While pacifism can be accused of dangerous idealism, within Christian moral theology it provides a very important balance to the just war tradition.
Interviewed in Plough, Ron Sider says adherents of the two perspectives must dialogue in cooperative friendship.
How might Just War adherents and pacifists work together?
Pacifists and Just War Christians need to assess each situation together. With some frequency, there will be situations where applying the Just War criteria will lead us to conclude, “This war should not be fought, this invasion should not take place. An alternative must be found.” There may be, however, other situations where Just War Christians will conclude that they must go to war.
But the Just War theory requires that war is a last resort, and until you’ve tried all reasonable nonviolent alternatives, war is not a last resort. Unless Just War Christians are ready to test all reasonable nonviolent alternatives, the Just War position has no integrity.
Likewise, pacifists have no moral right to pretend their way is better unless they are willing to run the same risks in a nonviolent struggle against evil as soldiers do in battle.
The context of the interview is the phenomena of ISIS, and whether or not their savagery demonstrates the folly of nonviolence.
Sider has long been a voice for pacifism, and relates that Christian Peacemaker Teams have had some success in transforming conflicts. It would have been nice if this interview presented ideas for the nonviolent defeat of ISIS, however preliminary in form and difficult to imagine.
But his statement puts the burden of proof on those who advocate military solutions. What alternatives have you tried first? What about second, or third?
Before supporting war, ask a pacifist if he or she has any ideas to offer. And pacifist, be creative and bold. The world has many problems you can speak to. If not, many others will rush to offer that which you can only criticize, from afar.
When Brookings released a new paper from a young Muslim Brotherhood member based in Istanbul within the context of an ongoing series on political Islamism, prominent analyst Eric Trager had a poignant reply on Twitter:
“Brookings’ “Rethinking Islamism” series jumps the shark, features MB who, of course, doesn’t rethink anything.”
I laughed, but upon reading the analysis of Ammar Fayed I also noticed some sections where the group does appear to have reviewed its current situation and its year in power. I will highlight a few sections below.
But Trager also tweeted a comment that rings somewhat true:
“Islamists on Islamism – By casting MBs as research analysts, Brookings is allowing itself to become Ikhwanweb.”
Much of the article is simply a restatement of the Muslim Brotherhood internal narrative. There is no mention of the Turkey-based satellite incitements to violence, and only token mention of the ‘blurry’ line between revolutionary protest and violent means. That the people turned against Morsi is attributed solely to state-controlled media, and current divisions in the group are downplayed against an inherent unity asserted without refuting current outside analysis.
As an insider, Fayed is in a good position to know, and the paper on this count is still very valuable. But perhaps Brooking miscasts it; it is less an analysis than the presentation of one particular trend within the organization.
Unfortunately, it also seems somewhat contradictory. The overall theme is that the Muslim Brotherhood has not turned to wholescale violence because it would contradict the longstanding traditions that favor a social outreach over revolutionary change.
Fayed provides a very useful insider’s view of Brotherhood history, and contrasts the group with more violent actors:
This “model” [of the MB] carries out social services through official institutions subject to the law and operates under the authority of the state. The other carries out social services only to further the direct replacement of an absent or failed state with “Islamic rule.”
I think this is true, but toward his conclusion he says that the group is starting to change in its understanding of its enemy:
The conflict has shifted from a political conflict between the Brotherhood as an opposition group and the ruling regime into a conflict between the Brotherhood and the idea of the Egyptian state itself.
I agree with the author that the Brotherhood has not turned to violence in large swaths. But in contrast to his intended point that this will not likely happen, this point opens up that the MB is warming to a position he cast earlier as the domain of extremists. Within it he also takes a swipe at the Coptic Orthodox Church, stating “in the view of many” they are “abettors to the killings and ongoing repression”.
Earlier, Fayed relates how this state apparatus framed the Brotherhood:
By the end of June 2013, the state succeeded in “factionalizing the Brotherhood,” by portraying them as fifth-columnists separate from the rest of the population with self-serving goals. The message was clear, that the Brotherhood doesn’t have Egypt’s best interests at heart, only its own.
Certainly this was a message mobilizing against the Brotherhood. The author spends much of the paper describing the group’s attitude toward social services, showing how it serves the good of society at large.
But at the start of the paper, describing the Brotherhood founder’s somewhat nebulous and shifting attitudes toward politics, he wrote:
In the opening of the first issue of al-Natheer magazine in May 1938, Hassan al-Banna clearly stated “Until now, brothers, you have not opposed any party or organization, nor have you joined them… but today you will strongly oppose all of them, in power and outside of it, if they do not acquiesce and adopt the teachings of Islam as a model that they will abide by and work for…There shall be either loyalty or animosity.”
Clearly, this us-versus-them mentality is deeply ingrained in the Brotherhood ethos. The ‘loyalty or animosity’ theme is also a hallmark of Islamic extremism.
But this leads to one of the author’s points of reflection. The Brotherhood needs to better cooperate with others:
As long as the Brotherhood’s political imagination is unable to overcome the mindset of “coup versus legitimacy” and develop an alternative political discourse that meets the demands of the disaffected social segments that ignited the January revolution, then the Brotherhood itself may be an obstacle in its efforts to build a new culture of protest.
And in Fayed’s final conclusion, he makes an appeal:
Until now, the group has not formed a clear political vision. Nor does it have the tools to remove the military from its political calculus. Therefore, the group must work with other forces that reject the policies of the current regime.
Such an alliance, he believes, can form a broad national front whose goals and programs are based on the priorities of the revolution at large. This national front could also delineate pragmatic plans to coexist with the political and economic influence of the military for the foreseeable future.
The strategy is sensible, but he fails to state one of the most significant reasons this is not happening. Early on, the national front forces he describes felt betrayed as the Brotherhood collaborated with the military against the revolution. Yet even in this appeal to them now he does the same – imagining pragmatic plans to coexist with the military.
In a sense, this may help prove his point. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a very revolutionary organization. In fact the author’s semi-solution is to consider abandoning the political project and return to its comprehensive social role. If out of politics, he posits, the group could be a powerful force to marshal the populace to push non-Brotherhood politicians toward Islam-inspired positions.
Here is where Fayed’s most powerful rethink takes place:
The Brotherhood’s brief experience of being in power and its subsequent removal by military coup has served to strengthen the idea of separating the Brotherhood’s role as a social institution from its role as a political force …
In hindsight, it appears that the Brotherhood’s direct participation in competitive politics has done substantial damage to decades of social and religious institution building.
But since this social institution building project has been dismantled, as he acknowledges, where can the Brotherhood go now? He doesn’t see the group diving into violence, but acknowledges there is no space for reconciliation with the regime as long as Sisi is in power.
In short, there is a deep impasse in which the Brotherhood can only hope that current conditions deteriorate until the people rise again in revolt. Whatever authority comes next, it seems, might be able to work out an arrangement to restore the group.
In history this has been seen before. After Nasser, Sadat gave an opening. It may be wise to wait. Without stating it so clearly, this may be his real analysis on why the Brotherhood has not resorted to violence.
Of course he also mentions the many Brotherhood members in prison, which makes a difference also. But instead of his focus on internal Brotherhood dynamics, I would propose a different reason:
Army unity did not break, Egypt is demographically homogenous, and the people do not like violence.
For consider, the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine believes in armed struggle. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria believes in armed struggle. Every situation is different, of course, but there is nothing intrinsic to the Brotherhood that believes in nonviolence. In Egypt, they made practical decisions on the best way to pursue their objectives within the scope of the possible.
In a vastly more constricted setting, they do the same today.
Had a division of the army broken off, should we imagine the Brotherhood would not have rallied behind it? Had they seized a portion of Upper Egypt, for example, would they not be fighting to defend it?
It is true the Brotherhood has not run off into Sinai, but an insurgency does not control Sinai, it only plagues it. Furthermore, the Brotherhood was never strong there, it would be unfamiliar terrain.
So why are not thousands of Brotherhood members committing individual terrorist acts? I would suggest it takes quite a bit to turn a frustrated political activist into a wanton killer, especially if there is no well-defined endgame. The Egyptian people do not like violence; Brotherhood members are drawn from the people. Besides, there is already a long history of Islamist insurgency from a few decades ago that only served to alienate the masses.
No matter how difficult the situation, they hold to the calculated decision that violence is still not the winning option. Give them at least some credit for this, but not necessarily the honor of principle. They have always been willing to fight, and the Brotherhood has never denied it. Their comprehensive vision of Islam does not sideline the use of force, only regulate it. The Brotherhood are pragmatists.
So what is Ammar Fayed? A very particular viewpoint within the Brotherhood that has won pride of place at an esteemed think tank. It may or may not be their dominant viewpoint, but it is insight into their world, provided the analysis is viewed within the possibility of propaganda.
In this Brookings is providing a very valuable service. It is allowing Islamists to speak into the academic discussion about Islamism. As long as it is properly introduced, I hope there will be more.
Forgotten after the unfortunate farce of a hijacking, the Egyptian cabinet presented parliament with its governing program.
Bless their efforts, God. May wisdom have drafted it, may courage implement it, may discernment amend it to whatever degree necessary.
May transparency accompany it. May accountability characterize it. May prosperity follow it.
God, help Egypt pass through this difficult period. But even when her problems are not self-inflicted, something arises to hijack recovery.
This time, a man on a plane with a fake bomb and a strange story. How much further damage will he cause to tourism?
Did he want his ex-wife and kids? Did he want the release of female prisoners? Did he act out of right mind? Did he act out shrewd agenda?
Whether a cry for help or a whimper of defiance, God, mend him as an individual. Care for his family, do right in their broken relationship.
And do right in Egypt. Restore tourism and make it safe. Renew investment and spread its benefit. Care for the nation; mend her broken relationships domestic and foreign.
Give insight to the authorities, God. Give agency to the people. Together may they govern well.
At least 69 people are dead in the Pakistani city of Lahore, many of them from Christian families celebrating Easter in a public park.
The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility, stating it directly targeted Christians and promises further attacks in the future.
From Lapido Media, an anonymous British NGO worker provides a first-hand account:
A crowd of some 25,000 protesters had gathered in Rawalpindi, Islamabad’s twin city, and after prayers, started marching towards the capital. As night fell they arrived in front of the National Assembly building and fighting broke out. Tear gas was fired, and the rioters smashed Islamabad’s new metro bus stations, assembled at great expense only a year earlier.
As we drove home from Easter Sunday celebrations we could hear the chanting: thousands of people in the heart of Pakistan’s capital city demanding that the government institute a policy of ethnic cleansing.
A challenging question is why such brutality exists, coupled with hardcore support for a blasphemy law that further targets religious minorities.
The author takes note of many signs of tolerance emerging after the tragedy in Lahore, and finds hope:
While there are Muslims who pray for the rights of Pakistani minorities; while there are Muslims who text me condolences on the Christian lives lost in Lahore; while there are Muslims who risk their lives to demand government action against radical clerics who openly declare their support for Islamic State –while such people exist, there is hope for Pakistan.
But he also lays blame on one man in particular who set it all in motion:
It is not easy to step back from three decades of officially-sanctioned Islamism; the retrogressive reforms of General Zia, who strengthened the blasphemy law and degraded the rights of Pakistani women, cannot be undone without a fight.
There is a tendency among historians and analysts to place most if not all of the blame for the current state of affairs on the shoulders of the US-sponsored dictator General Zia-ul-Haq.
Instead, the author faults the very movement that created Pakistan in the first place:
In the late 1930s, elements within the Muslim elite, motivated by narrow and selfish interests, began to aggressively pursue an agenda involving the creation of a separate state for India’s Muslim population.
The oft-repeated phrase “Jinnah’s Pakistan” should be familiar to even the most casual observers. Those who conjure up this tired slogan whenever minorities are targeted must come to terms with the fact that it was the “Quaid” himself who set the dangerous precedent of using communalist rhetoric for political ends.
Jinnah, a westernized, non-practicing Muslim, cynically raised the cry of “Islam in Danger” as part of his campaign to drive a wedge between Muslims and Hindus and gain support for the partition of the Indian subcontinent among the sections of the Islamic clergy.
Based on the bogus claim that Muslims and Hindus constituted two distinct nations, the partition that gave birth to the “Land of the Pure” was a tragedy of immense proportions, resulting in an orgy of violence and untold suffering for millions of people on both sides of the artificial border.
What is happening is simply the inevitable result of official policy…
… rooted in Pakistan’s creation through the partition, that encourages the identification of Islam with the state, consequently diminishing non-Muslims to second-class status while also fanning the flames of religious fundamentalism and strengthening the power of the clerics.
Quartz, however, wants to absolve Jinnah, quoting:
His speech advanced the case for a secular, albeit Muslim-majority, Pakistan: ‘I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community … will vanish.’
And again:
You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State …
Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
That this has not happened is a fault that rests in the decline of the state itself:
Pakistan’s most prominent human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, warns that the worst is yet to come. ‘Past experience has shown that the Islamists gain space when civilian authority weakens,’ she pointed out in an article a few years ago.
‘The proliferation of arms and official sanction for jihad have made militant groups a frightening challenge for the government. Pakistan’s future remains uncertain and its will to fight against rising religious intolerance is waning.’
I am no expert in Pakistan, but right or wrong, this is analysis. The greater question is what can be done about it.
The facts known or the story straight. Above board or underhanded. In Egypt this week it is one or the other. God, let it be the former.
For there are many who doubt, many who accuse.
Egypt announced the ID of the Italian researcher tortured and murdered two months ago was found in a home connected to a criminal gang killed in a shootout with police.
A joint investigation is being conducted with Italy, but some on both sides of the Mediterranean consider it far too tidy a conclusion. These point figures at Egyptian police, who have made clear they had no role in his disappearance.
At the same time, dozens of civil society organizations have been named in the reopening of a file linking them to illegal foreign funding, sponsored to work against the regime.
Investigations are proceeding, and over the years the state has left a murky legal field for NGO operation. But some on both sides of the Atlantic consider this an assault against independent voices, though Egypt insists it simply wants compliance with the law.
God, provide the truth.
There are criminals somewhere, find them. Civil society needs funds, provide them.
If accusations against Egypt are true, her moral morass grows deeper with each new revelation. If Egypt is innocent, the force of the onslaught against her grows stronger.
Whether guilt is mixed or confined to one side, hold the responsible accountable, God. Sooner rather than later, let there be transparency.
Through it all, preserve Egypt and her people. Bless them, and may their story, with all its facts, one day be celebrated.
As President Obama puts forward Judge Merrick Garland as a nominee for the Supreme Court and Republicans balk at a shift to the left, it is interesting to speculate if the recently deceased conservative Antonin Scalia might have been embraced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
I am not a legal scholar, so I am not able to fully consider the weight of Antonin Scalia’s argument cross-culturally. But in an obituary written by Christianity Today I found a particular statement very interesting, especially in consideration of religious rights in the Muslim world.
To begin contrarily, Scalia was clear that his legal interpretation was based solely on the Constitution, not his personal Catholic moral code. Though firmly opposed to abortion, for example, he did not base his vote on scripture.
“I’m a worldly judge,” he said in a 1996 speech at a Catholic university in Rome. “I just do what the Constitution tells me to do.” The only one of the Ten Commandments relevant to the judge’s role, he said, was the command to tell the truth.
This stance bothered some pro-life advocates. For them the opposition to abortion centers in the inalienable right to life, given by the Creator. Yet the logic is consistent with the American heritage of caution concerning religion and state, and Scalia was nonetheless heralded by both religious and judicial conservatives for his powerful judgment.
But here is the statement over which I am still puzzling. It is sensible, but it does not seem right.
“The whole theory of democracy,” he said, “is that the majority rules. You protect minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minorities or certain minority positions that deserve protection” through a constitution or a statute.
My mind immediately went to Islam and sharia law. As interpreted by some, Christians and Jews (and perhaps others) are given very clear protections within a Muslim state. But as interpreted by others, these protections fall short of the modern conception of human rights as articulated by United Nations declarations and even, perhaps, the US Constitution.
I have heard Scalia’s argument over and over again from Muslims in the Middle East, and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular argued in terms of a majoritarian conception of democracy. Putting aside the question of the proper understanding of religious freedom in Islam, many expressed their shock that Arab Christians did not appreciate the status they had in the sharia. To them, protection grounded in God’s word was far stronger than that determined by man’s consensus.
But Islamist Muslims — and perhaps others beside — stated that as we have demonstrated ourselves to be the majority through elections, we have the right to legislate according to our orientation. For them this meant the implementation of sharia law, within the Egyptian Constitution and legal code, variously defined. Liberal Muslims and their efforts to afford citizenship rights on the basis of positive law simply lost out.
How would Scalia respond?
A key difference, of course, is that the US Constitution does not base legislation on any particular moral code. As much as many of the Founding Fathers were infused by Christian values, Scalia was right to adjudicate based on the text itself, without reference to any higher text. In America, there is none.
But in many constitutions of the Muslim world, there is. To various degrees Islam is written in as a source of legislation and the religion of the state. This affords their jurists the chance to appeal to their understanding of sharia law, if they so choose. This understanding can be either liberal or conservative, but it is not controversial in itself.
Would Scalia approve if a national referendum passed an amendment to mandate, say, a Christian religious test for public office? Any state or national law would be in clear violation of the constitution, but in this scenario the democratic majority would succeed in altering our nation’s charter, complicating also the Bill of Rights.
Under the United States system of government, and under his own logic, perhaps he would be powerless to resist. But even within current First Amendment protections, it appears that minority religious rights can be restricted by popular opinion. Scalia would be clear that our constitution guards them to a great degree, and he would be among the first in defense. But within the system, perhaps, they can be degraded.
What does this speak to the situation of Christian minorities in the Middle East? Are they hostage to popular demagoguery that might threaten to subject them to second class status?
Perhaps. Civil constitutions in sovereign nation-states govern most of the Muslim world. Many of these grant citizenship rights broadly consistent with UN understandings, but also give leeway to avoid contradiction with a left-undefined sharia. The details are left to interpretation.
But in taking an issue like blasphemy law, clear majorities favor the prosecution of statements deemed offensive to religious sensibility. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression take a backseat, even when guaranteed protection in the constitution.
I do not know how to properly understand Scalia’s remark, but his advice might be clear: Campaign, lobby, and get yourself a majority. Otherwise, be thankful for the God-inspired civil and sharia protections the constitution does grant.
Legal scholars are invited to correct these impressions, but would Scalia fit well in the Muslim Brotherhood? It would be a strange cross-cultural legacy indeed.
‘Zionism is a big tent’: Settler Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger
Palestinian Christian jaws dropped in shock.
Gathered to promote their narrative to international evangelicals largely supportive of Israel, a bespectacled, long-bearded, Yarmulke-wearing Jewish settler appeared on screen.
He spoke, and their surprise deepened.
‘I am a passionate defender of Palestinian rights,’ Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger told the audience. ‘Zionism is a big tent, and there are many I disagree with.’
A New York City native, Schlesinger immigrated to Israel in 1977. He lives in the settlement of Gush Etzion, between Bethlehem and Hebron.
Many Palestinians consider Jewish settlers to be the source of all evil, he admitted. Not until two years ago had he spoken to a Palestinian as an equal.
Serving in the army, he had arrested them. For general housework, he had employed them. But after a US-based pastor encouraged him to listen to them, he had worked to be reconciled ever since.
Many attended the Bethlehem conference last week from UK. Photo: CATC
In this capacity Schlesinger was invited to the fourth biennial Christ at the Checkpoint (CATC) conference, held 7-10 March in Bethlehem. Operating at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, these conferences provoke much controversy.
Provoke
This year, they chose to provoke themselves.
Fifty UK citizens joined roughly five hundred people from 24 countries to attend the conference, including 150 Palestinian Christians from Israel and the West Bank.
Interviewed on screen, Schlesinger also expressed great appreciation for those the conference aimed to challenge: Christian Zionists who prioritize Jewish Israel.
‘The Christian nation is turning over a new leaf, it is a miracle,’ he said. ‘Christian Zionism defends Israel against its many enemies, so we need all the friends we can get.’
Afterwards he mingled in the crowd. Some even approached to shake his hand.
‘It was hard for many here to see Rabbi Hanan in our audience, let alone on the screen,’ said Sami Awad, executive director of the Holy Land Trust, and a conference organiser.
‘But some came to me and said, you are challenging us in our faith.’
Like many Palestinians, Awad, who has conducted nonviolent trainings for Hamas, had found it difficult to befriend those with whom he had deep political disagreements.
Additional screened interviews with his friends in Hamas also challenged the conference towards a similar transformation.
Awad told Lapido that Jews have a basic need to live and worship in the land of their ancestors.
The fear that kept Jews, Muslim, and Christians apart, he said, came less from ‘the other’ than from those one considers on one’s own side.
‘Make uncomfortable’: Awad. Photo: University of Bristol
‘People are not afraid of Rabbi Hanan, they know he will not come here and hurt us,’ he said. ‘But we are afraid of being labeled a traitor by our own community.’
Awad and Schlesinger jointly host a study to discuss their holy texts. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all suffer generational trauma, Awad says. So the Holy Land Trust sponsors ‘healing hatred’ groups to help them overcome it together.
Transform
Likewise, Schlesinger has co-founded ‘Roots’, a Palestinian-Israeli initiative for understanding, non-violence, and transformation.
Of three thousand local Israelis and Palestinians attending his training, around two-thirds have been Jews. Of these up to forty percent have been settlers, and up to 15 percent have been soldiers sent by the army.
Ninety-nine percent of all participants, he said, are meeting ‘the other’ for the first time.
‘Something is wrong,’ Rabbi Schlesinger told Lapido Media. ‘We are living out our truth in a way that causes injustice to other people.
‘I don’t know if the land is occupied, but the people are occupied.’
This theme was echoed by another prominent Jewish critic of Israeli policy invited to CATC, Arik Ascherman, president and senior rabbi of Rabbis for Human Rights. His remarks were introduced by a video from October 2015 showing him resisting a knife-wielding Jewish settler.
‘The creation of the state of Israel—and we know it is a catastrophe for Palestinians—was the beginning of our redemption, and we want it to be a blessing shared by all,’ he said.
‘But it may be that in God’s eyes, the very things we do to hold on to the entire land make us unworthy to keep all of it.’
Criticism
CATC has been subject to much criticism, some of it theological, some of it political.
‘Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians enjoy religious liberty,’ Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, told Lapido. Last year they raised over £872 million to support Israel.
‘Even as I decry the anti-Israel rhetoric that has taken place [at CATC], I give thanks for the many, many Christians who truly know Israel and continue to support the land and her people in prayer.’
But for Awad, though resistance to the occupation is crucial, so is the befriending of an enemy.
‘I cannot be a voice to the other side in nearly the same way one of their own can,’ he said.
‘We are communal beings who only trust our own kind, so we need to make our own communities uncomfortable.’
The Muslim Brotherhood once had a militant wing. It then spent decades rejecting the use of violence, but continuing to embrace its most strident ideologues.
After the fall of Morsi the Brotherhood must again navigate this heritage, with an old guard that is cautious and concerned about international opinion, and a youth movement that is passionate and concerned about the situation on the ground.
In his recent article for Foreign Affairs, Mokhtar Awad describes the most recent developments with each.
The old guard has made some strides, however, by controlling the Brotherhood’s international financing, which became far more important following Sisi’s severe crackdown on the group’s domestic financial operations.
With the money inside Egypt reportedly dwindling, there were fewer resources available to finance violent operations. Indeed, since the fall of 2015, there has been a noticeable dip in violence perpetrated by these new violent groups in the Egyptian mainland, which is only starting to pick up again.
These new violent groups do need authorization, however, to be sharia-compliant.
Still, the seeds for a radicalized Muslim Brotherhood, a sort of Brotherhood jihadism, have been planted. During the height of the revolutionary wing’s influence in early 2015, some of its leaders, as it is believed, informally commissioned a group of Islamic scholars to write a sharia-based manual on the question of violence.
The result was a 93-page book titled The Jurisprudence of Popular Resistance to the Coup. It was an obvious attempt at ijtihad, or legal reasoning, by non-Salafi jihadist scholars to reconcile Brotherhood creed with a methodology of violence.
These scholars declared that neither Sisi nor his government were apostates but were instead ahl baghy, or seditionists,who had turned against the religiously legitimate leader: Mohamed Morsi.
And since Sisi and his government had used violence against Muslim believers, they were considered enemy combatants who should be slain, according to sharia law.
But even these radicals still feel compunction to stay within the mainstream Brotherhood heritage.
This theoretical dance around the issue of apostasy is an attempt by the authors to reconcile Brotherhood teachings with violence without inviting damaging comparisons to Salafi jihadism.
Egyptians, and most Islamists, in fact, hold very negative views toward those who declare other Muslims apostates, or takfiris. The authors of the book are so careful that the text does not once mention Sayyid Qutb, the infamous Brotherhood ideologue whose takfirist ideas helped inspire modern-day jihadism.
Instead, the authors reference the Brotherhood founder Imam Hassan al-Banna and use his selection of two swords in the group’s logo, as well as his talk of “strength,” as a justification for violence against the state.
Read the full article for greater context, but here is one anecdote that shows how convoluted this heritage can be. It is difficult to esteem both swords and non-violence.
It warns against kidnapping and sexual assault of the women and children of security officers, but says there is no harm in threatening to do such things to scare them.
Translation: Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story; how 5000 black men found a way to end racial discrimination
Egypt’s centre-left secularist party has an unlikely mascot: America’s most famous Baptist preacher, Dr Martin Luther King.
King is the inspiration behind a revival of liberalism in a country where prison awaits street protest of almost any kind.
Selma was the surprise choice of film to launch a new cultural moment in post-revolution Egypt.
The 2014 film chronicles King’s march from a backwater hamlet to the statehouse in Alabama.
‘We chose Selma because it shows how civil rights movements can proceed peacefully,’ said Islam Amin, founder of the Egyptian Cinema Club.
‘We also have suffered crackdowns and violence in the streets. The situation of Selma is like Egypt today.’
[Turning to culture: President of the centre-left ESDP AbulGhar (R), with the father of Egyptian cinema’s ‘new realism’ school, Daoud Abdel Sayed. Photo: ESDP]
Leading politicians attended the screening. One – Mohammed Abul Ghar – believes that as in King’s America only the President can make a difference to Egypt’s oppressive politics, as thinkers, writers, and ‘blasphemers’ find themselves facing lengthy prison sentences.
‘We are clearly against these laws, but the situation is very dangerous,’ said Ghar, president of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party (ESDP).
‘It must be the president who will take the step to change them; it is the only way.’
Martin Luther King suffered abuse from citizens and police alike, but his efforts mobilized a nation and culminated in the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The ESDP, which won only four seats in the 596-member parliament, is frustrated with the path politics is taking.
Following the ouster of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated President Mohamed Morsi, ESDP members occupied top posts in government, including prime minister.
But now, says Ghar, there is no government, only ministry heads he calls ‘secretaries to the president’.
So instead politicians are turning to culture.
‘It is hard to play politics these days, but we can still play culture,’ Amin, the ECC founder, said. ‘Culture, philosophy, and art spread tolerance and justice, where fascists and Islamists spread only lies and hate.’
[Logo of the Egyptian Cinema Club. Photo: ESDP]
But coming off the back of Egypt’s experience of political Islam, what chance is there for a Baptist preacher’s example?
Bassem Kamel, head of the political training department in the ESDP, drew three lessons from Selma and the life of King: change requires a long and sustained effort; violence is counter-productive, and to win you must win the people.
Selma also highlights King’s deftness with the media – something the new wave of liberals emulates. They invite popular culture-makers to maximize the attention they get, launching the film club cannily on the UN-designated World Day of Social Justice.
‘Culture and politics have a clear influence on each other,’ said Daoud Abdel Sayed, whose 40-year career in Egyptian cinema was honoured at the screening.
His school of ‘new realism’ emphasizes the modern struggles of ordinary Egyptians. ‘But the problem is the state has transformed culture into something only for élites,’ he says.
Translation
The ESDP’s film club is not the only Egyptian effort to use the memory of Dr King. In 2009, activist Dalia Ziada translated the obscure, 1958 comic book Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story into Arabic.
Two years later in 2011 she found herself distributing thousands of copies in Tahrir Square.
‘The book was being smuggled like drugs,’ she told Lapido. ‘The real challenge we are facing now is how to keep the momentum going.
‘But there is no Selma in Muslim Egypt.’
The problem has been a 40-year process of importing a foreign Wahhabi ideology, says Ziada. A moderate, Sufi-style Islam had declined as culture and state turned conservative.
Earlier sheikhs had looked to Europe for inspiration, she said, now they looked to Arabia.
[‘No Selma in Muslim Egypt’: Dalia Ziada. Photo: Andres Alonso Photography]
‘God knows how many years we will have to wait until a 2011 revolutionary comes to power,’ said Ziada, now director of the Liberal Democracy Institute of Egypt.
‘But even if it takes forty years, I am sure this day will come,’ she adds, recalling the four-decade interlude between Selma and the election of US President Barack Obama.
Comic
Beyond the comic book there are only eight books in Arabic on the life of Martin Luther King, according to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. But in 2012 he added another: a translation of King’s biography, published by the London-Beirut-based company Dar al-Saqi.
Others agree with Ziada that there is no comparable figure to King in contemporary Egypt. American University in Cairo professor of Arab and Islamic Civilization Mohamed Serag cites nineteenth-century Al Azhar scholar Muhammad Abduh as a possible model.
One of the founding fathers of Islamic Modernism, Abduh’s students pioneered reforms in politics, economy, and gender equality.
But today, Serag said, poor education and state policy combine to keep another Abduh, let alone a King, from emerging. ‘Despotism is the reason,’ he said. ‘Since 1952 our régimes have controlled society and do not let it prosper.’
ESDP president Abul Ghar cannot envision a change until the collapse of Saudi Arabia and its petrodollar sponsorship of religious conservatism.
‘Egypt is completely polarized,’ he added, ‘and with Islam as a religion it is very difficult. Either you become a radical salafi or you separate Islam from politics completely.’
But pushing pessimism aside, the secular party highlights a Christian minister and continues the grassroots work.
‘Yes, Martin Luther King was a pastor, and we do not have this type of figure in Egypt,’ said Kamel, the political trainer.
Today, Sunday the 6th, churches around the world will celebrate the World Day of Prayer, officially designated as the first Friday in March. The movement began in the 19th century, led by lay women in the United States. Today more than 170 nations participate.
But Americans may be surprised at the official program this year.
Two years ago the country of focus was Egypt, and I was able to contribute an article to Presbyterian Today. The choice of nation was made four earlier in 2010, before the onset of the Arab Spring, leading many to remark the selection was prophetic.
One might say the same about this year, with a focus on Cuba. At that time relations with the United States were still frozen; now a new light is dawning.
I am not certain when the program was written, but it contains nothing of the thaw. Instead, worshipers were asked to pray this prayer:
Forgive us when we have not created a genuine space for dialogue among those who differ from us; when we have not lifted our voices sufficiently to denounce an injustice like the economic blockade affecting the Cubans for so many years…
And later:
In Cuba, we pray that you transform the walls erected by the economic blockade into wide open doors that are ready to receive.
Perhaps this prayer has now been answered.
The Cuban World Day of Prayer committee did make reference to oblique ‘detention centers’ for undocumented migrants , and in the opening skit one elderly Cuban woman said, ‘My generation has kept the Faith despite much discrimination.’ But a Cuban child praised her school which also teaches her the Bible.
As Americans, we are used to thinking of the Cuban blockade as an essentially just aspect of our foreign policy. It began to stem the tide of communism, and continued to check a human-rights violating dictator.
Certainly the reality is more complicated, on both sides. But it is worth noting that Cuban brothers and sisters in Christ chose to frame the issue as one of injustice.
Today, therefore, let us praise God with them that doors have been opened. Politics is messy; issues are rarely black and white; there is ample room to disagree with the shift in American policy.
But as the Cubans chose to pray, let us join them:
Forgive us … when we have built up walls that have prevented us from giving reason for our faith and hope… Enable each of us to do our part in providing help for the suffering world around us.
Lord, hear our prayer.
As a postscript, the 2017 World Day of Prayer will focus on the Philippines. Will the choice again prove to be prophetic?
Then again, the 2015 nation was the Bahamas. Perhaps it skips a year. Take care Suriname.
This article was published at Providence, on March 4, 2016.
The carnage is so severe, the atrocities so barbaric, and the impasse so intractable. Even when violence targets fellow Christians and their ancient communities, the morass of the Middle East can silence any moral response. Believers are tempted to throw up their hands in despair, for any proposed solution creates further uncomfortable complications.
If America stands with Assad in Syria we back his barrel bombs. If we side with the rebels we empower Islamism. If we stay neutral the killing continues, as friend and foe alike meddle on behalf of their favorite proxy. If we bomb only the Islamic State the core political issues remain. If we commit ground troops the specter of Saddam looms over all. Propaganda shrouds analysis in conspiracy, and regardless of action refugees pour out of a tinderbox ready to spark further war.
It is no wonder Christians are paralyzed to suggest anything.
Into the morass wades Terry Ascott, desperately seeking a way forward. And his solution tramples over one of the region’s most sacred cows, one only the Islamic State has dared address: Redraw the map.
Terry Ascott is the founder and CEO of the Arabic Christian satellite network SAT-7, though he is clear these remarks are personal in nature, unrelated to the work of the SAT-7, which I have written about in the past such as here and here.
I have also previously summarized an article from the London Review of Books that suggests the United States has conspired to create exactly the situation Ascott is calling for.
The article in Providence touches on the fact that a few others have suggested a solution in political division, but in purpose reflects Ascott’s Christian heart and rationale to stop the bloodshed. It also reflects his pessimism that the region can do this on its own.
Please click here to read the full article, and brainstorm with him.
Guide the man. Guide the professionals. Guide the parliament.
Guide them all to guide the government.
Tawfik Okasha is a loose cannon, a conspiracy theorist, and a now former member of parliament. His colleagues revoked his standing after several weeks of theatrics and dinner with the Israeli ambassador.
God, he is a hard man to figure. Is he a player or a pawn? A visionary or a reactionary? Either way, bless him. Refine him. Multiply every good and right principle he latches on to, and hold him firm as storms assail. Forgive him for the excess of every storm he unleashes himself.
Act similarly with the body of his former parliamentarians. Marshall their strength as the representatives of the people, and help them honor Egypt.
Give peace among neighbors, and justice within nations.
Egypt’s doctors and journalists believe they pursue this locally. Both level their protests against the security establishment, for colleagues assaulted and colleagues imprisoned. In their target and their numbers they are exercising pressure long absent from the Egyptian scene.
Give them wisdom, God, and with them the government. In a still sensitive and fragile context, help them establish good patterns for right expressions of grievance.
And may the government preempt them, to act before its hand is forced. But when challenged may it respond in grace, weighing the perfect against the possible, implementing with discernment all that you find right and good.
Act through individuals, God, with all their foibles. Act through collectives, with all their clamor. Guide Egypt forward, and give her peace.
A little while back I was interviewed by Pilgrim Radio about my Christianity Today article on the growth of Christianity in the Arabian Peninsula.
Pilgrim Radio is a Christian non-commercial FM broadcasting network reaching the American West from Colorado to California. The mission is ‘to advance a program of Christian education using an artful blend of music and Scripture, stimulating instruction, interesting guests, and great books, all done in the public interest.’
The website carries only live content, so the director was kind enough to share the audio file with me. Please click on the player below if you’d like to listen in on the 27 minute show, on the His People program.
Coincidentally, the live program tonight (March 2) is an interview with Nicole Walters on worshiping with the Copts in Egypt.
Please click here to read the original article at Christianity Today, and here for a follow up interview CT did for a behind the scenes perspective. Click here for photos I took of the many churches being built in the United Arab Emirates.
Here and here you can read related stories from my trip at Lapido Media, about an English priest in Abu Dhabi engaging a Hack-a-Thon to strengthen migrant rights, and a missionary hospital in al-Ain that won the royal goodwill to make all the above possible.
Thanks for your interest, and I hope you enjoy.
When writing an article, though my name is given it is nice to stay in the background and let my sources tell the story. It is different getting used to radio, when the voice is mine. But this was my second effort (click here for the first — on ISIS and Christian response for the Dan Darling podcast), so perhaps more opportunities will come.
Identifying the alter ego of the front-running Republican candidate appears to be American’s favorite parlor game these days. An early winner is Adolph Hitler, with Benito Mussolini making a late charge. I have even seen some suggest Jesus.
But here are two more insightful comparisons.
T. Greer goes back in American history to find the first populist candidate to upset the establishment:
In truth, we do not need to look to foreign climes to understand Trumpism. Donald Trump is not America’s Hitler. Donald Trump is the 21st century’s Andrew Jackson.
Like Trump, Andrew Jackson ran for office at a time when an entrenched political aristocracy had controlled the American political system for decades.
Like Trump, Jackson’s supporters had lost their faith in this system and felt utterly isolated from its ruling class.
As with Trump, Jackson was a fantastically well off in comparison to the average American, but still a considered a complete outsider in elite circles because he was crass, rude, vulgar, and stupid–in other words, a joke, someone not to be taken seriously until it was too late.
Like Trump, Jackson’s success was built upon getting the people who the existing system excluded or ignored engaged in politics in a way they had not been their entire lives. In both cases these people tended to be less educated, not too well off, and of Scots-Irish descent.
Like Trump, Jackson was a nativist, a nationalist, and fairly racist. Both are in essence majoritarians, and their policy is to materially improve the livelihoods of the majority demographic, even if that comes at the expense of other groups.
Like Trump, Jackson used these voters to hijack a party coalition traditionally associated with limited government; like Trump, Jackson paid lip service to this philosophy (and sometimes, as with the banks, acted on his words) but possessed a temperament that put him at odds with it.
Like Trump, Jackson did not have a firm grasp of all the issues at hand on the campaign trail (compared to his opponents, who were quite wonkish), and had a pronounced tendency to personalize all political disputes.
Like Trump, this was one of his greatest selling points with the public: Jackson was someone who spoke as a common man did while being greater than any common man was. He “told it like it is.” Both understood the media technology and news cycles of their time, and took advantage of them in novel ways to “tell it like it is” to far more people than his opponents thoughts possible. You could say that Jackson, like Trump, pioneered a new style of campaigning. By doing so he quickly learned how to outmaneuver his political opponents into oblivion.
Like Trump, attacks that came against Jackson in response only seemed to make him stronger, and like Trump, most of these attacks were focused less on his ideas–which were always rather nebulously defined on the campaign trail, painted in broad strokes, so to speak–than against his character, especially his (or his family’s) alleged lechery, gaudiness, stupidity, or savagery.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Greer continues to compare the two eras to imagine what America might expect from a Trump presidency. In short, populism is a corrective for a political establishment that has fallen out of touch with a great part of the electorate. But the presidency is a much more powerful institution than it used to be, so the curbs on Jackson’s power may not restrain Trump as effectively.
In the second comparison, Gina Dalfonzo leaves history and enters fiction. Fans of C. S. Lewis may appreciate her warning, imagining Trump to be supported by Nikabrik:
In the story, you may remember, Narnia is in a desperate situation. The Telmarines have taken over, and the citizens of Narnia have been persecuted, silenced, and driven into hiding. When Prince Caspian—a Telmarine himself, but one who sympathizes with the Narnian cause—joins forces with them, this leads to a fresh round of attacks from the other Telmarines and their king, Miraz. The Narnians try to summon help by using Queen Susan’s horn—and they are successful, though not all of them realize it right away.
Drawn to Narnia by the call of the horn, Peter and Edmund and their guide, the dwarf Trumpkin, come upon a handful of Narnians meeting with Prince Caspian. Nikabrik, another dwarf, is angry that apparently no help has come from Aslan or the old kings and queens of Narnia. While others argue that “help will come” if they can wait patiently, Nikabrik contends that there is no time to wait: They are running out of food and reinforcements.
If Aslan won’t help, Nikabrik adds, perhaps another power will:
“The stories tell of other powers besides the ancient Kings and Queens. How if we could call them up?”
“Who do you mean?” said Caspian at last.
“I mean a power so much greater than Aslan’s that it held Narnia spellbound for years and years, if the stories are true.”
“The White Witch!” cried three voices all at once. . . .
This, of course, is the same Witch who killed Aslan in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Nikabrik has already gone so far as to recruit a sorceress to raise the Witch from the dead. But the others are horrified—so horrified that a battle ensues, joined by the Pevensies and Trumpkin. By the time it’s over, Nikabrik and his allies are dead themselves.
How could one of the good guys in this story become corrupt enough to seek help from someone whose greed, brutality, and lust for power were legendary? As Lewis well knew, it can happen more easily and quickly than one might think. It’s been happening throughout history, ever since the first time the Israelites turned to a godless nation for help instead of trusting God to save them.
One can make a case that it’s happening right now within the conservative movement in the United States.
The article does not chastise Nikabrik unduly. He has admirable characteristics and noble sentiments. But fear and concern for one’s own can blind human nature to a multitude of faults, if packaged as an answer to set things right.
These are not the only comparisons out there, but rather than engaging in the dismissive accusation of fascism, consider also these critiques on the presumptive red state candidate.
The plot to Ave Maria is as improbable as it is provocative. A Jewish settler family crashes their car into a statue of the Virgin Mary at a Palestinian Carmelite monastery in the West Bank.
Bound by the onset of Sabbath, the Jews can do little to get home. Bound by a vow of silence, the nuns can do little to help. Bound by mutual distrust and annoyance, the odd couple pairing can do little but bicker. Fortunately, spellbound by the comedic touch of 34-year-old producer Basil Khalil, critics around the world can do little but laugh.
This 14-minute short already won top prizes at film festivals in Grenoble, Montpelier, and Dubai before securing a nomination for best live-action short film at this year’s 88th Academy Awards.
Ave Maria is Khalil’s second comedic venture into the deeply divisive and often somber portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict…
Please click here to read the full article at Christianity Today. Here’s a sample question, followed by the trailer:
You were raised by a Palestinian Christian father and a British mother, were you comfortable in both settings?
You don’t really choose where or how you’re born, so you just live with it and make the most of it. I do believe being of both worlds did give me a more critical perspective. I know how the West sees us, and I’m able to give them something fresh, yet at the same time I know our stories and culture from Palestine so I’m able to portray accurate stories from there.
Egypt’s president looked ahead 14 years and saw a place of economic success. Make it so.
But he also looked at the present and admitted shortcomings in human rights. Make it change.
This week a new port opened in the Suez Canal.
This week another writer was jailed for his content. And teenagers for alleged blasphemy. And an anti-torture NGO threatened with closure. And…
But the police have committed to propose new legislation to better govern performance and community relations.
And a doctor convicted of female genital mutilation finally loses his license.
God, there is much to be concerned about. There are signs of progress. And people can differ over which is which.
God, help Egypt to square her laws with her constitution. Help her to enforce them with justice. Help her to create and open and transparent climate for culture and business.
But which clauses, God? The ones guaranteeing rights and freedoms, or the ones regulating in accordance with sharia?
And which laws? The ones facilitating central state control, or the ones privileging the private sector?
So many contradictions in Egyptian society are not yet ironed out. So many conflicting values are at odds.
Perhaps there is no essential struggle. With freedom comes responsibility. With license comes oversight. But help government and society together to find the place of consensus. Help limits be defined, known, and acceptable to all.
And then bless those dissenting, willing to challenge. But may all act with respect, and bear their weight of their role.
God, may it not take 14 years. But whatever time is necessary, make it right.
As Christians involve themselves – for good and for bad – in the divisive politics and cultural struggles of our nation, it is assumed they do so to preserve and advance a moral ethic consistent with Scripture.
Unfortunately, it can be easy to forget one of the central marks of this morality: ‘Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.’
This command, and it is necessary to remember it is an active imperative, concerns many issues of the day. I would submit that current Muslim-Christian relations illustrate this selective memory, and the Middle East provides a useful mirror.
In the Arab world it is Christians who are the great minority. How do they describe their situation? Much like in America, there is considerable nuance.
It must be said at the outset that the comparison will not be exact. The US enshrines religious freedom for the individual and forbids a religious test for public office. While these concepts are not absent from the Arab world, they are mixed in with many constitutions that enshrine Islam as the religion of the state and sharia law as the basis of legislation. At the official level these articles can complicate matters considerably.
But what about the popular level?
To be certain there is a spirit that, while tolerating Christianity, strives to preserve and advance the Islamization of society. Some conservative Muslims argue that Christians should not be greeted on their holidays, lest it imply endorsement of false theology. Others warn their children against playing with Christians at school. And many Christians complain of discrimination that is mixed in with a general culture of nepotism.
But Christians the region over also speak of neighborly relations with normal people who happen to be Muslims. Post-Arab spring, many Arab governments are going out of their way to combat extremism that has crept into society. And as reflected in my recent article in Christianity Today, many Arab Christians are comfortable saying they and their fellow Muslim citizens worship the same God.
Yet the article also described an undercurrent of frustration, that Christians feel internally compelled to seek common theological ground in order to secure common societal acceptance. The more some push the distinctiveness of Christianity, the more they fear either government or popular response.
Within the diversity of these Arab responses there is also advice for America and the West: Limit the presence of Muslims in your midst.
The complaint is not so much against Muslims as a people, but of Islam as a religion. The more devout the practice, they say, the greater the enthusiasm to enact its superiority – not just in the afterlife, but to bring this world into conformity as well. As evidence, they simply point to their own societies.
Whatever is made of the ‘same God’ debate, Islam and Christianity are different religions. But different also is the historical fusion between these religions and their respective societies. It is good to learn from our Arab brothers and sisters in Christ about their experience with Islam where they are the minority. But the point here is not so much to arm with argument but to invite readers to flip the script and see within it a mirror to their own society.
How might American Muslims feel about our current social and political climate? Would they say most neighbors treat them well? Would they complain they have to accommodate their faith to a dominant culture? Would they state a concern over discrimination or a fear of rejection?
Many Arab Christians have responded to their challenges by withdrawing into their own communities. Are American Muslims tempted to do the same?
And what of the warning some Arab Christians issue about Islam? How similar is it to some Muslim warnings about decadent Western society and the Christianity that is powerless to arrest it? Or, others argue, the Christianity that is in league with colonialism or Zionism or consumer capitalism to radically alter the fabric of Muslim society?
Let every charge be answered, and every religious ideology be examined. But let every American Christian return to the imperative of Christ:
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.“
Consider the situation in which Middle Eastern Christians live and ask, how would you like this ‘you’ to be treated?
It is not argued that treating American Muslims well will necessarily make any difference to the Egyptian Copt, the Lebanese Maronite, or the Iraqi Assyrian. But any mistreatment of Western Muslims is often reported in the regional press, and gives fuel to those with an axe to grind.
The Golden Rule is not about quid pro quo. It is fulfillment of the law of Christ, who served those who loved him not. Please be mindful, for concerning Muslims it is often we who so rarely love.
Early Saturday morning, with a heavy heart Mohamed Abla traced his whimsical silhouettes with only a few looking on. Everywhere along his stretch of the 150 foot wall surrounding the famed Khan Market in New Delhi, folk art inspired images of children, animals, and birds burst into life. Previously drab and barren, the wall previously served as a garbage dump and public urinal. Over the past three years the Delhi Street Art group has been transforming similar locations of urban blight into monuments of community pride. But on this occasion their 62-year-old Egyptian guest felt compelled to add a sullen reminder.
He drew a stick figure of the Eiffel Tower, and enclosed it in a circle.
Paying homage to Paris through Jean Jullien’s image, Abla could have thought of Egypt. Five thousand kilometers from home, his native land has also witnessed terrorist atrocities hammering away at the effort to regain stability. For the past five years revolution has jolted the street and national psyche alike. But instead of lamenting Cairo, Abla ached for India.
“I felt that Indians were worried about terrorism,” he said, “having experienced it themselves in the past. Paris was a stark reminder.”
It can sometimes take the soft heart of an artist to commiserate with a people not one’s own. But Abla’s attachment to India runs deeper than just creative sentimentality. For the past seven years he has visited frequently, dazzled by the assortment of colour and smell, bewildered by the proximity of tradition and technology. His eyes and his canvas soaked in both big city and ancient village. He noted the simplicity of people and the grandeur of temples.
And his memories poured through his paintbrush.
“The eyes through which an artist sees another culture are always fascinating,” said Sanjay Bhattacharyya, India’s Ambassador in Egypt, opening the resulting exhibition at the Maulana Azad Center for Indian Culture, in Cairo. “Abla has shown us things we haven’t seen.”
Please click here to read the full article at The Media Project, including more paintings and the artist’s history.
Identifying the alter ego of the front-running Republican candidate appears to be American’s favorite parlor game these days. An early winner is Adolph Hitler, with Benito Mussolini making a late charge. I have even seen some suggest Jesus.
Jayson Casper 