Free speech distinguishes the West from the rest

In Crowds and Power, the late Elias Canetti, a wonderfully gifted writer and Nobel laureate, brought a unique perspective in examining the human condition and history under the stress of mobs in politics.

When individuals gathered together turn into a crowd and then erupt into a mob, the transition from one into another is the obliteration, even momentarily, of the individual as a thinking being reduced physically into a mindless atom constituent of a mass set in motion by the wish to demonstrate power.

The crowd as mob, wrote Canetti, “wants to experience for itself the strongest possible feeling of its own animal force and passion and, as means to this end, it will use whatever social pretexts and demands offer themselves.”

The politics of the Arab-Muslim world of late — or at least since the 1979 revolution in Iran that brought clerics with a medieval mind-set to power — has been reduced to the pathology of the mob in politics.

This is not unique in history and, for instance, as it was with the pathology of mob politics during the “reign of terror” in France or the Maoist “cultural revolution” in China, the situation in the Arab-Muslim world may likely pass at some point in the future.

In the meantime, however, it should be clearly understood that there is no reasoning with mobs, and any sign of weakness in terms of appeasing mobs by acknowledging or giving in to their demands amounts to stoking their wild frenzy.

Those religious and political leaders at the head of Muslim mobs, or riding them for their own demagogic ends, sense that they are pretty close to intimidating the West into surrendering on the subject of free speech, and accepting that mocking what is sacred to Muslims — their religion, their prophet and their sacred book — must be deemed offensive and banned.

Free speech is the pulse of a free society, the antidote to the pathology of politics driven by mobs. And, moreover, free speech as the hallmark of individual freedom distinguishes the West from the Rest and, in particular, the Arab-Muslim world.

Yet once again free speech is threatened not as much by the pathology of mob politics, but by the weakness of those in the West who mistakenly believe Muslims might have a point and their demand should be met in some fashion.

This is what President Obama said at the UN this week in responding to the mob frenzy in the Arab-Muslim world: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

When one finishes parsing the sentence, one is left thinking the president of the United States agrees with Muslim mobs, and denouncing those who cause offence by ridiculing what others hold sacred can only mean admitting free speech should be abridged.

On the contrary, what needs to be said to the Arab-Muslim world, irrespective of how mobs there engage in rampaging their own societies, is that the West as a civilization is also defined by something sacred.

This something sacred and universal in appeal is individual freedom, manifest in the principle of free speech in whose defence people have made the ultimate sacrifice and, hence, this principle is non-negotiable.

 

Middle East Mayhem: Congrats Obama,You Built That

Remember back in the beginning of 2011 when Obama told us about the freedom lovers in Egypt and Libya living under the oppression of dictators and needing our immediate help to establish democracy in their fair lands?

You do? So do I. How weird. We should become best friends. Facebook me.

Anyway … it turns out that the “freedom lovers” Obama coerced lots of Americans to rally behind (and whom he also pimped out with billions of sawbucks from America’s pitiful piggy bank) were bat crap crazy.

I’m talking crazy on steroids crazy—and not just peaceful crazy like Joe Biden but rather hide-sharp-objects-from-them, menopausal wolverine sow crazy.

Yep, these “yearners for democracy” turned out to be radicals of radicals who’d like nothing more than to eradicate the U.S. and Israel and establish a global bounce house for all things Muslim.

Whoopsie, eh Mr. President? You kind of misjudged that one, señor.

At least I hope Obama misjudged their end game because if he had even an inkling that they would quickly blossom into full-blown anti-America/Israel hate machines then that would make some folks think that our president … um … uh … doesn’t have our … how shall I say … our best interests or our allies’ best interests at heart.

I’ve gotta admit that at the beginning of the Arab Spring I thought these freedom lovers seemed a bubble off level. I mean … I didn’t want to judge, but I wasn’t getting that Jeffersonian vibe from the video feeds coming across the wire; it was stuff like burning the American flag, raping one of our female correspondents, looting their pyramids and decapitating multitudinous mummies that caused me some consternation.

But that’s just me, and who am I? I could be wrong. Or a racist. Or both. Maybe the Arab Spring—like Obama’s economic policies—just needs a little more time to pan out. That’s probably it.

However, the events of this past week in Cairo and Benghazi on September 11th kind of make me feel like this “Spring” is stuck on stupid, and now, thanks to Obama’s backing, we have one violent, jacked-up mess on our hands—one that won’t be remedied easily … and one to which we can point to the president as someone who built that.

Arab Spring now a Christian nightmare

In the 1990s, western democracies stepped forward to stop ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia by dispatching NATO forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia precipitated ethnic strife, and like all such struggles anywhere in the world, the Balkan conflict was complex and layered with history of grievances, identity politics, and religious bigotry. If one reaches back to the early years of the last century, this region was a cauldron of ethno-nationalism that ignited the First World War.

Some 16 years later, the so-called Arab Spring mirrors the conflict that ripped through the Balkans.

The rotten structures of Arab states were primed to crash once the people set aside their fear of despots. But not unlike the Balkans, the death knell of Arab dictatorships has been accompanied by predictable conflicts among people divided by religion, sect and ethnicity.

There is one stark difference, however, between the Balkans and the situation in the Arab-Muslim world. In the Balkans, the minority most seriously hurt by the conflict were Bosnian Muslims.

It was in part to protect Bosnian Muslims that the West intervened with force and, eventually overseen by President Clinton’s administration, the parties agreed to abide by the Dayton Agreement of November 1995 reached in Dayton, Ohio and formally signed in Paris a few weeks later.

In the Arab-Muslim world, the so–called Arab Spring has hurt most seriously the dwindling Christian minorities of the Middle East. While Arab despots in the name of secularism paradoxically provided some protection to Christians, the situation has worsened with Islamists taking power.

William Dalrymple, the well-respected historian and author of From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium (1998), recently wrote, “Wherever you go in the Middle East today, you see the Arab Spring rapidly turning into the Christian winter … The past few years have been catastrophic for the region’s beleaguered 14 million strong Christian minority.”

The decline, probably disappearance, of Christians from the Middle East is an ominous sign of a tragic future for the region.

And such an eventuality has precedence.

Jews of the Arab-Muslim world from the pre-Christian era, with their rich heritage and long historical presence in ancient cities across the region — Alexandria, Algiers, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Constantine, Damascus, Fez, Oran, Sana’a, Tripoli, Tunis and more — were compelled to leave lands conquered by Arabs in the name of Islam following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

There have been numerous anti-Coptic riots with attacks on Christian churches in Egypt. From Gaza reports have come of forced conversions among Christians reduced to a miniscule presence.

Iraqi Christians fled in large numbers following post-Saddam sectarian strife, and they found refuge in Syria.

This safe-haven for Iraqi Christians is in jeopardy as the sectarian conflict in Syria has intensified, and Syrian Christians are endangered.

While Christians flee from their ancient homes in the Arab-Muslim world, the West’s failure to respond effectively, unlike its response in the Balkans, is more than an immense moral failure.

It is another sign of the West scandalously appeasing Islamist totalitarianism that might well be as catastrophic as when Europe’s major democracies appeased Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s.

Assad: The devil we know.

We do not understand the Arab world. We think we do, we like to think we do, but we don’t.

It’s far more complex and nuanced than we give it credit for, and few parts of it are as multifaceted and layered as Syria. The struggles of the Middle East are seldom about good and bad or black and white. In this case, western arrogance and presumptions of knowledge and moral superiority could lead to strife and violence almost beyond comprehension.

President Bashar al-Assad is a dictator, as was his father. More brutal than Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, less sadistic than Saddam Hussein. His father was a man of substance, and while prepared to use horrible force and kill anybody who stood in his way, he was a leader to be reckoned with.

His son was never supposed to inherit power, and did so reluctantly and with none of his father’s capabilities.

The country is a composite of disparate groups: Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Druze and various others. The Assads are from the Alawite minority, and are Baathists, meaning they’re secular Arab nationalists rather than Islamic fundamentalists.

And here is the essential problem for the West. While Syria interfered and still interferes in Lebanon, while it has close ties to Iran, and while it supports Hezbollah, it is directly opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and its many front groups throughout the region.

Lefties, labour militants and anti-Semites will tell you the whole area is divided over Israel and Palestine. Laughable. It’s divided because the four main local powers — Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia — want to either control their neighbours or, in the case of Israel, neutralize them to guarantee their safety and stability. Frankly, nobody really cares about the Palestinians, unless they can use them to digress from genuine domestic problems.

Syria is caught in the middle of all this. President Assad would probably like to be part of the West’s orbit and did at one point make overtures to Israel and the U.S. via intermediaries. But he now knows that he can’t rely on a naive, weak, and basically pro-Muslim American leader, and that Iran would have him killed if he moved too far.

Shortly before the revolt began, Assad had further liberalized the country’s laws regarding women and minorities, and Christians and non-Sunni Muslims know that if he is removed, they will face persecution and murder — witness Iraq after the fall of Saddam. While some of his opponents are genuinely progressive, the heart of the opposition is the Brotherhood, who swore long ago that they would bring down the Assads and impose Shariah.

Israel and London want Assad gone because they know chaos will ensue, Iran will be weakened, and Hezbollah emasculated. A civil war in Syria will also make Israel safer and strengthen western ally Saudi Arabia. Apart from the horrible cynicism of it all, it’s short-term. Christians, a moderating force, will hemorrhage the country, Egypt will attempt to aid their Brotherhood friends, and ambitious Turkey will rush to fill the aid vacuum.

The devil is never a good friend to have. But the devil you know is usually less monstrous than the one who follows.

Empty church discloses a harsh reality

 

ALGIERS, ALGERIA  - Notre Dame d’Afrique sits on top of a cliff overlooking Algiers. It was completed in 1872 and since then has been one of the landmarks of the Algerian capital, its neo-Byzantine style architecture with an impressive dome standing imperially over a city that still reflects, despite its present shabbiness, the legacy of France.

The view from here of the city below is magnificent, and surveying the scene before me it becomes obvious the French chose this spot for the church to stand as a symbol embracing North Africans as part of their civilizing mission. Behind the altar they inscribed the words, “Notre Dame d’Afrique priez pour nous et pour les Musulmans.” (“Our Lady of Africa, pray for us and for the Muslims.”)

The Church now stands practically empty, guarded by a contingent of armed police.

It symbolizes today something entirely different from what the French had once imagined. Its emptiness speaks of how beleaguered is Christianity, or any other minority faith, not only in Algeria but right across the Arab-Muslim world.

Christians and Jews were once a vibrant part of the North African culture. Early Christianity thrived here under the authority of St. Augustine, the most famous son of Algeria who remains unknown to most Algerians.

History is never simple. French-Algerian history, as is European-Muslim history in general, has its share of terrible things done on both sides in the mistaken name of some higher principle.

But every generation, as the German historian Leopold von Ranke noted, stands in equidistance from infinity or God.

In other words, every generation is responsible for deeds done and their consequences, and past wrongs cannot be an excuse for wrongs done in the present.

In March 1996, seven French monks belonging to a Trappist order were kidnapped from their monastery in Tibhirine, set in the mountains south of Algiers, by Islamist terrorists.

The monks were murdered, and such a horrible crime was not an isolated tragedy that might be dismissed as the work of evil men. It was a crime that reflected, among other things, the intolerance among Muslims of others and other faith-traditions, and how this intolerance has besmirched Islam and its place in our world.

There was a funeral mass held at Notre Dame d’Afrique for the murdered monks. But I could not verify if mosques in Algiers offered prayers for those killed who had worked in Christ’s name among the poor of Algeria.

And herein lies the unspoken problem of the Arab-Muslim world.

There is among Muslims no public discussion about Jesus; nor do Muslims display reverence or understanding about Jesus and his place in history, yet they readily indulge in anti-Christian polemics. As a result, Muslims have emptied Islam of that aspect of humanity nearest and dearest to God symbolized by Jesus in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an refers to Jesus as “ruh Allah” meaning the breath, or spirit of God.

In emptying Islam of Jesus, Muslims have taken the spirit out of the Qur’an as the word of God.

Hence, Muslim poverty reflects much more than politics and economics.

It is, as I observe this phenomenon, an effect of Muslims having turned Islam into an arid and intolerant religion.

The military’s shrewd gambit in Egypt

JIZEL, Algeria — The landscape around Jizel, east of Algeria’s capital Algiers on the Barbary Coast, appears like an artist’s hidden paradise in some remote corner of the world. The view of the Mediterranean framed by the mountains is spectacular, and it tells me why the French fought so long and hard to remain here.

From here the tumult in Egypt is both near and distant.

It is near since Egypt played an eventful role in Algeria’s struggle for independence, and as the most populous Arab state Egypt’s political culture carries an appeal across the region despite its bankrupt economy. But the distance of Egypt from here also provides a critical perspective.

Algeria is an oil-rich economy with about a third of Egypt’s population. This relative wealth made the difference between Algeria turning into an Afghanistan or Somalia as Islamists bid for power in the 1990s, and the country remaining under control of a somewhat secularized military-civil elite that has ruled since France departed.

The result of Egypt’s presidential election discloses how greatly divided is the country. A mere 51% of the electorate voted and Ahmed Shafiq, as the candidate of the allegedly discredited previous military regime of Hosni Mubarak, received more than 48% of support.

In winning the presidency Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, has made history, yet the uncertainties of Egypt’s economy looms ominously.

Another round of elections, for the parliament was disqualified by the constitutional court, will have to occur.

The military’s role, given its stakes in society, will also need to be worked out in the midst of a failing economy, and in an international context wherein the margin of error is just about non-existent.

Moreover, the sort of Islamist terror and military counter-terror played out in Algeria is not unlikely. The past is the prologue for the future in a society as divided as is Egypt.

Most outside observers fail to understand or avoid discussing the fundamental nature of Arab society, which has failed to modernize or reform Islam sufficiently by discarding its tribal culture. Behind the public discourse of democracy, the real contest for power in Egypt, as it was in Algeria, is one among competing tribes to take control of the state and distribute its spoils. In Arab culture, the military has proven to be the most powerful of tribes.

But the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 1945 has posed a serious challenge to the military’s hold on power. Seen from this perspective, the primary internal conflict in Egyptian politics remains the tribal contest between the military and the MB.

The post-Cold War developments and the post-9/11 rise of Islamism affected the political equation inside Egypt. What we are witnessing is a new round of power struggle with stakes much higher for both Egypt and the region.

My sense is Egypt’s commanding generals shrewdly made their gambit as they sacrificed Hosni Mubarak, one of their own, to the mob. In stepping back, the military has permitted the MB with Morsi to assume the presidency with the narrowest margin of public support, and then hold them entirely responsible for the predictable economic collapse ahead.

A year from now the mob that cheered Mubarak’s fall may likely demand the return of the military.

Women stand to lose most in Arab Spring

The monthly journal Foreign Policy recently published an essay by Mona Eltahawy titled “Why Do They Hate Us?”

Eltahawy is an American of Egyptian origin, a graduate from the American University in Cairo with a master’s degree in journalism, who publishes views on politics and culture inside the Arab world.

In the large amount of reporting from and about the Middle East, Eltahawy’s writings convey the perspectives, and hurt, of Arab and Muslim women trapped in the web of a patriarchal culture with its endemic misogyny and violence. Her recent essay was written after her own traumatic experience last November in Cairo.

There she was assaulted, groped and beaten by goons linked to security forces in Tahrir Square where the so-called “Arab Spring” gathered pace and toppled Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship.

There is, however, the denial and the apologetics of those made uncomfortable by light shed on the disgusting reality of how in the name of Islam a pre-modern culture continues to degrade women in our day and age.

Once upon a time — and a long, long time ago — Islam brought improvement for women in a world characterized by patriarchy. This improvement in the relative sense allows for many Muslims to engage in polemical defence of Islam for advancing women’s rights long before the subject took hold in the West.

The making of the modern world left the Arab-Muslim region behind in every aspect of human progress and, as Eltahawy indicates, the latest Global Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum on the status of women ranks the Arab countries at the bottom of the list.

“Name me an Arab country,” writes Eltahawy, “and I’ll recite a litany of abuses fuelled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend.”

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is moving full steam ahead to establish an Islamist order. This is a leap backwards in time and, without mincing words, an Islamic variant of fascism.

But when it comes to the status of women, Saudi Arabia stands as the model for Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Eltahawy does not mince words to describe the Saudi kingdom which, she writes, is “unabashed in its worship of a misogynistic God and never suffers any consequences for it, thanks to its double-whammy advantage of having oil and being home to Islam’s two holiest places, Mecca and Medina.”

Muslim women have known from the earliest days the promise of Islam and its oppressive reality as practised by Muslim men. The promise indicts Muslim men for their misogyny — apologetics aside — and in our age the Shariah-based sanction for the abuse of women is a crime against humanity.

Eltahawy is one courageous voice of Arab women. There are others. And they remind all that the genuinely revolutionary force for change in the Arab-Muslim world is women.

Yet the situation of women in the Arab-Muslim world of patriarchy and misogyny, if this can be imagined, has worsened. The reason is, as Eltahawy observes, the “Islamist hatred of women burns brightly across the region — now more than ever.”

Prosperous Israel in perilous times

As Israelis mark the 64th independence day of their country, Jews in Israel and outside also watch with apprehension the increasingly volatile situation in the region.

Jews as a people are instinctively cognizant of history. Indeed of Jews, it might be said, they are a nation which has survived through history bearing witness to the endless cycle of madness seizing hold of people, cultures and civilizations.

The current cycle of Arab volatility, or Iranian hostility towards Israel, from this perspective is not new. They are recurrent, and in watching them, Israeli apprehension is tempered by past experience of similar situations.

Israelis are intensely aware of the deep-seated animus among Arabs and Muslims directed at them, and there is nothing they can do unilaterally to improve the situation. A half-century ago the Arab world was deeply stirred by the tide of Pan-Arab nationalism. Gamal Nasser, as Egypt’s military dictator, skillfully rode this tide after the Suez War of 1956 to new heights of popularity, and turned the street rage of Egyptians arising from decades of neglect and poverty in the direction of Israel. Pan-Arab nationalism under Nasser’s tutelage sought to undo the collective humiliation of Arab states failing to defeat and annihilate Israel at the moment of its birth.

The Arab-led war of 1948 against the Jewish state, established as a result of the UN partition of Palestine Mandate, had turned out to be a military disaster for the invading armies. Nasser would get hoisted on his own petard in June 1967. He catastrophically miscalculated Israeli capacity to pre-empt when he escalated his rhetoric toward war, lost the Sinai, and never recovered from the defeat he brought upon himself and his allies.

The seeds of Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power were sown in the aftermath of the June 1967 defeat of Pan-Arab nationalism.

But despite the ruin of Arab nationalism under Nasser, there was something still positive in that strain of politics striving for accommodation with modernity. The politics of Muslim Brotherhood is a leap backwards since it is dismissive of modernity. It is, however, riddled with insatiable bigotry towards others, especially Jews and Israel.

Members of the MB celebrated the murder in 1981 of Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, who had signed a peace treaty with Israel and recovered Sinai lost in 1967. Sadat’s murderers came from MB’s splintered ranks, as does Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present head of al-Qaida. In September 2011, a mob in Cairo attacked the Israeli embassy while military authorities delayed in providing protection. The mob’s fury reflected the deep undercurrents of a miserably failed and impoverished society.

Egypt is the most populous Arab state, and the most vulnerable to the fears of hunger in an economy barely afloat.

Israel, in contrast, is a model of economic and technological success in the region, though her population is one-twelfth the size of Egypt. Her success is a rebuke to those who still feed the beast of anti-Semitism in their midst.

And while anti-Semitism is a recurrent peril to Jews, their remarkable story is also a reminder there is something providential in their survival when those with whom their history began have long since turned to dust.

Lesson from Iraq for Syria

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Fouad Ajami laments America’s abdication of Syria as the country slides ever deeper into the morass of a bloody civil war.

Ajami is the pre-eminent Arab-American academic and public intellectual writing about the contemporary Middle East. His realism, honesty, insight of the Arab world and elegant style, make him one of the most widely read scholars on the twists and turns of Levantine politics.

But Ajami is at a loss to explain America’s abandonment of a Syria traumatized by the sheer ruthlessness of Bashar al-Assad. Ajami knows better than just about anyone how well the current butcher of Damascus absorbed the lessons taught by Hafez al-Assad — Bashar’s father and the man responsible for ordering the massacre of the population in Hama in February 1982.

It is also undeniable that the current situation in Syria is not an anomaly by Arab standards. It is only the latest act in an old drama, of wily despots maintaining their hold on power by breaking heads until their luck runs out and the cycle is repeated.

Ajami is, however, appalled by the inaction of the Obama administration as are others in the Middle East — the Syrian opposition, the Turks, leaders of the Gulf states, Arabs on the street, and just about everyone witnessing the daily carnage inside Syria.

For once, Ajami has it wrong. The inaction of the Obama administration is a reflection of American opinion to stay distant from the interminable conflicts of the Middle East.

American opinion is right on Syria. This is the natural and logical response of a people after having reflected on the lesson learned from their involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was worse, if this could now be imagined or explained, than the Syrian despot. His removal was earnestly desired by most Iraqis.

Yet when Saddam Hussein was removed, the Arab-Muslim world in unison denounced the American liberators of Iraq for meddling in Arab affairs, and then held them responsible for the terror unleashed by Islamists against Iraqis.

It was an Orwellian turn of logic. American soldiers were turned into criminals while criminal thugs from across the Arab world, swarming into a post-Saddam, free Iraq to cripple it with their wanton and indiscriminate terror, were turned into freedom fighters.

It was even worse to follow the liberal-left opinion in the West – led by such disgusting demagogues as George Galloway, Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said, and including then senator Obama, all posing as men of virtue — piling up on George W. Bush, while Arabs murdered Arabs in the manner in which they have done such killing going all the way back to the massacre of the Prophet’s family.

The lesson I learned from the experience in Iraq is simple: There is nothing good that can be done by outsiders for Arabs and Muslims. It is for them to sort out how eventually, if at all, they will jettison their appallingly dysfunctional tribal culture and acquire the modern culture of freedom and democracy.

In the meantime, however long it takes, the right thing to do is distance the West from the Arab-Muslim world, its dysfunctional culture and its imported effects.

“Arab Spring a mask for ruthless men”

The Biblical story of Jonah in the belly of a whale is a fascinating allegory of moral instruction taught by God to man, or of man’s struggle for redemption in a sinful world.

It might also be read as a metaphor indicating only those individuals, or people, know best the nature of any beast if they have lived inside its belly, and survived to speak of the evil encountered.

The people who knew best the sheer evil nature of the former Soviet Union, for instance, were the ones who experienced it from within, and warned the world.

Similarly, only those with experience of politics in the Arab-Muslim world from the inside know well the true nature of its repressive culture riddled with violence.

Khaled Abu Toameh is a journalist writing for the Jerusalem Post. He describes himself often as a Palestinian-Israeli, an Arab, a Muslim and a resident of Jerusalem.

In other words Khaled — I will address him by his first name — is a man of multiple identities, and residing in the ground zero of the most intractable conflict of our time.

I draw attention to Khaled because his writings are warnings from within the belly of the Arab world. And his writings are required reading for anyone in the West seriously interested in understanding the interior nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the emergent shape of Arab politics as one set of despots fall and another tyranny looms large.

I first met Khaled here in Canada, and later visited him with his family at his home in Jerusalem.

Khaled’s personality is radiant, his courage is indomitable and his knowledge indispensable for outsiders struggling to understand the labyrinthine nature of tribal politics of the Arab world.

In a recent article, Khaled told the world why the so-called Arab Spring is inevitably turning into an Arab Winter.

He asks sardonically: “Will Libya take example from Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia where adulterers are stoned to death and convicted thieves have their hands cut off and beheaded in public squares?”

He then writes: “Those who thought the Arab Spring would bring moderation and secularism to the Arab world are in for a big disappointment.”

And why, we may incredulously ask.

Khaled answers: “What many Western observers have failed to notice is that most of the anti-government demonstrations that have been sweeping the Arab world over the past 10 months were often launched from mosques following Friday prayer.”

There you have the inside view from the belly of the beast. In our politically correct world of multicultural utopia, the reality of what occurs inside the mosque cannot be discussed.

To the mayor of New York, the Ground Zero Mosque can only be a place of worship where pious men — and mostly men — gather.

Khaled has no reason to be politically correct when he knows the inside story of how a mosque serves as the recruiting base for jihad against infidels and lapsed Muslims.

This jihad is turning whatever little promise there was initially invested in the Facebook revolution called Arab Spring into an Arab Winter, and rule by ruthless men obsessed by their Islamist version of a cruel faith and a vengeful deity.