white skin, green eyes and blond hair.

When one gets close to the mentality dominant in American society, one realizes that that simplistic thinking does not stem from the naivety innocence characteristic of a wide segment of people, but is also the connecting instrument with the culture of dealing with what they call ‘the new spirituality’, which stems from needs rather than from responsibilities and duties. It is one of the consequences of secularist thinking which sets up the human being as a god, for when the world of fate and the abstracts of the unknowable and unseeable (ghayb) is set aside and its role marginalized, the human being alone becomes the maker of his own fate and future. Consequently any teachings, even if they are of divine origin, are to him, not final, but are amenable to change, alteration, deletion and addition, such that each individual can tailor his religious responsibilities according to what he feels comfortable with.

The result of this confusion is that the United States swelled with religious beliefs. As the ‘Encyclopedia of Religions’ indicates that there are 1586 religious groupings in the United States of which 700 are non-traditional in the sense that it is difficult to classify them as sects of or factions within the historically known world religions.

2 – Beyond the realm of innocence, one would discern nefarious, destructive activities attributed to Islam. These activities move in two directions, one focuses on the political and cultural, and the second is concerned with values, ethics and morality. An exciting and dangerous observation regarding these destructive activities is that they arise on two basic elements and which are: a group of Muslims that has penetrated Islam or fanatics who subscribe to certain beliefs. Among the latter are some Jewish Americans who support Israel and who hate everything Arab or Islamic.

In an important article, carried by the International Press Service (on 7 April 2004), an American researcher called Jim Loeb shed some light on the activities focusing on politics. He revealed the efforts exerted by the extremist American writer Daniel Pipes - in his support of Israel and in his hatred of the Arabs, especially the Palestinians – to establish a progressive Islamic institute, to represent the voice of the Muslim liberals in the United States. This Pipes runs an organization called ‘Middle East Forum for Research’ based in the State of Philadelphia. He has written prolifically and taken well known stands ranging from promoting fear of the confluence of Islamic beliefs with armed Islam, to warning against the presence of Muslims in the United States and what they represent by way of danger to Jewish influence, to criticizing Sharon’s plan for withdrawing from Gaza.

Pipes’ project revealed the establishment of a progressive center called the (Islamic Pluralism Center). He declared that the intent was to encourage moderate Islam in the United States and the world and to combat the influence of armed Islam, and to thwart the efforts of the organizations with extremist Wahaabi orientation, through the media and in co-operation with American government organizations. A later article by the same author, published by the agency on 24 February 2005, contains other important information about the people responsible for the center and about the sources of its funding. Its director is an American Muslim called Stephen Schultz who was a communist extremist (a Trotskyite). He entered Islam through Sufism. He espoused extremism in his Sufism, and his struggle in life became the conduct of the struggle against terrorism. As for his assistant, he is Egyptian. He had been dismissed from Al-Azhar in the eighties for his denial of the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (the Sunnah). He went to the United States for a time, then returned to Egypt to become one of the corner-stones of the Ibn Khaldoun Center. After the legal problems faced by the Center and its director in 2000, he disappeared from Egypt to reappear again in the United States and become one of those calling for moderate American Islam. Daniel Pipes gave his name, among others, in an article entitled ‘Defining Moderate Muslims’ published for him in the New York Sun on 24 November 2004.

As for the funding and support of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, it comes from many sources aside from the Research Center run by Pipes. There is the conglomeration of Shiites Americans and the mosques that were liberated from extremist thought. Most prominent among those supporting the project was the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz (the architect of the war on Iraq and one of the most prominent Jewish activists among the neo-conservatives), and James Woolsey, past director of Central Intelligence. There is no need to bring in other names; the significance of these two names is enough to tell us the tendency of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, and the nature of moderation and progressiveness in its activities and aims.

Mr. Daniel Pipes was not satisfied with promoting the project of the Center for Pluralism; he tried to set up another organization, the purpose of which was to counteract the activities of the Islamists in the United States. Its true purpose was to combat the efforts exerted by the American Islamic organizations that Pipes describes as being representative of ‘Radical Islam’.

On another plane, is a third organization by the name of ‘free Muslim coalition against terrorism’, set up in Washington by an American Muslim of Palestinian descent called Kamal Ni’waash . He had made many failed attempts to get involved in politics. He finally found what he was looking for in carrying the sign reading ‘Resisting Terrorism’ and in supporting the efforts of the American Administration in that direction.

(On the 5th of August 2004, the Zionist oriented Fox News, which is antagonistic Islam, all Muslims and Arabs ran an interview with him in which he said that 50% of the Muslims are extremists and fascists and accused the prominent Islamic organizations in America of bias in favor of Radical Islam).


3 – The article by Daniel Pipes, published by the New York Sun, is of special importance; it reveals the efforts exerted to rally in support of preaching American Islam through the dismantling of Islam and setting it aside. He considered this rallying to be good news as he gave his readers news of the involvement of some Muslims in a campaign against the activities of the Islamists,(He means the extremists and the radicals). He said that these raised their voices after the events of 9/11 and mentioned in this respect the names of seven people, including Dr. Subhy Mansour who was fired from Al-Azhar University and Dr. Bassaam Teebi; he is one of the more militant Syrian secularists.

He spoke also of the appearance of two new organizations, these are, ‘Free Muslim coalition against terrorism’, established by Kamal Ni’waash, mentioned earlier. Then there is ‘The American Islamic Forum for the Defense of Democracy’, it was established by a person called Zuhdi Jaassim. What also captivates one’s attention about the list that Pipes produced, is that he added to the glad news that memorandum prepared by three of the extreme secularist Arab supporters of Israel who antagonize the Islamic trend (one is Iraqi, the second, Jordanian and the third, Tunisian).

In it, they demanded setting up an international tribunal for those they call ‘the Sages of Terror’, and at the top of the list is Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradaawi. It is the very memorandum submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations two weeks ago. It is said that four thousand Arab intellectuals signedthe memorandum (Pipes said 2500 from 23 Muslim countries).

No proof is needed that these individuals and those quarters are not alone active in the field of dismantling and distorting Islam. The United States indeed takes advantage of the likes of these examples (among them are some examples that are fair and respectable and are combated and their voice is unfortunately not heard), but what Pipes pointed to represents the new efforts made to promote American Islam through the use of prominent Islamic names and personages. It is also required that these personages gain legitimacy in order to replace the other Islamic organizations that have been in the United States for at least four decades.


4 – Within the scope of the second grouping, move certain groups carrying the banner of progressive Islam and calling for the easing – or more accurately – overlooking the system of ethics and morality and the traditions generally accepted in Muslim communities. A website on the Internet, called ‘The Muslim’s Awakening’ (Yakazat Al muslim), expresses this view.

The matter of sex takes up a great deal of attention from the people responsible for website who have dedicated a permanent page to sex and the nation. Among the most famous of the activists in that group is a lady – of Pakistani origin, it seems – who had a child out of wedlock and is conducting a campaign to change Islamic thinking on this matter, to admit the rightness of what she did or at least to accept it. This progressive group that comprises no more than tens of people is the very group that adopted the call for a woman to lead the Friday prayers and the Pakistani lady I just referred to was among the leaders of the procession at the Washington church to attract attention and announce presence.

Moving in tandem with these, is another, more liberated group led by a Muslim lady of Pakistani descent who is homosexual. She wrote a book on the subject, called ‘The Problem within Islam’; she is currently being marketed in the American media as a social reformer and a great Islamic intellectual leader trying to modernize Islam and get it moving forward.

5 – I hope that I am not wrong in having moved these efforts out f the orbit of innocence at least in regards to methods and intentions for it is one’s right to doubt them when one finds out that those who back moderation are among the most ardent enemies of Islam and the Muslims and the allies of Israel. It is also one’s right to raise many a question mark regarding the relationship between these activities and the intellectual war declared by the American Administration in the wake of 9/11, and the intent of which is the restructuring of the Muslim mind in tandem with the redrawing of the maps of the region along the lines of the ‘Greater Middle East’ plan.

It is equally one’s right to raise other question marks around the relationship of these activities and the proposals, put forward in the report of establishment of an American leader in research, to take Islam apart and put it back together again under the name of ‘Civil and Democratic Islam’, especially as some of these proposals have found translation into reality through the activities we have just reviewed, be it in their secularist perspectives or in substituting new personages and leaderships in place of the existing ones, or in the attack upon traditional, conservative Islam, or in encouraging the Sufi trend. It is also one’s right to wander about the effects of those activities that have spread lately in the Arab World, emanating from some secularist institutions and centers that have addressed Islam and have delved into the question of changing the religious dialog and amending the school curricula and attempting to create Islamic intellectual leaderships loyal to the secularist agenda.

(For information: One of those responsible for one of those centers in Cairo is, these days, exerting persistent efforts to market an intellectual project of that nature and visited one of the Gulf countries carrying with him his wares. He went seeking funding to set up a center for enlightenment that will cross-fertilize Islam with Secularism.)
Islam and the Muslims seem, in this scenario, to have become an open field for anyone and everyone. It is openness without limit, with none to impose punishment on whoever takes liberties with it. Its people are without dignity or honor. This brings us to one last question to add to the previous ones: Who is to blame for this? The ones who took liberties, or those who kept quiet and stood still and lay low?

Dr. Ahmad Subhy Mansour.
Dismantling Fahmi Howaydy

In reply to his article 'Dismantling Islam' published in Al Ahram and other newspapers on Tuesday, 31 March, 2005.

This is not the first time that Fahmi Howaydy attacks me, nor will it
be the last.
He accuses me of working with others to dismantle Islam, although the
Islam I believe in is not amenable to dismantling since it is the Holy Quran only, and it is preserved by God Almighty and immune to the falsification and the corruption of mankind.

It may be that he confuses Islam with the Muslims and accuses me of working towards dismantling the Muslims. However, the disintegration of the Muslims into sects has started two decades after the death of the prophet Mohammed, since the great civil war between the early Muslims; the Companions of Mohammed, then it has evolved and spread for ten centuries. Today the Muslims are divided into three major sects, the Sunna, the Shiites and the Sufis. Every one of these sects has, in turn, disintegrated internally into various schools of jurisprudence and factions.

The Sunna has disintegrated, in the Third Century of the Islam, into four schools of jurisprudence of which the most fanatic is the Hanbali School. That Hanbali School also immediately broke up into various factions of which
the most fundamentalist was Ibn Taymiyah in the Eighth Century of Islam.
And from the trend relating to Ibn Taymiyah, there sprouted,in the modern age, an undercurrent that was even more fundamentalist and violent, that is the Wahaabis, thus increasing the disintegration of the Sunna even further.

It is to Wahhabism that Fahmy Huweidi's loyalty goes. He deems it alone to be Islam, denying all the other Muslims and accusing anyone who even discusses Wahaabism of being anti-Islamic, or of working towards the dismantling of Islam and incites against him.
The terrorists consider his incitement a license to kill, and so the
thinker or the intellectual loses his life, as happened to Dr. Farag Foda, or he disappears without a trace as happened with the journalist Rida Hilal, or he is forced into exile as has happened with me and with Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, or he is made to scream, objecting in fear of the fate that awaits him, as happened with Dr. Saad ed Deen Ibrahim and others. The victims of Fahmi El Huweidi are indeed many, among is he who has met his fate and among them is he who is still waiting.

Let us read together what 'Dismantling Islam' says, that we might
become familiar, with that phenomenon that is called Fahmy Huweidi.
Huweidi spoke of, “The efforts exerted by the extremist American
writer, Daniel pipes, to establish a progressive institute to represent the voices of the liberal Muslims of the United States”. He says, “Pipes' project aims at the establishment of a progressive center under the name of 'The Center for Islamic Pluralism'. He declared that the object is the encouragement of moderate Islam in the United States and the world, as well as com-batting the influence of armed Islam, and neutralizing the efforts of the organizations that are oriented towards Wahaabi extremism, through the media and in co-operation with U.S. governmental organizations.” He also says, “In a later article, published by the agency, by the same author, on February 2005, is important information about the people responsible for the center and its sources of funding. Its director is an American Muslim called Stephen Schultz. As for his assistant, he is Egyptian. He had
been dismissed from Al-Azhar in the eighties for his rejection of the
traditions of the Prophet. He then went to the United States for a while, and then returned to Egypt to become one of the pillars of the Ibn Khaldoun Center. Then, after the legal problems faced by the Center and its director, in 2000, he disappeared from Egypt and reappeared in the U.S. to become one of the preachers of moderate American Islam. Daniel pipes cited his name, among others, in an article entitled 'Recognizing Moderate Muslims’ published in the 'New York Sun' on 24 November 2004.”He further says, “The article by Daniel Pipes, published in the 'New York Sun', is of particular importance for it discloses the concentrated efforts exerted to preach American Islam through disintegrating Islam and nullifying it. He considers that this concentration constitutes good news because it conveys to the readers the news of the involvement of some Muslims in the campaign against the activities of the Islamists (He means the extremists and the radicals). He said that these raised their voices after the events of September 11th. He mentioned, in this respect, the names of seven people including that of Dr. Subhy Mansour, the man dismissed from Al-Azhar University. Also Dr. Bassaam Teebee, who is one of the Syrian secularists most noted for their exaggerated views.” He goes on to say, “I do not believe that I am wrong in that I have removed the mantle of innocence from these efforts, at least as far as methods and aims are concerned. It is indeed one's right to doubt them when one finds that those who support Islamic moderation and renewal are among the veteran enemies of Islam and are Muslims allied to Israel. It is also one's right to raise numerous question marks concerning the relationship between these activities and the war of ideas declared by the American Administration in the wake of September 11th, the object of which is the re-engineering of the Muslim mind, in conjunction with the redrawing of the maps of the area in conformity with the 'Greater Middle East Project'. As it is also one's right to raise other question marks around the relationship between these activities and the suggestions put forward by the Rand Corporation in its report, on dismantling Islam and reconstituting it under the title of 'Civil
and Democratic Islam' especially as some of these suggestions have
found expression in the activities we have already seen, either in their secularist origins or the replacement of new personalities and
leadership in place of the existing ones, or in the attack on traditional, conservative Islam, or in encouraging the Sufi trend.
It is also one's right to question the consequences of the activities
that have appeared in the Arab World of late, in the form of some of the secularist centers and organizations which have addressed Islamic
matters and have delved into changing the content of the religious dialog, amending the educational curricula and the fabrication of a leadership of Islamic thought committed to the secularist agenda.”


We comment upon it, briefly:
Firstly: All of the information reported by Howaydy is published openly to the American Public. American society is open and thus imposes freedom of information and forbids its suppression. Thus the announcement of all these activities beforehand precludes any notion of conspiracy.
Secondly: The traditionalist trend that Howaydy belongs to is based on dividing the world into two camps, 1 – The Domain of Islam, in which
the Sunni sect monopolizes Islam unto itself and accuses the Shiites Muslims and the Sufis of apostasy and idol-worship and oppresses the politically.
As it also oppresses the original inhabitants of the land, People of the Book who have held on to the religion of the fathers and grandfathers.
2 – The Domain of war. That comprises the countries in the West.
They must be fought and forced to accept Islam. Their culture is considered an ideological invasion and explains the disasters that befall us as being caused by the conspiracies of the West against us. That is the background that gives rise to the articles of Huweidi and his ilk. His article 'Dismantling Islam’ is proof of that. Indeed the title, 'Dismantling Islam' indicates that he believes in monopolizing Islam, such that any other Muslim is not entitled to think or study outside of the boundaries that Huweidi knows, otherwise he becomes a 'dismantler of Islam'. The Americans who have entered Islam other than through the Sunni sect, are not entitled to choose a way of worship other than that of the traditionalists and what the traditionalists found their forefathers doing, otherwise they become 'dismantlers if Islam'. And as usual, Huweidi does not bother
to discuss the ideas of those who disagree with him, because he is not an expert in Islam and its study, and his knowledge of Islam does not go beyond my personal knowledge of the Island of Cuba; that is why he hastens to accuse us of conspiring against Islam.

Thirdly: Since 1977 I have been carrying on my shoulders the burden of
my project to reform the Muslims peacefully with the Quran. As a result I was subjected to a spectrum of persecution within Al-Azhar and outside of it, from dismissal from the Al-Azhar University, to prison to harassment by state security, to exile twice. The first time I fled to America in 1988, after I was released from prison, Fahmy Huweidi was the cause. He did not wish to attack me while I was in prison and unable to defend myself and while I was being attacked by tens of pens accusing me of rejecting the traditions of the Prophet. Huweidi waited till after I left prison terrified, to launch a vicious attack upon me under the title, 'The Traditions, between Fabrication and Disrespect.' He filled it with attacks upon my person, by name and description, confirming that I am no longer in the pale of Islam with all he could muster in the way of religious pronouncements. On the following day, I met, by accident, some old friends who are members of (Islamist) groups. I saw the fear in the face of one; he advised me, for the sake of our long friendship, to drop out of sight because Huweidi's article had put my life squarely in danger. Other warnings signs came from colleagues at Al-Azhar and traditionalists who are
honest.

I had sent Huweidi a response defending myself, with a copy to Al-Ahram, but the response was not published. I was thus forced to escape with my life to America, where I remained ten months until the effect of Huweidi's article subsided; then I returned.

My intellectual project confirms, by means of the Quran, that Islam is
the religion of justice, democracy, tolerance, peace, freedom of belief and human rights, and the God Almighty sent Muhammad as a mercy to mankind, not to fight them to force religion upon them and to split the world into two camps. He, may He be praised, created us brethren, of one mother and of one father, and that He made us peoples and tribes that we might know each other, not to fight, and that the most honored among us, at God, is the most righteous. This will be determined on the Day of Resurrection, not now, so that some of us do not feign righteousness to walk all over us in the name of religion. God Almighty decreed for us and for the People of the Book different laws that we might compete in good works, not to compete in prejudice and sin.
And based upon this type of thinking, I went to work, after my return to Egypt, with Farag Foda until he was killed by Fahmy Huweidi's pronouncements, then I worked with human rights organizations and participated with The Ibn Khaldoun Center in its struggle for enlightenment and its projects for reform, including the project to reform education in Egypt and other projects. In all this, Huweidi's articles kept hounding us inciting state security as well as the terrorists against us until the dictatorship in Egypt shut down the Ibn Khaldoun Center and arrested Dr. Saad ed Deen Ibrahim and imprisoned some of my friends who subscribe to the Quran alone. So once again I had to escape to America in October, right at the peak of the anti-Islamic wave that occurred after the attacks of September 11th.

My intellectual project addressed America, in English, in defense of
Islam, elucidating the contradiction between it and the type of extremist thinking that produced Bin Laden. And I always used to sent my research and my biography to be published on the Internet and to the intellectuals of America, all of which helped to stem the wave of animosity to Islam, and to redirect the accusation to Bin Laden's terrorist sect alone. Then then came to know what they began to call 'moderate Islam'. My research attracted the attention of Dr. Pipes whom they accuse of animosity to Islam and the Muslims though now he writes that which shows his respect for Islam and its civilization but he is against, like myself, armed extremism.
Indeed he is engaged in a debate with those who still accuse Islam as a religion, and do not differentiate between it and terrorism. Through
his intellectual influence and his constant efforts, he has caused many to change their views. Naturally, this will not cause the traditionalist, Wahaabist organizations to accept him unless and until he follows their religion, and that will never, by the Grace of God, happen.
Co-operation between us against extremism and its terrorist culture was necessary.
They want to defend their country, and I want to defend my religion.

Fourthly: America follows the Quranic rule that, “there shall be no compulsion in religion”. There are in America, by Huweidi's own admission, 1586 religious groupings, of which 700 are non-traditional. This means that everyone in America is free to believe in whatever he believes or whatever he believes not. The extremists, the followers of Bin Laden, are the first to take advantage of this American religious freedom. They expanded their activities, establishing new mosques, establishing control over existing ones, buying up churches and turning them into mosques.
They control about 80% of the mosques which number approximately 1200 on American soil. They curse America day and night in the name of Islam, in their sermons and their prayers and their publications taking exploiting American tolerance and American donations of the houses of worship.
There are tens of groups that indulge in these activities and defend them and blackmails American policy to the extent of declaring themselves sole legitimate representatives of the Islam and the Muslims in America, and enter the White House, invited as such. It is well known that there is not a single “Muslim” country whose sons, or a minority therein enjoy such liberty. But the freedom that his extremist brethren enjoy in their war on America, upon her soil, is not enough for Huweidi, for it upsets him that there are Muslims in America of the Shiites and Sufi persuasions that are not yet involved in Wahaabism.
Fifthly: America is waging a war declared after the aggression of September 11th. This shows who the conspirator is, who sends missionaries and soldiers to the “House of War” abusing American freedom and American openness. America discovered, after September 11th that extremism had wrested control of most mosques and “Islamic” schools as well as of the American Muslim community. She is thus not fighting only Bin Laden, but also his followers in the American heartland and the kind of thinking to which he adheres and which dominates the minds of millions of American Muslims. If America were to use the methods of the Arab leaders, she would close these mosques and execute their clergy and incarcerate their propagators and ban their thinking and confiscate their publications.
She would not have needed an emergency law since she is in a state of war with an invisible enemy who uses psychological warfare and converts the ordinary religious young man into a bomb walking on two legs, who destroys himself and others. There will be, on American soil, millions of candidates if Wahaabi incitement continues to wash the brains of the Muslim youth in the mosques and the schools in the name of Islam. If America were prejudiced against Islam, she would have chosen that solution and closed all the mosques accusing Islam of being the religion of terrorism basing itself on the Wahabi contention that they monopolize Islam and speak in its name.
American civility, however, chose the hard way; so President Bush affirmed the truism that Islam is indeed the religion of peace, and invited the heads of Wahabi “Islamic” organizations to the White House to try to get them to lean towards the right way. Thus instead of war against Islam itself and instead of resorting to violence, the solution was to be a peaceful one, to reform the Muslims, both in America and in the Arab Lands into what they perceive to be moderate Islam, or into true Islam, as I have been saying.

Huweidi resents America her religious freedom and her right to defend herself peaceably on her soil; he sees that as the dismantling of Islam
and a conspiracy necessitating , and says, inciting against us, at the end of the article, “It seems that Islam and the Muslims in this situation are as though they have become fair game for all and sundry to do with as they please without limit, restriction or constraint. With nothing to serve as deterrent to anyone who might take liberties with them or insults them, their people are without value or dignity. This compels us to add another question to what has already been asked, about who deserves the blame for all of this, those who offended and insulted, or those who kept quiet and lay low?”

Finally, I did escape with my life in fear of the incitement of Fahmy Huweidi, and I see that, until now, he is still pursuing me even in America; to where should I escape after America? I have one way left to protect my life, and that is to appeal to the United Nations for refuge.
I present this article as an open complaint to the United Nations,
Against the Egyptian journalist Fahmi Huweidi, the writer in Al-Ahram, the Egyptian news-paper, and against whoever publishes his writings that shall be deemed his accomplice in the crime of inciting against my life and the lives of those who call for reform.

The Philosophy of American Empowerment
Article by Fahmi Howaydy
Al- Ahram, 5 April 2005.

The dismantling of the nation precedes the dismantling of the faith. Those who are now assiduously trying to draft American Islam for us would never have dared do that or even think of it except after the success they scored in the subjugation of the region to American policies. All of this, it is to be noted, is a consequence of the revival of the philosophy of "empowerment" in the United States. This philosophy wants, for the region, only submission and obedience.

1 – An intelligence officer, with the rank of colonel, from an Arab country, used to operate under the cover of a businessman. Under that guise he left his country, in September 2002, and headed for a major Arab capital. After his departure he remained in daily touch with his family. Then abruptly the communication stopped and his fate remained unknown till April 2004 when his family received a message from him informing them that he id a prisoner at Guantanamo, the US Navy base in Cuba. This seemed a puzzle! The organization known as Human Rights Watch uncovered its secrets last week.

According to a report of the organization, the officer was abducted off a street of the Arab capital by agents of America intelligence, and then taken to Afghanistan. He was the taken to Guantanamo. Throughout his trip, our friend was not accused of anything, but was repeatedly interrogated about the Arab fighters who had been in Afghanistan then moved to Europe where some of them remained. He was questioned because his work as an intelligence officer operating among these Arabs gave him access to a great of information about them. The American investigators wanted to get at this information and to benefit by it.

It is true that the situation of this officer is better than that of that other officer who was suspected of loyalty to Al-Qaida and who disappeared in his own country but an American drone (pilotless aircraft) located and killed him with a missile that tore him to pieces on his own country's soil. However, the Human Rights Watch report mentioned several other similar cases in which Muslim young men were kidnapped from their own or other countries they might be in, through the intervention of agents of American intelligence or by the hands of the local security services who gift them to the Americans. These were then carried aboard long-range American aircraft, which serve as flying prisons, and were consigned to various prisons where they were tortured and forced to confess. They ended up in Guantanamo or were quietly released. One of them is an Egyptian carrying German citizenship; he was incarcerated in the prisons for a year after his abduction from Croatia, then he was released and returned to the very place he was kidnapped. There are now several rows raging between German and American intelligence because of him.

All these measures flout the law and flagrantly violate human rights. What Human Rights Watch mentioned is no more than a drop in a vast ocean replete with violations that have done away with all laws and conventions, let alone values and principles. This constitutes a shameful record which mars any society claiming to be civilized in any way at all.

2 – It is not accurate to claim that the United States undertook all these violations in the course of combating terrorism. American bullying and conceit predate the story of the war against terrorism. This is because the philosophy of empowerment in the United States revived and its stock rose after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early nineties; that event demonstrated that the clearing of the stage was to the advantage of the singular pole. These circumstances mitigate in favor of expansionary thought and thoughts of world domination and talk of "The American Century", "The Clash of Civilizations" and "The End of History". All that the events of 9/11 did was to open the door wide to attempts to turn this philosophy into reality. The Middle East seemed the perfect laboratory not only because the perpetrators of 9/11 were from that region, but also because the inducements are unlimited (oil) and its frailty and weakness are also without limit. Also Israeli incitement against it is, in turn, without limit.

Just as a reminder, American conceit was behind Washington's rejection of the Treaty of Ottawa concerning anti-personnel mines. At that time, December 1997, all the countries of the world supported it, four full years before the events of 9/11. She also defied international will in 1998 and reneged on its agreement (previously obtained under the Clinton Administration) to the formation of the International Criminal Court insisting thereby on remaining above accountability and the law. This defiance was also behind her rejection of the Kyoto Protocol concerned with the prevention of emissions of Carbon Dioxide gas which was signed in 1997.

This conceit encouraged the United States to apply her domestic laws to various countries of the world, and to forbid even the European countries from investing in Iran, to tighten the embargo against her. It was also what permitted her to divide the world into good and evil nations so that it might assign to the evil corner whoever displeases her and classify as good whomever she pleases. That was also what permitted her to invade and occupy Iraq on the basis of a fabricated lie about WMDs.

The sum total of these circumstances did much to revive the philosophy of empowerment which was addressed by numerous research centers long known for their influence on American decision-making. The fact that most of these centers are sympathetic to Israel contributed to their revival in no small measure. Thus they brook no love lost for the Arabs and are concerned with only two matters: that the United States might become a great world power and that Israel might become a great regional power with no competitor or rival.

3 – I have in my hands a recent example of America's efforts in the philosophy of empowerment that answers the question, "How to chastise and discipline the Arab World in order to make it enter the 'American House of Obeisance' and never leave it?"

The person responsible for this effort is Dr. Robert Satloff, head of the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs. He is among the most prominent of the minds influencing American Strategic thinking. His basic concern is focused on the subject of Arab-American-Israeli relations. (He is fluent in Arabic, French and Hebrew apart from English, his mother tongue.)

In the middle of last March, Dr. Satloff published, on the website of the Institute, a two part study dealing with American policy in the Middle East and his view of the strategy of Constructive Disturbance followed by President Bush in the region. It is designed to encourage violent quakes to shake the nations in the region to knock down their structures in order to rebuild them in accordance with new specifications conforming with American requirements and, by extension, with Israeli expectations.

The study encompasses numerous thoughts; I shall address their basic outlines presently, but the reader will notice that Mr. Satloff spoke of the region as though it were a worn out entity bereft of all strength, and all that concerns him is how to press submission to conform to American and Israeli expectations.

Thus in the first part of his study, (published on 15 March) he concentrated on the situation in Lebanon and Syria, and emphasized several matters, the most important of which are the following:

• The call to eradicate any Syrian influence in Lebanon after guaranteeing the eradication of the Syrian presence there. He said that international supervision over the elections should be most rigorous, such that the international team slated for that purpose (to be dispatched by the Carter Center) supervises not only the elections, but also the electoral campaign itself.

• Insisting upon disarming HisbUllah so that it ceases to represent a danger to Israel, and blocking the way to its getting any assistance or military aid from Iran and accepting it only as a party on the political scene. That is a basic condition for its removal from the black list of terrorist organizations.

• After guaranteeing the removal of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, the Baathist regime in Damascus itself should be tackled by means of concentrated intelligence activity to keep tabs on the internal situation – opening the democracy, the human rights and the rule of law in Syria dossiers Pressuring the regime there unless it agrees to two conditions. The first is a visit to Israel by President Bashshaar Al-Assad and his joining the procession of peace with her. The second is the expulsion of the terrorist resistance movements from Damascus and shutting down their offices there.

4 – Changing the situation in the Arab World is the focus of the second part of Robert Satloff's study. In it he called for the increased use of the policy of "Constructive Disturbance". He said that the Bush Administration considers that the process of redrawing the maps of the region will take up an entire generation, about ten years, and that that period is not definite in view of the rapid changes in the Arab World occasioned by the haste of the regimes in their desire to placate the United States by any and all means. In order to bring about this placation, he spoke of Arab nations that have endeavored to get closer to Israel and to clear the air with her; whereas others have tentatively taken some steps towards reform in response to American pressure. A third group has taken both paths; they showed some warmth in their relations with Israel and declared internal reforms.

In listing the symptoms of the Arab attempt to placate the American Administration and earn its goodwill, Dr Satloff said that some capitals raced to support the UN Security Council Resolution 1559 that calls for the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. They also hastened to admonish Damascus to withdraw from Lebanon as soon as possible. Not only this, but some Arab nations hastened to inform Washington that the efforts they had exerted to convince President Asad to withdraw were the determining factor in his accepting and obeying the UN Resolution. In this respect, he pointed out that President Bush rewarded one of the nations for its stand in convincing Syria to withdraw by reducing his criticism of her in one of his speeches, and by turning a blind eye to her slowness in implementing internal reforms.

The most important thing our friend said in this part is that he called for Washington not to be satisfied with the encouragement of democracy in the Arab World but emphasized the necessity of supporting the democrats there both morally and materially. This will require betting on the Arab liberal secularists, who share American values and who consider the American political system an excellent example to be applied. In this respect he expressed his reservations about the opinion held by some in Washington, who favor dialog with the moderate Islamists considering this to be a gamble of uncertain results. Such dialog would, in the end, support the position of these Islamists and convey legitimacy upon them; whereas the liberals are closer to the Americans and their feelings towards the United States are more secure.

5 – Even the Security Council has become an instrument to empower America. The matter is no longer limited to The US Senate issuing a resolution bringing this country or that to account (as happened with Syria), but it is within the capacity of Washington to extract whatever coercive resolution it needs from the Security Council. This is what happened recently with Sudan when the Council approved, on 30 March, an American proposal practically putting Sudan under trusteeship. It imposed upon Sudan travel restrictions on, and freezing of funds of those responsible for the crimes committed against the civilians in Darfour, and those who violate the truce there. It also interdicted government flights over the district except with UN permission. And on a later day, the Council decided to refer 51 Sudanese officials to the International Criminal Court in Hague to charge them with responsibility for what happened in Darfour. This was the first case to be heard by the court, which Washington refused to recognize, as is well known, so that no American soldier or official can ever be brought to account before it. (For this reason France undertook to file the case). Thus does the logic of dismantling and restructuring according to American fancy punish Sudan and places her under trusteeship and bring some of her officials before international justice, while at the same time, it suspends responsibility when Russia pulverizes Muslims in Chechnya, or for Israel's crimes in Palestine and her continuing construction of the savage wall which has been condemned and pronounced illegal by the International Court of Justice. It is the same logic that raises a storm to stop the Iranian nuclear program in spite of assurances of its use for peaceful purposes. At the same time, the Israeli nuclear program is disregarded, which, every body knows, holds two hundred atomic bombs in its arsenal; moreover she continues to produce other weapons, chemical and biological.

When this happens in matters of politics, the Arab response would be submission and obedience and a race to please Washington. Thus we should not be surprised or object when the door is opened wide to delving into religion, dismantling and restructuring as required.





Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour
Empowering Fahmi Howaydy
Response to the article. “The Philosophy of American Empowerment” published in Al-Ahram, of Tuesday April 1, 2005.

1 – In the article “Dismantling Islam”, Fahmi Howaydy spoke of the American conspiracy that aims at dismembering Islam, and accused me of being involved in that plot. I replied to him in the article “Dismantling Fahmi Howaydy”. He is now continuing his campaign with the article, “The Philosophy of American Empowerment”, and I am continuing to reply to him.

2 – Howaydy began his article by stating that “The dismantling of the nation precedes the dismantling of the faith. Those who are assiduously trying to draft American Islam for us, would not have dared to do this or even think of it except after the success they scored with the subjugation of the region to American policies. It is well known that all this is the outcome of the revitalization of the philosophy of empowerment in the United States which does not want, for the region, horizons beyond submission and obedience”. Here he connects the former article with the latter, still considering America a cause in the dismantling of the nation and the faith.
The Muslims split up since the Great Muslim Civil War (Al- Fitna Al- Kubra ) that took place among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad shortly after his death That, of course, was long before America even existed, and, not surprisingly, their disintegration and fragmentation continues to this day. The latest events in Iraq demonstrate this fragmentation in blood, as when Sunni terrorists kill Shi'is during the latter's religious celebrations. But Howaydy sees that the United States is responsible for the dismantling of the nation and the dismantling of the Islamic faith in view of that being an American requirement for the empowerment of the Unites States.

3 – After this, Howaydy presents, as evidence, the “kidnapping” by America of some of those who have connections with Al-Qaida, and their interrogation to extract information concerning Al-Qaida, and uses that as justification for accusing America of human rights violations. He gets his information from those who defend the rights of those who were “kidnapped”, namely the American organization known as Human Rights Watch. He also forgets that America is in a declared war that is of a new kind, in which the terrorists use religion to turn innocent youth into mobile bombs that go off unexpectedly at any time and in any place. Also, being confronted with this unknown and invisible danger, she is forced to defend her internal security, especially that the extremists control more than a thousand mosques on American soil where they brainwash Muslim youth and turn them into “martyrists” (volunteers for martyrdom). Those who object to what America does are the Americans themselves, although what America does is perfectly legitimate in times of war, but what is not legitimate, is what is done by Arab dictatorship and extremism, by way of the oppression and the killing and kidnapping of the peaceable intellectuals who call for reform. Fahmy Howaydy stands, with his pen, against these reformers and jeopardizes them by inciting against these peaceable thinkers who possess neither power nor might.

4 – He then speaks of what he calls the building up and exercising of American strength which aims at world domination. It is not improper or wrong for any nation to seek to build up its strength, and seek empowerment, but what is improper is that any nation be in the extreme state of failure that we are in.
America today is the greatest power in the world and it is certainly not improper for her to seek to preserve her position. Indeed many have preceded her as the leading power in the world including the empires of the Pharaohs, the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs and the British, and no one has ever said that that building up of power is wrong in itself. We still take pride in the Arab power exercised in the time of the Ummawy, the Abbasy and the Ottoman empires. Impropriety arises when such strength is used to enslave others as happened with every one of the empires previous to America, including that of the Muslim Arabs.
America, when she became the greatest power in the world, did not do the things committed by the previous empires, such as colonization and enslavement. Prior to that America lived in isolation in accordance with the principles laid down in the Monroe Doctrine, well away from the internecine wars of Europe over colonies. She then entered the two world wars in defense of democracy, then she entered into a cold war with the Soviet Union also in defense of democracy and freedom.
Then Soviet Union collapsed and the traditionalist trend appeared as an enemy of freedom, inventing a new kind of destructive ideological warfare. This new warfare started by attacking America in the safety of her home thus forcing her into waging a war against a ubiquitous and invisible enemy that is difficult to spot or define. In the course of her defense of democracy, America backed the peoples under Nazi despotism (in Europe) and Japanese despotism (in East Asia), and those under Soviet or communist totalitarianism (Eastern Europe, South Korea, South Vietnam and Afghanistan). She liberated Kuwait from occupation by Saddam, then she went on to liberate the Iraqi people from him. Now she is calling upon the Arab dictators to effect political reforms and to institute democracy peacefully thus avoiding civil wars and foreign intervention. She officially declares that she will not impose democracy from the outside upon the Arabs. But Arab despotism refuses reform by peaceful means from the inside. We find Fahmi Howaydy resenting America this, her beneficial intervention for reform, and considers it one of the requirements for empowerment.

5 – It is natural that in America's wars of liberation excesses will occur. War is always the worst choice even if it is in the cause of liberation from colonialism and dictatorship. The democracy that came, paid for with American blood all the way from France and Europe to the Philippines, South Korea and Afghanistan and Iraq with the help of God Almighty, justifies any excess that might have occurred. Moreover, it is American Liberalism itself which stands up to any excesses Americans might fall into. It is this self same American Liberalism which aroused the American conscience to the problem of Vietnam. As a result, America was forced to withdraw from the region leaving the field open to the communist Khmer Rouge to kill millions of inhabitants in a communal extermination the like of which the Twentieth Century did not witness.

6 – Moreover, American Society is in no need of admonishment from a preacher of the type of Fahmy Howaydy or anyone else. Among America's most cherished values is the virtue of admitting error and apologizing publicly for it. Not only that, but they also teach it to their children, in the school curricula, that they might learn from the errors of their forefathers. American children live with a guilt complex towards the Blacks and the Native Americans, and all this while we still prohibit the discussion of The Great Civil War, which pitted the Companions of the Prophet against each other, so that the Companions might remain above the level of human beings and thus free of human error. Thus do Americans learn from their mistakes while we, on the other hand, blunder on in the dark depths of The Great Conspiracy to this day.

7 – Howaydy reports the plans, that some American specialists propose, for the restructuring of the Middle East on a democratic basis, considering them part of the conspiracy despite the fact that these are published and available to all. America is doing her best, openly, to convince the Arabs of this democratic, peaceful change. The Arab dictators, on the other hand, delay implementing democracy while, at the same time, trying to placate America in every way that, perchance, she might overlook the democratic choice.

8 – It is strange that Howaydy should consider America's efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East as among the basics for empowerment of America in the region. It is well known that it is easy for America to control the single, individual dictator; that is exactly what is happening right now with the twenty something individuals who rule the Arab World. It would be impossible for America to control a democratic nation, ruled by its citizens in a truly democratic fashion. How is she able to control all the Arab countries if they were democratic? America has chosen democracy to solve the problem of terrorism which threatens her on her soil. Totalitarianism goes hand in hand with corruption, and these two, together, produce a resentful, frustrated generation incapable of fighting dictatorship at home where suppression by the police is strongest. This frustrated generation then seeks migration to the West where they express their pent-up anger against the “Infidel West”. It is thus necessary to reform the Arabs in order that the West might live in peace and tranquility. But Brother Howaydy, who has dedicated his pen to the defense of dictatorship, extremism and fanaticism, resents America her efforts to bring about democratic reform, and considers them empowering America in the world.

9 – The fact is that Howaydy has acquired “empowerment” unto himself. Over the span of thirty years, writing every week, in the service of extremism and dictatorship and being referred to by some as an “Islamic thinker” even though he has never come up with a single new idea to add to the fund of Islamic or, for that matter, political thought. On the contrary, the Arabs, over the last thirty years, thanks to the likes of him, and to dictatorship, corruption and extremism, have reached rock bottom. Howaydy dedicated his pen to attacking America and the West, and to defending fanaticism and terrorism, while remaining silent on dictatorship, corruption and torture, and falsely directing anger, depression and hatred at the West and America, instead of at the real enemy who is the dictator and the purveyors of corruption all around him.

10 – Nasser suspended freedom, purportedly to realize social justice and make the state responsible for providing a decent life for the citizen; he promoted the slogan “No voice above that of the struggle”. Then came Sadat and made peace with Israel. There was thus no excuse to delay freedom and democracy, he then granted slivers of it then reneged and lost his life. Then Husni Mubaarak came along with the emergency law, the sequestration of freedom and social justice and the suspension of the individual's right to a job and a decent life. He monopolized power and wealth and drove Egypt to the lowest levels. Now he is trying to establish succession to guarantee immunity for himself and his descendants from accountability for what he embezzled of Egypt's wealth. Mubaarak is still in power for the following reasons:
(a) - He gave fundamentalism a chance to dominate the people's minds religiously and culturally thus rendering it the sole alternative to military rule. He then exploited this very fundamentalism to frighten the people, as though he says, “Who is preferable, the fundamentalists or me?” After peace with Israel and the demise of the excuse of the foreign Israeli enemy, or the foreign military front, Mubaarak started to cultivate the monster of fundamentalism up to a certain point where he can use it to scare others, but where it cannot jeopardize his military regime, and to turn Egypt into an internal military front that would permit him to rule autocratically with the emergency law.
(b) – Naturally, anger, resentment and frustration with him will increase; equally naturally, Mubaarak will try to deflect such resentment and anger and find release for them away from him. It was thus necessary to direct that resentment, anger and frustration at America and Israel in view of the latter being the major conspiratorial enemy of the Arabs and the Muslims although the true enemy of the people is the dictator and his supporters. By controlling the media and education, the Azhar and the mosques, he was able to brainwash the youth and redirect their hatred at America and Israel instead of it being directed at himself. That is the reason why hatred of America, in the streets of Egypt approaches hysterical levels, despite the fact that America granted Mubaarak over the last 24 years 96 billion dollars in “US Aid”. Would Howaydy dare discuss with Mubaarak where these funds and the proceeds of sale of the public sector went? (c) – Mubaarak used the systems of repression, the media and religion in his hounding of the reformers, assassinating their characters and defaming them in order to denude Egypt of honorable, truly democratic symbols, so that the only opposition left is a weak one subservient to the regime and incapable of confronting it.

One last question remains! Where does Howaydy stand with regards to this policy?
The answer, very briefly, is that he is the government's well placed agent writer who plays, for the benefit of the regime, in an area of extreme sensitivity, namely fundamentalist extremism. He plays for the benefit of the fundamentalists as long as that does not harm the regime. He plays for the benefit of both against reform, by relentlessly hounding the reformers. And as to corruption, dictatorship, fanaticism, torture, injustice, the illegal bequest of power, the unlawful extension of incumbency, embezzlement and theft, he looks the other way, conveniently forgetting the demonstrations calling for reform that move the streets. That is the reason for “empowering” Howaydy, in Al-Ahram, for more than thirty years. In order to preserve this empowerment, Howaydy is not disturbed by the hysterical screams of the victims of torture in the hell of Egyptian prisons. Among these victims are thousands of Muslim Brothers, or, his Muslim brothers.