 hadith books cited below and frequently uses them as the authorized references. Fethullah has so far never questioned nor rejected their authority. He also refers to Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Qurtubi and other Sunni sources:

  • The Prophet said, “We will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us.”—Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.435.
  • The Prophet allowed the raping of war-captives.—Sahih Bukhari, 3.46.718.
  • The Muslim soldiers had sex with the captive women in the presence of their husbands and “some were reluctant to do so.”—Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2150.
  • One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated after she becomes a captive.—Sahih Muslim 8.3432.
  • Ali (Muhammad’s son-in-law) had sex with booty captive women. Muhammad presented him with the captive woman (to have sex).—Sahih Bukhari 5.59.637.
  • Women are domestic animals; beat them.—Tabari, vol. ix, pp. 9.112-114.
  • Muslims killed Umm Qirfa, “a very old woman” by tying her legs with a rope attached to two camels driven in opposite directions thus tearing her body (Ibn Ishak, pp. 664-665).
  • The Prophet said spears were his livelihood—Sahih Bukhari, Vol 4, Chapter 88.
  • Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a man. She protested but ultimately had to do so— Ibn Majah, 3.1943.
  • Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a bearded man.—Sahih Muslim, 8.3428.
  • Allah says that a woman must sexually satisfy her husband even when on top of a camel.—Ibn Majah, 3.1853.
  • Muhammad ordered the murder of Asma bt. Marwan, a Jewish poetess when she was suckling her babies.—Ibn Ishaq, p.676, Ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 30-31.
  • Muhammad ordered the assassination of Abu Afak, a 120-year-old man of Medina.—Ibn Ishaq, p. 675, ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 31.
  • Muhammad conducted ethnic cleansing of Banu Quaynuqa Jews from Medina.—Tabari, vol. vii, p. 85.
  • Muhammad hired a professional killer to assassinate Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, a poet of Medina.—Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.369.
  • The messenger of Allah said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.” So Muhayyish b. Masud killed his friend and business-partner Ibn Sunaynah- Tabari, vol. vii, p. 97-98.
  • Muhammad’s death squad murdered Abu Rafi, a critic of Muhammad in Medina.—Tabari, vol. vii, p. 103, Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.371.
  • Muhammad’s death squad assassinated Sufyan ibn Khalid.—Ibn Ishaq, p.664-665, ibn Sa’d, vol. ii, p. 60.
  • Muhammad did ethnic cleansing of B. Nadir Jews from Medina.-Tabari, vol. vii, p.158-159, Heykal, ch. B. Nadir, Sahih Bukhari, 3.39.519.
  • Muhammad beheaded between 600-900 Jews of B. Qurayzah who did not fight Muslilms but were attacked, and they surrendered unconditionally—Tabari, vol.viii, ch. B. Qurayzah; Heykal, ch. the Campaign of Khandaq and B. Qurayzah, ibn Ishaq, ch. B. Qurayzah.
  • Arabs are the chosen people of Allah; Allah resembles an Arab.—Ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p.2.
  • Allah favours Arab racism—prophets are to be of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (Ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p.95-96, Sahih Muslim, 20.4483.
  • Shafi Law m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: (1) a non Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because Prophet said: Allah has chosen the Quraysh Arabs as His agent to rule the world (Islamic Caliphate).—Sahih Bukhari, 4.56.704.
  • Muhammad approved killing of women and children of the pagans because they (the children) are from them (i.e. the pagans)…(Sahih Bukhari 4.52.256).
  • Muhammad blessed Jarir for conducting the genocide (including the slaughter of the children) at Dhu Khalasa.—Sahih Bukhari, 4.52.262
  • Muhammad had a black slave; he traded in slaves.—Sahih Bukhari, 9.91.368 and Kasasul Ambia of Ibn Kathir Vol 3, p. 112—Bangla translation by Bashiruddin.
  • Muhammad traded slaves for beautiful, young, and sexy women, such as Saffiya.—Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.2987, 2991.
  • Muhammad’s hired killer assassinated Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and a party of Khaybar Jews at al-Qarqara.—Ibn Ishaq, p. 665-666.
  • Muhammad forced jizya on Zoroastrians—several cases.—Tabari, vol. viii, p. 142, Sunaan Abu Dawud, 19.9038.
  • The gratuitous destruction of pagan temples and their idols.—Several references: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Tabari: ch: The Occupation of Mecca .
  • Killing of polytheists is laudable—Muhammad said.—Tabari, vol. ix, p. 76.
  • Muhammad’s marauding troops conducted genocide at Jurash, Yemen.—Tabari, vol. ix, p. 88-89.
  • Killing infidels is fun.—Tabari, vol. vii. p. 65.
  • Muhammad ordered to kill the apostates; if somebody (Muslim) discards his religion, kill him)—Sahih Bukhari, 4.52.260.
  • Blood of animal is very dear to Allah.—Ibn Majah, 4.3126.
  • The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.—Sunaan Abu Dawud, 11.2142.
  • The Prophet said: – People ruled by a woman will never be successful.—-Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.709.
  • Majority of women are in hell.—Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301.
  • A woman must keep her sexual organs ready for service at all times (Ihya Uloom Ed-Din of Ghazali, Tr. Dr Ahmad Zidan, vol.i, p.235)
  • A wife can’t leave home.—Shafi’i law m10.4.
  • If a woman claims to be having her period but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her.—Shafi’i law e.13.5.
  • Support of a divorced wife is for 3 months.—Shafi’i Law m11.10.
  • Instant divorce is allowed for husbands. No support to a such divorced wives from that moment.—Many references.
  • It is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation. It is unlawful for women to be alone with a marriageable man.—Shafi’i Law m2.3.
  • Muhammad said, “No nation prospers over which a woman rules.”—Ihyya Uloom Ed-din of Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-Ul-Karim, p. 2.35.
  • If Muhammad wanted anyone to prostrate before another, he would have ordered a woman to prostrate before her husband.—Ibid, p.2.43.
  • A woman, a slave and an unbeliever is not fit to be a moral police.—Ibid, p. 2.186.
  • Muhammad said, “A woman is the string of the devil.”—Ibid, p. 3.87.
  • A woman is the best coveted of things to a man. He takes pleasures in penetrating his genital organ into female vaginal canal. Thus, vagina is the most coveted thing in a woman.—Ghazali, p. 3.162.
  • A woman is a servant and the husband is the person served.—Hedaya, the Hanafi Law manual, p. 47
  • You can enjoy a wife by force.—Hedaya, p. 141
  • Full dower is the payment for the delivery of woman’s person. Booza meaning Genitalia arvum Mulieris.—Hedaya, p. 44.
  • Women are your (men) prisoners; treat them well, if necessary beat them but not severely.—Tirmidhi, 104.
  • When a woman goes out, the devil looks at her; so conceal a woman.—Tirmidhi, 928.
  • In paradise, there is a market of rich, beautiful and ever-young women; they will be pleased whoever buys them.—Tirmidhi, 1495.
  • Women are stupid.—Ibn Majah, 5.4003.
  • The best Muslims had the largest number of wives.—Sahih Bukhari, 7.62.7.

So, how in the world, a person who considers these Sunni hearsay books as main source of his religious guidance, could be considered as “Top Public Intellectual?” by a prestigious semi-official American magazine? How in the world, so many scholars are competing with each other to write paper and books, mostly praising this clergyman who is the Sunni version of Rohullah Khomeini, who will only bring misery, oppression, and corruption to Turkey and beyond.

Well, the West does not care. They only care about their own interest. As long as Fethullah plays their tune, without costing them too much, like the King of Saudi Arabia, like Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam of Iraq, and many other despots, they are happy with him. They care less whether Fethullah will restrict the democratic freedoms or take Turkey back to the darkness of Ottoman era. As long as he is in their pocket, they will be happy to accommodate the “sick man”

The America’s Strange Sultan

As it appears, the USA-Inc has also picked a Sultan for Turkey besides the Caliph, and advised them to work together so that they could both establish a moderate semi-democratic Muslim model in the Middle East, controlled by the USA and its allies. That will diminish the influence of Iran in the region, the rebellious nation.

By now, you should know who might be the appointed American Sultan: he is no more than my schoolmate and former comrade from youth moment: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Though Tayyip’s tamper, political views and background is very different than Fethullah, they are assigned to dance together the political realities created by the puppet-master. I know both men personally and professionally. Besides, I know the tricks in the sleeves of their master, perhaps more than they know.

These two people are the most important American local operatives in the Middle East and they will create a different ecology and different facade for the third major mutation of the Western colonialism.

The WLTV-appointed Sultan was declared since 2004 when Tayyip Erdoğan bragged repeatedly about of being appointed by the USA-Inc as the co-leader of the Greater Middle East project. This leader of a sovereign country, according to numerous Turkish newspaper reports, somehow intimidated his political opponents by bragging about his being “the chosen one” by the USA. According to the same reports, he had repeated his new status more than 30 times. As it appears, he was telling the truth.

Since then, with the blessing of the USA-Inc., Tayyip Erdoğan became the most powerful man in Turkey. Tayyip’s party, AKP won all elections since 2002 and currently comprises 60% of the Grand National Congress. All the AKP congressmen (about 325) were handpicked by Tayyip through a central list of candidates. Thus, the elected congressman from AKP are no more the Tayyip’s yes-men, following the foot-steps of the chosen Sultan who will be following the instructions of his handlers in WLTV.

During the last two years, Tayyip (no need to waste space for “the AKP” or “the government”) has castigated and imprisoned hundreds of hyperactive generals who once served as useful psychopaths for their master, NATO, or more specifically, the USA-Inc. The credit partially goes to Fethullah’s cult, since they infiltrated into the ranks of the Turkish police, as they have infiltrated in many other crucial institutions, and started gathering intelligence information about the secret military meetings and secret projects.

A great majority of people, including me, supported and prayed for Tayyip’s success against the overbearing generals. For the first time in the history of the Turkish Republic, the arrogant Turkish generals were being held responsible for their military coups, their meddling with politics and their illegal death squads. This was a celebration for me, since I was tortured for about one year in Turkish military prisons.

However, soon we noticed that after Tayyip eradicated the military juntas, he turned against dissenting voices in the media and political parties. To our dismay we learned that the illegal military gangs were now replaced by the Turkish police force, which operates under the instruction of attorneys and courts, which also have been infiltrated by Fethullah’s followers. Thus, both police and judicial system are now under the joint control of the American Sunni Caliph and Sultan. Parallel to this transformation of power, the dissenting media too were punished. The Hürriyet newspaper, the equivalent of the New York Times here, was once a loud critic of the duos, but since last year, it has transformed from being a formidable supporter of military and the paranoid voice of the secular segment of the Turkish population into a passive observer and occasionally a cheerleader for both the Sultan and Caliph. An incredible transformation in a short time!

What led such a shift in American policy? Why the USA-Inc decided to change horses?

Shah, Saddam and Mubarak were the USA-Inc’s former S.O.B.’s. But, the advancement in telecommunication technology, the rise of China, the imperatives of the global economy (read it as; global slavery) forced the Global Goliaths to change their modus operandi. Instead of psychopath generals, despot leaders, corrupt and repressive kings, they decided to use corporate-friendly “democratically elected” servants.

The Pope-friendly, Pro-Israeli Sunni clergyman, who recently became the chief-instigator of massacres against Kurdish population, is now declared as the USA-Inc’s official Khomeini for Turkey. Turkey has been prepared to replace Iran and Saudi Arabia as the new leader in the Middle East. Interestingly, I know personally the two actors in the new Middle East order.

Through a friendly and controlled Tayyip Erdoğan, an awkward ally of Fethullah Gülen, the uncontrolled voices against Israel will be eliminated. Though Tayyip does not hide the old sectarian hatchet and Ottoman sword against Shiites, but Fethullah is full of hate against Shiite and especially Iranian version of “rebelling the authority” or the United States.By replacing Turkey with Iran, as the champion of Palestinian cause, the Israeli-American hegemony aims to control the anti-imperialist sentiments and groups in the Middle East.

Through a friendly and controlled leaders, the USA-Inc will replace Saudi Arabia with Turkey, hoping to adapt to the new reality and also disguise its hypocrisy regarding its promotion of democracy and human rights.

Fethullah Gülen, the promised Mahdi or the America’s Caliph for the Middle East, receives the FP Magazine’s award not for any intellectual contribution, which is none, but for creating a motivated cult through collecting obscene amount of money by crying in public like televangelists and tickling the nationalistic and religious emotions of his audience. He follows all hadiths and sectarian teachings, yet he has shaken hands with Pope who declared Muhammad to be violent while the USA-Inc and its allies killed about a million Iraqis in a war based on lies. The same Fethullah supported the two Turkish military coups that committed atrocities, tortured thousands and halted the Turkish democracy for decades.

Fethullah or the FG-model will not serve the Turkish people, nor the Middle East as it has been intended by the West. He and his successors will probably serve their handlers WLTV pretty well. But they will be a disaster, akin to blood, locust and frogs, for Turkey and the Muslim World.

I will finish this article with a few verses from the Quran:

2:174   Surely, those who conceal what God has sent down of the book, and purchase with it a cheap price; they will not eat into their stomachs except the fire, and God will not speak to them on the day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they will have a painful retribution.*

2:175   These are the ones who have purchased straying for guidance, and retribution for forgiveness. What made them patient towards the fire!

9:31     They took their scholars and priests to be lords besides God, and the Messiah son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god but He, be He glorified for what they set up.

9:32     They want to extinguish God‘s light with their mouths, but God refuses such and lets His light continue, even if the ingrates hate it.

9:33     He is the One who sent His messenger with guidance and the system of truth, to make it manifest above all other systems, even if those who set up partners hate it.

9:34     O you who acknowledge, many of the scholars and priests consume people’s money in falsehood, and they turn away from the path of God. Those who hoard gold and silver, and do not spend it in the cause of God, give them news of a painful retribution.

9:35     On the day when they will be seared in the fires of hell, their foreheads, sides and backs will be branded with it: “This is what you have hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you have hoarded!”

13:16   Say, “Who is the Lord of the heavens and earth,” Say, “God.” Say, “Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?” Say, “Is the blind and the seer the same? Or, does the darkness and the light equate?” Or have they made partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creations all seemed the same to them? Say, “God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme.”

16:20       As for those they call on besides God, they do not create anything, but are themselves created!

16:21       They are dead, not alive, and they will not know when they are resurrected.

16:22       Your god is One god. Those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter, their hearts are denying, and they are arrogant.

16:23       Certainly, God knows what they hide and what they declare. He does not like the arrogant.

33:66   On the day when their faces will be turned over in the fire, they will say, “Oh, we wish we had obeyed God, and obeyed the messenger”

33:67   They will say, “Our Lord, we have obeyed our leaders and our learned ones, but they misled us from the path.”

33:68   “Our Lord, give them double the retribution, and curse them with a mighty curse.”

57:27   Then We sent in their tracks Our messengers. We sent Jesus the son of Mary, and We gave him the Injeel, and We ordained in the hearts of his followers kindness and compassion. But they invented Monasticism which We never decreed for them. They wanted to please God, but they did not observe it the way it should have been observed. Consequently, We gave those who acknowledged among them their recompense, while many of them were wicked.

 ——————————————————————————————————–

EDIP YUKSEL, J.D., American-Turkish-Kurdish author and progressive activist, spent five years in prison for promoting Islamic revolution in Turkey. In 1986, for criticizing the orthodox teaching and practices, multiple fatwa declared him heretic. Knows Turkish, English, Arabic, and Persian. Edip’s English books include Quran: a Reformist Translation, Manifesto for Islamic Reform, Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers, and Nineteen: God’s Signature in Nature and Scripture… After receiving his bachelor degrees from the University of Arizona in Philosophy and Near Eastern Studies, Edip received his law degree from the same university. Besides writing and lecturing, Edip works as an Adjunct Philosophy professor at Pima Community College. Edip is the founder of Islamic Reform and co-founder of MPJP (Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progress) organizations and organizes annual Critical Thinkers for Islamic Reform Conference. His online books, interviews, and articles are published at various Internet sites, including: www.19.org; www.yuksel.org; www.quranix.com; www.tanzil.net; www.islamicreform.org; www.free-minds.org; www.quranic.org; www.quran.org; www.mpjp.org