For Muslims, the Prophet Mohammad is the beacon of mercy, the sparkle of compassion, the spring of wisdom and the perfect guide in their journey towards God.
Ironically, the fanatics and extremists right now have reduced the prophetic example to a set of rituals, crooked projections and warped logic that runs counter to the true essence and mission of the Prophet.
They have reduced Islam to slitting throats, burning schools, oppressing women, killing religious minorities, terrorizing and violating the human rights of people in the most blatant manner possible.
They ignore the Prophet’s example which is extremely well documented and indisputable. They fail to comprehend that faith is ultimately geared towards cultivating a relationship with God and that cannot be complete unless humans adopt the Divine attributes of mercy, compassion and kindness and treat their fellow human beings accordingly.
It goes without saying that violence of any sort, whether inspired by religious sentiment or vested interests, must be condemned unequivocally and in the strongest terms possible.
This is in keeping with the best of Muslim tradition, which abhors sectarian rife, inter-ethnic conflict, and inter-religious violence. This lesson is best contained in the example of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who was repeatedly subjected to the worst treatment by his enemies, only to consistently disregard these insults and instead take the path of forgiveness, mercy and compassion.
This is why he is known to Muslims as “the Mercy to all worlds.” Indeed, this example is most succinctly summarized in the Qur’an itself, which instructs believers as follows: “The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better.”
The world is sorely in need of such lessons, which represent the authentic teachings of the Qur’an and the Prophet of Islam. It is important to separate these noble messages from those that are bandied about by those who have no competencies in religious interpretation, Qur’anic hermeneutics or the history of Islamic thought.
Unfortunately, the current state of the Muslim world is such that institutions and structures of legitimate authority have been challenged to such an extent that inflammatory rhetoric has taken the place of thoughtful analysis as a motivator of action and a guide for religious sentiment.
We are today in desperate need of serious religious leaders who engage the reality of the modern world – complete with its challenges and difficulties – in order to create an environment in which people can coexist. This must be a joint effort from members of all faith groups and cultures.
A necessary part of any such effort must be a sincere desire to understand what is behind the Muslims’ reverence for the Prophet. For more than 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, the Prophet Muhammad is their ultimate example. He is their reference point and, as the Qur’an explains, “dearer to them than their own selves.”
Prophets are the means, in the Islamic worldview, through which people have been taught about God. This is no less true for the succession of Prophets that preceded Islam – including Abraham, Moses and Jesus – than it is for the Prophet Muhammad himself. They are revered teachers who taught us the very nature of reality, the purpose of our existence, and how to connect with God Himself.
As a result, Muslims strive to emulate the example of the Prophet in every aspect of their lives. They seek to inculcate the values in a deep and profound manner. These include, among other things, the ability to confront evil provocations with patience, tolerance and mercy. These are, for Muslims, spiritual values of the utmost importance, and they are best exemplified in the life of the Prophet Muhammad himself.
A famous story from his life is known to Muslims around the world. One of his enemies was a woman who lived above a street he used to pass daily, and would litter the streets with garbage as he walked past. One morning, when the Prophet was walking by, he noticed no such provocation. His response to this sudden reprieve was to ask after the woman’s health, concerned that she had strayed from her daily routine, as painful as it might have been for himself. The stories of the Prophet’s praying for his enemies, and exhibiting enormous steadfastness in the face of insults and provocations, are legion in Islamic literature.
This should be the Muslim ideal, there is no doubt. Unfortunately, it is not possible that everyone can live up to the ideal. What is clear is that most Muslim people’s attachment to the personage of the Prophet is undiminished, even when they are unable for their own reasons to live up to the lessons he has taught.
Written on .
Gianroberto Casaleggio, Mitgründer der italienischen Partei "Bewegung der Fünf Sterne" starb am 11. April 2016 mit 61 Jahren. Casaleggio galt als der Intellektuelle, der Vordenker der Bewegung des Ex-Komikers Beppe Grillo. Mit ihm verliert Italien einen Ideengeber, dessen politisches Testament künftigen Regierungen als Inspiration dienen könnte.
Quelle: Wikipedia
Wozu sind die Gewerkschaften und politischen Parteien da, was nutzen die Direktionskonferenzen, oder wozu dienen Führungskräfte? Was nutzen die Buchhandlungen, Metzgereien und Tabakkioske? Nichts, und in der Tat wird es sie bald nicht mehr geben. Es gibt nur noch wenige Krankenhäuser und Pharmafirmen, denn die umweltbedingten Krankheiten verschwinden. Die Welt, wie sie sich Gianroberto Casaleggio in "Veni vidi web" vorstellte (Eigenverlag), wird bestimmt von den Regeln des Internets. Schneller Zugang zum Web ist gratis und ein Menschenrecht. Palästina, Tibet und Kurdistan werden in die Vereinten Nationen aufgenommen.
Casaleggio betont in seinem kleinen Buch vor allem die positiven Aspekte des Webs und ist offenkundig von dem besessen, was Evgeny Morozov "Cyber-Utopismus" nennt. Der Mensch ist bei ihm in der Lage, eine Welt zu bauen, deren Zentrum der aktive Bürger ist, der stets richtig informiert und in der Lage ist, bewusst wählen zu können
Was Casaleggio geschrieben hat, ist nach Ansicht des Rappers Fedez ein "klares und nützliches Vademecum für das Internet und seine physiologischen, sozialen und politischen Aspekte". "Was Gianroberto zeigt, ist wie das Internet die Beziehungen zwischen den Menschen ändert und das Individuum in die Mitte von allem stellt", schreibt Fedez in seinem Vorwort.
Die Gesellschaft sollte ein gigantisches elektronisches Meeting darstellen, in dem die Mehrheit stets entscheidet. Niemand hat ein Veto-Recht. Ein Problem jedoch, das Casaleggio nicht anschneidet, ist der Mangel an Raum für abweichende Meinungen – was man an jenen Mitgliedern sieht, die von der Bewegung der Fünf Sterne wegen Abweichlertums ausgestossen wurden oder freiwillig gingen.
Casaleggio sagt: Öl und Kohle werden zusammen mit den Privatautos verboten. Öffentliche Verkehrsmittel sind kostenlos. Die Emission von CO2 wird mit Gefängnis bis zu dreissig Jahren bestraft. Taxis, Tabakläden, Metzgereien und Buchhandlungen sind verschwunden. Die größte Fabrik der Welt produziert Fahrräder und Rollschuhe (inline skates). Die Strände sind frei ... .Nach Casaleggios Prognose werden Supermärkte überall abgerissen. Das Essen produziert und verbraucht man steuerfrei in null Kilometer Umkreis. Die Baufirmen werden in Abriss-Unternehmen umgewandelt, deren Aufgabe es ist, Gebäude zu beseitigen und unnötige Infrastruktur zu zerstören. Immobilienspekulation ist verboten. Spanien schafft den Stierkampf ab.
Niemand darf bewegliche und feste Gegenstände im Wert von über 5 Millionen Euro besitzen. Jeder Euro darüber fällt an die Gemeinschaft. Wer sich dem entzieht, wird in Yogazentren von Neo-Maoisten umerzogen. Der Titel Führungskraft gilt als Beleidigung. Korruption wird wie eine ansteckende Krankheit behandelt. Korrumpierte und Korrumpierer werden in geeigneten Käfigen an den Ringstrassen der Städte ausgestellt. Die multinationalen Firmen werden verboten und aufgelöst. Schwere Arbeiten werden von Robotern verrichtet.
Casaleggios besondere Abneigung gilt den Vermittlern und Maklern, denn das Internet bietet die direkte Verbindung ohne Vermittlung. „Das Internet hat einen antikapitalistischen Charakter. Mit seiner Verbreitung steigt der Wert der Ideen und des Wissens und Gewissens, während der Wert des Geldes abnimmt“ schreibt Casaleggio. „Das Internet ändert die Politik, indem es eine Verbindung zwischen Politikern und Bürgern herstellt: die direkte Demokratie.“
Doch Casaleggio übt sich trotz aller kühnen Perspektiven in Bescheidenheit. „Nur wer Prognosen abgibt, kann sich irren. Gewährt mir deshalb die Möglichkeit, zu irren."
Für die Zukunft erwartet er das Entstehen einer neuen Art von Politiker: den „interaktiven Politiker“, dessen Aufgabe es ist, fortwährend die Wünsche der Bürger in Wirklichkeit umzusetzen. Dieser neue Politiker braucht nicht mehr von den Medien interpretiert zu werden, die deshalb ihre Bedeutung einbüssen. Der interaktive Führer, wenn er zur Zufriedenheit der Bürger arbeitet. wäre jedoch geschützt vor moralischer, ethischer oder ideologischer Kritik.
Casaleggio hat seine schöne, neue Welt nicht mehr erlebt. Erstmals hat eine Umfrage in Italien seine Grillini als stärkste Kraft vor der Demokratischen Partei des Premiers Matteo Renzi gezeigt. Eine sehr italienische Ehrung wurde Casaleggio posthum zuteil: Parteichef Luigi di Maio beförderte Casaleggios Sohn Davide zum Nachfolger des Vaters und interaktiven Führer.
Benedikt Brenner
Written on .
Hint: the answer is way more than you think.
Of all these, there is one war that matters most. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It is a war for the soul of America and the world.
It is a class war and it is the most serious war of them all - bar none. Trans-national corporations are ascendant and they are coming at us with everything they've got, including boatloads of cash, an army of corrupt and compromised politicians and the TPP.
In the fall of 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, as families grieved and the nation mourned, Washington swarmed with locusts of the human kind: wartime opportunists, lobbyists, lawyers, ex-members of Congress, bagmen for big donors: all of them determined to grab what they could for their corporate clients and rich donors while no one was looking.
Across the land, the faces of Americans of every stripe were stained with tears. Here in New York, we still were attending memorial services for our firemen and police. But in the nation’s capital, within sight of a smoldering Pentagon that had been struck by one of the hijacked planes, the predator class was hard at work pursuing private plunder at public expense, gold-diggers in the ashes of tragedy exploiting our fear, sorrow, and loss.
What did they want? The usual: tax cuts for the wealthy and big breaks for corporations. They even made an effort to repeal the alternative minimum tax that for fifteen years had prevented companies from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. And it wasn’t only repeal the mercenaries sought; they wanted those corporations to get back all the minimum tax they had ever been assessed.
They sought a special tax break for mighty General Electric, although you would never have heard about it if you were watching GE’s news divisions — NBC News, CNBC, or MSNBC, all made sure to look the other way.
They wanted to give coal producers more freedom to pollute, open the Alaskan wilderness to drilling, empower the president to keep trade favors for corporations a secret while enabling many of those same corporations to run roughshod over local communities trying the protect the environment and their citizens’ health.
It was a disgusting bipartisan spectacle. With words reminding us of Harry Truman’s description of the GOP as “guardians of privilege,” the Republican majority leader of the House dared to declare that “it wouldn’t be commensurate with the American spirit” to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers. As for post 9/11 Democrats, their national committee used the crisis to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws.
Locusts of the human kind. The predator class. That says it all.
Jimmy Carter has also been harshly critical of Hillary as Secretary of State.
“In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace.”
Jimmy Carter
This is why business as usual is no longer good enough. The oligarchy means to continue their domination by any means necessary. Nevertheless, it's on us to stop them. We cannot afford to let them win.
This is for all the marbles.
This election will determine whether corporate domination of government will reign supreme or the people will once again become their government. The 99% has to win this.
Corporate interests, if allowed to dominate, will delay our transition from fossil fuels, and relegate climate change, human rights and social justice to the ash heap while ushering in an era of supersized corporate plunder spearheaded by the TPP and fueled by war crimes.
The 1% mean to crush us.
The American people have lost all control of their government. Bernie is our ticket back to power over our own lives and our own destiny. This is not about politics as usual. This is about fighting back.
The billionaire class started this war, not us. But the people have to win it.
There is a class war in America and it’s time to fight back!
"There is a secret to being a supporter of Bernie Sanders. It is something that totally escapes the thinking of most Democrats and Republicans. It is the mental understanding that Sanders is fighting a war that most people are not. It is the war between corporations and the people. Unless you are fighting this war as well, you cannot possibly understand how important it is to vote for Bernie over Hillary. This is not about Hillary or Bernie, it is about fighting your real enemies, the multi-national corporations who are trying to control this nation and the world. You ignore this war at your own peril." - Randolph Greer
Bernie has been a long shot from the beginning. Virtually no one thought he'd make it this far. This was never a sure thing. It's an opportunity. That's all it is. It will only work if we make it. It's only an opportunity if we seize it. If we want change, we need to make it happen now.
Enough is enough!
It's time for a change of direction, a reordering of priorities, a reckoning with past wrongs. It's time for just and reality-based governance, it's time for dignity, equality and justice for all people. We have work to do. We need to quit fooling around. This is our shot at a new day in America, and a new, more honest window on the challenges we face. This is our moment. We need to seize it.
Here's to peace, justice and progress for all.
And here's to government of, by and for the people. May it never vanish from the face of the earth.
For many observers, Karabakh might be a type of oriental rug, highly prized especially in France as an alternative to antique Savonnerie rugs. Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the southern Caucasus, surrounded by Azerbaijan. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a de facto independent nation. Its population is Armenian. After a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1992-94, a truce was agreed and it held until early this year. Fighting raged until a ceasefire was agreed on April 5. However, both sides continue trading hundreds of shells a day across the border. The situation continues to be tense; fighting could erupt again at any time.
The enmity that has been building between Turkey and Russia is spilling over into the Karabakh conflict.
Heavy fighting in Karabakh between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces on April 2-5 marked the bloodiest point of the decades-long conflict since 1994. A two-day-long ceasefire appeared at risk of collapsing on April 7, as both sides accused the other of violations.
The Karabakh conflict now threatens to turn into a proxy fight between two regional powers – Turkey and Russia. Bilateral relations between the two states went into a tailspin last November, when the Turkish military shot down a Russian jet on a mission in Syria. Ankara has rankled Moscow with clear-cut statements of support for Azerbaijan, a country with which Turkey has close linguistic and cultural connections.
“We are today standing side-by-side with our brothers in Azerbaijan,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told an Ankara audience on April 4, “but this persecution will not continue forever. Karabakh will one day return to its original owner. It will be Azerbaijan’s.”
Taking his cue from the president, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu chimed in the next day that “Turkey will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Azerbaijan until doomsday against Armenia’s aggression and occupation.”
Turkish analysts say the Karabakh conflict has captured public attention. “The fighting [in Karabakh] has touched a very sensitive chord in Turkish hearts,” noted Murat Bilhan, a former Turkish ambassador and deputy chairperson of the Ankara-based, government-friendly Turkish Asian Center for Strategic Studies. “Whether [the Azerbaijanis] are right or wrong, they are supported.” Statements of solidarity with Azerbaijan also may have a domestic political purpose for Erdoğan and his administration, some political analysts contend. By stirring up patriotic, pan-Turkic feelings at home, Erdoğan may be hoping to attract nationalist support for his own attempt to push through constitutional amendments that would enhance his presidential powers. “The Turkish president is using everything to cajole the nationalist voters and every occasion to use and abuse this nationalist sentiment,” argued political scientist Cengiz Aktar of Istanbul’s Süleyman Şah University.
Erdoğan earlier took aim at international mediators – Russia, the United States and France – tasked with overseeing peace talks on Karabakh under the auspices of the OSCE’s Minsk Group. The Turkish president asserted that “if the Minsk Group had taken fair and decisive steps” to resolve the conflict, the outbreak of violence that day [April 2], the worst since the 1994 ceasefire, would not have occurred.
Some observers have interpreted his words as a disavowal of diplomacy.
Sinan Ülgen, a visiting specialist on Turkish foreign policy at the Carnegie Europe think-tank in Brussels, underlined that Erdoğan’s words are indicative of a potential policy shift, and “certainly point to a different, a more activist direction that Turkey is willing to [take].”
The government’s choice of words also is a matter of concern for political scientist Aktar. “The entire international community is calling on all sides to stop the fighting, whereas Turkey is [the] only country which openly call[s] … [on] Armenia to stop fighting and declares to the entire world that it is behind Azerbaijan, and this is very unusual and very worrisome.”
The rhetoric of Turkish officials has grabbed the attention of Armenian and Russian media, which contend that Turkey is intervening on Azerbaijan’s side, and thus complicating efforts to bring a halt to the fighting.
Government-linked or financed Russian media have launched a broad-based smear campaign against Turkey. The Sputnik news service regularly reposts claims from Armenian politicians and officials that cast Turkey as a regional troublemaker. “Syria is not the only place where the Turkish government keeps putting spokes into others’ wheels,” one article observed.
Other Russian outlets have not hesitated to spread unsubstantiated rumors. For example, citing an unnamed “military source,” LifeNews TV, an outlet allegedly close to the Russian security services, reported on April 4 that “between 50 and 60” Azerbaijani ISIS fighters were traveling back home from Syria via Turkey to join the Karabakh fight.
Russia’s media strategy underscores the Kremlin’s sensitivity to Turkey’s perceived efforts to encroach geopolitically in the Caucasus.
Until now, Russia has sought to maintain a relative balance in its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. While Russia is widely considered to be Armenia’s strategic ally in the Caucasus, the Kremlin has tried to maintain “parity” in recent years in its arms sales to Yerevan and Baku. The question at this stage that some experts are asking is: if heavy fighting erupts again, will Russia start siding more clearly with Armenia to counter Turkish support for Azerbaijan?
Regardless of whether Karabakh developments in the coming weeks start pushing Russia toward Armenia, the renewed fighting in the contested enclave seems sure to complicate efforts to bring about a thaw in Turkish-Russian relations.
Bilhan, the retired ambassador, expressed hope that existing tension could be set aside soon. “These countries need one another, be it in trade, energy. I don't see how they will deny one another these benefits,” he said.
Others are not optimistic that reason can prevail any time soon.
“The few signs of normalization between Turkey and Russia are just weak signs,” cautioned Ülgen. “There is no reason to expect normalization will happen anytime soon, given that acrimony has become quite personal between Erdoğan and Putin.”
Dorian Jones -- Originally published byEurasaNet.org
Written on .
As the Panama Papers continue to embarrass leaders across continents, one thought has kept occurring to me: How the hell did the organizers pull it off? I mean, how did they corral hundreds of reporters? How did they make sense of so many documents? And, most importantly, how did they stay sane during it all?
So I spoke with Marina Walker Guevara, who helped shepherd the project. Walker is deputy director of the International of the Consortium of Investigative Journalism, which has a long history of collaborating with many, many far-flung partners. In early 2015, Walker and ICIJ were finishing up work on another big leak. “We’re never going to do this again,” Marina recalled thinking. “It’s great. But we’re exhausted and we need a vacation.”
Then ICIJ got a phone call from the German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung about a way bigger file they wanted to share…
Some tidbits from our conversation:
The New York Times blew its chance on the Panama Papers, and, and so did CNN and 60 Minutes…
Walker Guevara: We approached the Times twice in the past. The first time was in 2012 and that was the first offshore investigation we did, it was called Offshore Leaks and there were many meetings in New York where [ICIJ director] Gerard Ryle went and pitched the story and then in the end it looked like we were getting nowhere. There were just too many questions, it proved to be too complicated, and we didn't proceed. Then we went back to them again in the Swiss Leaks investigation in 2014 and in that case we were not as insistent. We sent emails but when we didn't hear back we didn't try harder.
For the Panama Papers, we were approached by McClatchy. They have a very good reputation and were eager to work with us.
We also pitched it to CNN. They said yes, but then they said no. They decided to pursue their own investigation rather than join ours. We were a little disappointed, but we understood. Then we pitched the story to 60 Minutes and this time they said no as well. In the end we had Univision and Fusion. We had worked with both of them in previous investigations.
Walker had to push often-secretive investigative reporters to share.
Walker Guevara: When it's been a week or two and I haven't seen them in our encrypted forum, I ask them and they usually are like, "Well I just found this, I wasn't sure what to do." Then I encourage them to share it because Süddeutsche Zeitung was sharing all 11.5 million records with all of us. That's how generous they were.
It's just having these conversations and making them understand you cannot treat this data as your own property. Sometimes they called me a "cat herder.”
They all decided to ignore news along the way.
Walker Guevara: When news on FIFA was breaking, well we had a ton of information on FIFA. But we didn't publish of course. There was also the huge corruption scandal in Brazil. We had more than 100 offshore companies linked to the biggest characters in that case and we couldn't publish.
Because part of our model is that we all publish together. That’s because we want to create a commotion when we publish. We want to have global impact. We don't want the story to drip and to start turning out in little pieces that make the news for one day or two in a country and then go away.
Some of these journalists sometimes had to keep details quiet from their own bosses because to make sure that nobody got too excited and would be under pressure to publish.
