Though terrorism is not confined by a particular religion, ethnicity or geographic boundaries, it is a fact, Muslims have generously embraced it as a weapon to fight against their opponents with total disregard for human life. Not so long ago an Uzbek man in Sweden who was denied asylum and ordered to leave the country turned a barreling truck into a deadly weapon killing four innocent people and injuring fifteen. It is that easy for a Muslim. If you analyze the motives and the nature of this violent act you see a mind-set that does not hesitate to kill people. As Muslims we have to dissect and deconstruct this mind-set. Yes Muslims have been the target of ugly and bloody strategies by the West as by their own despotic rulers but Muslims have the example of their Prophet in how he stood against injustice and oppression. No, for them his example is something only to shamelessly boast of.
In this tragedy and loss of life, Sweden has stood high and dignified in the world. Its commitment to humanitarian values resulted in its accepting more than 80,000 asylum seekers in 2014 and more than 160,000 in 2015, before tightened procedures led the number to fall to fewer than 30,000 last year. It has not been easy for a nation of 10 million to accommodate such a large number of refugees who were driven out because of the bloodshed in their countries brought by their own oppressive and criminal-minded leaders. The terrorist act committed by a refugee in Stolkhome definitely provided fuel to the nationalist and exclusionary leaders of Europe who want to close their borders to refugees disregarding their humanitarian responsibilities.
That was not the approach of Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Lofven. In the hour of his country’s grief, he issued the bravest and the best rebuke to the terrorist, declaring: “Our message is clear: You will never, ever win. We are determined never to let the values that we treasure — democracy, human rights and freedom — to be undermined by hatred.”
TURKEY AND THE REFERENDUM
There are many Muslims who agree with the western propaganda that Turkey’s president has become a dictator. We present here some facts to help us understand the situation in Turkey and draw right conclusions.
A slim majority of Turkish voters agreed to grant significant executive powers to their president.With nearly 99 percent of votes in a referendum counted, supporters of the proposal had 51.3 percent of votes, and opponents had 48.7 percent, the country’s electoral commission announced.
The new system will, among other changes:
Almost similar executive powers for the office of president exist in many countries in the world, most notably in the United States, so why it is so bad if Turkey adopts them?
“The basis of Turkey’s political system is a constitution that was written in 1982 by the generals who had carried out a military coup two years earlier. That document was then amended 18 times under six successive governments. In 2007, a referendum was held on an amendment to introduce the direct election of the presidency. It passed with nearly 60 percent of the vote. The current constitution establishes neither a parliamentary system nor a presidential one. In fact, it is a two-headed hybrid, with a directly elected parliament and a directly elected president. With both a president and a prime minister elected through popular vote, any major dispute on policy between the two leaders could cause deadlock and political crisis.
Turkey is not immune to such crises. The 1992 tensions between President Turgut Ozal and Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel had major costs to Turkey in its international affairs, and the 2001 conflict between President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit helped trigger economic turmoil that took years to recover. The 2007 referendum was a step toward a more effective executive branch, but it was only a partial step toward stability. By getting rid of the prime minister’s office and placing power firmly within the presidency, these contradictions will be reconciled.
Perhaps, critics of the referendum argue, Turkey should revert to the purely parliamentary system. But it, too, was messy. In the Turkish Republic’s 95 years of existence there have been 65 governments. (In a normal parliamentary democracy in which elections are held every four or five years, there would be about 20 governments over this period of time.) The old system led to a series of unstable coalitions that paved the way for military coups.
Another myth is that the proposed constitution will give Mr. Erdogan total control over the judiciary. In fact, the new constitution would allow the president to appoint four members to the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors, Turkey’s highest legal body responsible for oversight of a judicial system. That’s actually the same number the president appoints now. Although the number of members of the council has been reduced, this does not mean it will be a less accountable body. In fact, it will be more democratic, since the Parliament, rather than the unelected Court of Cassation, will appoint the remaining members.
The biggest critique raised by those campaigning for a “no” vote on the constitution is that it will leave no checks and balances on Mr. Erdogan. This is simply wrong. The proposed constitution stipulates that the president — along with the vice president and cabinet ministers — can be subject to parliamentary investigation. If the investigation finds them guilty, they can be referred by Parliament to prosecution by the Supreme Court. In fact, this would be more oversight than the president is subjected to now. Turkey’s current system includes no mechanism whatsoever to appeal or investigate presidential conduct.
Moreover, these reforms aren’t the invention of President Erdogan. Previous presidents, including Turgut Ozal, Suleyman Demirel and Tansu Ciller, all called for similar reforms. But when the A.K.P. puts forth a workable set of reforms, former proponents of change in the center and far-right bloc, such as elements of the M.H.P. and the conservative Saadet Party, suddenly become defenders of the clumsy old system.
Western alarmists today are bashing Mr. Erdogan for his proposed constitutional referendum, claiming it will solidify his authority, even though they have a long history of supporting dictators in other countries. Somehow they find that when an elected leader like Mr. Erdogan seeks to fix his country’s problems, he is suddenly a dictator trying to amass power.
At the end of the day, the people of Turkey will decide on the future of their country’s political system on. No president is above the will of the people — Mr. Erdogan included. Professional spin-meisters and political profiteers can distort the proposed amendments, but no matter how far they pull the debate away from what is actually necessary for a functioning political system in Turkey, it is the will of the electorate that everyone must in the end accept.” (Excerpts from an article in New York Times).
SHAMEFUL EXAMPLE OF A MUSLIM COUNTRY
Since coming to power in 2013, Egypt’s government has locked up tens of thousands of opponents and effectively outlawed public protests. Now, many fear, President Trump’s support for Mr. Sisi could embolden the Egyptian leader to go further.
Mr. Trump has embraced Mr. Sisi as a “fantastic guy” and invited him to the White House. In return, Mr. Sisi was notably silent about Mr. Trump’s recent ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Al Nadeem Center, run by an organization which treats and works towards rehabilitation of those who have been victims of torture in government prisons was founded in 1993, The center has provided therapy to about 1,000 victims of police abuse, its founders say, and cataloged instances of police torture, unlawful killings and illegal abductions.
About 50 police officers turned up at the center’s offices and put wax seals on the doors, said Magda Adly, a founding member of Al Nadeem. “I don’t understand how a regime with an army and a police force can be scared of 20 activists,” she said in a phone interview. “This is the harshest crackdown on the human rights movement in Egypt since the 1980s,”
This is just to share with you a shameful example of Muslim leadership and a Muslim country !!