foreignpolicy--2019-05-05--Russias Payback Will Be Syrias Reconstruction Money

Russia’s Payback Will Be Syria’s Reconstruction Money

Russia had several motivations when it intervened in Syria on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in September 2015. The Kremlin was nervous about losing control of the naval base in Tartus, its most important strategic asset in the Middle East, if the regime were toppled by Western-supported rebels. More broadly, it hoped that by proving itself a reliable ally to Assad, it would earn credentials among other authoritarian leaders in the region.  Almost four years later, with rebels having mostly abandoned calls for regime change and losing large swaths of their enclaves, Russia has achieved most of its short- and medium-term goals in Syria. A growing number of signs suggest Moscow is now shifting focus to another objective: The Kremlin would like Syria to provide it a financial windfall.  According to three Lebanese politicians across the political divide, money is now the leading factor motivating Russia’s policy efforts in Syria. Above all, Russia would like to absorb a large chunk of the estimated $350 billion needed for Syria’s reconstruction, which would allow it to diversify its resource-based economy by securing contracts in a wide range of sectors such as building power plants and other infrastructure. “Russia wants our money to rebuild Syria so Russian companies can get the contracts,” a senior European Union diplomat told Foreign Policy. This effort has yet to succeed because, even as the war has mostly ended, international reconstruction efforts remain far off—largely because of Syria’s own lack of cooperation.  Russia would clearly be in a strong position to win reconstruction contracts from Syria, given its political influence over the Assad regime. The problem is that Syria lacks the money—and other sources are lacking. Russian President Vladimir Putin has tried to use Syrian refugees as a bargaining chip, offering to facilitate their return home in exchange for Western financial assistance to Syria. Last June in Helsinki and in August near Berlin, Putin asked the United States and the EU to pay for reconstruction if they wanted the refugees who had already poured across the Middle East and into Europe to return home and also to avoid a second exodus. Putin claimed that at least 1.7 million refugees could go back to Syria in the near future. The Russian government also announced that it would set up joint committees with refugee-hosting nations such as Lebanon to facilitate their return.  Ten months on, the joint committees have reported little progress, and there has hardly been any return migration of refugees. In short, Moscow’s plan to win reconstruction money through refugee repatriation seems likely to fail. Foreign Policy’s conversations with several EU diplomats, politicians in countries sheltering refugees, and Russian analysts suggest that the biggest reason for that failure is the obstinacy of the man Russia intervened to save.  There is a growing consensus among observers, in the West and in the Middle East, that Assad does not want anti-regime refugees to return. Although there is no official data, it’s widely believed that a large percentage of the 6 million Syrians forced to flee their country oppose Assad.  Take the case of Syrians willing to return from Lebanon, a nation hosting 1.5 million Syrians and one that is friendlier to Assad compared with Turkey or Europe. Even from there, the Assad government is actively refusing Syrians re-entry, normally without offering any official explanation. Under the repatriation process, Lebanon’s General Security Directorate prepares a list of Syrians willing to go back and shares it with its counterparts in Syrian intelligence. Only those allowed by the Syrian regime are given the right to go back.  Mouin Merhebi, Lebanon’s state minister for refugee affairs until January this year and a supporter of Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri, said the fact that such a list is asked for by the Syrian state is an indicator of Assad’s unwillingness to accept the refugees. “How can they explain why they are asking for the list of the returnees? They don’t allow anyone to return without approval from the Mukhabarat [the Syrian intelligence branch],” he said. “Is it logical that Syrians in Lebanon need permission to go back to their own country?”  Merhebi said that during his time in office, the difference in numbers between the those who applied to go and those who finally could was massive. “I have been told by our General Security officials that when a list of 5,000 Syrians was sent, on an average just about 60-70 were cleared,” he said. Alain Aoun, a member of parliament for the Free Patriotic Movement, the party of Lebanese President Michel Aoun and a political ally of Hezbollah—and so generally softer on Assad—sits on the opposite side of the political divide to Merhebi. However, he endorsed his assessment and said the Assad government did not seem overly concerned about the return of its people.  “The Syrian regime is not doing anything to take its refugees back,” he said. Aoun quoted a meeting with Cardinal Paul Gallagher, the foreign minister of the Vatican, which has taken a close interest in the refugee issue, to substantiate his assertion. “Gallagher told a visiting Lebanese delegation that Assad would never take back the millions who fled.”  At least four Western diplomats made the same point to Foreign Policy. Russia has correctly grasped that the high number of Syrian and other refugees who have arrived in EU countries in the last five years has created domestic political pressure, including the rise of populist and far-right parties. Putin appears to think that he can arrange a quid pro quo: soften EU sanctions and even provide reconstruction aid and Syria in return will become a more attractive place to which refugees can return.  If Assad allows only a small number of refugees back, it would be hard for EU governments to justify lifting sanctions, let alone spending taxpayers’ money on reconstruction projects. Moreover, as two of the diplomats said, a large part of that money would presumably end up in Russian pockets. There is a divide in the EU in any case over the ethics of such an arrangement; but all sides agree, at least publicly, that Russia must extract safety guarantees for the refugees, and at least some promise of political reforms. Russia, however, has achieved few concessions from Assad, other than the release of the death certificates of a few hundred detainees from the tens of thousands allegedly killed in state prisons, and nothing with regard to guarantees of returnee safety or real political change.  Russian analysts say Moscow had originally envisaged a sect-based power-sharing arrangement, modeled on Lebanon, between the Syrian government and several opposition groups as the political panacea for the conflict. But Russia could neither convince the regime nor the rebels to compromise and abandoned the plan. Now it has reduced its ambitions and is focused on using its leverage with Assad to agree on a constitutional committee whose members have been appointed by the regime, the opposition, and representatives of Syrian civil society.  Max Suckov, a Russia analyst, said Moscow would achieve little more in terms of a political settlement. “Russia is not very hopeful about a political settlement which satisfies all Syrian actors,” he said. “I think Russia has accepted that Syria will continue to be a centralized state, but that certainly makes it difficult to convince the EU to pay for reconstruction.”  Amal Abou Zeid, officially the Lebanese Foreign Ministry’s representative to the Russia-Lebanon repatriation committee and someone known to be close to Russia, said the West should water down its expectations. Assad, he said, had won the war, not the opposition. “Assad has reclaimed more than 80 percent of the land in Syria, which means that what was being accepted last year may not be acceptable to the government now,” Abou Zeid said. “While others have a say, he has the upper hand in dictating the terms.”  Although he admitted that the Russian initiative had failed to take off, he blamed U.S. recalcitrance; the United States has maintained a hard anti-Assad line. To lure America to play ball, Abou Zeid hinted that Moscow had suggested that Russian and U.S. firms actively cooperate in the hunt for business in Syria. “At the end, Russians are on the ground in Syria, and the Americans understand what that means,” he said. “There can be an agreement between the two. I don’t rule out the possibility that they will have contracts together.” The United States and the EU both insist on a political transition as a precondition for re-engagement, but Abou Zeid was optimistic that if the West was not prepared to inject money, Russia would convince Arab states. He said Russia was intensively lobbying with Gulf nations to revoke Syria’s suspension from the Arab League and pave the path for their petrodollars to rebuild Syria.  Neither the West nor the Arabs have yet bitten on Russia’s lure of joint projects and splitting the spoils of war. On the other side, a diplomatic source who often visits Syria said it was clear that the Assad regime was in no mood to make concessions and any further political changes would be cosmetic. Russia thus remains stuck waiting for a financial windfall that may never arrive.


rawstory--2019-03-22--Syria vows to recover Golan as Trump policy shift draws criticism

The Syrian government vowed to recover the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as its allies and enemies alike condemned U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday for moving to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the territory seized in war.  Trump’s statement on Thursday marked a dramatic shift in U.S. policy over the status of a disputed area that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East conflict and annexed in 1981 – a move not recognized internationally.  Against this backdrop of hostility toward the U.S. move, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo landed in Beirut after visiting Israel on Friday. He is expected to pile pressure on the government to curb the influence of the Iran-backed Hezbollah.  The declaration is the latest in a series of moves that have fueled anger among Israel’s Arab enemies and U.S.-allied Arabs.  It follows the U.S. recognition in December 2017 of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – a decision that also drew international criticism as the disputed city’s status remains at the heart of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  Russia, an ally of President Bashar al-Assad with forces in Syria, said Trump’s comments risked seriously destabilizing the region and expressed hope the statement was just declaratory.  Iran, Assad’s main regional ally and which also has forces in Syria, condemned the statement as illegal and unacceptable.  Turkey, a U.S.-allied state and an adversary of Damascus, also criticized the move, saying it had brought the Middle East to the edge of a new crisis and the legitimization of the occupation of the Golan Heights could not be allowed.  Damascus said the Golan Heights would remain “Syrian, Arab” and Trump had shown contempt for international law.  “The Syrian nation is more determined to liberate this precious piece of Syrian national land through all available means,” the Syrian government said.  Though the Golan Heights had been calm for decades, the frontier has reemerged as a flashpoint for regional tensions during the Syrian war. Last May, Israel accused Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of launching a rocket salvo into its territory from the Syrian side of the frontier.  Israel, which has mounted numerous air strikes against what it has called Iran-backed targets in Syria, has demanded Russia keep forces allied to Tehran away from the frontier.  The Syrian side of the frontier was held by rebel forces for years until pro-government forces recovered it in July.  POMPEO TO FLAG HEZBOLLAH CONCERNS   Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said: “we cannot allow the legitimization of the occupation of the Golan Heights”.  The Arab League, which suspended Syria in 2011 after the start of its civil war, said Trump’s comment paved “the way for official American recognition” of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and said it “completely beyond international law”.  Trump’s statement has given a boost to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the middle of his re-election campaign. Netanyahu has praised Trump for “making history” with the statement.  In Lebanon, Pompeo is expected to flag U.S. concerns about Hezbollah’s growing role in government: the group has three ministers in government and together with its allies controls more than 70 of parliament’s 128 seats.  The United States is a major donor to the Lebanese army but its allies, including the Sunni Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, have been weakened as Iran’s role has deepened through Lebanon, Iraq and Syria and Saudi influence has retreated.  Washington has reintroduced sanctions on Iran and imposed new financial sanctions on Hezbollah which Lebanon’s Hezbollah-aligned president, Michel Aoun, said on Thursday were hurting all Lebanese.  Reporting by Ali Abdelaty in Cairo/Tom Perry in Beirut, Maria Kiselyova in Moscow, and Parisa Hafezi in Dubai, Yousef Saba in Cairo, Ezgi Erkoyun and Ali Kucukgocmen in Istanbul; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore, Darren Schuettler and Raissa Kasolowsky and Samia Nakhoul


sputnik--2019-03-22--Syria Determined to Recover Israeli-Occupied Golan Heights Lambasts Trump

Syria 'Determined' to Recover Israeli-Occupied Golan Heights, Lambasts Trump

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has condemned US President Trump’s comments on the Golan Heights as “irresponsible”, adding that the Syrian people are determined to recover the area through “all available means”, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reports.  The Ministry pointed out that Trump's statement "confirms the US’s blind commitment to Israel and support for its aggressive behaviour".  READ MORE: Golan Heights' Liberation Possible With 'Endeavor of Syrians' — Iranian Lawmaker  "It became clear to the international community that the United States and their reckless policies, which are dominated by arrogance and hegemonic ambitions, are a major factor in exacerbating the situation in the global arena and threaten peace and stability," the Ministry underscored.  It also noted that the US clearly violates international law and a number of UN resolutions, in particular, Resolution 497, in which Israel’s intentions to establish its laws in the Golan Heights are considered invalid and illegal.  Iran has also criticised what it described as Trump’s “illegal” and “unacceptable” remarks on the Golan Heights.  Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that Moscow’s position on the matter remains unchanged and that “changing the status of the Golan Heights by bypassing the Security Council is a direct violation of UN decisions”.  The statement comes after Trump tweeted on Thursday that “after 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognise Israel's Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and regional stability.”  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for his part, thanked Trump for “boldly” recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights "at a time when Iran seeks to use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel". US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in turn, claimed during his visit to Jerusalem on Thursday that President Trump had been sent by God to Earth in order to save Israel.  A strategic area covering some 1,200 square kilometres, the Golan Heights were occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Netanyahu has repeatedly underlined that the Jewish state would not meet Syria's demands that it retreat to the 1967 lines because they were “indefensible”, and that the Golan Heights would “remain in the hands of Israel forever”.


nationalinterest--2019-12-22--The Communists Never Recovered From This Decisive Korean War Battle

Key point: It is estimated that about 6,000 Chinese attacked the defenders at Kapyong.  The Chinese always attacked at night. It was April 22, 1951, and the Communists had just launched the largest offensive of the Korean War. Nearly 350,000 troops, spread out across the Korean Peninsula from the Imjin River to the Sea of Japan, slammed into thinly held U.N. positions. The heaviest blows fell in the west and west-central sectors, manned by the American I and IX Corps. The Eighth Army, a multinational force newly under the command of Lt. Gen. James A. Van Fleet, reeled southward in the face of unremitting pressure from Chinese human-wave assaults. The enemy offensive, although long expected, still unnerved a number of frontline units.  This was certainly true of the Republic of Korea’s 6th Division, stationed at the left of the IX Corps front, north of Route 3A and Line Kansas. The South Koreans disintegrated before the Chinese, retreating in disorder for 10 miles, then falling back another eight miles before attempting to regroup and move north again under orders to reoccupy Line Kansas. The New Zealand 16th Field Artillery Regiment and the U.S. 213th Field Artillery Battalion, escorted by the British 1st Battalion, Middlesex Regiment, were sent north up the Kapyong River Valley to provide support for the embattled ROK troops.  These units were attached to the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, which at the outbreak of the enemy offensive was standing in reserve at Kapyong, near the confluence of the Kapyong and Pukhan Rivers and astride one of the prime invasion routes to Seoul. During the day on April 23, Brig. Gen. B.A. Burke, commanding the 27th Brigade, received orders to occupy the high ground north of the town of Kapyong and move into position to control movement through the Kapyong River Valley. Burke put the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (RAR), on Hill 504 east of the river and the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, on Hill 677 west of the river. A distance of about 1.9 miles of open ground separated the two hills.  Despite the presence of the 27th Brigade artillery units, the ROK 6th Division proved unable to reorganize effectively and push forward. In fact, under enemy pressure, the South Korean troops began streaming farther southward in the late afternoon of the 23rd. Captain Owen R. Browne, commanding officer of the Princess Pat’s A Company, described what he saw. “I was witnessing a rout,” he said. “The valley was filled with men. Some left the road and fled over the forward edges of A Company positions. Some killed themselves on the various booby traps we had laid, and that component of my defensive layout became worthless. Between 1530 hours and 1800 hours all of A Company speeded up its defensive preparations and digging as it watched, helpless to intervene, while approximately 4,000-5,000 troops fled in disorganized panic across and through the forward edges of our positions. But we knew then that we were no longer 10-12 miles behind the line; we were the front line.”  Major Ben O’Dowd, commanding A Company of the Australian 3rd Battalion, observed the same scene from the vantage point of Hill 504’s forward slopes. “Soon the mob of ROK soldiers became thickened up with civilian refugees: men, women, children and animals, all bunched together in a confusing melee; screaming, shouting, crying children, with their cattle, with their goods on their back,” recalled O’Dowd. “We knew that the situation was getting dangerous and we had something to really worry about. I knew, from past experience, that Chinese soldiers would mix in with the civilians they had terrorized to clog up the roads. They would be in civilian clothes or in uniform, in the half light and be penetrating to the rear in numbers.”  Retreating along with the South Koreans were the New Zealand and American artillery units and the Middlesex Battalion. The Middlesexers were originally slated to take up positions on Hill 794, north of and across the Kapyong River from the Canadians on Hill 677. But orders had been changed, and the battalion moved through the valley and downriver to establish a position to the west of a big bend in the river, south of the Canadians and northeast of 27th Brigade headquarters. The New Zealand and American artillery set up in front of the Middlesex Battalion and behind the Australian battalion’s headquarters, which was located near another big bend in the river, just south of a ford and along a road leading north to the nearby village of Chuktun-ni. North of the village itself, B Company, 3 RAR, occupied a northeast-running ridge that stood like an island in the Kapyong Valley, an arm of land through which ran a road from the northeast. This subsidiary valley cut between B Company’s position on the island ridge and the main Australian positions on Hill 504. The 3 RAR headquarters was located about 1.6 miles southwest of the forward Australian companies.  The Canadian positions on Hill 677 were more consolidated than the spread-out Australians. The three infantry battalions of the 27th Brigade were not within mutually supporting distance of each other—in fact, the individual companies within the Australian and Canadian battalions were hard-pressed to provide mutual support due to the nature of the terrain. A realistic appraisal of the situation allowed only for the occupation of strongpoints, with significant gaps remaining between units. The brigade’s fourth infantry battalion, from the King’s Own Scottish Borderers Regiment, had just arrived near the front to replace another unit and was being held in reserve. It would not participate in the coming action at Kapyong.  The Australians were in the most exposed position, and they were attacked first by units of the Chinese 118th Division on the evening of April 23. Beginning at about 9:30 pm, the Chinese launched a series of attacks within 30 minutes, the first against a platoon of Sherman tanks from A Company, U.S. 72nd Tank Battalion, that had located itself forward of B Company. Ensuing Communist attacks struck 3 RAR on the island ridge, and the forward platoon of A Company, 3 RAR, on the slopes of Hill 504 to the east; and one against 3 RAR headquarters south of Chuktun-ni.  The last attack was the most significant. Chinese were infiltrating through the open ground west of the river between the Australians and the Canadians. They also had moved between the Australian battalion’s headquarters near the river and the rifle companies on the high ground to the northeast. Lt. Col. I.B. Ferguson, commanding 3 RAR, found himself with grave communications difficulties. His telephone lines to all but one company had been cut, and his radio link to the forward units was inefficient. The supporting artillerymen came under small-arms fire and began to move their batteries southward, taking up new positions behind the Middlesex Battalion. This dislocation severely affected the availability of fire support during the night. Moreover, an American heavy mortar company that had been positioned near the artillery subsequently abandoned its equipment and 35 vehicles and retreated on foot all the way to Chunchon, 10 miles to the east. Well before midnight, the Chinese had succeeded in cutting off the Australians from the rest of 27th Brigade.  Another attack against the platoon of American tanks in front of B Company mortally wounded the platoon leader and caused the tanks to withdraw down the valley. B Company, on the island ridge, was assaulted by a large number of Chinese shortly before midnight. After two hours of intense action, the enemy withdrew with heavy casualties. The Australians suffered no casualties in the attack, but O’Dowd’s A Company was subjected to continued assaults throughout the night. He recalled: “The initial contacts in A Company came as a series of enemy probing patrols, bumping into our forward weapon pits at various points, searching for soft spots. Then the fight for our ridge line started in earnest with the Chinese blowing bugles and whistles. They used these sounds as signals to assemble their men. When the bugles and whistles stopped we knew that they were on their way. Some of the soldiers did not carry weapons—just bucketfuls of grenades. Our next indication of an assault was the showers of grenades that started exploding all around us. The Chinese grenadiers had the job of keeping my diggers’ heads down so the riflemen and machine gunners could rush in and get amongst us.”  Unlike B Company, A Company on the forward slopes of Hill 504 was absorbing heavy casualties in repeated Chinese attacks that caused the pullback of one platoon. Meanwhile, the battalion headquarters area near the river was in danger of being overrun; Ferguson issued orders for a withdrawal at first light. But some time after 2 am, the enemy broke contact and fell back to regroup. At about 4 am, Ferguson requested that a company from the Middlesex Battalion be sent forward to assist his threatened headquarters defenders. The Middlesexers subsequently cleared the high ground near 3 RAR headquarters, but were forced to withdraw after taking heavy fire from the higher ground to the west. Ferguson ordered B Company to withdraw from its position on the island ridge to the rear of Hill 504 with the coming of dawn. This proved to be a highly controversial decision—B Company had withstood the enemy onslaught from its isolated vantage point and remained in good condition. Many blamed General Burke for the order.


globalresearch--2019-05-01--Tolerance and Spirituality Debunking the Islamophobic View of an Intolerant Islam

Tolerance and Spirituality: Debunking the Islamophobic View of an “Intolerant Islam”

This incisive article by Professor Henry Espiritu was first published by Global Research in November 2017  “And thou wilt find the nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud.” (Al-Qur-an, Surah Maidah: 82)  The current expansion in mass media and communications reveal more evidently that our world contains variety of cultures, races, religions, and ideologies. Despite globalization and its attendant efforts towards homogeneity, ours is still a pluralist world. As such, tolerance is a foundational notion and a very relevant conceptual and practical prerequisite in establishing a pluralistic society. In pluralism’s point of view, people living in a society with varied religious, cultural, and ideological commitments should enjoy equal rights and should not sacrifice their beliefs at the mercy of the hegemonic ideology of a particular State or of the dominant religion of the majority community.  In our highly globalized world, tolerance and amity are all the more needed for the survival, cohesion, and progress of its citizens.  The contemporary mass media portray Islamic societies to be intolerant of other’s religious and ideological persuasions. The purpose of this paper is not to examine whether the contemporary media is right or wrong in perceiving Islamic societies as intolerant. My aim in this essay is to show that authentic Islam—as contained in the pristine revelation of the Qur-an—promotes tolerance, harmony, and goodwill of all peoples despite their differences.  In this paper, I want to reflect straight from the original source of Islamic tenets (i.e., the Qur-an) the tolerant attitude of Islam vis-à-vis religious, cultural, and ideological diversities found in human societies. Likewise, I will endeavor to show various thematic perspectives found in selected passages of the Qur-an that encourage tolerance and societal concord. Side by side with my exposition of authentic Islam’s framework of tolerance, I will likewise provide several historical instantiations of this “spirituality of tolerance” in the lives of selected Muslim savants and revered Islamic personalities of various epochs in their encounter with Christians.  I sincerely hope that by showing the tolerant and pluralistic pronouncements of the Qur-an, and the historical instantiations of tolerance manifested in the exemplary lives of these prominent Muslims as they relate with Christians, I will be able to encourage Muslims to fully practice and live-out the Islamic mandates of amity and inter-religious understanding in their daily lives. Moreover, I further hope that in this essay, I will be able to inform non-Muslims that genuine Islam—as contained in the Qur-anic revelation, in the model conduct of the Prophet, and in the exemplary lives of pious Muslim personages—is a very tolerant religion that acknowledges and respects the divergent beliefs and ideological views of others.  The Dynamics of Tolerance: Philosophical, Metaphysical, and Mystical Presuppositions  Firstly, let me briefly explicate my own conceptual framework and philosophical presuppositions in understanding tolerance. Tolerance presupposes plurality and diversity of identities. Pluralism further presupposes alterity or otherness, since diversity entails variety of identities and plurality of existing values. The opposite of pluralism is hegemony where one particular value is imposed and where there is an enforced totalization of expressions of life to make human values comply to a uniformed worldview and a set praxis. Now, tolerance can only exist in a pluralistic framework since pluralism celebrates in the difference of the “other”. Tolerance is a very important ethical value in the face of the alterity of the “other”. Tolerance therefore presupposes an “other” since without an “other”, there is nothing to tolerate at all. In hegemony, however, the “other” is swallowed and annihilated by the sheer imposition of uniformity and forcible totalization. Thus with the absence of the “other” in a hegemony, tolerance will also be non-existent—this is why all totalitarian and hegemonic societies are most intolerant of differences and dissenting views.  Secondly, I consider tolerance as spirituality. A person who can tolerate the “other” is able to see the unitive Source Who permits and wills these various differences and diversities as found in the world. This unitive Bond that permeates all diverse phenomena of creation and transcends multiplicities—the mystics termed, “the One God”. In the words of the Holy Qur-an:  Therefore—for the Qur-an—God is both the Ultimate Source of these diversities and the Essential End of all varied cosmic entities. Spirituality or mysticism acknowledges God as the unifying Connectivity that deeply binds the whole of creation to Himself despite their apparent differences and multiplicities. Muslim and Christian mystics are well able to tolerate religious differences because in their inner beings, these mystics see the vision of the One, and this unitive vision enabled them to go beyond creedal and dogmatic differences. It is by this divine grace of an all-inclusive vision of the One that enables saints and mystics to tolerate the “otherness” of the other (See Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam. London: Mandala Books, 1964; pp. 13-18.).  Tolerance in dealing with others, particularly the religious “other” is spirituality because by tolerating differences, one acknowledges the divine Wisdom of God who wills that these differences be made manifest. By reflecting on this ineffable theological tension regarding the plurality or diversity of God’s creation and the essential oneness of creation in the Being of God, mystics of all religious traditions appreciate the mystery and spirituality of tolerance; an unfathomable and sympathetic understanding that is holistically related to a consciousness of divine unity manifesting in and through diversity. Tolerance permits us to experience the sympathetic feeling of divine inter-connectedness among diverse creatures in the divine immanence of the Creator who permits these differences.  My own prayerful reflections evidently reveal to me that authentic Islam, i.e., the Islam as expressed in the pristine pages of the Qur-an and in the exemplary conduct set forth by Prophet Muhammad—in contrast with the rigid and hegemonic “Islam” as interpreted by “extremist” exegeses or “fundamentalist” hermeneutics—clearly advocates pluralism and encourages tolerance in its relationship with the religious “other”. In the next subsections, we will examine how the Qur-anic understanding of pluralism is intimately connected to the spirituality of tolerance. We will also see how the Qur-anic discourse of tolerance is practically exemplified in the lives of selected Muslim saints in their encounter and dialogue with Christians.  The Qur-anic View of Pluralism and Its Relevance to an Islamic Understanding of Tolerance  The Qur-an is fully conscious of the pluralistic nature of human societies. Many Qur-anic passages describe the diverse expressions of life as found in human communities. Pluralism is therefore a fact, which the Qur-an accepts as the basic reality of our human existence. The Qur-an says:  “For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds. To Allah will all return, so He will inform you of that wherein you differed.” (Surah Maida:48; The Holy Qur-an: Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation)  The above passage is a very decisive proclamation supporting tolerance. The verse fully points out the pluralistic condition of humankind. The passage admits to the existence of societal and religious diversity characterizing human communities when it declares; “for everyone of you, We appointed a law and a way”. Notice that this verse says that our pluralistic situation is willed and permitted by God so as to test human communities so that each community will vie with each other in doing good deeds. It further says:  “And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”.  Surah Maida:48 is likewise a very relevant verse in understanding the nature of the Islamic understanding of tolerance. If God willed that this world contains socio-cultural and religious diversities (when He could have made the world a “single people”), and if God himself has a divine reason for allowing these diversities (so that each society will “vie with one another in virtuous deeds”); then humankind should strive to accept, tolerate, and appreciate the fact of our pluralistic world.  Good Will, Courtesy, and Mutual Respect: The Basic Ethical Pillars of Qur-anic Tolerance  Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori (circa 1879-1951), was an eminent Pakistani scholar of Qur-anic and Hadith exegesis. He authored exhaustive and authoritative books of Qur-anicexegesis, collectively known in Urdu as Bayan-e Qur-an (Qur-anic Lectures) and a comprehensive commentary of the Prophetic Traditions, entitled The Manual of Hadith. Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori strove to present Islam as a rational, tolerant, and forward-looking religion during the era of the British rule of then undivided India.  In this period of the British Raj, various Christian missionary groups representing different denominations compete for the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Seeing the zeal of these missionaries, Maulana Muhammad Ali began to reflect on the state of the Muslims in India. He re-evaluated the Indian appropriation of Islamic tenets and found out that the Muslims in India were enveloped with customs which were thought to be Islamic, but in reality, were products of obscurantism, and therefore devoid of Islamic significance.  Maulana Muhammad Ali likewise engaged the Christian missionaries in friendly dialogues to clarify common misconceptions of Islam. His scholarly book, The Religion of Islam, which was the result of these dialogic exchanges, show a very rational explication of Islam; at the same time fully cognizant of the Christian missionaries’ objections against Islam by responding to these objections using the Qur-an and Sunnah as bases of clarification. In all his writings, one can admire the profound respect that Maulana Muhammad Ali accorded to his interlocutors, both Christians and Muslims.  I will quote from his Urdu commentary of the Holy Qur-an on the necessity of courtesy (adab), good will (ahsan), and respect or honor (izzat) in dialoguing with others. Commenting on the Qur-anicayah (verse): “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” (Surah Nahl:125), Maulana Muhammad Ali had this to say:  Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his encounters with Christian missionaries, was able to articulate and apply the ethical principles of dialogue and tolerance, which were already laid down by the Holy Qur-an (namely in Surah Nahl:125 and in Surah Ankabut:46). Maulana Muhammad Ali understood tolerance as something inherent in our being persons of good will; and that this divine awareness of good intention leads us to respect the viewpoint of the other person even if we do not subscribe to his creedal tenets. The verse in Surah Nahl:125 encourages Muslims to dialogue with the religious “other” in the spirit of sincere courtesy, profound sensitivity, and deep respect for each other’s differences, by granting a concordant presumption that the other’s intention in striving to convert another person is due to good will (i.e., for the “other’s” spiritual salvation).  Maulana Muhammad Ali asserts that Surah Maida:48 is an explicit endorsement of pluralism and its attendant duty of tolerating the various diversities of humankind. I quote from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s exhaustive Qur-anic commentary to this particular passage:  As commented by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Surah Maida:48 explicitly declares that Almighty God sent his messengers to diverse groups of people and gave these communities their respective commandments in keeping with the different circumstances of each community. The laws prescribed by God to the different communities ensure the holistic development of their respective people. The verse continues, “And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”. This verse clearly pointed out that if God so willed it, He can create a single community out of varied groups of people. Nevertheless, God planned that humankind be varied in its communitarian expressions.  God’s endowment of a pluralistic world is His grace to humanity. Our differences provide venues for existential celebration of life and of living: variety and diversity being the potent antidote to our humdrum existence. Each community has its own unique way of life, its own customs and traditions, its own laws. Nevertheless, no matter how diverse these ways of life are, it should be understood in the light of the Almighty’s life-affirming purpose in allowing such diversities, i.e., human flourishing. It is therefore clear from Surah Maidah:48 that although God can produce a uniformed world of totalities by imposing a single law for all communities, yet He prefers to create pluralistic communities so that humankind will learn the values of tolerance, amity, harmony, and fraternity.  Another aim of God in creating varied communities is to test human beings in the conduct of virtuous deeds. He tests the various societies if they can live amicably and cordially with each other despite their differences. The divergence in each society’s ways of life should not be a cause of disharmony and differences; instead, societal divergences should prod each community to vie with one another in the performance of virtuous conduct (Cf., Reza Shah Kazemi, The Metaphysics of Interreligious Dialogue. London: Institute of Isma’ili Studies, 2001; pp.5-7.).  The Qur-an insists that the best way of putting an end to religious, cultural, and ideological conflicts is to tolerate differences with openness and good faith. Each religious community should do righteous deeds according to their tenets; leaving to God the judgment as to which community is the best. The final section of the passage states:  The verse is very precise in stating that it should be left to God (and to God alone) in deciding the truth of the matters that peoples dispute. It is not for humans to pontificate which view is true and which is wrong. Vain and fruitless arguments as to which religious, ethical, and ideological point of view is right or wrong will only lead to communal fracas and infringement of societal concord. Likewise, the verse firmly admonishes human beings to contend with one another in good deeds by utilizing their own respective laws as bases of their righteous conduct.  God as the Ultimate Source of Divine Revelation: A Central Tenet in the Qur-anic Understanding of Tolerance  The prologue of Surah Maida:48 states, “And We have revealed to thee the Book [i.e., the Qur-an] with the truth verifying that which is before it [i.e., the previous scriptures]…and a guardian over it”. This verse is a strong proclamation in favor of tolerance and pluralism. The Qur-an is referred to as “guardian” of the truths revealed by earlier scriptures. Likewise, one of the roles of the Qur-an is “a verifier” of previous scriptures. According to Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani, a Fatimid theologian and philosopher of the tenth century AD, this verse implies that the scriptures of various religions may be different, but the Ultimate Source of all revealed scriptures is the One and Only God. Thus, scriptures of different faiths are based on Divine revelation.  The tolerant nature of Islam as a religion can be seen in this verse in that, the Qur-an takes it upon itself to be the confirmer, verifier, and guardian of truths revealed in earlier scriptures (Paul Walker, Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1996; pp. 26-32, 58.).  Before elaborating further on Ustaz Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani’s view of the Qur-an as the guardian and verifier of previous divinely revealed books and the implications of this Qur-anic guardianship to an Islamic framework of tolerance, a brief historical background of Ustaz Sijistani’s life is in order. Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani—although himself an Isma’ili Shi’a—maintained amicable relations with the orthodox Sunni majority during the period of the Fatimid Caliphate (i.e., 10th-11th century A.D.). To the dismay of the rabid Shi’as, Ustaz Sijistani forbade his disciples to curse the first three Caliphs of Islam (Khulafa-ar-Rashidin); warning them, that Prophet Muhammad lavished praise on these three Caliphs, and therefore, it is never right and against Islamic prudence to curse whom the Prophet had abundantly praised.  His endeavor to establish Sunni-Shi’a rapprochement was also matched by his spiritual and intellectual relationship with the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Arab Orthodox Christians of Iraq, the Byzantine Christians of Anatolia, and the Jews. He studied the Torah in Hebrew and the New Testament in the Syro-Aramaic text. He often consulted Jewish rabbis and Orthodox Christian hermits and enquired from them regarding their interpretation of some obscure passages of the Bible. His encounters with Christianity and Judaism were indeed intellectually stimulating since Ustaz Sijistani wrote six (6) religio-philosophical treatises reflecting on his relations with Christianity and Judaism, not to mention the orthodox Sunni Islam. Sijistani’s main books, The Wellspring of Wisdom (Yanbu-al-Hikmat) and Proofs of Prophecy (Ithbat-un-Nubuwwat) were written to show that God is the ultimate Source of Revelation and that this divine Revelation is progressive, i.e., it is sent according to the measure of the spiritual preparedness of humankind to receive divine guidance. Ustaz Sijistani was therefore a perfect example of an “ecumenical Muslim”—if I may be permitted to coin such a term.  Let us now explicate on Sijistani’s understanding of progressive revelation and its implication to an Islamic perspective of tolerance. As per Ustaz Sijistani, the inclusive nature of the Islamic faith can be clearly observed in the Qur-an’s numerous narrations regarding the ministries of Jewish, Christians, and other pre-Islamic prophets. The Qur-an’s inclusion of the prophets of other religions preceding Islam is meant to illustrate the pluralistic and tolerant dimension of the Qur-anic Revelation. The list of prophets as found in the Qur-an was never meant to be exhaustive; it was meant to illustrate the extent of the universal chain of prophethood. Thus, we can safely assume that other religious communities that were not mentioned in the Qur-an are likewise included in the all-inclusive Qur-anic guardianship (Walker, Ibid, pp. 45-58, 110-112.).  Furthermore, Sijistani opined that the Qur-an fully acknowledges the different expressions of worship undertaken by different religions, while at the same time firmly holding to the Islamic expressions of worship (i.e., the five-times-a-day liturgical prayers, prescribed pilgrimage, Ramadhan fasting, etc.). In Surah Baqara:148 it is stated: “And everyone has a goal to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good works”. Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani, interpreted the phrase, “everyone has a goal to which he turns” to signify the diverse spiritual communities and their different approaches of worship (Ibid, pp. 49-51.). Ustaz Sijistani, also pointed out that Surah Baqara:148 is very much related to the phrase in Surah Maida:48, viz; “For everyone of you We appointed a law and a way”.  The Qur-an on the Oneness of Humankind and Diverse Expressions of Human Cultures  The Qur-an, in many numerous passages explicitly proclaims the oneness of humankind. Humanity was “created from a single being” (Surah Nisah:1). All humans came from a single ancestry and living in the same homeland, earth (Surah Hujurat:13). Furthermore, Surah Baqara:213 says that the whole of humankind is essentially one in origin—from God, humankind’s Creator. God sent various messengers with their respective scriptures to guide the peoples of the world to righteous living. These prophets were sent to different places of the world and their revelations were suited to the varying milieus, mentalities, contextualities, situations, and circumstances of the peoples and societies in which they were being sent. However, instead of respecting other societies’ contextualities, people began to be divided and incessantly fight against each other. Surah Baqara:213 further states that God in giving His revelation to different communities did not intend that they fight each other; but that each communities respect each other’s differences.  The Qur-an balances its affirmation of the ontological oneness of humankind by equally highlighting on the divergent racial, linguistic, ideological, religious, and national identities of each society. God wills these identities; as the Qur-an plainly states, “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors. Surely, there are signs in these for the learned” (Surah Rum:2). This passage acknowledges cultural differences as “signs” of God and must be duly appreciated as these “signs” serve as venues for each society’s expression of identity. Cultural differences are essential for establishing a community’s identity and these divergences should prompt peoples to celebrate each other’s cultural and national identities (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali’s commentary of Surah Baqara:213, Hujurat:13 and Maida:48; op.cit.). Therefore, the Qur-an undoubtedly recognizes cultural, religious, and societal diversities as being willed by Divine Providence; even as it equally affirms the essential unity and oneness of humankind.  Tolerance and the Diverse Liturgical Expressions of Worship Found in Other Faiths  As of this juncture, it is noteworthy to quote some Qur-anic passages that illustrate the practical dimensions of Islamic tolerance with respect to the different worship expressions of other faith-traditions. The Qur-an says:  The great master of Islamic mysticism, Hazrat Shaykh-al-Akbar Muhaiyuddin Ibn Arabi (circa 1164-1240 AD), in his Sufi treatise, Bezels of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) provided a very universal and inclusive interpretation of the above passage, showing the tolerant nature of Islamic Sufism that Ibn Arabi espoused. Before discussing Ibn Arabi’s explanation of the above-mentioned passage, I feel that it is beneficial for our understanding to describe briefly his historical contextuality. Ibn Arabi’s tolerant and pluralistic approach to Islamic spirituality can best be gleaned in his oft-quoted pronouncement:  Now let us come to Ibn Arabi’s inclusivist exegesis of Surah Baqara:177 and how this exegesis conduces to an Islamic spirituality of tolerance. Commenting on the above-mentioned verse, Ibn Arabi says:  Ibn Arabi admits that although in Islam, there exists a specific direction and prescribed liturgical postures by which a Muslim faces when praying, yet for him, the Qur-an equally acknowledges with respect the various directions and gestures of prayer adopted by other religions in their worship. More importantly, for Ibn Arabi, Surah Baqara:177 encourages religious pluralism and tolerance by going beyond (i.e., transcending) the ritual demands of different ceremonial expressions of worship and focusing instead on the importance of humane character, viz, compassion towards others and persevering faith in the midst of trials and difficulties (See, Henry Bayman, The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001; pp. 166, 206.). Ibn Arabi explained that the divine purpose of the various prescribed acts of worship is for the spiritual education of humankind, aside from the avowed aim of glorifying God. For him, more than the outward manifestations of piety, the crucial intention of the Qur-an is for the Islamic Ummah(community) to produce proper human beings who are sensitive to the needs of others. The Qur-an endeavors to create compassionate and “humane” persons who act with benevolence and equanimity to everybody with no regard whatsoever to racial, cultural, religious, or ideological differences (Ibid, pp. 97-98, 103.).  Instantiations of Tolerance from the Life of the Prophet of Islam and His Companions  The Qur-an clearly reveals that, “all the children of Adam are equally honored” by God (See, Surah Bani-Israil:70). The Qur-an also takes an all-inclusive humanistic view in its understanding of justice and equality among all peoples. When it comes to judging actions that either benefit or harm humanity, the Qur-an does not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. As pointed out in Surah Nisah:123-124,  The Qur-an further affirms; “so he who does an atom’s weight of good will see it. And he who does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Surah Zilzal:7-8.). According to the Qur-an, God does not consider a person’s dogmatic or creedal commitment when rendering judgment of an action. Everyone will be given their just recompense based on one’s deeds and not because of one’s religious adherence.  Furthermore, the Qur-an exhorts Muslims to respect places of worship of other faith-traditions and to ensure that these will be protected and safe from acts of vandalism and destruction. Surah al-Hajj:40 says; “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much remembered would have been pulled down” (Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation.).  The abovementioned verse is very explicit in enjoining Muslims to sacrifice even their very own lives to defend the sanctity of churches and synagogues, and not just mosques. Interestingly, this particular passage avers that whether in church, synagogue or mosque, God’s name is “commemorated in abundant measure” in all these places of worship (Cf., Muhammad Hamidullah, Islam: An Introduction. Lahore: Kitab Islami Wakf, 1979; pp.34-35. See also Kazemi, op.cit., p.12.). Here, we can find that the Qur-an did not make any distinction between shrines of worship—it acknowledges the sacredness of places of worship where God’s name is celebrated with reverence; no matter what faith-tradition these shrines belong.  The Qur-an solemnly affirms, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah Baqara:256). The Qur-an is very keen in preserving freedom of conscience and freedom of belief—two crucial elements which are at the heart of tolerance. In this connection, a narration of two episodes in the life of the Prophet Muhammad is very pertinent in order to show that Islam fully respects the freedom of peoples to practice their own faith. When the people of Medina accepted the Prophet as their lawmaker and chief governmental executive, the Prophet himself immediately asked his scribes to write a declaration assuring the freedom of Jews and Christian residents of Medina and Najran to practice their faith. Likewise, when Christian monks and priests from Abyssinia came to Medina to see the Prophet, they inquired where they can hold their Eucharistic service (since they were still in Medina on a Sunday), the Prophet Muhammad gladly offered half of the space of his masjid (i.e., the first masjid built by the Prophet’s own hands) to the Christian priests for their liturgy. The priests tearfully thanked the Prophet for his hospitality, munificence, and cordial act of tolerance by offering and allowing them to hold their Divine Liturgy in his masjid (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam. Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore, 1990; pp.281-291. For numerous instances showing the Prophet Muhammad’s tolerance and concordant treatment to non-Muslims particularly Christians and Jews, see also, Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui, Anecdotes from the Life of Prophet Muhammad. Columbus Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1997; pp.18-19, 35-37, 40-43.).  In keeping with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, the second Caliph of Islam, Hazrat Umar al-Farooq, assured the delegation of Coptic and Orthodox Christians that their churches, convents, and monasteries were to be protected and to be held inviolable by the Islamic State. The same Caliph Umar climbed by foot to Mount Sinai, Egypt to sign a treaty guaranteeing the safety of the monks and nuns of St. Catherine’s monastery. During this visit, the Caliph gave five thousand dirhams for the repair of the monks’ convent and chapel. The trustworthy Arab historian, At-Tabari narrated that the call for the noon prayer once overtook Caliph Umar while he was having consultations with the Orthodox Christian patriarch of Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The kind patriarch offered Caliph Umar to pray inside the church premises. The Caliph gently declined the patriarch’s offer saying that he was afraid that future Muslims might claim the church for themselves on account of the fact that the second Caliph of Islam prayed his noon prayer inside it. Caliph Umar then went out of the church and prayed at a vacant yard nearby (Cf., Hafsah Dawud Zikri, The Exemplary Precedents of our Righteous Sunni Ancestors. Pakpattan, Pakistan: Daawat-e Irshad, 1963; pp.68-85.). These historical instances and many others show the extent of amity, tolerance, and concordance that the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad afford to Christians. The continued existence of Arab, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish Christian communities in the Middle East and the marked presence of churches and convents in these Islamic realms give witness to the tolerant attitude of authentic Islam to the religious “other”.  Epilogue: Acceptance of “the Other” as Foundational Basis of an Islamic Spirituality of Tolerance  The Qur-an is very explicit in its pronouncement that non-Muslims should be given the right to worship based on the prescriptions of their own scriptures. As already mentioned in this paper, non-Muslims were given their civil, political, and religious rights during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. After the Prophet’s demise, the Holy Companions and the immediate Caliphs of the Prophet made numerous provisions so that the rights of Jews and Christians will be acknowledged and respected. Tolerance towards non-Muslims were also implemented by various Islamic monarchs like the pious Umayyad Caliph, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz; the Abbasid Caliph, Harun-al-Rashid; the just Sultan of Palestine, Saladdin Ayyubi; the Mughal Sultan Akbar; the Ottoman emperors, Fatih Mehmet and Kanooni Suleyman; and the emirs of the Moorish courts of Cordova and Grenada. These Islamic monarchs not only tolerated non-Muslims, much more, they employed Jews, Christians, and even Hindus in their administration, supported their respective places of worship, clergies, and educational institutions. These non-Muslims were accepted with dignity and treated with respect and at par with the Muslim citizens.  Authentic Islam based on the Qur-an and as practiced by the Prophet and his companions are not against the promotion of a pluralist egalitarian society that guarantees tolerance and respect to all religious communities within the society. The Qur-an recognizes religious diversity not only as a basic reality of human existence but also as a venue for humanity’s spiritual development (Cf., Surah Maida:48.). It is indeed very regrettable that in our contemporary times, most of the so-called Muslim nations are perceived as lagging behind in fulfilling the spirit of tolerance as plainly expressed in the Qur-an and the Tradition (Sunnah) of the Prophet. It is equally lamentable that political and religious extremism failed to see the pluralistic, concordant, and tolerant dimension of Islam as found in the Qur-anictexts and in the conduct of the Prophet.  As amply shown in history, it cannot be denied that there were many instances of bloody conflicts between Christians and Muslims and that atrocities and violence can be equally attributed to both sides. The era of the Crusades during the Middle Ages and the more recent phenomenon of Western colonization of Muslim lands painted a different picture of Christianity in the perceptions of Muslims—a grim and greedy “Christianity” which is far from the peace-loving Christianity of Christ and of the Gospels. Similarly, basing their perceptions on the Western media’s skewed descriptions of Muslims and the intolerance of some Islamic movements, Christians perceived a rigid and inflexible Islam—an “Islam” very different from the tolerant and inclusive Islam of the Holy Qur-an. It is high-time now for both Muslims and Christians to move past these historical contingencies—contingencies that were political, economic, and pragmatic in nature; which had little or even nothing to do with the essential spiritual and religious contents of both faiths as expressed in their respective Scriptures (Jean Rene Milot, Muslims and Christians: Enemies or Brothers? New York: Alba House, 1997; pp. 31.). Indeed, it is high time now for both Muslims and Christians to go back to their respective Scriptures and be nourished by the precepts of tolerance, understanding, and amity enjoined by both the Bible and the Qur-an. In so doing, both the largest and the second largest religions of the world will be able to contribute actively towards achieving world peace.  It is likewise imperative for academicians engaged in Muslim-Christian dialogue and researchers of Islamic political philosophy to work out theoretic and praxis in pursuance to the Qur-anic vision of tolerance and amity, by taking into consideration present realities of our pluralistic world. There is no contradiction in accepting the truth of ones’ own religious and ideological perspective and in tolerating or respecting the beliefs of others. Similarly, the Qur-anic belief in the ontological oneness of humanity does not contradict the pragmatic reality that humankind’s expressions of culture, spirituality, and political ideology are varied and diverse. Authentic Islam as found in the Qur-an respects the freedom of conscience of every individual; which includes the right to practice one’s own religious, cultural, ethnic, and ideological commitments. By paying careful and prayerful reflection to what the Qur-an says regarding tolerance, coupled with the faithful adherence to the Qur-anic values of amity and harmony amidst differences, Muslims and non-Muslims will be able to live a tranquil, serene, and secure life—a life of dignity and justice by accepting with openness and good faith each other’s differences. May this hope become a Reality for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Insha-Allah (God willing)!  Bayman, Henry. The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001.  Maliki, Shahabuddin. Light from the Sayings of Shaykh Ibn Arabi. Decca, Bangladesh: Markaz Towheedi, 1977.  Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-VI of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City. He was former Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014. He was also the former Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu. His research interests include Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence, Islamic feminist discourses, Islam in interfaith dialogue initiatives, Islamic environmentalism, Classical Sunni Islamic pedagogy, the writings of Imam Al-Ghazali on pluralism and tolerance, Turkish Sufism, Muslim-Christian dialogue, Middle Eastern affairs, Peace Studies and Public Theology.


lifesitenews--2019-11-12--100 priests, lay scholars call Pope Francis to repent for Pachamama idolatry at Amazon Synod

Nov. 12, 2019, 11:30 AM EST update: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò added his name this morning to the statement urging Pope Francis to repent for Pachamama idolatry. Read full report here.  November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis' active participation and apparent support. They called upon the Pope to “repent publicly and unambiguously of these objectively grave sins” and asked bishops’ around the world to “offer fraternal correction to Pope Francis for these scandals.”  Titled “Protest against Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Acts,” the statement (read full below) highlights Pope Francis' personal responsibility for the worship of a pagan idol in Rome.  Among the signatories, which include more than 20 priests and deacons, are Professor John Rist, Professor Roberto de Mattei, Professor Claudio Pierantoni, Professor Josef Seifert, as well as Professor Anna Silvas. There are also to be found twenty priests and deacons, among them Father Brian Harrison and the outspoken critic of Pope Francis, Father Cor Mennen. The prominent German Catholic laywoman, Gloria Princess of Thurn und Taxis, also signed, in addition to authors such as Henry Sire, José Antonio Ureta, and Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg.  The priests and scholars “protest against and condemn the sacrilegious and superstitious acts committed by Pope Francis, the Successor of Peter, in connection with the recent Amazon Synod held in Rome,” and they give detailed evidence of the different incidences of pagan worship during the Amazon Synod.  Most prominently, Pope Francis hosted a pagan ceremony with Pachamama statues in the Vatican Gardens on Oct. 4 and even blessed one of the statues. Additionally, he prayed in front of the Pachamama statue at St. Peter's Cathedral on October 7 and then accompanied it in procession into the synod hall.  As the statement points out, “Pope Francis himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama, a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.”  The signers make it clear that pagan worship by Catholics is unacceptable.  They state that “the rendering of worship to anyone or anything other than the one true God, the Blessed Trinity, is a violation of the First Commandment,” and that therefore “absolutely all participation in any form of the veneration of idols is condemned by this Commandment and is an objectively grave sin, independently of the subjective culpability that only God can judge.”  The authors also quote Professor Josef Seifert with regard to Pope Francis' claim that these statues had been used “without idolatrous intentions.” Stated Seifert: “Even if there is no subjective idolatrous intention behind this, as Pope Francis affirms, the objective fact of putting idols in a Church, let alone in St Peter's, is an offence against God and an objectively sacrilegious act.”  For the signers, the Pachamama worship that took place under Pope Francis' leadership “was anticipated by the statement titled 'Document on Human Fraternity', signed by Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque, on February 4, 2019.” That document states that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” “Pope Francis’ involvement in idolatrous ceremonies,” the signers continue, “is an indication that he meant this statement in a heterodox sense, which allows pagan worship of idols to be considered a good positively willed by God.”  Additionally, the statement refers to the many cardinals and bishops who have already condemned the Pachamama veneration in Rome (among them Cardinals Burke, Müller, Brandmüller, Urosa; and Archbishop Viganò, as well as Bishops Eleganti, Voderholzer, and Azcona). And the statement also quotes a passage from Holy Scripture which makes clear that “the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God” and that “you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons” (St. Paul).  “We respectfully ask all the bishops of the Catholic Church,” the signers conclude, “to offer fraternal correction to Pope Francis for these scandals, and to warn their flocks that, according to the divinely revealed teaching of the Catholic faith, they will risk eternal damnation if they follow the present examples in offending against the First Commandment.”  Clergy and scholars are invited to add their signatures by going here.  We the undersigned Catholic clergy and lay scholars protest against and condemn the sacrilegious and superstitious acts committed by Pope Francis, the Successor of Peter, in connection with the recent Amazon Synod held in Rome.  These sacrilegious acts are the following: • On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1) • He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter. • He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2) • On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3) • When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis, on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated. • On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)  Pope Francis himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.  Different features of these proceedings have been condemned as idolatrous or sacrilegious by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop José Luis Azcona Hermoso, Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, and Bishop Marian Eleganti (7). Lastly, Card. Raymond Burke has given the same assessment of this cult in an interview. (8)  This participation in idolatry was anticipated by the statement entitled “Document on Human Fraternity”, signed by Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque, on February 4, 2019 (9). This statement asserted that:  “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.”  Pope Francis’s involvement in idolatrous ceremonies is an indication that he meant this statement in a heterodox sense, which allows pagan worship of idols to be considered a good positively willed by God.  Moreover, despite privately advising Bishop Athanasius Schneider that “You [the Bishop] can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the permissive will of God…” (10), Francis has never corrected the Abu Dhabi statement accordingly. In his subsequent audience address of April 3, 2019 Francis, answering the question “Why does God permit that there are so many religions?”, referred in passing to the “permissive will of God” as explained by Scholastic theology, but gave the concept a positive meaning, declaring that “God wanted to permit this” because while “there are so many religions” they “always look to heaven, they look to God (emphasis added).” (11) There is not the slightest suggestion that God permits the existence of false religions in the same way He permits the existence of evil generally. Rather, the clear implication is that God permits the existence of “so many religions” because they are good in that they “always look to heaven, they look to God.”  Worse, Pope Francis has since confirmed the uncorrected Abu Dhabi statement by establishing an “interfaith committee”, (12) which later received the official name of “Higher Committee,” (13) located in the United Arab Emirates, to promote the “goals” of the document; and promoting a directive issued by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue addressed to the heads of all the Roman Catholic institutes of higher studies, and indirectly to Catholic university professors, asking that they give the “widest possible dissemination to the document,” including its uncorrected assertion that God wills the “diversity of religions” just as He wills the diversity of color, sex, race and language. (14)  The rendering of worship to anyone or anything other than the one true God, the Blessed Trinity, is a violation of the First Commandment. Absolutely all participation in any form of the veneration of idols is condemned by this Commandment and is an objectively grave sin, independently of the subjective culpability that only God can judge. (15)  St. Paul taught the early Church that the sacrifice offered to pagan idols was not offered to God but rather to the demons when he said in his First Letter to the Corinthians:  “What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with demons. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of demons: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.” (1 Cor. 10:19-21)  By these actions Pope Francis has incurred the reproach uttered by the Second Council of Nicaea:  “Many pastors have destroyed my vine, they have defiled my portion. For they followed unholy men and trusting to their own frenzies they calumniated the holy Church, which Christ our God has espoused to himself, and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.” (16)  With immense sorrow and deep love for the Chair of Peter, we beg Almighty God to spare the guilty members of His Church on earth the punishment that they deserve for these terrible sins.  We respectfully ask Pope Francis to repent publicly and unambiguously of these objectively grave sins and of all the public offences that he has committed against God and the true religion, and to make reparation for these offences.  We respectfully ask all the bishops of the Catholic Church to offer fraternal correction to Pope Francis for these scandals, and to warn their flocks that according to the divinely revealed teaching of the Catholic faith, they will risk eternal damnation if they follow the present examples in offending against the First Commandment.  1. See the complete video of the pagan ritual on Vatican News: https://www.religionenlibertad.com/video/118451/Ritual-de-la-Madre-Tierra-en-el-Vaticano.html  3. See here a photo of the event: https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/10/12/amazon-synod-where-we-are-after-week-one/  6. See the words of the Holy Father with an English Translation here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/10/francis-defiant-in-defense-of-pagan.html.  15. As explained by Professor Josef Seifert: “Even if there is no subjective idolatrous intention behind this, as Pope Francis affirms, the objective fact of putting idols in a Church, let alone in St Peter's, is an offence against God and an objectively sacrilegious act.” See: https://gloria.tv/post/nK8YgEUATNuj4WXBi9WrfBzPg   See all the relevant biblical references in Bishop Schneider’s open letter: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-athanasius-schneider-issues-open-letter-condemning-pachamama-statue-as-new-golden-calf  16. Concilium Nicaenum II (787), in: Corpus Christianorum. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, ed. G. Alberigo, I: The Oecumenical Councils. From Nicaea I to Nicaea II, Turnhout 2006, 295-345.


osce--2019-08-21--To combat religious hatred we must recognize its link to other human rights abuses OSCE human righ

To combat religious hatred, we must recognize its link to other human rights abuses, OSCE human rights head says

WARSAW, 22 August 2019 – Amid increasingly violent outbreaks of religious intolerance, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) welcomes the first-ever United Nations International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion today, and calls on governments to promote the interfaith dialogue and education needed to combat hatred and violence.  “The hate crimes and intolerance we are seeing against people with a particular religion or belief rarely take place in isolation, but go hand in hand with other human rights violations,” said ODIHR Director Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir. “The negative effect of such violence and discrimination should not be underestimated, on the communities concerned but also on the security situation in the OSCE region overall.”  In order to counteract hate crime and discrimination, governments are encouraged to adopt a comprehensive approach that helps to build a culture of mutual respect and understanding  through interfaith and interreligious dialogue and partnerships, and education programmes that promote equality and respect for human rights. At the same time, they have to develop a strong support system to assist victims. The efforts of civil society, including religious or belief communities and other community organizations, are vital in this area, making the freedom to carry out their activities and access to funding particularly important.  ODIHR is making every effort to assist countries across the OSCE in living up to their commitments on freedom of religion or belief as well as tolerance and non-discrimination. It works with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that no group is singled out for protection at the expense of another. More information about ODIHR’s work in this area is available here.


osce--2019-11-12--Freedom of religion or belief the focus of conference supported by OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzeg

Freedom of religion or belief the focus of conference supported by OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina

More than 50 representatives of religious communities, local authorities and civil society organizations from across Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) gathered to discuss freedom of religion or belief at a conference on 12 November 2019 in Sarajevo, organized by the OSCE Mission to BiH.  The discussion focused on the modes of co-operation between local authorities and religious communities, the challenges religious communities face at the local level and the possibilities of advancing inter-religious dialogue.  “Advancing of freedom of religion or belief on the principles of inclusion and non-discrimination is essential for human security and the future stability of this country,” said Jasna Dobricik, Head of the Human Dimension Department of the OSCE Mission to BiH. “We hope that today’s event will contribute to strengthening this fundamental freedom in the upcoming period.” she added.  Igor Kožemjakin, Executive Secretary of the Interreligious Council in BiH, emphasized that freedom of religion or belief is one of the central themes the Interreligious Council in BiH focuses on. “By monitoring attacks targeting religious edifices we contribute to their better protection and by issuing joint statements condemning such attacks, we build resilience to extreme and violent narratives, while sending the message of peace, tolerance and co-existence.”  The conference is part of the OSCE Mission to BiH’s wider efforts to improve the co-operation of local authorities and religious communities in an inclusive and non-discriminatory manner.


bbc--2019-08-19--Where Christians are banned from selling property to Muslims

In Lebanon, a Muslim Shia family was asked to leave its house because it was in a Christian neighbourhood.  Mohammed lived in a building in Hadath for around two years but when he tried to register the deed his application was declined.  The town, near Beirut, has been implementing the ban on property exchange from Christians to Muslims for years, but this latest case has revived the debate about the fragility of co-existence between different religions in the country.


bigleaguepolitics--2019-12-27--Ilhan Omar in 2013: ‘Sadly’ Some Muslims Celebrate Christmas

Minnesota’s Rep. Ilhan Omar apparently isn’t a fan of the Christmas spirit, and spoke in disapproving terms of other Muslims who choose to celebrate the Christian holiday in a 2013 tweet.  According to Omar, it’s unfortunate that some Muslim Americans should choose to celebrate a storied American holiday.  Islamic reformer Imam Tawhidi shared the old tweet on Thursday.  Trending: Pope Francis Unveils Globalist New World Religion at Summit with United Nations Leader  Some Muslims do in fact celebrate Christmas, and the practice isn’t as uncommon as Omar’s tweet might make it seem. Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam. Perhaps ironically, it may be more common for Muslims in Islamic countries(usually with substantial Christian minority populations) to celebrate Christmas than in the west.  take our poll - story continues below  Some American Jews also celebrate Christmas in a secularized fashion.  Since being elected, Omar hasn’t spoken of the same spiteful anti-Christmas sentiment. She even went so far as to wish the constituents of her district a Merry Christmas, but her holiday greetings might seem hollow in light of her remarks about the tradition back in 2013.  Omar has increasingly become a progressive leader in the Democratic Party. There are other reasons to believe she harbors a fair degree of Islamist views, including a vote against official recognition of the Armenian genocide.  It’s hard to think of a cultural position more alienating to Americans- be they residents of a liberal district in Minnesota, or the most conservative areas of the country- than actively discouraging celebration of Christmas. Perhaps Omar would prefer living in a country where celebration of the holiday is actively repressed.


breitbart--2019-03-17--Media Silence Surrounds Muslim Massacre of Christians

The mosque attacks were indeed a horrific affair and worthy of universal condemnation. Presidents, prime ministers, royalty, and religious leaders rushed to extend their condolences to victims and their families — as well they should — while decrying the hate that purportedly motivated the shootings.  Without exception, the mainstream media gave top billing to the shootings, with newspapers carrying the story on their front pages and television news channels leading off their broadcasts with the story.  The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa.  As Breitbart News alone reported among major news outlets, Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.  The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all. Apparently, when assessing “all the news that’s fit to print,” the massacre of African Christians did not measure up. The same can be said for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the LA Times, and every other major paper in the United States.  The news shows from the three major television channels did not mention the story, and nor did CNN or MSNBC.  There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good.  Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare.  A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geo-political and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backwards place where brutal killings are par for the course.  Moreover, the slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not enkindle rage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would.  Finally, the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance. How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the “progress” desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.  Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called “the last acceptable prejudice,” one that few bother condemning.  “No one much cares about offending Christians,” wrote the coalition of African-American pastors in an essay last Tuesday. “In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.”  “The hypocrisy on display is astounding,” the pastors continued. “Christianity is the dominant religion of our country. It is the foundation of our government and morality. And yet, Christians are treated as fair game for mockery and insult.”  Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the world, but the mainstream media routinely ignore this fact as if it were unimportant or uninteresting. As a result, many people do not even realize how widespread the persecution is or that 75 percent of the victims of religious persecution around the world are Christians.  Whatever the reason — or reasons — for the media silence surrounding the most recent massacres of Christians in Nigeria as well as numerous other such events, it should give right-thinking people pause.  By all means, the lethal shootings of dozens of Muslims in New Zealand is a massive story and merits extensive coverage. But it only stands to reason that similar coverage should be devoted to the slaughter of Christians.  For the moment, it serves as a poignant reminder that a double standard is at work when it comes to news coverage, and that it is Christians who inevitably draw the short straw.


dailyheraldchicago--2019-12-21--How Muslims in the suburbs view Jesus, Mary and Christmas traditions

Abiha Khan is no stranger to Christmas.  It was an annual observance at the Catholic school Khan attended while growing up in Karachi, Pakistan.  Many Muslims like Khan attend Catholic schools for the quality of their education. But it wasn't until Khan had children of her own that she began to appreciate the more cultural aspects of the Christian holiday.  "We put up a tree every year ever since I had my kids," said Khan, 30, of Barrington Hills. "Basically, we do it in the spirit of the holidays."  Khan's children -- Kabir, 5, and Hussain, 4 -- get excited every year around the holidays. They believe in Santa Claus and make wish lists for presents. Khan puts up stockings for them, leaves out cookies and milk for Santa, and puts presents under the tree before Christmas morning -- none of which she views as religious.  "It's a fun family thing. It's just a happy time for all of us," she said.  Muslims don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. Yet many Muslims share a deep reverence for certain principal characters of the Christian faith.  Jesus is exalted as a notable prophet in the Islamic tradition, and an entire chapter in the Quran -- Islam's holy book -- is dedicated to his mother, Mary. Muslims and Christians also have shared beliefs in past prophets, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, as well as Jesus' virgin birth, his performing of miracles, and his prophesied return in the end of days.  "Jesus is considered one of the greatest prophets in Islam," said Rachid Belbachir, resident scholar for the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America based in Park Ridge. "As part of the faith, we have to believe in all the prophets."  Mary is the only woman named and honored in the Quran with an entire chapter.  "It just shows you the level of respect of how Muslims view her," Belbachir said. "For us, Mary, peace be upon her, exemplifies the perfect pious woman."  While Muslims really don't celebrate the birth of prophets, Christmas is an opportunity to remember their legacies and contributions to mankind.  "Jesus is exemplary in how he was kind in taking care of his mom. At Christmas, it's a reminder for us to be kind to our parents as Jesus was," Belbachir said.  Azam Nizamuddin, an adjunct professor of Islamic theology at Loyola University of Chicago, emphasizes these commonalities in interfaith work for the Islamic Foundation of Villa Park.  "We consider Mary to be one of the seminal women figures in Islamic history," he said. "Mary serves as a role model for piety."  Aside from the religious ties between the Abrahamic faiths, the sensory overload of festive songs, holiday decorations and store sales this time of year also make Christmas unavoidable, Nizamuddin said.  "That's just a cultural phenomenon that you can't really escape unless you are really not a part of society," he said.  Participating, even nominally, in these holiday festivities is becoming more common among some religious and secular Muslims, second- or third-generation immigrants, Muslim converts whose family members celebrate Christmas, and those who are part of interfaith marriages or want to indulge in the spirit of the season through gift-giving and spending time with family and friends.  The desire to be included prompts others to join in.  Abiha Khan's elder son, Kabir, is the only Muslim kid in his class. "I don't want him to feel left out," she said of holiday parties and activities.  Christmas has become such a cultural holiday that many Muslim families are putting up Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, gathering for family dinner, yet not celebrating the religious aspects, said Shazia Khan of South Barrington.  "There are still a lot of Muslim and Jewish families who don't celebrate Christmas," Shazia Khan said. "We do feel a lot of pressure for our kids that we don't celebrate Christmas because it's all around us."  Kiran Ansari Rasul of Elgin said she gives gifts to her three children's schoolteachers as well as mail carriers and housekeepers at Christmas, just as she would for the Islamic celebrations of Eid, which occur twice a year.  "Living here and the kids being born and brought up here, we can't just pretend that nothing is happening," Ansari Rasul said. "Each family draws their own line. This is how we choose to celebrate. We talk more about community and respecting others ... reminding the kids to just be extra kind."


dickmorrisblog--2019-04-20--Chivalry The Christian Response To Muslim Aggression History Video

Chivalry: The Christian Response To Muslim Aggression – History Video!

Click Here to give me your thoughts and continue the discussion.  Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!  How To Get Rid Of Deep Belly Fat: A Nutritional Guide — CLICK HERE NOW!  View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!  Missing From Mueller: How Hillary Started The Collusion Hoax – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!  Mueller Report Gives Dems Enough Rope To Hang Themselves – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!  Trump Is Right: Send Illegals To Sanctuary Cities – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!


disrn--2019-12-15--Boko Haram, Fulani Muslims have killed more than 1,000 Christians in Nigeria since January

According to U.K.-based nonprofit organization Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), over 1,000 Christians living in Nigeria have been killed by terror group Boko Haram and Fulani extremists this year alone.  The organization released a report on November 18 entitled "Your Land or Your Body" which details its findings:  "Islamist Fulani militia continue to engage in an aggressive and strategic land grabbing policy . . . They attack rural villages, force villagers off their lands and settle in their place — a strategy that is epitomized by the phrase: ‘your land or your blood.'"  Additionally, Islamic terror group Boko Haram has vowed to kill every Christian they encounter. They have displaced hundreds of thousands of people in Nigeria.  HART also reported that approximately 6,000 Christians have been killed since 2015 while another 12,000 have been displaced from their villages.


drudgereport--2019-01-21--Philippine Vote on Muslim Self-Rule Puts Christians on Edge

Philippine Vote on Muslim Self-Rule Puts Christians on Edge...

COTABATO, Philippines—A Muslim-majority region in the Philippines voted on a proposal for greater self-determination, a pivotal attempt at peace that tests the fragile relationship between Muslims and a Roman Catholic minority concerned about creeping Islamic authority.  To most of the four million people in the Muslim areas of the southern island of Mindanao, the vote offers a hopeful end to decades of conflict between armed groups and the government in this overwhelmingly Catholic country of 100 million people. The fighting...


drudgereport--2019-02-04--Life under ISIS led these Muslims to Christ

Life under ISIS led these Muslims to Christ...

Four years have passed since the Islamic State group's fighters were run out of Kobani, a strategic city on the Syrian-Turkish border, but the militants' violent and extreme interpretation of Islam has left some questioning their faith.  A new church is attracting converts. It is the first local Christian place of worship for decades.  “If ISIS represents Islam, I don’t want to be a Muslim anymore,” Farhad Jasim, 23, who attends the Church of the Brethren, told NBC News. “Their God is not my God.”  Religious conversions are rare and taboo in Syria, with those who abandon Islam often ostracized by their families and communities.  “Even under the Syrian regime before the revolution, it was strictly forbidden to change religion from Islam to Christianity or the opposite,” said Omar, 38, who serves as an administrator at the Protestant church. (He asked for his last name not to be revealed for safety reasons. The church's priest declined to be interviewed.)  “Changing your religion under ISIS wasn’t even imaginable. ISIS would kill you immediately,” he added.  While residents are still dealing with the emotional scars left by the brutality of ISIS, Omar says many people in Kobani have been open-minded about Christianity.  “Most of the brothers here converted or come to church as a result of what ISIS did to them and to their families,” he added. “No one is forced to convert. Our weapon is the prayer, the spreading of spirit of love, brotherhood and tolerance.”  Islamic leaders around the world have spoken against the extremists' ideology, accusing the ISIS militants of hijacking their religion.  In 2014, more than 100 Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi saying the militant group has “misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder.”