Hindu supremacists often normalize the British Rule in India, saying that it saved them from the Mughals. Under the Mughals, in the 1700s, India had become the wealthiest country on the planet. Under the British, more than 6 million Indians died in the 1876-1878 famine.

Bron: https://twitter.com/ashoswai/status/1596784511051698176

In 2018, Routledge released a book with an intriguing title: Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies. The book was edited by Farid Hafez and Enes Bayrakli. The work is a compilation consisting of chapters written by various authors, all pertaining to Islamophobia within different geographical locations in the Muslim world (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Albania, and so on).

As we’re not doing a complete book review, we’ll just be presenting a select few representative excerpts.

In chapter 4, Syed Furrukh Zad Ali Shah writes about how Pakistan’s elite promotes blatant Islamophobia through their secular and modernist projects:

Pakistan, with a 97 per cent Muslim population and a declared Islamic Republic, has a smaller, yet formidable section of society that corresponds to Islamophobic currents. These Westernized secular power elites share similar anti-Islam sentiments, rooted in traditional Western discourses of secularism and modernity. Furthermore, modern resurgence of political Islamism and its conflation with violence also demonizes the religion in general, which is embedded in local cultural traditions and social customs. Religion that is seen as anti-modern and irrational has to be disposed of if society is to be reformed and modernized.

And as the author demonstrates, this is not something restricted only to Pakistan. Rather, it extends to pretty much any Muslim country where the “post-colonial” elite ironically believes that “development” is attained by force, in the same way that colonialists tried to implement it.

To highlight a single example, think of the emphasis placed on “girls’ education.” And then there’s the fact that this “education” absolutely must take place in a secular setting—not a madrasah, never!—and obviously, following Western ideals and values.

In chapter 9, Sahar El Zahed examines the “internalized Islamophobia” in the Egyptian media.

You’d assume that such a thing wouldn’t happen in a country where around 90% of the citizens are Muslims, but the author shows how Islam is constantly associated in the mainstream media with “violence,” “backwardness,” etc., and this is something that has intensified significantly since Sisi usurped power in 2014.

In fact, one of the most Islamophobic quotes that she presents is from Sisi himself, from “a speech at Al-Azhar University during the anniversary of the Prophet” ﷺ:

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing – and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible! That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sanctified over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

Consider the occasion. Consider the place. He couldn’t possibly have found a better time to describe Islam as a—if not the—source of all of humanity’s problems!

As a thought exercise, it may also be interesting to reproduce this notion of “indigenous Islamophobia” with secular rulers and “decolonial privilege.” Imagine a “White imperialist” using the exact words used by Sisi. He would be lambasted. But a Brown man with a name that sounds Islamic can somehow get away with openly saying such things; or banning the Hijab; or changing the language’s script, etc., all in the name of “modernity” (which is itself the product of the “White imperialist”). Yet for some reason, he’ll face no significant opposition. In fact, he might even be praised as a “leader” or as the “father of the nation” (Ataturk)!

Islamophobia is universal because liberalism has become universal as well (through “globalization”) and found willing allies (the loyal minions that are propped up as our so-called “elite”) within the Muslim world.

Allah says in the Noble Qur’an (4:137-140):

As to those who have believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief—never will Allah forgive them. Nor will He guide them to [the right] way.

Give [heavy] tidings to the hypocrites, [as well,] that for them there is a most painful torment [awaiting in the Hereafter.

For they are] the ones take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek from them the indomitable protection of might? For verily Allah possesses all might soever!

Moreover, [recall that] He has already sent down to you [a commandment] in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah being belied and mocked at [by people], then do not sit with them until they take up some other discourse. [For,] indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed, Allah shall gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hellfire, all together.

Bron: https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/11/24/islamophobia-muslim-world/

Former US grand strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski said: “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America”. Because the US has just 4% of the world’s population, and it’s isolated from the Eurasia continent which has 70% of the world’s population, or 87% with Africa included. Defensively, it’s an advantage to the US, but economically, it’s a handicap. That’s why economically, Eurasia is a competitor to the US and the Euro is a threat to the dollar.

How does the US with an isolated and just 4% of world’s population maintain its position as the world’s biggest economy? The dollar must stay as the world’s reserve currency. This allows the size of the US economy to be highly scaled up, instead of being sized according to the fundamentals.

To be the world’s reserve currency, the dollar must be circulated in the world. The US created a huge consumption-based economy and shifted manufacturing outside, so that dollars flow out of the US to product suppliers like China or Japan. To make products, China and Japan need energy. The US created the Petrol-dollar scheme, so that dollar is circulated to Saudi Arabia. With the US stock and financial market much more lucrative than other countries, the dollars from Saudi Arabia are attracted back to the US. Money printed in the US to exchange for goods from outside eventually ends up with Wall Street, where the rich gets richer. And that completes the cycle of circulation of the dollars.

The American Dream attracted top talents around the world to strengthen the US’ science and technology sectors, and a technological gap is maintained between the US and other major economies like China, so that the US benefits from highly lucrative high-tech product/patent exports, while the low profit manufacturing sector is outsourced to China and Vietnam. This is why the world leader in 5G, Huawei, is banned in 2019.

If China or Japan bring back all the dollars and exchange it to their local currencies, it inflates the local currencies, making their exports expensive. So, China and Japan use some of the dollars to buy US debts (treasury bonds). That’s why the US, a rich country, is indebted to China which has just 1/5th of the US’ GDP per capita.

And by holding US treasury bills, China and Japan have to support the US dollar, for if the US dollar collapses, their hard earned money would become worthless. After Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” in 2011, which aimed to contain China, China introduced the Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) in 2013 and diverted some of the dollars into it to reduce the risk of putting all eggs in one basket, and hoping that after these countries are developed, China would have a wider trade market.

With a huge population, if Asia and Africa develop rapidly, the share of the US’ economy shrinks, then the Euro could replace it as the world’s reserve currency. When that happens, the US would no longer be able to print money out of nothing without a hyper inflation like Venezuela. Then the size of the US economy has to fall back to the fundamentals, which today is quite a lot smaller than the inflated economy. That’s why no country in Eurasia is allowed to catch up with the US’ economy. When Japan was catching up fast to the US in the 1980s, they were knocked down to a three decade stagnancy by appreciating the Japanese Yen. And in the last 30 years, the US created conflicts, wars and color revolutions in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa to destabilise the Eurasia-Africa supercontinent.

When the US prints a lot of money, other countries’ foreign reserves in dollars shrink in value. Furthermore, to prevent exports to the US becoming expensive, these countries have to print money too, which devalues the savings of the people, and causing inflations in these countries. It’s estimated that our savings devalue by 6-9% per year after the abolishment of the gold-backed Bretton Woods system, after which the US prints money based on just the creditability of the dollar.

North America is relatively easy to defend, yet the US has a military budget more than the total of the next 9 countries in the top 10, to protect the dollar with its almost 1000 military bases worldwide.

For the record, the US had no mercy on threats to the dollar:

• In 2000 Saddam Hussein said he would start selling oil in Euros not Dollars. Saddam was hanged by the US.
• In 2009 Gaddafi made Libya export oil in Gold Dinars, not in dollar or Euro.
  Gaddafi was killed by US-backed rebels.
• Syria had an independent Central Bank NOT under Federal Reserve controlled Bank of International Settlements. Obama attempted to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.
• Iran has been trading oil in currencies other than US dollars since 2011. Iran was being sanctioned by the US.
• After being sanctioned in 2014, Putin started to trade in non-dollar. In 2019, Putin (1) completely ditched dollars in oil trades, (2) sold almost all the US treasury bonds, (3) is now the forerunner in de-dollarization. The US tried to topple Putin by supporting Alexei Navalny. And now the Ukraine war to weaken Russia.
• China (1) introduced the BRI in 2013 which helps many countries to develop and speed up the integration of Eurasia, (2) used non-dollar in oil trades with Iran and Russia, (3) introduced the CIPS, an alternative to the West’s SWIFT system which has been weaponized by America, (4) China’s economy and high technology are catching up fast. China has become the US’ #1 target.

If a country supports the dollar, it’s being looted; if a country doesn’t support the dollar, the government is changed by the US. This is financial slavery.

The Fed has printed 80% of all US dollars in existence since Jan 2020. There was $4.02 trillion dollars in circulation at the beginning of 2020. The number reached $20.08 trillion by Oct 2021. This amounted to an astronomical 30 trillions debt. Coupled with a global rising urge to diversify into non-dollar reserves caused by the US’ sanctions to 39 countries, the dollar is in a creditability crisis. This is the major development which shapes geopolitics in the world today.

The US cannot have direct wars with Russia and China because they are nuclear armed. Proxy wars put the battlefields outside of the US, and the US would looked like an outsider. Remember in the 1980s, the US supported the Afghan Mujaheddin in a proxy war against the USSR. Russia and China have clearly defined their red lines. US would use its collaborators Zelensky and Tsai to push across the red lines to trigger the wars, and it would sell weapons to its allies in NATO and AUKUS, and get them to support the wars.

After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, US President Bill Clinton had two choices: (a) to integrate Russia into Europe and abolish NATO, OR, (b) to slowly alienate Russia to keep Russia and Europe divided. Clinton chose the latter, because if there’s no more Russia “threat”, there would be no more NATO to control Europe. As the first NATO Secretary General, Lionel Ismay described the military role of NATO: “To keep America IN, to keep Russia OUT, to keep Germany (Europe) DOWN”. NATO also allows the US to place missiles in Europe, so if a war break out in Europe, missiles would be flying between Moscow in the East and Lisbon in the West, while the US remains safe across the Atlantic.

And politically, the EU is an American creation, as much as a European one. It’s much easier for Washington to control ruling elites at Brussels than having to control all politicians in Europe. The EU is used as an ally or a sacrificial, depending on the geopolitical needs of Washington.

The proxy war in Ukraine: 1. Divided Europe from Russia and divided Eurasia. 2. Killed Nord Stream II gas pipeline and German firm Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg has signed up for gas from America Venture Global LNG for 20 years. The US gained control over the energy supply to Europe. 3. Created continuity for the Military Industrial Complex after pulling out of Afghanistan. 4. Most importantly, the war strengthened the dollar. Dollar against Euro is now the highest since NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in March of 1999 (happened two months after the official launch of Euro as the currency of the EU, which threatened the dollar). A strong dollar together with the Fed’s interest rise in 2022 caused capital from all over the world to flow into the US economy, while collapsing other economies, like Sri Lanka.

Elsewhere, two months after ignoring a warning from Washington against his visit to Moscow, highly popular Imran Khan was ousted from the PM post of Pakistan on 9 Apr 2022. A month after ignoring Biden’s demand to increase oil production, secretary-general of OPEC, Mohammad Barkindo died unexpectedly on July 5, 2022.

The US isn’t relinquishing its privilege to loot. Remember after WW II, Europe and Asia were devastated, but the US emerged as the world leader and the dollar became the world’s reserve currency.

Gianni Infantino, de voorzitter van de FIFA, is flink losgegaan, op met name West-Europese landen, tijdens zijn persconferentie een dag voor het begin van het WK voetbal in Qatar.

De voorzitter van de wereldvoetbalbond, die van deelnemers op het WK eist dat ze politiek en voetbal strikt gescheiden houden, trok 62 minuten lang fel van leer tegen criticasters van het WK. Met name West-Europese landen moesten het ontgelden.

“Wat de Europeanen de afgelopen 3.000 jaar hebben gedaan, daar zouden ze eerst nog 3.000 jaar hun excuses voor moeten aanbieden”, zei de Zwitser. “Pas daarna mogen ze beginnen met morele lessen geven aan andere volkeren.”

Infantino wees er verder op dat veel Europese landen hun grenzen sluiten voor arbeidsmigranten uit armere landen, terwijl ze in Qatar wel welkom zijn. Juist vanuit die Europese landen kwam er veel druk op Qatar om de arbeidsomstandigheden te verbeteren. “Wat er de afgelopen maanden op tafel is gelegd, dat is eigenlijk ongelooflijk.”

Ook journalisten doen hun werk niet goed, meent de Italiaanse Zwitser. “In de wereld leven 1 miljard mensen met een beperking, geen journalist die ernaar omkijkt. In Zwitserland, waar ik leef, is pas sinds de jaren 90 volledig stemrecht voor vrouwen. Laten we eerst eens in de spiegel kijken.”

Infantino zelf zegt goed in te kunnen voelen wat discriminatie is. “Ik weet hoe het is om gediscrimineerd te worden. Ik werd vroeger gepest omdat ik rood haar had”, liet de al jaren kale FIFA-baas optekenen.

De geïrriteerde FIFA-baas noemde alle kritiek op het WK “hypocriet” en voorspelt dat Qatar “het beste WK ooit” gaat organiseren. Volgens hem heeft de FIFA zich juist wel bekommerd om arbeidsmigranten. Ook verwees hij op de persconferentie naar FIFA-collega Bryan Swanson, die homoseksueel is en zegt zich veilig te voelen in Qatar.

Bron: https://nos.nl/artikel/2453007-fifa-baas-infantino-vindt-europese-kritiek-op-qatar-hypocriet-dubbele-moraal

“Eurasia is home to most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world’s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world’s overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world’s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia’s potential power overshadows even America’s. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia…almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.” [Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997]

“The US has had the ultimate aim of preventing the emergence of any major power in Eurasia. The paradox however is as follows – the goals of these interventions was never to achieve something – whatever the political rhetoric might have said – but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilize but to destabilize, and this explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake. It wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States also has no interest in winning the war outright…the purpose of these conflicts is simply to block a power or destabilize the region, not to impose order.” [George Friedman, “The next 100 years, a forecast for the 21st Century”, 2009]

Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch (HRW) maakt zich boos omdat Indonesië, het grootste moslimland ter wereld, niets wil doen voor de situatie van de Oeigoeren en andere moslims in China. ‘Indonesië laat de Oeigoeren schaamteloos in de steek.’

Een recent rapport van de Hoge Commissaris voor de Mensenrechten van de Verenigde Naties stelde vast dat de Chinezen mogelijk misdaden tegen de menselijkheid plegen. Maar een meerderheid in de VN-Mensenrechtenraad, ook Indonesië niet, wilde onlangs niet eens debatteren hierover. Dat zou ‘geen zinvolle vooruitgang opleveren’, zei Indonesië in de Mensenrechtenraad.

Naast Indonesië stemden ook de overwegend islamitische landen Verenigde Arabische Emiraten, Pakistan, Sudan, Qatar, Oekbekistan en Kazachstan tegen het debat. Maleisie en Libie onthielden zich van stemmingen. Maar voor wie de Oeigoerenkwestie volgt, zal de tegenstem van deze moslimlanden geen grote verrassing zijn. Deze landen worden economisch steeds afhankelijker van China en schuwen daarom kritiek op Beijing.

HRW: ‘Landen met een moslimmeerderheid, zoals Indonesië, hebben de rechten van Rohingya-moslims in Myanmar verdedigd, de apartheid van Israël tegen Palestijnen veroordeeld en daden van islamofobie in westerse landen aan de kaak gesteld. Maar een ‘nee’-stem tegen Xinjiang ondermijnt hun geloofwaardigheid om discriminatie van moslims aan te pakken.’

‘HRW roept Indonesië alsnog op tot actie. ‘Het schaamteloze verraad van Indonesië aan de Oeigoeren mag niet meer gebeuren.’

China heeft naar schatting minstens een miljoen islamitische Oeigoeren in heropvoedingskampen opgesloten. Ook worden Oeigoerse moskeeën gesloopt en Oeigoerse vrouwen gedwongen gesteriliseerd. Steeds meer experts en parlementen spreken daarom van genocide.

De Chinese regering reageert steevast hetzelfde op de beschuldigingen: het Westen zou de boel bij elkaar liegen, terwijl de Chinese regering hoegenaamd extremisme in de regio wil aanpakken.

Bron: https://dekanttekening.nl/nieuws/human-rights-watch-hekelt-indonesie-laat-oeigoeren-schaamteloos-vallen2/

Nicaragua verbreekt de diplomatieke betrekkingen met Nederland. De regering in Managua verwijt Nederland een neokoloniale en bemoeizuchtige houding en “een voortdurende belediging van Nicaraguaanse gezinnen”.

Dat Nicaragua de betrekkingen verbreekt, heeft waarschijnlijk te maken met het besluit van Nederland om de financiering van de bouw van een ziekenhuis te beëindigen. Dit project stond sinds 2018 stil “vanwege de verslechterde situatie op gebied van democratie en mensenrechten”, aldus een woordvoerder van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken in Den Haag. “Onder de huidige omstandigheden is besloten om het project definitief te beëindigen.”

Nederland had volgens het ministerie al meerdere keren aangegeven dat dit besluit aanstaande was “als de situatie niet zou verbeteren”. De regering is volgens het ministerie altijd bereid om het gesprek aan te gaan over “de afbreuk van democratische structuren en mensenrechtenschendingen in Nicaragua”.

Dat heeft de Nederlandse ambassadeur voor Midden-Amerika, Christine Pirenne, deze week ook gedaan, aldus het ministerie. Maar volgens de Nicaraguaanse dictator Ortega sprak Pirenne bij haar bezoek aan de hoofdstad Managua de bevolking toe alsof “Nicaragua een kolonie is van Nederland”. “Hoepel dan maar op”, vervolgde hij.

Over het verbreken van de diplomatieke betrekkingen zegt Buitenlandse Zaken dat Nicaragua buitenproportioneel reageert op “een kritische boodschap over democratie en mensenrechten”.

Bron: https://nos.nl/artikel/2446639-nicaragua-verbreekt-diplomatieke-banden-met-nederland

De Amerikaanse professor Uju Anya is donderdag viraal gegaan door een tweet over de Britse koningin Elizabeth. Ze wenste de Queen „ondraaglijk lijden” toe in de laatste minuten van haar leven. Dat is Anya op een standje komen te staan van haar werkgever, de Carnegie Mellon universiteit in Pittsburgh, en de toorn van twitteraars wereldwijd.

De professor werd wereldberoemd, of liever berucht, door de volgende tweet: „Ik hoorde dat de monarch van een verkrachtend, genocidaal roversrijk eindelijk stervende is. Moge haar pijn onverdraaglijk zijn.” De tsunami aan kritiek die deze tweet ontlokte, legde Anya naast zich neer: „Als iemand meer van mij verwacht dan minachting voor een monarch die een regering leidde die een genocide financierde waardoor mijn halve familie is vermoord of gedeporteerd en waarvan de consequenties nog altijd zwaar rusten op degenen die nog leven, dan kan je net zo goed een wens doen als je een vallende ster ziet.”

Al kort nadat Anya haar tweet had geplaatst, ging die viraal. Mede dankzij Jeff Bezos, de oprichter van bezorgbedrijf Amazon, die de tweet deelde met de begeleidende tekst: „Dit is iemand die van de wereld een betere plek wil maken? Ik denk het niet. Wow.” Bezos verwees naar de biografie in het Twitter-profiel van de Amerikaanse professor, waarin ze schrijft antiracistisch, feministisch en pro LGBT te zijn.

De Amazon-oprichter was zeker niet de enige die viel over Anya’s tweet. Een aantal criticasters kreeg een persoonlijk antwoord van de professor en in sommige gevallen waren die reacties op z’n zachtst gezegd opmerkelijk. Zo kreeg iemand die „Ieuw, jij stinkt” naar Anya twitterde te horen: „Je bedoelt net zoals jouw poes?” En een Nigeriaan die voorstelde dat Anya weer terug zou moeten komen naar haar geboorteland – ze woonde tot haar tiende in Nigeria -, werd toegebeten dat hij haar maar moest komen halen. Ook noemde ze de moeder van de twitteraar een hypocriet.

Veel klagende twitteraars haalden ook de werkgever van de professor erbij, de Carnegie Mellon universiteit. Het onderwijsinstituut voelde zich genoodzaakt om te reageren op de ophef en gaf de volgende verklaring af: „Wij keuren de aanstootgevende en verwerpelijke berichten geplaatst door Uju Anya op haar sociale media accounts vandaag niet goed. Vrije meningsuiting is de harde kern van de missie van hoger onderwijs, maar de standpunten die zij deelde vertegenwoordigen absoluut niet de waarden van dit instituut noch de normen voor debat die we proberen te koesteren.”

Inmiddels had Twitter de aanstootgevende tweet van Anya gewist na een grote hoeveelheid klachten. Volgens het sociale medium had de professor de regel overtreden dat je anderen geen fysiek leed mag toewensen. Ook daar ontstond weer ophef over. Zo schreef de Amerikaanse Stichting voor Individuele Rechten en Vrije Meningsuiting (FIRE) in een reactie: „Veel mensen vinden dat Twitter de regels op willekeurige wijze handhaaft. Dat vinden wij ook. In een tijdsgewricht waarin velen Twitter gebruiken als plek om openlijk hun standpunten te delen, vinden we dat Twitter zo min mogelijk censuur als mogelijk zou moeten toepassen.”

Bron: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/340031198/hatelijke-tweet-over-queen-wekt-woede-twitteraars-moge-haar-pijn-onverdraaglijk-zijn

De Egyptische archeoloog Zahi Hawass probeert de beroemde Steen van Rosetta al jaren tevergeefs terug te krijgen naar zijn land. Deze week deed de bekende voorvechter voor Egyptisch erfgoed opnieuw een poging. Hij voert de druk op nu westerse landen en musea steeds vaker overwegen om roofkunst terug te geven.

Het British Museum, waar de iconische steen een van de belangrijkste objecten is, heeft niet gereageerd op de oproep van Hawass, en staat erom bekend er niet happig op te zijn om objecten terug te sturen. Archeoloog en cultuurhistoricus Mirjam Hoijtink, aangesloten bij de Universiteit van Amsterdam, schat de kansen van Hawass dan ook niet hoog in.

In het publieke debat klinken steeds vaker geluiden om roofkunst deels terug te sturen en meer bewustwording te creëren over het koloniale verleden. Hoijtink ziet dat vooral de grote musea worstelen met hun rol hierin. Landen vragen al decennia om geroofde objecten terug te geven, maar vaak zonder succes.

“Veel archeologische musea zitten er niet zo op te wachten en durven zich niet uit te spreken”, zegt Hoijtink. Die angst is volgens de hoogleraar ongegrond. “Het is juist een mooi debat over hoe mensen zich verhouden tot hun verleden. Musea zouden meer open moeten staan voor dialoog. Musea zijn onderdeel van de publieke ruimte en worden betaald met belastinggeld.”

Rondom iconische roofkunst, zoals de Steen van Rosetta, hangt veel sentiment over nationale identiteit. “De steen is een mooi voorbeeld van een object waar Egyptenaren zich mee kunnen identificeren”, zegt Hoijtink.

Maar ook in Groot-Brittannië leeft veel sentiment voor de steen. “Je zou denken: zet een kopie neer in het British Museum en geeft de echte aan Egypte terug. Maar dit ligt politiek gevoelig”, zegt de hoogleraar. “Toen de Britten de steen buitmaakten op het Franse leger, was dat een overwinning als mondiale macht.”

De Steen van Rosetta
De granieten steen is van grote waarde: door de vondst kon het hiërogliefenschrift worden ontcijferd. Het enorme object werd in 1799 gevonden in een vervallen fort door het Franse leger van Napoleon. Naast hiërogliefen zijn op de steen nieuwer Egyptisch schrift en Oudgrieks te zien, waardoor het mogelijk was het schrift van de oude Egyptenaren te begrijpen.

De steen werd geroofd als oorlogsschat en moest in het Louvre komen te staan, maar viel onverwachts in handen van het Britse leger. Het object werd in 1802 meegenomen uit Egypte en staat sindsdien in het British Museum, dat momenteel met acht miljoen objecten een van de grootste collecties ter wereld heeft. Het heeft veel roofkunst uit voormalige koloniën in bezit.

Naast de steen vraagt Hawass ook om de buste van Nefertiti uit het Egyptisch Museum in Berlijn, en de Dierenriem van Dendera, een reliëf dat in het Louvre te zien is. Waarschijnlijk zijn ze bedoeld voor het nieuwe Grand Egyptian Museum, dat later dit jaar moet openen vlak bij de piramiden van Gizeh. Daarmee zouden de drie topstukken, naast het vele andere erfgoed in Egypte, toegankelijker worden voor gewone Egyptenaren.

Volgens de nieuwe definitie over wat een museum moet zijn, waar deze week door de internationale museumraad ICOM over werd gestemd, moet een museum niet alleen ten dienst staan van de samenleving en erfgoed onderzoeken en conserveren, maar bijvoorbeeld ook duurzaam zijn en ‘samenwerken met gemeenschappen’. Wat musea met roofkunst moeten doen, wordt niet expliciet benoemd.

Het Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden, dat veel collecties heeft uit het oude Egypte, zegt dat het open staat voor claims uit andere landen. “Musea zijn geen schatbewaarders. We beschermen wel erfgoed, maar dat hoeft niet altijd op dezelfde plek te zijn”, zegt conservator van het museum en egyptoloog Daniel Soliman.

Musea als het Louvre en het British Museum noemen zichzelf ‘universeel’, wat volgens Hoijtink en Soliman een farce is en het eurocentrisme van deze instellingen laat zien. “Veel Egyptenaren en andere mensen uit Afrika hebben niet de middelen om naar Londen te reizen, laat staan om een visum te krijgen”, zegt Soliman.

Er zijn wel manieren te bedenken om kunstobjecten voor zoveel mogelijk mensen toegankelijk te maken. “Belangrijke kunst kan over de wereld reizen, ook buiten de westerse wereld”, stelt Soliman voor. “Er kan ook gewerkt worden met replica’s. Dat het ene jaar het echte object te zien is in Caïro en de replica in Londen, en andersom.”

Door het publieke debat is “een verschuiving gaande in de museumwereld”, ziet Soliman. Hoijtink ziet steeds meer bereidwilligheid bij Nederlandse musea rondom dit thema. Ook als musea steeds vaker besluiten om belangrijke objecten terug te geven, hoeven we volgens de hoogleraar niet bang te zijn voor lege vitrines. “We hebben in Europa echt ongelooflijk grote collecties. Er blijft genoeg over.”

In verschillende landen, zoals Duitsland, is besloten de Benin bronzes terug te geven aan Nigeria. De beeldjes werden eind 19de eeuw door middel van geweld door de Britten ingenomen. Sinds 1960 vraagt Nigeria om teruggave. Vorig jaar werd het eerste beeldje, 124 jaar na de roof, teruggeven. Het is nog niet duidelijk wat Nederland gaat doen met de beeldjes.

Bron: https://nos.nl/artikel/2442299-roofkunst-terug-naar-egypte-niet-als-het-aan-grote-musea-ligt

When Muslims Invented Guerrilla Warfare and Launched Decolonization

Muslims have a military history worth taking pride in.

It begins with the Prophet ﷺ himself, and then his Companions (may Allah be pleased with all of them).

A notable battle was that of Firaz in the year 634 (12AH): Khalid Ibn al-Walid (radiyAllahu ‘anhu) was victorious, which in and of itself is unsurprising (as he never lost), but he did so against the combined strength of both the Persian and Byzantine empires which had formed an alliance to fight against the Muslims.

Islam was such a tremendous force that these sworn enemies⁠—who had been warring against each other for literally centuries⁠—had to put their bloody history aside and join together in order to even stand a chance. Yet, despite vastly outnumbering the Muslims, they still suffered a complete and utter defeat.

Other glorious battles and wars followed throughout Muslim history, and one in particular which is somehow still underrated is the battle of Annual. This battle occurred approximately 101 years ago and lasted for a few weeks⁠—from the end of July 1921 up until the beginning of August 1921⁠.

The battle took place between the Spanish army and the Riffian tribes of Morocco which were under the command of ‘Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi, who in August 1925 appeared on the cover of TIME magazine for his victory.

In sha’ Allah we’ll be taking a look at why this battle was so crucial and why it remains relevant even today.

Western Humiliation
The 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, which concluded in a Japanese victory, is often seen as a determining moment because it was the first time during the modern period that “non-Whites” had defeated a “White” power. And this too, at the height of European colonialism, when “Whites” seemed to be apparently undefeatable.

The Japanese victory had an effect on the Muslim world too (especially in the Ottoman Empire⁠—a long-standing enemy of Russia). It invoked aspirations. The fact that an “Eastern power” had defeated a “Western” one gave rise to renewed optimism among Muslims. For instance, Zafar Ali Khan, a scholar who represented Muslim nationalism within the Indian subcontinent, had decided to write a play about it.

Yet despite Japan not technically being a “Western power,” it had still been modernized since the Meiji Era, and thus somewhat crypto-Western. Thus the war between Russia and Japan became the war between two countries trying to modernize rather than a war between a Western and Eastern nation. In order words, it was about trying to ape the West.

This is why the 1921 battle of Annual is a better example of an East versus West conflict. In this case, it was a conflict between Spain, which was a European power, and the Riffian tribes of Morocco, which were seen as being “barbarian Muslims.”

The Riffians are a Berber ethnic group with a patriarchal population living in the mountains. From a Western perspective they were more “archaic” than the Japanese since the Japanese had been on a modernization drive for a long time.

The battle itself was the result of a long process of colonial encroachment by Spain. The Riffian tribes, finally having had enough, decided to revolt.

This article provides some perspective regarding what Spain still considers to be “the disaster of Annual”:

The Battle of Annual, which began on July 21, was an unmitigated disaster – a mixture of ineptitude and vainglorious overreach. “A classic example of military incompetence,” wrote historian Antony Beevor.

The Rifs under Muhammad Abdel Krim al-Khattabi, more commonly known as Abdel Krim and once a civil servant with the colonial regime, routed the invaders.

The Spanish were more than 100km from their coastal base in Melilla with no supply lines or communications, but Silvestre was pugnacious and eager to please the king.

He also went against the orders of his commanding officer and warnings of retribution from Abdel Krim. The upper estimate is that Spain lost 22,000 troops at Annual and in subsequent fighting as they retreated to Melilla, most of the casualties barely literate, ill-trained and ill-equipped conscripts ridden with typhus or malaria. Exhausted and with morale extinguished, their retreat descended into chaos.

By comparison, only around 800 Rif guerrillas were reported dead. Disgraced, Silvestre almost certainly killed himself, although his remains were never found.

So despite being outnumbered, and with Spain having utilized drastic methods, the Riffians had lost far fewer men than the Spaniards. ‘Abd al-Karim would of course lose years later, with the French coming to the aid of the Spaniards, but this is something which reminds us of the Muslim victories of old.

The article then goes on to show how this humiliating defeat influenced much of Spain’s 20th-century politics, including the dictatorship of Franco.

The Father of Modern Guerrilla Warfare and Decolonization
As mentioned earlier, this battle was a symbolic one. This is because even if it wasn’t the first time “non-Whites” had triumphed over “Whites” during modern times (Russo-Japanese War), it was still the first time that a “modern” European colonial power was defeated by “barbaric” “pre-modern” people.

And this would go on to influence all the later decolonization movements to come, not only in the Muslim world but also far beyond that.

Abd al-Karim’s guerrilla tactics in particular will remain a long-lasting legacy of his.

In a 2015 article titled “Abd-el-Krim al-Khattabi: The Unknown Mentor of Che Guevara,” we read (p. 6):

Scholarly studies on Abd-el-Krim and the Rif War frequently characterize Abd-el-Krim as co-inventor of modern guerilla tactics.

Some of the tactics and methods that are mentioned in the literature with great amazement are as follows: the use of trenches (e.g., on May 3, 1925 General Colombat was unable to break through the Berber trenches encircling Bibane, despite six hours of fighting); caves dug in the slopes; extensive use of granite ramparts, rocks, boulder-strewn summits in the hills as concealment=cover from which to target the enemy; the use of smokeless-powder rifles that made it impossible to locate its user; hiding cannons in caves and using these exclusively at night, which made their discovery impossible.

Worldwide research on the Rif War is unanimous that the war tactics of the Rifis were emulated during other rebellions such as the Druze War of Syria with France (1925–1927), the Algerian War of Independence with France (1954–1962) and the Vietnam War with the United States (1946–1954). Twentieth-century Anti-Colonial revolutionary leaders—such as the Vietnamese leaders Hoˆ Chi Minh (1890–1969) and Vo Nguyen Giap (1911–2013), the Yugoslav leader Tito (1892–1980), and Che Guevera—are specifically mentioned as being influenced by the military tactics of Abd-el-Krim. In this regard, Seymour says, ‘‘a great Muslim anti-imperialist fighter (whose successful tactics would inspire Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara).’’ It has also been alleged that Abd-el-Krim had become an established key figure in the field of politico-military advice for revolutionary leaders during his time in exile in Egypt. Sneevliet, for instance, mentions that, ‘‘Revolutionary leaders of the world always paid him a visit when they came to Egypt.’

So it becomes clear that ‘Abd al-Karim can be considered the spiritual father of decolonization for the following reasons:

For being a “pre-modern” force having defeated a “modern” military power, and thus inspiring hope within others; and also
Because of the actual tactics employed by them, ultimately giving rise to the very same modern guerilla warfare which would be used during decolonial battles.
It’s also worth noting that Richard A. Gabriel (one of Canada’s most influential military historians) says that the real “father” of guerrilla warfare is none other than the Prophet ﷺ himself, but this could be the subject of another article.

Anyway, it is quite fitting that the decolonial movement was actually launched by a Muslim, since Islam alone can liberate man and societies from all forms of slavery and ensure that submission is to Allah alone.

But what is truly unfortunate is that neither the battle of Annual nor ‘Abd al-Karim are given the place they deserve within public discourse (unlike Che Guevara or Ho Chi Minh for example, who were both directly inspired by him), even among Muslims.

Bron: https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/08/04/when-muslims-launched-decolonization/