Islamic Revival

Idries de Vries The current outrage all over the Muslim world, sparked by the awful vilification of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) in the movie “Innocence of Muslims”, has been carefully framed by the United States government as an issue of freedom speech. Immediately following the Benghazi incident White House press secretary Jay Carney swiftly brushed aside suggestions that the Muslim anger might also have something to do with the United States’ foreign policy over recent decades – the US support for dictators across the Muslim world, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the constant drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia which are killing hundreds of civilians, et cetera.  He said  “This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film”. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton then went

Ali Harfouch Debate, discussion, and consultation are essential if Islamic activist are to draw and develop and elucidate a programme of liberation for the Muslim world following the tumultuous revolutions which toppled the long-standing Arab despots. However, consultation lacking objectivity and discussion lacking a distinct orientation are both regressive and counter-productive ending usually in conflicting and exacerbating tensions between contending Islamic movements. Our criticism and objections to the methodology and politics employed by Mursi was met with ill-defenses based on either rash sentiments or fallacious counter-attacks. A ‘ Mursi Effect’  has left many unable to look beyond rhetoric and critically appraise the actions and policies of Egypt’s new president.  And thus we found it essential that we re-orient the debate by pointing to the common fallacies committed when defending Mursi’s politics followed by providing our respected brothers and sisters an alternative

The following is the translation of an Arabic Q&A from the  website of Sheikh Ata' Abu Rashta .     The Question: U.S. Defense Secretary during his visit to Japan on 16-17/9/2012 said that  "this dispute between China and Japan on the subject of the islands can intensify"  (AP News Agency 17/9/2012) and then added  "I am worried because when these countries start provoking one another on these disputed islands, it would enhance the possibility of making the wrong decision from one side or the other, which on its part could lead to violence and result in conflict"  (the above source). The current development came to the fore in the wake of the announcement made by Japan on 11/9/2012 that she bought the three islands from a Japanese family in an archipelago of the East China Sea, thus she claims their ownership and calls them Senkaku. This scenario triggered tension between them and China who claims that these islands belong to them and she calls them