Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Thursday, 21 July 2016

Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump?

The following is an edited version of an address given by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled ‘A World War Has Begun’.
I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, “Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to “Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit.”
Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 – the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.
Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.
Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called “Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.
On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body.” A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies”; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.
Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.
I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us. The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions” of democratic societies. He called it an “invisible government”.
How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.
In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It was all fake. He was lying.
US president Barack Obama. (IMAGE: whoohoo120, Flickr)US president Barack Obama. (IMAGE: whoohoo120, Flickr)
The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.
A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear]weapon more thinkable.”
In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.
Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union – has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.
This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.
In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.
What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.
Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”.  According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.
What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.
What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.
I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.
All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.
The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” – a Dan Rather equivalent, say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.
The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear-armed bombers.
This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.
In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.
Donald Trump speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (IMAGE: Gage Skidmore, Flickr). Donald Trump speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (IMAGE: Gage Skidmore, Flickr).
In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.
Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.
According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them?
This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.
No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.
Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.
As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.
new matilda, droneA US Predator Drone. (IMAGE: Wikipedia).
Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”
One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.
Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.
A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported – such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton; such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.
Self-absorption, a kind of “me-ism”, became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signalled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality, racism and sexism.
Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening – as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.
In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.
In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.
In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war. There was no debate. Silence.
What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?
Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

Thursday, 31 December 2015

SAUDI WOMAN GANG-RAPED, COURT GIVES HER 200 LASHES AND JAIL TERM

The Victim is Raped and then lashed!!

This is just about how ridiculous and dumb the Saudi-Islamic-Shariat law is: A woman can never ever get justice under such a legal system, as first she herself will stand accused for" going out alone". Horrendous. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
SAUDI WOMAN GANG-RAPED, COURT GIVES HER 200 LASHES AND JAIL TERM

By Amando Flavio

http://www.middleeastrising.com/saudi-woman-gang-raped-court-gives-her-200-lashes-and-jail-term/

A court in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has sentenced a woman who was gang-raped by seven men to 200 lashes and six months in jail after being found guilty of speaking to the media about the crime and indecency.

According to the account of the story reported by the Middle East Monitor, the 19-year-old Shia woman was in the car of a student friend when two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area, where she was raped by the seven men.

She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in a car of a man who was not related to her. Commentators say Saudi Arabia’s law dictates that a male family member must accompany a woman at all times in public.

The Press TV reports that the rapists were surprisingly sentenced to five years in prison. And it is unclear why the rapists were handed this light sentence, considering the fact that they could have faced the death penalty.

Lawyer for the woman, Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, appealed to the Saudi General Court after the sentence was handed down. However, the court reviewed the sentence, increasing it to 200 lashes. The court held that the woman had spoken to the media. The lawyer was also banned from the case; his license was confiscated, and was summoned to a disciplinary hearing.

After this new ruling, court officials said in a statement published on the official Saudi Press Agency“For whoever has an objection on verdicts issued, the system allows to appeal without resorting to the media”.

The verdict has been criticized by a number of activists and human rights organizations around the world. Human Rights Watch condemned the ruling, saying it creates grounds for perpetrators of sexual violence against women to continue their crime.

“Not only sends victims of sexual violence the message that they should not press charges, but in effect offers protection and impunity to the perpetrators”, the organization said in a statement.

But the Kingdom replied such criticisms, faulting the woman for going out without a male family member.

The Saudi Ministry of Justice said in a statement “The Ministry of Justice welcomes constructive criticism, away from emotions”.

In September 2014, the United Nations (UN) elected Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UN, Faisal Tradas the new Chairman for the UN Human Rights Council Panel.

The UN Watch, a non-governmental watchdog organization based in Geneva, urged the US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power and EU foreign minister, Federica Mogherini to speak against, and lobby for the appointment to be reversed due to Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record.

“It is scandalous that the UN chose a country that has beheaded more people this year than ISIS to be head of a key human rights panel. Petro-dollars and politics have trumped human rights. Saudi Arabia has arguably the worst record in the world when it comes to religious freedom and women’s rights, and continues to imprison the innocent blogger Raif Badawi”, the organization said.

Good Read: The ‘Anti-Imperialist’ Who Got Libya Wrong Serves Up The Same Failed Analysis on Syria

By Stephen Gowans
Paris Match: Many people say the solution lies in your departure. Do you believe that your departure is the solution?

Syrian president Assad: What was the result (of NATO policy when they attacked Gaddafi)? Chaos ensued after Gaddafi’s departure. So, was the departure the solution? Have things improved, and has Libya become a democracy? [1]

Why the West Can Never Defeat or “Forgive” Russia

Historically and intuitively, Russia has fought for the survival of humanity. Of course, things are not always pronounced or defined in such terms. However, already on several occasions, this enormous country has stood up against the most mighty and evil forces that have threatened the very survival of our Planet.

During the Second World War, the Soviet people, mainly Russians, sacrificed at least 25 million men, women and children, in the end defeating Nazism. No other country in modern history has undergone more.

Tuesday, 22 December 2015

ISIS, Al Qaeda And The CIA: The Documented Connection By Tyler Durden

ISIS, Al Qaeda And The CIA: The Documented Connection

December 19, 2015

The Middle East is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, and one growing to towering heights these days says the US created the Islamic State.  But while the US may well have aided ISIS in its formative days with covert supplies of weapons and CIA funding (directly or indirectly, via Turkey leading political families) the one nation most responsible for iteration after iteration of “terrorist organizations” is Saudi Arabia which “created” not only the Islamic State, but al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and many other Sunni Jihadist groups in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan.
The US has long been aware of this, of course, and it has provided material support to some of them in the distant past, for example to the Taliban in the war against Russia.  But the more reasonable among us have questioned recent claims that the US intentionally created the Islamic State, a group of the same lineage as the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Those rejecting a direct link between the US and the Islamic State instead ask a perfectly logical question: why would the US allow a country ruled by monarchs with dark-age-sensibilities get away with attacking us on 9/11, funding al-Qadea in Iraq (a group that killed a few thousand US soldiers), and now the Islamic State?  Two answers: fat, senile Saudi kings are preferable to the Islamic monsters that would replace them in a regime change, and the Bush family/Carlyle Group would prefer not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Thanks to the resurrection of “J Pierpont Morgan”, these doubts and questions are no longer reasonable.  They are, in fact, irrelevant.  Because J Pierpont Morgan, apparently experiencing a Scrooge-like transformation, has seen the light.  Yesterday he tweeted three public source documents that conclusively show a Senior CIA Spy- a major figure in operations from South America to the Middle East-is lobbying the US Government to destroy Iraq and formally create an independent Sunnistan on behalf of a Sunni terrorist.
123
That terrorist joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous “Surge.”  Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money- that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia.  No CIA.  No Surge.  No money.  Just the wasteland that is Anbar, and a Baghdad government intent on consolidating power at Sulayman’s expense.
His Eminence, with his children in need of Bugatti supercars, flats in London, multiple Vertu mobiles, and an entourage of slaves, did what any good dad would: he created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC.  The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq.  His allies: the Ba’ath and ISIS.
In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, “former” Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist.  Makes sense.  CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress.  Anyway, Mr. Greenhill incorporated the Greenhill Group, and Sulayman retained him.  One wonders how Sulayman became aware of Greenhill’s lobbying venture. 
Mr. Greenhill’s LinkedIn page says he “conceptualized and executed one of the Agency’s most successful counterterrorism covert action operations while leading a CIA Base in an exceptionally dangerous, high stress war zone environment.”  Might that be the Surge?  Might Mr. Greenhill have played a role in funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to members of the AQ Iraq insurgency like Sulayman?
Oddly enough, Mr. Greenhill has a Facebook page too.
Who knows?  What we do know is one of the most important spies in the CIA, one with a major role in the Near East (probably Iraq), definitely was retained as a lobbyist by Sulayman.  And Sulayman retained him to “create an autonomous Sunni region in Iraq or an independent Sunni State.”  In other words, destroy Iraq by formally creating and recognizing Sunni-Jihadi-stan.  Or a safe-zone for Sunni terrorists.  Or what it actually is, a caliphate.  It was recently written in the Washington Post that many Shia Iraqis harbor the conspiratorial belief the US created the Islamic State to destroy Iraq.  Conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact.
Reprinted with permission from Zero Hedge.

Sunday, 20 December 2015

“ISIS Is A True Product Of Salafism" ~ Former Imam of Mecca


Former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca: “ISIS Is A True Product Of Salafism And We Must Deal With It With Full Transparency”

Former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca has announced that ISIS is the result of the Salafi version of Islam
Sheikh ‘Aadel Al-Kalbani, , and therefore there needs to be changes within the Salafi sect itself.
“ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”  

This statement was made not by liberal Muslim elements, who regularly criticize Salafism, but by Sheikh ‘Aadel Al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and a Salafi himself, hence its importance. Al-Kalbani is not the first Salafi to come out against ISIS – other Saudis have condemned the organization’s conduct and operations – but Al-Kalbani has gone farther in his criticism: he has come out against the principles of the Salafi perception from which ISIS and its ilk draw, and has called for a rationalistic approach to Islam’s distant past and what it means for Islam today instead of a blind reenactment of it.

In two articles in the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, Al-Kalbani criticized elements in the Salafi stream for appropriating the truth and Islam and for permitting the killing of their opponents, and likewise criticized clerics and society that dared not come out against them. He stated that the call to blindly reenact the path of the Prophet Muhammad and of the forefathers of Islam stems from a faulty grasp of the essence of this path, and that Muhammad himself had rejected blind adoption of the perceptions of the past and blind following of the path of his predecessors, choosing instead a rationalistic approach appropriate for a changing reality. Al-Kalbani stated that clerics must take their heads out of the sand and move with the spirit of the times instead of rejecting and condemning any new idea.

This is not the first time that Al-Kalbani has challenged the mainstream Saudi clerics. He has harshly attacked suicide bombings, [1] published a fatwa permitting poetry,[2] and called for allowing women to drive cars.[3]

The following are translated excerpts from his two recent articles in Al-Riyadh:

“ISIS Is A True Product Of Salafism And We Must Deal With It With Full Transparency”

On August 15, 2014, Sheikh Al-Kalbani tweeted (@abuabdelelah): “ISIS is a true product of Salafism and we must deal with it with full transparency.” DIRECT LINK TO TWEET HERE.

This statement sparked reactions across the social networks, and 10 days later, on August 24, Al-Kalbani wrote in an Al-Riyadh article titled “Is Terrorism A Salafi Product?”: “Every time we see the fitna network sweeping up young people from among our sons… [and pitching them into] to a very deep abyss from which they will emerge only by means of idioms that drip blood, our conscience torments us and we wonder: From whence has this come upon us? How have they fallen into this? As if we could not do a thing before then.

“But the opposite is true: The main reason for their deviation is our neglect – and by ‘our’neglect I mean the [neglect of the] generation of the parents, and of the honorable members of society among the clerics, teachers, preachers, jurisprudents, and sociologists who are linked directly to that society. The words, the books, the sermons, the dramas, and all the artistic creativity and the essential link [to the audience] that these people present in all the media, whether print, radio, or television, [allow them] to monitor the ideas of the young people and to participate in balancing them. I exclude [of course] that tiniest of minorities whose throat is parched from warning about the extremism of theSalafis.

“Yes, this is the plant that has sprouted in the garbage dump of those who excessively pass judgment on others and pretend to represent Salafism. How gravely they have accused others of apostasy, of deviating from the right path, of heresy, and of licentiousness – as if the arena lies open before them and there is nobody to condemn them and no judge to punish them. Furthermore, they are received with feigned respect and admiration, and opportunities have been opened to them to plant in the minds of our young people that this one has gone astray and that one is an infidel and the other one is lax in religionEven the greatest of clerics, past and present, are not spared their arrows. They spread the principles of Islam in a twisted manner that makes them incomprehensible or distorted, and preserve things that negate Islam. They measure the judge, the educated, and the student, and even the simple folk by what they [i.e. these extremists] have learned by heart [but] do not understand, and think that they are entitled to rule that the above mentioned are apostates and to call down upon them the punishments of Allah that are no longer implemented and [by so doing, they think that they will] restore the glory and splendor of monotheism.

“This group thinks that no one but itself and its supporters are the source of good and the defenders of monotheism – because [its members] imbibed with their mothers’milk [the view] that all Muslims worldwide do not understand [monotheism] and that they are not worshipping only Allah but are polytheists who worship graves… and that there are no just clerics besides their own clerics and their disciples. [They think that] only a cleric whom they love, whom they heed and obey, and on whose say they reject or validate [others] – only he holds the truth and acts in accordance with the ways of[Islam’s] just forefathers…They spread out and multiply, and publicly call for following in the footsteps of some sheikh and for accepting his words in full. They have begun to classify people, preachers, and clerics – [for example,] this sheikh shouldn’t be listened to because he is more loathsome than the Jews and the Christians, and that fatwa deviates [from the right path], so it is forbidden to pray behind anyone who adopts it, or to sit with him, eat with him or respect him. They have begun… to separate the young people from the clerics who understand the result of [this activity by them] and what difficulties they are going to cause the nation.

“Actually, there is no connection between the path of these extremists and the [true] path of the Salafis – which is tolerance, compassion, and gentleness, and in which there is no place for extremism and [religious] fanaticism. [Salafism] is a path that spreads love, brotherhood, and acceptance of the other among Muslims and coexistence with non-Muslims. But the thing is to understand it and to implement it – and not [just to] pretend [to do so] – in a way that is compatible with the deep roots of the past and with the demands of the present.

“[However,] what is needed is a perception for reforming ideas, not admonitions, reproof, reactions and word-sparing that deal with the symptom and ignore the disease! There is still enough time to rehabilitate [these ideas], ideologically and practically, and to prevent society from splitting into sects and groups that throng after dignitaries who are enveloped in an aura of immunity [to sin and error] and sanctity, with each group thinking that it has the right to guide the nation and recruit its young people.

“A plant is always like its roots. If we want a good, fruitful plant, it is incumbent upon everyone to care for its roots, its water sources, the spread of its branches, and the fertility of the earth [from which it grows], and to protect it from ideas and viruses that turn its fruit and seeds to poison from which the generations sip and on which the young people grow up; from [these seeds] sprouts a plant that has in it no place for compassion and to whom love and friendship are totally alien.”

“We Remain Trapped In The Dungeons Of The Very Distant Past”; We Should “Rely On The Past As A Foundation” For Building The Present And Future, Not Destroying Them.

On August 31, 2014, Al-Kalbani published another article, “The Chains of the Past,” in which he criticized the Salafism that advocates uncritical reliance on Islam’s past, and called for a rationalistic critical approach. He wrote: “We never stop elevating the past at any cost, so much so that it has taken over our lives and thwarted our management of our present, and I do not know what it will do to our future. We claim that the past is the perception, the deeds, and the outlook of the forefathers [of Islam], to the point where if a catastrophe happens to one of us, he hastens to seek a solution for his catastrophe in a book written hundreds of years ago! And then we shout loudly, ‘Islam is compatible with every time and every place[!]’
“What is very strange is that we remain trapped in the dungeons of the very distant past, chewing over the words of Malik [bin Anas[4]], may the peace of Allah be upon him, ‘The last of this ummah will not be successful unless they follow the same [pattern] that was successful in the hands of its first ones,’ and think that what it means is that we must remain in the first century of the era of the mission [of the Prophet Muhammad], in the same style of life, and in the same patterns and knowledge that he had.

“From these words [of Malik bin Anas] I do not understand that our past [must] control our present and constrain our future; rather, I understand that [the past] is what caused the Prophet’s honorable Companions to change their perception, and brought about their wonderful transition from the caves of darkness and straying into the light of truth… What improved the situation of the first generation [of Islam] was not preserving the heritage of the forefathers and the ideas of the previous generations, but the complete opposite. The first generation [of Islam] abandoned the [pattern] of blind imitation, and with the descent [of Koran 96:1] ‘Recite in the name of your Lord,’ the use of the mind began, after it was neglected for many centuries; the wagon of change began to move and to shift the bitter reality full of oppression, backwardness, and idolatry with lofty and clear rational truths. They [the members of the first generation] opened their eyes to what had [always] been in front of them, but which the fog of imitating what their forefathers did had prevented them from seeing… until the honored Koran arrived and removed this fog and enabled them to see what they had been blind to, and to distinguish what they had not noticed [before].

“In the same spirit, I want the past to free us from the yoke of the backwards present – not drag us towards it. I want our past to make us see reality as it is, and for us to rely on it in the areas of development and culture, and for us to emerge from it with momentum towards the horizons of the future and with an enlightened perception. This [should be done] under the direction of the two revelations [the Koran and the Sunna] – and not by means of the opinions of people who have invested most of their efforts in studying that era [of early Islam].
“We should rely on the past as a foundation from which we head out to the future and to the building of the present; this is better than turning the past into [something] that binds our hands and arouses among us rivalry, conflict, and opinions for which we fight and as a result of which we weaken and splinter. Had we done this [from the outset], we would be sitting on the throne of the pinnacle of culture.

“We must acknowledge that our past contains things that are not compatible with our present. The religious collapse of the West happened only after it became fully aware of the depth of the yawning chasm between the scientific knowledge that serves the culture that the human mind has attained and the religious beliefs and laws set out by the church, which included beliefs that had been distorted or misunderstood, or were not appropriate for every time.

“From among those who call for absolute adherence to the past there has emerged a young generation that defends and fights for opinions and ways that are devoid of the [the correct] Islamic concepts and religious views that can guide the ummah in the right direction. This gang, that has granted itself the right to banish mindshas not grasped the situation of the ummah, and has not managed to adapt to [today’s reality]; therefore its path is to subdue the other or to accuse him of apostasy and of deviating from the right path. [These people] can be found in all walks of life, preventing men of insight from advancing and catching up to the present, and anyone who criticizes them and points out their mistakes is accused of being Khawarij[5] – an accusation tailored for such [critics]. Anyone who talks about women’s rights is deviating from the right path and is loathsome and is lax in religion. Anyone who expresses a wise opinion that has been covered up and ignored because it contradicts their Salafism, is going against the vast majority of the people… and so on…

“What is strange is that these radical extremists who accuse their opponents of heresy and of apostasy acknowledge neither the stagnation of their own perception and ideas nor the worthlessness of their religious law, and thus do not recognize that they have left seeds that are today inflicting suffering and torment on the ummah.”