Mr. Obama, We Are Not ‘Free Riders’: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 March 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
14 March 2016
• Syria – the seven pillars of failure
By Chris Doyle
• Yemen and Lebanon: Testing grounds for regional and international intentions
By Raghida Dergham
• Donald Trump and electing Islamophobia
By Khaled A Beydoun
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-------
Mr. Obama, we are not ‘free riders’
By Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud
14 March 2016
No, Mr. Obama. We are not “free riders.” We shared with you our intelligence that prevented deadly terrorist attacks on America.
We initiated the meetings that led to the coalition that is fighting ISIS, and we train and fund the Syrian freedom fighters, who fight the biggest terrorist, Bashar Assad and the other terrorists, Al-Nusrah and ISIS. We offered boots on the ground to make that coalition more effective in eliminating the terrorists.
We initiated the support – military, political and humanitarian – that is helping the Yemeni people reclaim their country from the murderous militia, the Houthis, who, with the support of the Iranian leadership, tried to occupy Yemen; without calling for American forces. We established a coalition of more than thirty Muslim countries to fight all shades of terrorism in the world.
We are the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief efforts to help refugees from Syria, Yemen and Iraq. We combat extremist ideology that attempts to hijack our religion, on all levels. We are the sole funders of the United Nations Counter-terrorism Center, which pools intelligence, political, economic, and human resources, worldwide. We buy US treasury bonds, with small interest returns, that help your country's economy.
We are the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief efforts to help refugees from Syria, Yemen and Iraq. We combat extremist ideology that attempts to hijack our religion, on all levels
We send thousands of our students to your universities, at enormous expense, to acquire knowledge and knowhow. We host over 30,000 American citizens and pay them top dollar in our businesses and industry for their skills. Your secretaries of state and defense have often publicly praised the level of cooperation between our two countries.
Public praise
Your treasury department officials have publicly praised Saudi Arabia’s measures to curtail any financing that might reach terrorists. Our King Salman met with you, last September, and accepted your assurances that the nuclear deal you struck with the Iranian leadership will prevent their acquiring nuclear weapons for the duration of the deal. You noted “the Kingdom’s leadership role in the Arab and Islamic world.”
The two of you affirmed the “need, in particular, to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities.” Now, you throw us a curve ball. You accuse us of fomenting sectarian strife in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. You add insult to injury by telling us to share our world with Iran, a country that you describe as a supporter of terrorism and which you promised our king to counter its “destabilizing activities.”
Could it be that you are petulant about the Kingdom’s efforts to support the Egyptian people when they rose against the Muslim Brothers’ government and you supported it? Or is it the late King Abdullah’s (God rest his soul) bang on the table when he last met you and told you “No more red lines, Mr. President.”
Or is it because you have pivoted to Iran so much that you equate the Kingdom’s 80 years of constant friendship with America to an Iranian leadership that continues to describe America as the biggest enemy, that continues to arm, fund and support sectarian militias in the Arab and Muslim world, that continues to harbor and host Al-Qaeda leaders, that continues to prevent the election of a Lebanese president through Hezbollah, which is identified by your government as a terrorist organization, that continues to kill the Syrian Arab people in league with Bashar Assad?
No, Mr. Obama. We are not the “free riders” that to whom you refer. We lead from the front and we accept our mistakes and rectify them. We will continue to hold the American people as our ally and don’t forget that when the chips were down, and George Herbert Walker Bush sent American soldiers to repel with our troops Saddam’s aggression against Kuwait, soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder with soldiers. Mr. Obama, that is who we are.
This article was first published by Arab News on Mar. 14, 2016.
Turki bin Faisal Al Saud is one of the founders of the King Faisal Foundation and serves as chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. Prince Turki has served as ambassador to the United States from July 2005 until 11 December 2006 and as ambassador to the Court of St. James’s.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/14/Mr-Obama-we-are-not-free-riders-.html
-----
Syria – the seven pillars of failure
By Chris Doyle
14 March 2016
Everyone has failed Syria. The failure is not partial but total. This must be the first and most devastating assessment after five years of this country-ravaging conflict. The Syrian regime, much of the Syrian opposition failed to put national interests first but engaged in a winner takes all, loser dies conflict.
Is there one power that did not stir up the conflict? The UN Security Council has failed in its “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Obama did a Pontius Pilate style washing of his hands; Putin continues to feast at the carcass of this country to feed the Russian expansionist bear.
Europe’s failure was as acute. The French engaged in fraudulent gesture politics designed as one senior US official told me to line “Parisian coffers with Saudi petrodollars not help Syrians.” Britain largely just followed the diplomatic crowd. Germany only woke up once the refugees landed on its doorstep last September. The financial cost of failure for donor governments is a paltry $15 billion.
The seven pillars
Here are seven pillars of this Syria follow, seven lessons to be learnt.
The first lesson is to address crises ideally before they happen but in their infancy not at the catastrophic phase. The evidence that major powers have yet to learn is evidenced by the labored reaction to the Yemen catastrophe where already 21 million are in need of assistance, and the complacent stance on Libya where ISIS has deftly exploited the vacuum and disorder to control a major city like Sirte. Obama’s criticism about the British prime minister being “distracted by a range of other things” regarding Libya may have some validity but Downing Street could return the attack with interest citing Obama taking his eye off matters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
The second lesson is you cannot quarantine a conflict of this scale - “over there” soon can hit “here.” Conflicts metastasize across borders facilitated by cheap travel, diaspora communities and extremists desperate to cash in. European leaders labour under the costly myth that refugees desperate enough to risk the deadly waters of the Mediterranean, will be thwarted by barbed wire and tear gas.
The third lesson is to be wary of grand declarations from the side-lines. Since August 2011, leaders of the US, Britain and France called for President Assad to stand aside. This became the collective orthodoxy trundled out numbingly at every summit. Given the Syrian president’s record of brutality this is understandable, but without any political will to change the situation on the ground, it was reckless grandstanding. Five years on, Bashar Al-Assad is still the president. Obama’s red line on chemical weapons was not even pink.
Lesson four is that a dictator alone does not constitute a regime. Assad is the Capo di Cappi, the boss of the bosses of the Syrian regime mafia but many of his lieutenants are even more hard-line. It is not impossible that Putin will broker an Assad out-regime stays plan ensuring leaving Russia’s Damascus myrmidons still in place. This is the startling weakness of the “Assad must go” cure for the conflict. Any solution for Syria must address, root and branch, the nature of power in Syria but without dismantling the ability of the state to function.
The Syrian regime, much of the Syrian opposition failed to put national interests first but engaged in a winner takes all, loser dies conflict
The fifth lesson is that marginalizing the Syrian people was and remains disastrous. The exclusionary politics of the regime frustrated huge swathes of Syrian society for decades. Yet outside powers contributed to this by quickly abandoning the centrifugal force of the peaceful Syrian protests of 2011, for externally armed proxy forces who worked solely for a military victory for their patron’s interests. Peace talks must similarly be inclusive and Syrian driven (remember the Vienna meeting in November where not one Syrian was present). The protests across Syria during the cessation of hostilities show just how Syrian popular aspirations have not been eradicated by the war.
The sixth lesson is that conflict is the perfect incubator for ISIS, al-Qaeda and other extreme currents. They did not create the conflict but like parasites, feed off it and foment it. The knee jerk reaction should not just be to bomb them but to kill the host – the conflict itself.
The final lesson is that those outside the region understand far less than they imagine they do. The general assessment of Syria was merely that Assad was the final toppling domino after Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi. Many in the left propagated the looney line that this was all a western conspiracy to destroy Syria.
Foreign powers played catch up with events on the ground unaware how real change was occurring. Confident Western assertions of who were representative Syrian opposition figures belied the scratchy familiarity with Syrian civil society, Islamist politics and other protagonists. That the US state department could not even muster decent Arabic speakers for their ceasefire violations hotline tells it all. But at least “most of my colleagues can now find Syria on the map,” said the same US official to me. Progress?
Chris Doyle is the director of CAABU (the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding). He has worked with the Council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. As the lead spokesperson for Caabu and as an acknowledged expert on the region, Chris is a frequent commentator on TV and Radio, having given over 148 interviews on the Arab world in in 2012 alone. He gives numerous talks around the country on issues such as the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Islamophobia and the Arabs in Britain. He has had numerous articles and letters published in the British and international media. He has travelled to nearly every country in the Middle East. He has organized and accompanied numerous British Parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Most recently he took Parliamentary delegations to the West Bank in April, November, December 2013 and January 2014 including with former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He tweets @Doylech.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/14/Syria-the-seven-pillars-of-failure.html
-------
Yemen and Lebanon: Testing grounds for regional and international intentions
By Raghida Dergham
14 March 2016
The radar of crises and settlements recorded this week an instance of Turkish-Iranian coordination to resolve crises in the Middle East through “gradual steps”, especially in Syria. Prime Minister Ahmed Davutoglu communicated to Tehran his country’s willingness to help broker Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, wishing at the same time upon Iran to help de-escalate Russian-Turkish tensions, especially with regard to Syria. At the same time, Turkey has sought a controversial deal regarding curbing the flow of Syrian refugees crossing its territory in return for expediting EU accession talks and exempting Turkish nationals from entry visas to European countries.
The radar also recorded a breakthrough in Yemen, with a Houthi delegation visiting Saudi Arabia for the first time since the Saudi Arabia-led Arab coalition intervened in Yemen against Houthi rebels and forces loyal to deposed President Ali Abdullah Saleh. However, amid the optimism over this breakthrough concerning negotiations on a ceasefire along the Saudi-Yemeni border, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, suggested Iran could support the Houthis in a similar way it has backed President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria, by sending military advisers to Yemen.
Iran’s roles in Syria and Yemen lead to the third issue this week, namely, Lebanon. Lebanon is a hostage to regional powers on the one hand, but on the other, has become a basket case of a corrupt political class amid polemics and policies that seem to abide by no ethical limit – from drowning the country in garbage, the prevention of the election of a president, and the deliberate assassination of downtown Beirut to implicating Lebanon in others’ wars, and childish gambits by most leaders that are further destroying the country.
Let’s start with Yemen. An understanding there would have implications that go beyond the scope of the war there. Practically speaking, Yemen would be a testing ground for the intentions of regional and international players. UN envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, has been working on arranging meetings and direct face-to-face negotiations between the Saudi Arabia-led coalition and the Houthis. He has relied on the Omani channel repeatedly to facilitate and secure agreement on pushing forward negotiations towards a political settlement in Yemen, which the parties seem to be ready for now more than any time before in the past.
Peace overtures
The Iran-backed Houthi group sent a delegation to the southern Saudi Arabian border to negotiate with Saudi leaders on ending the war “once and for all”, according to the Yemeni Information Minister Mohammed Qubati. This was the first visit of its kind and coincided with relative calm along the Saudi-Yemeni border and a reduction in the number of strikes carried out by the coalition in Sanaa.
According to an official in the Houthi delegation, the visit was at the invitation of Saudi officials, following secret week-long preparatory talks. The purpose of the visit was to negotiate a ceasefire along the border but without a ceasefire applying to cities. As for the direct negotiations the UN envoy hopes to restart, they are set to be held in Geneva between March 24 and 26.
A short while ago, signs emerged of increased US and Russian keenness on paving the way for a strategy to end the Yemeni war, based on the priorities of Saudi national security along the border with Yemen. Both powers have helped the Saudi-led coalition with crucial intelligence. But both fear the war could allow al-Qaeda to regroup and regain its influence in Yemen, and also ISIS to capitalize on the chaos to gain a foothold in Yemen.
Neither Washington nor Moscow accept for Saudi Arabia’s national security to be threatened through Yemen. They do not share the view of the hardliners in Tehran and their partners like Hezbollah, whose secretary general recently vowed not to remain silent in Yemen and to “continue” what he is doing there, in reference to his continued involvement in the war alongside the Houthis in Yemen.
Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri’s remarks to the Tasnim news agency regarding the possibility that Iran could send advisers to assist the Houthis is very serious, because it is an implicit acknowledgement of what Iran is doing militarily in the Yemeni war. He said Iran feels it is its duty to assist the Yemeni people in any way possible and at any level needed. This was in response to a question about Tehran’s willingness to send military advisers to assist the Houthis in the war.
The Iranian general’s remarks coincided with the Hezbollah chief’s public escalation last week. So either this is the position of the Islamic Republic that made Hassan Nasrallah volunteer his declaration without hesitation, or this is the position of the hardliners in the Iranian regime, offset by the official silence on the important negotiations taking place under international auspices amid a US-Russian keenness on having them succeed.
New direction?
Regardless of which possibility is closer to reality, it is time for the ruling class in Iran that claims to be moderate and to be pursuing a new direction to adopt positions that rein in the hawkishness of hardliners, especially in Arab arenas. Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles and warnings to the “enemies of the revolution” is to remind everyone of the strength of the hardliners and their intention to escalate on all levels, to reassert their position and influence in the regime in Tehran.
It is possible the decision to escalate against Saudi Arabia out of Lebanon was made by this front. If the moderate front is serious, it must prove this in both the Yemeni and Lebanese arenas, especially since the Syrian and Iraqi arenas are more difficult because of the insistence of the Revolutionary Guards and their allies to make gains on the ground there no matter what.
It may be that Yemen will be a stop for Saudi-Iranian accords that would gradually de-escalate conflicts in the region, the price for which is being paid by the Arab states and peoples. It may be too that moderate forces will be able to rein in the escalation undermining Lebanon’s stability and economy. If the Yemen stop proves difficult, then Lebanon may be more amenable for Saudi-Iranian confidence building measures.
While the international decision, especially the US-Russian decision, may be to help end the war in Yemen, the decision by these countries to prevent a military conflagration in Lebanon may not be enough. Instead, they must immunize it against regional and local escalation, rather than leaving Lebanon prey to it.
Clearly, most leaders in Lebanon have lost regional and international respect over their childish political games. It is time for these leaders to quit their greed and insolence. Their beautiful country, blessed by God with a dazzling natural landscape, has become the subject of ridicule around the world. How is it possible to explain the scandals and fraud in the waste management issue, and the farce of the presidential elections, not to mention the declaration of war by a local militia against a major Arab country after it fought proxy wars on behalf of Iran in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen?
Not long ago, downtown Beirut was a testament to rebirth from ruins. It was a place for children’s laughter and grownups’ hopes, and for youthful passion for opening cafes and restaurants and charting out a prosperous future. But today, it is a fortified military zone allegedly for the protection of parliament from protesters against the garbage crisis. But how can the crime of killing Beirut’s commercial heart be justified using the pretext of protecting parliament, which is illegitimate to begin with?
Indeed, the Lebanese deputies had renewed their own term, yet they refuse to attend sessions to elect a president, citing a so-called constitutional right to boycott the vote. It is therefore a lie to claim that the reason for killing Beirut’s city center has to do with security. It is a willful decision, but a decision by whom and for what purpose? Those behind it know the answer very well.
Any Lebanese deputy who walks on the streets of Beirut without feeling guilty has no conscience. People’s livelihoods have been crushed, the economy has been strangled, and the dreams and ambitions of youths have been deliberately destroyed. Enough corruption. But it is also time for the parents of young protesters to stop criticizing them for having been infiltrated by political parties, which discredited them. It is time for parents to quit their complacency and their concern for their privileges, and rise up instead of bowing down to leaders while complaining about the failure of their children to challenge these types that are making the country rottener.
Neither Washington nor Moscow accept for Saudi Arabia’s national security to be threatened through Yemen. They do not share the view of the hardliners in Tehran and their partners like Hezbollah
The sin in Lebanon is not purely Lebanese; it is also regional. If the dash to rearrange regional and international relations is truly serious, Lebanon must not be forgotten. We are being told that the US-Russian decision is pushing for de-escalation in Syria through a ceasefire. Some are saying it is tactical and provisional, while others are hoping for the decision for a political settlement to be serious. What we are witnessing on the level of Iranian-Turkish relations indicates that the two countries want to benefit from US-Russian partnership in Syria to reconsider their relations both in strategic terms and in terms of the situation in Syria.
The visit by the Turkish prime minister to Tehran last week sought to enhance security, political, and economic cooperation between the two countries, and to promote bilateral understandings in light of talk of federalism in Syria and the two countries’ concerns regarding a possible Russian and US reward to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, which would no doubt affect Kurds in Turkey and Iran.
Ankara finds itself in a confrontational relationship with Moscow due to their deeply conflicting policies in Syria but also for other bilateral issues. Tehran welcomes what it sees as a change in Turkey’s approach to the Syrian crisis, in light of the clarity of a US-Russian partnership on the Syrian issue.
Al-Hayat’s correspondent in Tehran, Mohammad Saleh Sedkian, quoted an informed Iranian source as saying that Davutoglu’s visit will help steer the climate in the region towards more stability and security, noting that Tehran wants balanced relations with all neighbors. The source said Davutoglu asked Tehran to mediate to help mend relations with Moscow, in return for Ankara doing the same for Iranian-Saudi relations.
Apparently, Iran is fine with both. This is interesting, especially if we take into account the remarks by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir during the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting, stating that Riyadh was ready for rapprochement with Tehran as a neighbor, if it changes its aggressive behavior.
Informed sources attributed this to the coming turn in Saudi-Iranian relations, based on separating pressure on Iran from pressure on Hezbollah, and separating developments and escalations with Hezbollah from normalizing relations with Tehran based on the latter changing its behavior in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon. In other words, the Gulf decision is to ignore Hassan Nasrallah’s invitation to a duel, and to bypass it by reining it in another place unrelated to the countries concerned, Lebanon or Iran.
The radar of settlements has recorded noteworthy movements on crucial regional issues and relations. As for the radar of crises, it has recorded a blow after blow to Lebanon, which have ostensibly regional causes but have come from the Lebanese soil fundamentally.
This article was first published in Al-Hayat on Mar. 11, 2016 and translated by Karim Traboulsi.
Raghida Dergham is Columnist, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent, and New York Bureau Chief for the London-based Al Hayat newspaper since 1989. She is dean of the international media at the United Nations. Dergham is Founder and Executive Chairman of Beirut Institute, an indigenous, independent, inter-generational think tank for the Arab region with a global reach. An authority on strategic international relations, Dergham is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and an Honorary Fellow at the Foreign Policy Association. She served on the International Media Council of the World Economic Forum, and is a member of the Development Advisory Committee of the IAP- the Global Network of Science Academies. She can be reached on Twitter @RaghidaDergham
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/14/Yemen-and-Lebanon-Testing-grounds-for-regional-and-international-intentions.html
-----
Donald Trump and electing Islamophobia
Khaled A Beydoun
13 Mar 2016
The word brand Trump is becoming synonymous with the expansion of racism and the incitement of Islamophobic violence.
"I think Islam hates us," said Donald Trump, 24 hours before the Republican presidential debate in Miami and four days after losing two key states to GOP rival, Ted Cruz.
Trump's declaration was neither rhetorically novel or substantively different from his string of campaign slanders on Islam. The very idea that a religion could hate a people is a preposterous statement. But, the statement is rooted in the very ignorance and hate that sprung Trump's Muslim ban proposal, which made him the darling of bigots and surged him up the polls.
Islamophobia - the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7 billion adherents - was less political ideology for Trump, but carefully constructed and tactfully deployed campaign strategy.
Trump rally called off after chaos and scuffles
The timing of his most recent vilification, at an impasse when Cruz is gaining delegates and the Republican establishment effort to "dump Trump" is a directive.
"I think Islam hate us" is a call to action to his voting base, to further galvanise them around a disdain for Islam that not only heightens hateful fervour at his rallies, but incites violence on American blocks and pushes bigots to the ballot box.
A calculated and causal strategy
Political Islamophobia is framed as deviant and aberrational. Trump's banal slanders, Ben Carson's statement that a "Muslim couldn't be president", or the extensive string of slurs uttered by other presidential hopefuls are generally said to be off-the-cuff opinions, not representative of a vast lot of Americans.
This view overlooks the coordination and planning of Islamophobic statements, the mediums in which they are made, and the immediate impact on growing segments of the electorate that subscribe to the view that "Islam hates us".
Trump is by no means the first modern politician to capitalise off Islamophobia. He follows a list of elected officials, most notably George W Bush, and presidential hopefuls who have wielded it as a platform and political strategy.
Trump did not make his most recent slander of Islam in private. He issued it during a primetime television programme, to CNN's Anderson Cooper, with millions of viewers and voters glued to the screen.
It instantly became the lead news story leading up to the GOP debate. And collaterally, it filled the airwaves of news outlets nationally and made Trump the lead headline as the presidential campaign marched into Florida and Ohio - pivotal primaries that would likely determine the next Republican nominee.
Stuck between a narrowing lead and growing Republican opposition, Trump did what he does best: bash Islam. A trusted tactic that makes his campaign the lead story, and mobilises his motley base of supporters to vote in droves.
While 60 percent of Republican voters support Trump's Muslim ban, this number is presumptively higher for Trump supporters. Seventy-five percent of South Carolina voters, where Trump won handily, support the ban. Support for the ban was even higher in Alabama and Arkansas at 78 percent, where Trump won by roughly 22 percent and three percent, respectively.
Therefore, Trump's "I think Islam hates us" should be viewed as his campaign's "Muslim Ban 2.0": a strategically timed call-to-arms against Islam, and cleverly declared call-to-vote to his loyal legions of Islamophobes in order to manifest their hate of the faith and its followers into votes in the ballot box.
And to deliver him Ohio and Florida, which very well may grant Trump the Republican nomination - and a narrower path to the White House.
Rallying hate
The Trump campaign's greatest contribution is the way it unveiled US racism and bigotry and the timely burial of the "Post-Racial America" myth. If the election of Barack Obama, a black man, signalled the decline of American racism to some, then the rapid political ascent of Trump and the resonance of his hateful message symbolises that racism in the US is alive, robust, and intensifying.
Trump is by no means the first modern politician to capitalise off Islamophobia. He follows a list of elected officials, most notably George W Bush, and presidential hopefuls who have wielded it as a platform and political strategy.
But Trump has perfected it. For his campaign, Islamophobia is political craft - every soundbite carefully assembled and strategically disseminated - designed to inspire the brazen hate spewed by his supporters, and embolden the racist hate unfolding at his pep rallies.
The violence that climaxed on Friday in Chicago, where melees between Trump supporters and anti-Trump protests broke out, led to the postponement of his rally at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
A coalition of Black, Muslim and Latino students - the very demographics targeted by Trump - came together to shut down the rally. For one night in Chicago, it was Trump who was ejected from his own rally.
Trump - the man, not the politician - may not be a racist. But it doesn't matter. He has become the undisputed embodiment of modern racism in the US. His rallies offer snapshots of the racist mayhem and minority "deportations" his rabid supporters romanticise about; his unfiltered soundbites reveal what his loyalists fantasise about and wish they could say, and his clash of civilisations rhetoric is the very religious crusade his voters think the US is heading towards.
For demagogues, what they actually believe is far less important than what they lead others to believe. Trump invested fully into the politics of hate, building his presidential brand upon and around it.
In the US today, the word brand Trump is becoming less and less associated with skyscrapers and luxury developments, and synonymous with the expansion of racism and the incitement of Islamophobic violence. The US he promises, divided along lines of religion and race, was on full display in Chicago on Friday evening.
Khaled A Beydoun is an assistant professor of law at the Barry University Dwayne O Andreas School of Law. He is a native of Detroit.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/donald-trump-electing-islamophobia-160313104258994.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/mr.-obama,-‘free-riders’-new/d/106639
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Womens in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Womens In Arab, Islamphobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism, Moderate Islam, Moderate Muslims, Progressive Islam, Progressive Muslims, Liberal Islam, Liberal Muslims, Islamic World News