The World Prophecy Of Majeshi Leon Version (l) TWPV

Dated:Sunday, 24 July 2011. 15:11hrs The Journal Inyangenews.com interviewed MAJESHI Leon about his Prophecy which will be published in three ...
Read More

Amabanga y’Ikuzimu mu karere k’Ibiyaga bigari.

Uyu muryango washinzwe nabanyafurika bakundaga umugabane wabo w'Africa, ariko uyu muryango wageze mu mabako yabayobozi bo mu karere k'ibiyaga bigari ...
Read More
PaPa Francis Byibuze Yikuye Mu Isoni Da!(Ariko kardinali Theodore McCarrick) yarakwiye gufungwa burundu!!!

PaPa Francis Byibuze Yikuye Mu Isoni Da!(Ariko kardinali Theodore McCarrick) yarakwiye gufungwa burundu!!!

Theodore McCarrick yagirizwa ihohotera rifatiye ku gitsina Ekleziya Katolika yirukanye Theodore McCarrick yahoze ari kardinali muri Amerika kubera ihohotera rifatiye ku gitsina More »

MTN ivuga ko itazi igituma umukuru wayo, Wim Vanhelleputte, yirukanywe muri Uganda

MTN ivuga ko itazi igituma umukuru wayo, Wim Vanhelleputte, yirukanywe muri Uganda

MTN yagirizwa na Uganda ko ihungabanya umutekano w’igihugu Ishyirahamwe ry’ugutumanaho amakuru ryo muri Afrika y’Epfo, MTN, rivuga ko ritazi icyatumye umukuru waryo muri Uganda yirukanwa. More »

 

Agents of Their Own Destruction Are Palestinians Victims or Actors? by Denis MacEoin

  • The importance of a shift in narratives cannot be overemphasized. It is the key to peace.”Just as real peace could come to Europe after World War II only after Germans abandoned the ‘German narrative’ and accepted the true history of the war that Germany started, so only abandonment of the ‘Palestinian narrative’ and acceptance of the true sequence of the events of 1947-48 can serve as a basis for reconciliation between Jews and Arabs.” — Moshe Arens, former Defence Minister, Israel.

  • Psychologically, it is easier to embrace a good cause (or, for that matter, even a bad one) in simplistic, “black and white” terms. For many people a “good” cause is made up of people who suffer from “imperialism” and “colonialism”, plucky minorities, third-world victims of first-world oppression, revolutionary vanguards, and anyone put upon by the United States, Great Britain, France or any former “imperialist” power. Other “imperialist” powers, such as Russia, China or Iran, are conveniently overlooked or forgotten — not to mention the centuries of Islamist imperialism that covered Iran, Turkey, Greece, all of North Africa, Hungary, Serbia, the Balkans, virtually all of Eastern Europe and which we see still continuing.
  • The Palestinians, in this narrative of “good” and “bad” have purportedly been permanently “dispossessed” by, of all people, the Jews — whom they had the misfortune to attack in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 — and lose to.
  • If members of the new U.S. administration seek to advance the moribund “peace process”, they could find no better place to start than direct confrontation with Palestinian rejectionism. This means that those leaders must be pressed as hard as possible to end their persecution of their own populations.
  • There must be carrots, but there must also be sticks. The UN, the EU, and the OIC will offer only carrots. Will the U.S. now add the threat of real consequences to that mix?

With the advent of President Trump’s administration, massive changes are expected, not just on the domestic front, but internationally. One of the first regions that will require immediate attention is the Middle East, where the policies of the Obama administration have led to a diminished role for the United States and therefore for global freedom.

If the Trump administration is to make rapid progress in the peace process (to the extent there is one), their first priority must be to demolish the Palestinian narrative. It is a false narrative from beginning to end. It tells historical falsehoods about the origins of the “Palestinian” people, the precedence of Jews in the land, the Jewish and Christian identity of holy sites, and the self-inflicted “Nakba” of 1947-48. But a purely historical approach is unlikely to appeal on the political or emotional level. Something more has to be addressed. That something more must, it would seem, be a hard-headed dismissal of the narrative of Palestinian victimhood. It is this perception of Palestinians as the constant victims of an aggressive Israel that drives pro-Palestinian Christians, human rights activists, moral campaigners, socialists, and many others.

The importance of a shift in narratives cannot be overemphasized. It is the key to peace. “Just as real peace could come to Europe after World War II only after Germans abandoned the ‘German narrative’ and accepted the true history of the war that Germany started, so only abandonment of the ‘Palestinian narrative’ and acceptance of the true sequence of the events of 1947-48 can serve as a basis for reconciliation between Jews and Arabs,” wrote Moshe Arens, former Defence Minister of the State of Israel.

The Palestinian Arabs, their leaders, and their worldwide, manifold aiders and abettors have deluded the international media, the United Nations, politicians just about everywhere, religious leaders from most of the Christian churches, and human rights activists on every continent, into believing them to be the world’s greatest victims, a struggling and persecuted people whose woes and sufferings have for decades eclipsed those of every other suffering minority on the face of the planet. You never have to look far for evidence of this.

Writing in 2015, shortly after Mahmoud Abbas’s visit to the UN General Assembly, Dr. Eran Lerman of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies expressed this sense of Palestinian victimhood thus:

The speech delivered by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly last week was proof, once again, that the Palestinian “narrative” of victimhood has become a threat to any practical prospect for peace. Palestinian leaders consistently advance an interpretation of history which is at odds not only with the facts but also with their people’s best interests.

At the core of Abbas’ plaintive narration is the notion of the Palestinians as innocent victims, whose right to statehood and independence has been taken away and brutally ignored for much too long. In this telling of history, the Palestinians deserve to be backed by coercive intervention, as soon as possible, so as to impose on Israel a solution which would implement their “rights.”

Lerman adds:

“The false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood is a major hindrance to all efforts in the direction of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Global actors need to help the Palestinians move beyond wallowing in self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel, and towards difficult compromises with Israel.”

Writing at Honest Reporting in October 2016, Zahava Raymond speaks of an article in Ireland’s anti-Israel newspaper, the Irish Independent, promoting a photo exhibition entitled, “This is Palestine” by the choreographer and would-be Middle East authority, John McColgan.

In the world of the Irish Independent and McColgan’s exhibition, every Palestinian is a victim of Israeli oppression. There are no Palestinians who harm other Palestinians, and there are no Palestinians who harm Israelis. It is the usual, one-sided, simplistic narrative that the media generally favor, where Israelis = oppressors and Palestinians = victims.

This false trope of Palestinian victimhood is pretty well universal by now, and is seldom resisted or exposed anywhere outside media and political circles unless they are pro-Israel or genuinely balanced. Whether it be the New York Times, The Guardian, or The Independent.

It is not just the media that think that way. Many Protestant churches across the world adopt the same attitude. Writing for Commentary two years ago, Melanie Phillips declared that, “within the Protestant world, many churches are deeply hostile to the State of Israel. They present the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression while ignoring the murderous victimization of Israeli citizens at their hands.”

Psychologically, it is easier to embrace a good cause (or, for that matter, even a bad one) in simplistic, “black and white” terms. For many people a “good” cause is made up of people who suffer from “imperialism” and “colonialism”, plucky minorities, third-world victims of first-world oppression, revolutionary vanguards, and anyone put upon by the United States, Great Britain, France or any former “imperialist” power. Other “imperialist” powers, such as Russia, China or Iran, are conveniently overlooked or forgotten — not to mention the centuries of Islamist imperialism covering Iran, Turkey, Greece, all of North Africa, Hungary, Serbia, the Balkans, virtually all of Eastern Europe and which we see still continuing.

The Palestinians, in this narrative of “good” and “bad”, have purportedly been permanently “dispossessed” by, of all people, the Jews — whom they had the misfortune to attack in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 — and lose to. The Palestinians have been offered their own state time after time — if they will sign an “end of conflict” agreement. They not only turned down the UN Partition Plan in 1947, they also refused 97% of their demands offered first by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. They even refused to negotiate — “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations” — in Khartoum, three months after the Six Day War they lost in 1967. The Israeli-Palestinian cause, therefore, has to be the blackest and whitest of all: before you attack another country, keep in mind that you might lose. In the Palestinian narrative, any hint of grey, any introduction of counter-arguments, any presentation of different facts is anathema. Only the flat, false and unvarnished Palestinian “truth” must be permitted.

In Khartoum, three months after the Six Day War they lost in 1967, Arab leaders refused to negotiate with Israel — “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations”. Pictured from left to right, on September 2, 1967 in Khartoum: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Abdullah Sallal of Yemen, Sheikh Ahmad Sabah of Kuwait and Abd al-Rahman Arif of Iraq. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Bibliotheca Alexandrina)

Here is where it gets tricky. It does not take much study to learn that the Palestinians have actually been responsible for a lot of bad things themselves. Innocent Jews have been victims of decades of Palestinian wars of aggression and terrorism. Things are far from being black and white. This means that supporters of the Palestinians have to create a narrative of their own or embrace one invented by Palestinian propagandists. On one hand, the Israelis (aka the Jews) must have done “all the bad things” that are thought to have taken place in the territory set aside by the League of Nations for the Palestine Mandate. On the other, nothing “bad” can ever be said to have been done by any Palestinian. The violence, the killings, the terrorism can only be from one side, the Israeli one, whereas the Palestinian Arabs are only to be seen as the victims of Israeli barbarism and Jewish ill will.

This one-sided concern to absolve the Palestinians of their many sins and, what is worse, to offload those sins onto Jews and Israelis, has consequences. Perhaps the most serious of those is that Palestinians are deprived of any sense of responsibility. To be ever passive, to suffer and never act, to complain yet never offer constructive suggestions — or even counter-offers — for a way out of suffering, in the end strips the Palestinians of any sense of agency.

To become agents of their own destiny, it is time for the Palestinians — as a group and through their leadership — to take action to resolve their internal difficulties and their engagement with the outside world. This will require a realism that has been absent from their lives for so long, a sense of purpose for an achievable goal (namely, a state that does not entail the abolition of Israel), and a recognition of their own mistakes over many decades.

Palestinian refusal so far to do any of these things exposes a deep psychological problem, a problem that has trapped them in an endless round of violence and rejectionism — tragically, one entirely contradictory to their own best interests. People who suffer generally opt for solutions they are offered, even if acting on them involves some pain. Someone dying of cancer or diabetic complications will usually agree to a mastectomy or an amputation on the understanding that it will save his life. The Palestinians have no hope of ever beating Israel so long as they cling to the old formula of “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” Yet they have consistently refused to take the least action that might bring them better lives, regardless of how far it is obvious that Israel seeks a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

If members of the new US administration seek to advance the moribund “peace process”, they could find no better place to start than direct confrontation with Palestinian rejectionism. No one wishes to see ordinary Palestinians suffer needlessly, but so long as their leaders persist in a preference for victimhood, that suffering will not be relieved. This means that those leaders must be pressed as hard as possible to end their persecution of their own populations. If necessary, Palestinians must be presented with a stark choice between violence and freedom. There must be carrots, but there must also be sticks. The UN, the EU, and the OIC will offer only carrots. Will the U.S. now add the threat of real consequences to that mix?

Dr. Denis MacEoin was a university lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

After Middle East, Will Islamists Uproot Christians in Europe? by Giulio Meotti

  • About terrorism and Islamist violence, Christian leaders offer only words of relativism and moral equivalence. Is it possible that after two recent big massacres of Christians, Catholic leaders have not a single word of courage and honor, but only the same offer of the other cheek?

  • Our secular elites condemn proselytizing only when it is practiced by Christians, never when practiced by Muslims.
  • In Syria and Iraq, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of places of Christian worship that Islamic fundamentalists have demolished in the past three years. These images, along with the mass decapitations and the rape of the minorities, shock the public, it seems, for one day.

We do not yet know enough about the three terrorists who, saying “This is for Allah!”, killed and wounded so many in London on June 4, but consider these two recent scenes:

Scene one: Manchester, United Kingdom, the “free world”. A British-born Muslim terrorist prays in a former church. All around him, the Christian sites and congregations accepted being turned into Islamic sites. The day after, this terrorist goes on a rampage, murdering 22 concert-goers.

Scene two: Minya, Egypt, the “unfree world”. An Islamist terror group stops a bus full of Christian pilgrims. The terrorists demand that their victims recite the Islamic creed, the shahaada. The Christians refuse to abandon Christianity and become Muslims. The Islamists murder them, one by one.

What do these scenes tell us? Christians resist Islam more in the Middle East than in Europe.

Salman Abedi, the British terrorist who massacred 22 innocent men, women and children at the Manchester Arena, could, every day, enter what was once a beautiful Christian church, consecrated in 1883. It was desecrated in the 1960s, during a great wave of secularization. People still remember the Methodist Church that it was until it was bought by the local Syrian Muslim community to make it a place of Islamic worship, the Didsbury Mosque. One can still see the typical architecture of a church, from the bell tower to the windows. But inside, instead of an altar, Abedi would be headed to the mihrab, the niche in the mosque that indicates the direction of Mecca. The pulpit is still there, but it is no longer used by a Christian pastor. It is used by the imam for the Khutba, the Islamic prayer.

Outside the Didsbury Mosque there is a sign announcing: “Do you want to know more about Islam? Come and socialize”. Such a sign for Christianity would be unthinkable in any European city. Our secular elites condemn proselytizing only when it is practiced by Christians, never when practiced by Muslims. On YouTube, an Islamist organization celebrates “the church converted to a mosque“. Instead of the times for Mass, there is another sign: “Prayer Room for Men”.

A few days after the Manchester attack, Islamists again struck Christians; this time, pilgrims in Egypt. That attack took place after Pope Francis’s trip to Egypt, where he offered the local suffering Christians only a vague condemnation of “every form of hatred in the name of religion“. The head of the Catholic Church evidently did not have the courage to address the question of Islamic fundamentalism, as had his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, at Regensburg.

“Religions do not cause violence and terrorism”, assured the new head of Italian bishops, Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, after the massacre in Manchester, adding: “Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in a single creator”. Unfortunately, the terrorists murdered the Christians in Minya because they believe Allah is superior to the Judeo-Christian religion, and gives them the right to take the lives of “disbelievers”.

About terrorism and Islamist violence, Christian leaders offer only words of relativism and moral equivalence. Is it possible that after two big massacres of Christians, Catholic leaders have not a single word of courage and honor, but only the same offer of the other cheek?

The most honest Catholic prelate was the Archbishop of Ferrara, Luigi Negri, who said:

“I hope that some of these gurus — cultural, political and religious — in this situation will hold back words and not invoke the usual speeches to say that ‘it is not a war of religion’. I hope there is a silent moment of respect”.

The gurus, unfortunately, did not hold back; they had words only of weakness and confusion.

These Islamic fighters, such as those who hit Manchester and Minya, are not “radicalized”; they follow an Islamic religious dictate according to a literal reading of the Koran. They attack Europeans because they believe that Islam is superior and stronger than Europe. They feel that Allah and history are on their side. They want to see the flag of Islam flying across Western capitals.

The jihadists might think they can do to Europe what they did to Christians in Niniveh, Iraq. The only way we can win is by defeating them; no compromise is possible. But Europe speaks of “inclusion” and “integration”, never of victory.

While Muslims pray in Europe’s former Christian sites, Christians in the Middle East are murdered for refusing to renounce Christianity and convert to Islam. Father Antonio Gabriel, of the San Mina parish of the Coptic church in Rome, in the course of an interview with Tg2000, revealed the dynamics of the new Islamist aggression against the Egyptian Coptic community. The terrorists, before killing the passengers of two buses traveling to the San Samuele monastery, “asked them to give up Christ and become Muslims”. But, at the demand for apostasy, the Christian Copts responded negatively. The rejection of conversion to Islam triggered the fury of terrorists, who “put the gun on the head and neck” of pilgrims “to kill them directly”.

“If they had accepted”, Father Gabriel pointed out, “they would have spared them”.

The same strong-arming took place in Iraq. When ISIS militants gave four Iraqi children the choice of converting to Islam or death by beheading, the children chose to follow Jesus and were murdered.

But these amazing stories never reach the European mainstream newspapers and televisions, as if the information might disturb our self-righteous certainties. “For decades, the Middle East’s increasingly beleaguered Christian communities have suffered from a fatal invisibility in the Western world”, Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times. Is that invisibility the result of the West forsaking of its own identity, as happened with the church in Manchester?

In Syria and Iraq, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of places of Christian worship that Islamic fundamentalists have demolished in the past three years. These images shock public opinion, it seems, for one day — along with the mass decapitations and the rape of the minorities. Churches, cemeteries and archaeological sites — every building that carried the symbols of the Christian faith (crosses, statues of the Virgin Mary, icons of the saints, even graves) — were razed to the ground. But is the demise of Christianity in the heart of Europe, by churches converted to mosques, less severe? And why has Pope Francis not condemned the abandonment of Christian holy sites and their takeover by Islam?

Archpriest Dmitri Smirnov, chairman of the Russian Orthodox Church Commission on Family Matters, recently announced:

“There is very little time left until the death of the entire Christian Civilization. Several decades, perhaps 30 years, well, maybe in Russia it will last 50, no longer.”

It is impossible for any observer to deny that Christianity is descending into a terminal crisis in Europe. Catholic leaders in the Netherlands estimate that two-thirds of their 1,600 churches will be out of use in a decade, and that 700 Dutch Protestant churches will be closed within four years. The Church of England closes around 20 churches a year. The Catholic Church in Germany has closed about 515 churches over the last ten years. You find the same scenario everywhere in Europe.

“I have often heard from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: their faith and their birthrate,” said the Maronite patriarch of Antioch, Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai. “So when they come to Europe and see the empty churches, and find the unbelief of Europeans, they immediately think that they will fill that void”.

This is one of the most tragic ironies of our time: that Christians in Europe, including Pope Francis, have a lot to learn from Christians in Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, the Maronite patriarch of Antioch, has said “I have often heard from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: their faith and their birthrate… So when they come to Europe and see the empty churches, and find the unbelief of Europeans, they immediately think that they will fill that void”. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images)

After another ISIS jihadist slit the throat of an 85-year-old priest, Father Jacques Hamel, during a Catholic mass in France, no rally was called to protest his murder. No secular personality or newspaper said, “We are all Christians”. The entire Christian establishment refused to write the word “Islam”.

Make no mistake; these Islamists are very clear in their goal: eradicating Christians not only from Mosul, as they did in 2014, but also uprooting Christians from Manchester, where churches are already converted to Islam. The pumped-up forces who drove Christians out of their ancestral lands rightly thought: Why not continue in the West the work begun so well in the East?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

ACT NOW! Tell Companies to Pressure Twitter to Stop Running Their Ads on Pages that Promote Terror

Companies’ ads are appearing on ISIS terrorist Twitter accounts, but do the advertiser’s know this? Social media sites allow terrorist groups to publish videos that incite to violence and murder. Tell companies to demand that social sites stop promoting terror or they will stop buying ads.


It’s bad enough that sites like Facebook and YouTube allow terrorist elements to incite to violence online. But what about the companies whose ads appear alongside these dangerous posts? Are the companies okay with their logo and ad showing up next to a call to murder Jews?

Assuming this is not the case, it is up to us to inform some of these companies that their ads are appearing in the wrong places. These companies will, hopefully, turn to the social media sites and insist on preventing their ads from being displayed alongside terror-inciting videos and posts.

This is where you come in. We need your help in contacting these companies to inform them how their ads are damaging and unacceptable. Tell them to wake up and ensure that their ads do not contribute to terror incitement, nor allow for profiteering from online terror.

Not only does Twitter allow ads to appear on these offending pages, but Twitter allows these terrorists to use the social media site freely! For instance, the following ISIS terrorist using Twitter delights in the fact that Twitter only shut him down temporarily:

Accept Islamic Terror as the New Normal? by Nonie Darwish

  • “The use of terror under this doctrine [Targhib wal tarhib, “luring and terrorizing”] is a legitimate sharia obligation.” — Salman Al Awda, mainstream Muslim sheikh, on the Al Jazeera television show “Sharia and Life”.

  • Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs.
  • Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

After terror attacks, we often hear from Western media and politicians that we must accept terrorist attacks as the “new normal.”

For Western citizens, this phrase is dangerous.

Islam’s doctrine of jihad, expansion and dawah (Islamic outreach, proselytizing) rely heavily on the use of both terror and luring. Targhib wal tarhib is an Islamic doctrine that means “seducing (luring) and terrorizing” as a tool for dawah, to conquer nations and force citizens to submit to Islamic law, sharia. It amounts to manipulating the instinctive parts of the human brain with extreme opposing pressures of pleasure and pain — rewarding, then severely punishing — to brainwash people into complying with Islam.

Most ordinary Muslims are not even aware of this doctrine, but Islamic books have been written about it. Mainstream Muslim sheikhs such as Salman Al Awda have discussed it on Al Jazeera TV. On a show called “Sharia and Life,” Al Awda recommended using extremes “to exaggerate… reward and punishment, morally and materially… in both directions”. “The use of terror under this doctrine,”‘ he said, “is a legitimate sharia obligation.”

People in the West think of terror as something that Islamic jihadists inflict on non-Muslims, and it is. But terror is also the mechanism for ensuring compliance within Islam. Under Islamic law, jihadists who evade performing jihad are to be killed. Terror is thus the threat that keeps jihadists on their missions, and that make ordinary Muslims obey sharia.

An online course for recruiting jihadists contains this description:

“Individual Dawa depends on eliciting emotional responses from recruits (and building a personal relationship). Abu ‘Amr’s approach illustrates a recruitment concept called al-targhib wa’l-tarhib, which is a carrot-and-stick technique of extolling the benefits of action while explaining the frightening costs of inaction. The concept was introduced in the Qur’an and is discussed by many Islamic thinkers exploring the best way to call people to Islam (several scholars, for example, have written books titled al-targhib wa’l-tarhib). According to Abu ‘Amr, recruiters should apply the concept throughout the recruitment process, but emphasize the benefits of action early in the process and the costs of inaction later.”

In other words, recruiters of jihadists should start by emphasizing the “good stuff” first, the “lure” — the future glory, supremacy and fulfillment of every lustful wish, such as virgins in heaven. Later, they should threaten the recruits with “terror” and shame — the consequence if they fail to participate in jihad.

Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are more discrete, but they tolerate and support honor killings; killing apostates; beating women and children, and torture and murder in their jails. The doctrine of targhib and tarhib is alive and well, not just in Islamic theocracies but also in the so-called “moderate” Muslim countries.

Islam has been using these “pleasure and pain” brainwashing techniques, and cruel and unusual punishment, from its inception and until today. While the Bible — the Western Judeo-Christian tradition — is in harmony with, and nurtures, kindness in human nature, Islam does the opposite: it uses the human instincts for self-preservation and survival to break the people’s will and brainwash them into slavish obedience.

Like the majority of Muslims, I never heard of this foundational Islamic doctrine when I was growing up in Egypt, but have felt the impact of this doctrine on my life — in every aspect of Islamic culture; in Islamic preaching, in my Islamic family relations; in how Islamic governments operate and how people of authority, in general, treat the people under them.

The Islamic doctrine of “lure and terror” has produced a culture of toxic extremes: distrust and fear, pride and shame, permission to lie (“taqiyya“), and rejecting taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Having lived most of my life under Islam, I am sad to say that people the West calls “moderate Muslims” are frequently, in fact, citizens who have learned to live with and accept terror as normal. For centuries, many have made excuses for terror, condemned victims of terror, remained silent or equivocal, and have even compromised with the terrorists to survive. The Islamic culture in which I lived looked the other way when women were beaten. When girls were honor-murdered, the question was “what did she do?” instead of “how could that be?” When Christians were killed and persecuted, many blamed the Christians for their own persecution at the hands of Muslims. The normal Islamic response to terror became: “None of my business.”

And now the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib, has moved to the West and aims at changing Western humanistic culture. It would replace respect for human rights, caring for one’s neighbor and the values of freedom and peace, with the values of bondage, terror, tyranny and fear.

Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

It did not take long for the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib to work on the psyche of Western leaders and media, who are now telling us to live with it as the “new normal.” Islam counts on turning everyone into “moderate” Muslims who will eventually look the other way when terror happens to the person next to you.

The new normal? Police help survivors of the terrorist attack on London Bridge, June 4, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values.”

Academic Freedom Opposed by “Who”? by Douglas Murray

Do students in any British or American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to think they should be?


It is that time of year again. News arrives of 343 “university teachers” who signed a letter pledging that henceforth they will not cooperate with Israeli academic institutions. Their joint letter took up a full page today in Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper (where else?) and has caused almost no stir in Britain. It comes days after a letter signed by 150 leading British writers, musicians and others — including JK Rowling, Simon Schama and Hilary Mantel — opposed any and all such boycotts against Israel, and pointed out that in the eyes of most people, intellectual and cultural exchange is a good thing.

The anti-boycott letter was signed by some of Britain’s leading intellectuals. The main response to the pro-boycott letter, however, may well be, “Who?” Who knew, for instance, that Israel — or any state — would be diminished if it could not gain from the wisdom of Professor Alex Callinicos, one of Britain’s most obscure Marxist academics? He is the author of numerous interminable tracts; his efforts to bring his thoughts into mainstream politics reached their summit during his involvement with the Socialist Worker’s Party, an entity too extreme even for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. As almost nobody in Britain wants Prof. Callinicos’s thoughts, why would anybody in Israel be begging for them?

Or consider another figure on the letter, one Professor Jane Hardy who teaches at the University of Hertfordshire. It would come as a great surprise to most people in Britain — and possibly to many people in Hertfordshire — that such an institution exists. But a quick internet search reveals that it does, and that until 1992 it was known as “Hatfield Polytechnic.” So what are the students in Israel unilaterally going to lose the right to know, thanks to the stance taken by Professor Hardy? Well, her own profile page says, “My research and publications on regional development, and the gender and class impacts of change have been underpinned by a concern with the lives of ordinary people and how they have contested neoliberalism.” One tries to be polite, of course, but it is worth pointing out that this kind of “study” has never been helpful in finding a place in the job-market for British students (apart, possibly, in furthering their studies in low-grade academia). Why the withdrawal of Prof. Hardy’s research on regional development, gender and class in a Hertfordshire context should be such a loss to students in Israel, one is at a loss to guess.

Others on the list comprise a list of the even more obscure and unknown. Perhaps their families know who some of them are? The majority are from Britain’s second or third tier universities, former polytechnics misguidedly rebranded as universities, which have lowered the coinage of universities as a whole. Of course, there is, as usual, the requisite smattering of Jewish names, brought to the fore by the petition’s organizers in an attempt to cover over the latent bigotry and racism of their letter. But what a chorus of presumption and self-importance is there.

Just consider the reasoning behind the letter and you will see that it shows the tragically low bar now needed in Britain to qualify as an academic.

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, for instance, speaking for the organizers of the boycott letter, says, “Israel universities are at the heart of Israel’s violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinian people.” Is that really true? Take one of the hardest measures that the Israeli state has ever had to carry out against those who carry out suicide terrorism against its people: home demolition (in which the home of a terrorist is destroyed after the case has gone through the courts, because it is hard to find many ways to dissuade someone from doing something if they are willing to die in the process: but what happens to their family home afterwards can provide a disincentive). Does anybody know how Prof. Rosenhead has come to the belief that home demolition of suicide bombers is work carried out by the universities of Israel? Ordinarily it would be the IDF or other security forces that would carry out such regrettable work. Does Prof. Rosenhead really have evidence that it is in fact Israeli academics who are sent to carry out such an order? It seems vanishingly unlikely. And even if one academic somewhere in Israel had been involved, why should that affect somebody studying literature at a university in Tel Aviv? Do students in any British or American university have to be held responsible for the actions of the British or American armed forces in Northern Ireland or Iraq? Would we not think it the grossest ignorance, not to mention bad manners, to think they should be?

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics, is one of the organisers of an academic boycott of Israel.

Prof. Rosenhead’s view of what ordinary academics are up against appears to be skewed at home as well as abroad. At the launch of his racist petition he announced, “These signatures were all collected despite the pressures that can be put on people not to criticise the state of Israel.” I do not know where he thinks such pressure comes from. To my eye the only people who exert any pressure not to sign boycott letters are a couple of small Zionist organisations in the UK. It is hard to believe that this comprises a force that is feared by these brave signatories unless the idea that the organizers are in fact playing into is that there is always some price to pay for standing up to “Jewish interests” and “Jewish power.” Racism like that has not been heard in Britain for many decades. How unpleasant to hear it bubbling up again from the obscurest backwaters of academia.

Page 400 of 419
1 398 399 400 401 402 419
Skip to toolbar