The Breaking Up of the United States.

Nations are not only defined by the borders they live within but by the traditions and values of the institutions they build and the values that become the guiding principles of society. Democracy flourishes when these institutions and values not only become the ethos of the nation but also something that in a sense remains inviolable and sacred.  The traditions of a free and independent press, a fair and just judiciary, a politically educated population and the respect for the rule of law all become pillars upon which democratic nations rest.

Since 2015 the galvanizing of political support during the US Presidential elections set in motion a trend of intolerance, divisiveness, and a political cult of hate which continues to this day. The fact that a hyperbole of fear was created through lies and misinformation is often ignored even by people who defend it knowing that they are defending lies shows the extent to which the manipulation of political consent of the people continues. At the center of this erosion of values that define democracy is a man none other than Donald J Trump, the President of the United States.

For those of us who though the electioneering rhetoric would be replaced by a more Presidential Mr. Trump, were rudely awakened to his first lie about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. That blatant lie carried two very important insights, one, that he had no problem with lying, and two, he was going to be obsessed to shown he is more popular and a better President that Barrack Obama. However, it was not that alone; he continued his attack on the Press, calling anyone who disagreed with him as Fake News, and blatantly made derogatory remarks about who ever offended him.

The confrontation with a CNN reporter after the mid term elections, and then the use of a doctored video to justify the withdrawal of the press pass of the reporter all indicate troubling times for the way US values of democracy are being chipped away by this man. His ardent supporters will continue to buy the doctrine of 'fake news' that is espoused by Trump and his close circle, ignoring that the majority of reputable news networks cannot simple peddle fake news. Admittedly, some of them do have a bias and this is quite normal in a free press environment, but to expect them to be lackey's of the White House, as some claim Fox News has become, is stretching the imagination too far.

What is all this doing to the soul of the United States? Without a doubt the average American is a decent hard working, and even if not having a worldly view, is still a human being with values for life and liberty. While the shape and tone of tolerance may vary across America, it has never been afraid to confront the issues that sat uncomfortably with the norms of democracy; thanks largely to  free press. The issue of segregation, the protests to the Vietnam war, the over sight of misuse of Presidential power by Nixon, the unbecoming behavior of Bill Clinton as President, all were under the scrutiny of the press and brave reporters and journalists became the voice of the 'unheard'.

More importantly, the free press always held President's and their administration accountable, even though one may argue at times the press manufactured 'consent' as it did over the WMD issue and Iraq, on balance it kept a check on a president going rouge. This is not the world Donald Trump wants or respects, and him calling the press the 'enemy of the people'. To students of history this is a shocking reference as through history it has been used by totalitarian governments and fascists with alarmingly similarity to President Trump.

In 1794 during the French Revolution a law was passed that people who spread 'false news, (yes the same term was used back then) were the enemies of the people and such crimes were 'punishable by death.' Hitler and his cohorts repeatedly called Jewish writers guilds and other groups opposed to the Nazi policies as 'enemies of the people.' Stalin in a closed door address to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union called journalists, thinkers, and intellectuals who opposed the government as 'enemies of the people', and carried out the most repressive measures against them.

Donald Trump does not read, and certainly does not read history, his entire knowledge of history can perhaps be put on the back of a postage stamp and leave space to spare. He perhaps does not realize in his bid to consolidate power he is using the tools of trade used by dictators and his supporters, much like the millions of German's who not only stood by, but adopted the Nazi slogans are doing exactly the same. These are otherwise very rationale and perhaps intelligent people who, when it comes to Trump, abandon all logic and anything against him is seen as unpatriotic. Interesting that all dictators equated criticism of them as leaders to be the same as being unpatriotic.These parallels are chilling and at the heart of it they are dividing the United States.

People have become less tolerant of political differences, they have given up years of friendship just become one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. While the Democrats may well carry the burden of their own rhetoric there is no denying that the fuel to the fire that today divides America comes from the mouth of Donald Trump alone. He instills fear in the people, like the migrant caravan, which suddenly today, a week after the mid term elections, is not even spoken off. He has no issue with dropping words that have racist tones and then plead normalcy in his speech.

The United States needs to take back the values that make it such a great nation. It needs to stop this division and the behavior that ferments this hate and stand up for the freedom of the press. Sadly few realize that the fissures that Mr Trump has been driving into the social fabric of American society will not only become massive cracks, they will divide the country up in a manner where generations will pass before the healing sets in.

Trump: Why is he weak with the Russians?

For the ardent students of history, especially in my age bracket, we have seen since the Cold War meetings between former Soviet and now Russian leaders with regular frequency. From the  spirit of detente to establishing a new World Order, the mood of these meetings ranged from the icy cold to the cordial and warm; yet the language of the dialogue and the public exposition of the content of the meetings was carefully picked. Each word, each gesture was carefully put in place to ensure that each side, especially the US was asserting its position.

President Donald Trump always has asserted that he has been more 'hard' on Russia than any of the recent Presidents before him. Talking the talk has been easy for this President, but when it came to walking the talk this week in Helsinki, President Trump not only stumbled but fell flat on his face at the feet of a gloating President Putin. One must assume that the diplomats and national security staff around this President would have briefed him in detail. Then we have to remember President Trump fancies himself as the most intelligent human on the planet and without a sense of history he failed miserably.

One has to then wonder why a President who has been tough on his allies, ripped up agreements, ridiculed opponents and anyone who has had the gall to criticize him suddenly is played by the Russians in plain view of millions of viewers. If he had come back from Helsinki after a bout of being tongue tied one could have asked why he didn't say this or that. On the contrary in one sweeping stroke he said he speaks for Russia, implied he believed in the Russian President more than his own intelligence experts and asked about the DNC servers, almost forgetting that he was in Helsinki and not on some right wing Trumpette political rally. So what is it that makes Trumps knees go shaky and his temperament become so submissive when it comes to a man called Putin?

Speculation is that the Russians have some smut on the man who sits in the Oval office from his raunchy (alleged) nights when he was in Moscow years ago. Personally I think this is not something that would bother Trump enough to sell out his country over; after all his loyal supporters, including the evangelists, forgave him for grabbing women by their........So what is the Russian Achilles heel that prompts this out of character submissiveness.

Here is my theory, and I insist it is a theory but it merits a thought.

Perhaps prior to 2015 Trump had borrowed money from Russian banks and oligarchs to build his golf course in Scotland. This could well be around $400 million. We know that a Chinese bank leant Trump companies $500m related to an Indonesian project. So it is likely that with US banks unwilling to lend to him given his past defaults, he often did turn to foreign banks. It is possible that before he announced his bid for the Presidency he could have transferred these loans to either his sons names or his daughter's in laws companies. However it is possible that the underlying assets did not change hands and the loans were simply taken over. 

Now imagine that these loans are in default or chronic delays in payments! Given that Trump never disclosed his tax returns for this period because doing so would show the changes on the liability side of the balance sheet. This puts the Trump Presidency at huge risk because it violates election laws and thus keeping all this silent is what the Russians have on him. 

To me the leverage on Trump has to be more than sex, and this can only be a money connection hence my theory.

Trump's Slash and Burn Strategy.

Faced with a mounting wave of allegations from women about sexually inappropriate behaviour Donald Trump has gone to the trenches to do the one thing he knows best to do; hit back! A characteristic of Trump through this campaign has been to fight criticism with fire and never actually answer the critics. He went after Megan Kelly, perhaps his first tirade which should have made us balk and think what is this man up to? When the father of fallen US soldier confronted Trump the result was an almost all night Twitter tirade against the fallen hero's father. More recently and after a better performance at the second US Presidential debate, Trump thought the most important thing for him to do was to defame a former Miss Universe on Twitter at 3 AM!

In the past four days the Trump campaign has announced the 'shackles are removed' and the result is that the tone and the tenor of the Trump camp and more his words have spiralled into a school boy tantrum. However, school boy tantrums usually start and end in the back yard or the school parking lot. Here we are talking of the GOP Presidential nominee who has blamed the Press, the System, the women who accused him as being 'horrible horrible liars'; almost as if his saying it makes it true. In a final coup degrace he has even gone after those within the GOP political set up who would have dared to have found his lewd remarks on tape as offensive.

This is the profile of a sore loser, but not a sore loser in the making, a sore loser in character and temperament which is ingrained into his personality. His vision of 'make America Great Again', while emotionally appealing lacks his own understanding that the die hard supporters who will ignore his sexual predatory personality or his offensive attacks on the under privileged, are not the only ones who will cast their vote on November 8th.   The electorate Mr Trump is much larger and much more silent than you can fathom at the moment and each of your tirades is alienating them from your cause.

Trump has already started talking of a rigged election and short of saying he will not accept any result other than him being the winner, he has worked up his fanatic (and perhaps gun toting) supporters to believe that his loss will not because he messed up but because the system was rigged against him. Side by side he has gone after the media and accused them of being a part of the fix against him. The result has been for the first time in a US election media attending Trump events have had to have police protection. Many weeks ago when Trump said at a rally, on hearing a heckler "Get him out of here I tell you I would punch him in the face", most of us thought he was being light hearted in and in a strange twisted way funny. Now the reality of his twisted mind seems to be coming to roost as it is clear that Trump has decided that if he is to go down he will make sure a great many other elements of the US political system and some good things about it will also go down with him.

Trumps new slash and burn strategy is aimed and taking down the independence of the media, calling esteemed newspapers as crooked, even when some of them have told him if he wishes he can sue them for their revelations about his predatory exploits. Trump is also taking down tolerance, family values (which the GOP always said was a cherished ideal of their party), openness to debate the issues and most of all he is working more like a dictator of a banana republic telling Hilary that she will go to jail, (not be tried by a court of law). One of the biggest casualty of the Trump anger machine is the Republican Party and many of its stalwarts must wonder what the party will look like in the months and years ahead.

Trumps myopia is such that he believes he is ahead in the polls, he believes everyone is lying, he believes that media is out to destroy him, he believes that only he has the solution and is somehow genetically more intelligent than anyone else and knows how to defeat the ISIS, fix America, and fix the world. All fine Mr Trump, but step back, think if you can through your Twitter temper, and see that all you had to do is stick to a script, stick to the issues, lay out your plans in more than just ideas, engage with the people you would not normally sit with, and just show us that to be President you need a sense of embracing differences more than just slashing and burning all those who oppose you.

Istanbul Airport: Some thoughts.

Back in 1980's a vicious circle of sectarian violence gripped Karachi, where people were shot in mosques, homes were bombed and people kidnapped and executed by miscreants who from both the Shia and the Sunni sects. The Taliban had not been invented, 9/11 was way over the horizon, the US war on terror was not coined and Gitmo did not exist. I then wrote a piece in which I called this the "Kalashnikov Culture": a deeply disturbing sense of right embedded in the dogma of misguided self styled "religious" figures and in effect stated that this had nothing to do with Islam but merely terrorists hijacking Islam.

A few weeks after the article I bumped into one of the self styled leaders of this sect at the karachi airport and he proudly told me his mission was to cleanse Pakistan. I narrated to him my view that he did not understand Islam and his beard and turban were ideal replacements for the ski mask that bank robbers in the US don during their raids. He was offended and called me an infidel amongst other colourful names.

Three decades on we have seen a lot of senseless killings have taken place around the world, and with it not only has the violence been politicised it has also been steeped into religious labels. The vernacular of the terrorist has become more pronounced and the acts of violence become more senseless. While the self styled leader thirty years back did not have the labels of Jihadist, Taliban or ISIS, his actions were simply violent based on his own self beliefs.

The attack on Istanbul airport highlight the blind nature of these attacks; killing innocent people and while no one has so far claimed responsibility yet seems to be motivated by the same misguided nonsense of the ISIS, and the Taliban. Before my American friends jump on this let it be said emphatically that more Muslims have been killed by these so called "Islamist" radicals than any people of any other faith. These attacks are not on the US, these attacks are against EVERYONE and most of all against the Muslims themselves.

However, we are making the problem worse by styling it as "Islamic Terrorism" and buying into the hysteria of Islamophobia because these attackers are not Muslims. If they follow the Quran and the teaching of Prophet Muhammed then their violent actions are contrary to the principles and teaching of Islam. We have to come up with a new word a new vernacular for these people and this should not be a religious one. If all the people who committed the school shootings were to say they did it because they were Christians we would be wrong to say that Christianity was at fault.

Here are my reasons to say that these attackers are not Muslims:

1. The act of taking the life of a person, and an innocent person at that, is essentially 'murder'. Assume that we buy into the argument of the ISIS that they are at war with the West and hence killing 'western infidels' is fine; here is the problem, even in those conditions the killing of a person who is not an instrument of war, nor a combatant is considered the killing of an innocent person and thus murder. Terrorism is above all murder. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).  verse 5:53 states , “… who so kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wrecking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” (reference to murder in 5.53 and to corruption, which is spreading terror in the land, means that for such crimes the person committing the crime can be put to death by the 'state'.)

These verses were never abrogated or superseded and form the basic injunctions to Muslims to consider all life 'sacred'. These attackers therefore are violating the injunction of the Quran itself.

2. One common 'logic', much like the man in Karachi, of such terrorists is that they are either 'cleansing' the land of infidels or they are imposing the 'will of Islam' on the people. In Islam it is forbidden to attempt to impose it upon people through force.  The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). This important verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD, at the very advent of Islam and it the foundation for tolerance and the lack of coercion in religious matters. So to paint the acts of terror as a religious act is contrary to the teaching is Islam.

3. Even in a state of declared warfare, (which has to be declared by the established head of an Islamic state) the Quran is very explicit in extolling Muslims to seek peace. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran in the Surah, “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

How can Islam extoll aggressive behaviour when even in warfare it is asking Muslims to seek peace? 

4. There are many other examples of traditions from the life of Prophet Muhammed where aggression and violence were not the norm, so much so that he frowned upon surprise attacks even when war was declared and in one instance warned the adversary four months before an attack. In the conduct of war specific rules were made for his forces which included not harming women and children and non combatants and not destroying the land and trees and crops. 

Indeed in Arabia there was the tradition of 'Ghazu', which were raids on caravans and other tribes to acquire livestock and food, but these 'acquisition raids' had rules that insisted that no one must be killed in these raids. This was a tradition before the advent of Islam and during the Prophet's lifetime such raids were carried out. But the raids were not about aggression to kill the other party but merely to acquire goods and livestock. Western commentators often refer to these raids as a testimony to the violent nature of Islam; in the first place Ghazu was a pre Islamic tradition, and second, very rarely did they result in the taking of a life. 

The events in Istanbul highlight all my arguments that the people who sanction such attacks and carry them out are not Muslims. This was also the very point the Turkish Prime Minister made, all the more when we see that all the people killed in the raid were non combatants and innocent people. The insistence by these terror groups that they are killing infidels is completely wrong because in the first place they kill more Muslims than any other people, and then I must emphasise that Christians and Jews are people of the Book and are not considered infidels by Islam. Jesus and Mary are both highly revered in the Quran, so much so there is a whole chapter on Mary and extolls her virtues and role.

On a broader front two things, both very disturbing are going on in the world; on the one hand politicians like Donald Trump are playing the Islamophobia card with virtually no understanding of the religion or the issues, and on the other hand Muslims themselves lack the understanding to realise that Islam is being hijacked by these terror groups who claim and evangelical purity of their cause. It is time people on both sides of the fence realise that is a battle for the minds of the young people and tolerance, understanding and a common stance to assert that these terrorists are NOT Muslims and we should not label them as such. In such labels lie the damage of labelling all Muslims (ala Trump style) as terrorists.  

In my eyes all that this is an extension of the Kalashnikov Culture of the 1980's  and all that has happened is that these violent people have adopted for themselves a religious label; a label that everyone else has bought into and hence the word 'radical Islam'. My argument is simply that if one is a true Muslim there cannot be a radical Islam it can only be a tolerant and understanding Islam. 

The Orlando Tragedy and American Politics.

At the outset let me state emphatically that I am against ALL forms of violence and any loss of life under any circumstances is a deplorable act. The tragic events in Orlando where 49 people senselessly lost their lives to a deranged man who attacked a night club armed with guns and the intent to take lives. The tragedy speaks for itself in overtones of grief that cannot be cured by words alone. In the same breath the shooting has been become a political tool for both Republicans and Democrats camps and centres around two crucial issues; the role of radical Muslim militants in this shooting and the issue of gun control.

In essence there is no difference between this attack, in its intent and ferocity, from other attacks in schools and public places all over the United States. What makes this a political issue is that the attacker was a Muslim and purported to call 911 during the attack and pledge his support for ISIS. In sincerity the attacker does not fit the profile of a Muslim radical; yes at times he attended prayers at the local mosque and claimed he had friends in ISIS and in Hezbollah, (which is very unlikely as both those organisations are sworn enemies). What is more likely is that this deranged man had an issue with gay people and exacted his anger by killing people. He was not someone fired up with ISIS ideology looking to carry out their promised attacks on America. In essence his actions in acquiring guns and entering a public place and randomly shot people no different from the actions of the shooters in the cases of Sandy Hook Elementary School and Columbine High school.

Since Jan 1, 2015 there have been 27 school shooting, (SCHOOL not public shooting) in the US, in which 23 people were killed and 52 people were seriously wounded. It may be pointed out that not one of these 27 shootings was carried out by a Muslim attacker or by a recent immigrant. In most of the cases the shooters had either easy access to guns or had no problems in acquiring the guns, and one can say that none of the shootings were politically motivated. No one has come and claimed that there is some form of Christian radical movement behind the killings only because the attackers in each case was a Christian. The fact that Omar Mateen who was the killer in Orlando was a Muslim does not make the act more radical other than giving ammunition to people to play the Muslim terrorism card. There is just as much a chance of a fundamentalist Christian angry about gay rights to carry out such an attack as it was for Omar Mateen to carry out this attack.

Using a paint brush to call all Muslims radical and to assume every immigrant to the US comes with the intent to carry out attack is ludicrous. From an international perspective lets get something very clear, that radical Muslims are attacking more Muslims around the world than targeting Americans. Yes there have been some attacks by them in Europe and the West, but these are minuscule attacks compared to what is happening in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Pakistan just to name a few countries.

Now onto the issue of gun control; why would a man want to buy an semi automatic high powered rifle to shoot rabbits? Why are these guns so freely available to the average man in America? Can we assume a proper sense of responsibility about using guns on the part of each owner? If this was the case then how come we have thousands of gun deaths in the US each year. Simply put the guns need to be controlled and ideally should only be in the hands of the law enforcement people and hunting guns should be better defined and better controlled. Yes a radical or deranged man will still try and get illegal guns but then the access will be more difficult.

I live in the UAE, we do not have guns in the hands of people. We have Muslims, Christians, Hindus and people of other beliefs living here, to the extent that one can argue the non Muslims are over 50% of the population. We have not had one public shooting, not one school shooting, not one attack based on religious hate and to the extent that any religious or ethnic hate talk is immediately dealt with by the law.

Why Trump Offends me?

Donald Trump has, through the politics of fear and division, become the sole Republican candidate for the US Presidential race; however he represents all that I find offensive. Offensive may sound a rather harsh word to describe a man who may, if such a tragedy were to happen, become the US President, but realistically there is nothing 'presidential' about the man. His views on women, hispanic people, and muslims all reek of a hateful venom that is not befitting of the stature of the Oval office.

However, this is a personal view and hence from the perspective of a Muslim his broad brush scathing characterisation of Muslims is not just xenophobic but down right ignorant. While I was born a Muslim, over the past five odd years I embarked on a more deeper journey to understand my religion and to study and even question some of the views about Muslims and some of the views of the radical stream of Muslims. It is very evident to me that the problem is not with Islam but with some of its followers, who have a twisted view of message. This is not different from the fact that many religions have die hard radicals, be it Christianity or even Buddhism (reference the radical attacks by Buddhists in Burma), the actions of such group do not make all Christians or Buddhists or for that matter any religion terrorists and undesirables.

While Mr Trump was a day ago back pedalling on his comment that he would not allow 'any' muslims into the US to now say it is only a 'suggestion', the hard reality is that he has already shown his true colours. This is not political rethinking, this is blatant lying. Sadly the electorate that he appeals to is ignorant of the Islam and for that matter most things outside the US, and a message of hate and fear resonates well with them. I am sure that if Donald Trump was asked if he has even read one book on Islam, (other than the xenophobic anti Islam books) or had an intelligent discussion with an Islamic scholar the answer would surely be in the negative.

In Great Britain, in contrasting style, the city of London elected Sadiq Khan as the first Muslim Mayor. While me may all focus on the fact that he is a Muslim, Sadiq Khan is actually many things; a British citizen, born of Pakistani immigrant, a European modern thinking Muslim, a father, a lawyer and a politician and a Londoner. In this interdependent world we all have many sub identities which put together the person we are, and the reality is that I can be modern thinking Muslim who believes in the social fabric of union rather than division. What Trump needs is a serious sit down with Mr Sadiq Khan and be open minded enough to learn a think or two about tolerance.

I have been to the United States many times, and yes at times, after 9/11, had to wait two or three hours to be cleared to enter the country, but without reservation every American I have met has been open and accommodating and tolerant. From New York to Dallas, from California to Denver, from Chicago to Florida not once has anyone been put off by my religion, ethnicity or country of origin, if anything people have been pleasantly curious. Trump is changing this by appealing the a minority of ignorant people who are fearful of anything foreign to them and feeding this fear is what is offensive.

The hope I hold is that the average American is decent, welcoming and friendly and shuns the politics of hate and division and perhaps deep down realises each one of them is a descendant of an immigrant, (barring the Native Americans), and in the Presidential election these people will speak up through their vote. This is a time for unity of acceptance and tolerance, this is a time for understanding and embracing the differences, it is a time for healing and growing stronger in the community of nations. The message of Mr Trump is the anti-thesis of everything that is hailed as good and decent in society, and in this basic stance I find him offensive, and no amount of somersaults and change of position will not change the fact that the basic nature of this man is petty, hateful and rude.

Sher View: Clinton Library Funding

The Washington Post yesterday has raised the issue of foreign, which should imply all foreign sources, but names mostly Middle Eastern sources, and implied there was something sinister about the donations to the former presidents' presidential library. For Senator Obama to also be mentioned that the wishes to bring in strict legislation to donations for such foundations shows that both the Washington Post and Senator Obama are way off the mark. First why question donations from the Middle East only, surely the British and European donors also appear on the list, indeed why not also question US donors too, after all they would have a greater vested interest to use donations for a political cause.

Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?

Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.

Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.

Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.

Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.

I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.