Can Mohammad bin Salman win?

Yury Barmin, who is a Russian Middle East and North Africa expert, has highlighted the dangers of Prince Mohammad bin Salman's reforms as the prince is going against Saudi history, practice and nationalism of more than two hundred years:

"We are returning to what we were before - a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world," MBS said to international investors in Riyadh in October 2017. 

Explaining his ambition to "return" Saudi Arabia to the path of moderate Islam, the crown prince told the Guardian that "what happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia." He explicitly blamed the kingdom's turn towards ultraconservatism on the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Tehran's attempts to spread the revolution across the Middle East. 

These comments are remarkable for two reasons: first, because they acknowledge that moderation is lacking in the interpretation of Islam that the Saudi state has followed; second, because they reflect the notion that the religious system currently in place hinders socioeconomic development and is not compatible with the demands of the young generation. 

Yet they are also somewhat misleading as they try to deflect responsibility for the situation inside Saudi Arabia to external factors, namely the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But was it really revolutionary Iran that pushed Saudi Arabia towards ultraconservatism?

Source: Can Mohammed bin Salman break the Saudi-Wahhabi pact?

Mr. Barmin rightly argues that it was the seizure of Grand Mosque (Holy Kaaba) by ultra-conservative Wahhabis in 1979, not the Iranian Revolution, that was the main reason for the return to the ultraconservatism of pre-Faisal era. However, even Kaaba's seizure was secondary to the orthodox, hide-bound dictates of Wahhabi nationalism on which Saudi Arabia was founded in the 18th century. 

Wahhabism, cited as the official Saudi religious doctrine for which the country's leadership has been so vehemently criticised and which MBS is looking to rebrand, is based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). 

Abd al-Wahhab was an Islamic scholar from the Nejd region of the Arabian Peninsula, an avid traveller and the author of The Book of Unity, which was rejected by most of his contemporaries in Mecca and Medina. Abd al-Wahhab preached returning to the Quran and the Hadith, rejected religious innovation (bidaa) and advocated eliminating practices (such as Sufi rites and veneration of saints) that are not grounded in the Quran. He even accused other Muslims of being infidels for following practices that were, in his opinion, un-Islamic and called for strict adherence to traditional Islamic law (sharia). 

There was nothing new in Abd al-Wahhab's teachings which were based on some old ideas and constituted a revival of the Hanbali doctrine in the most ultraconservative form. It was, however, his religious zeal that ultimately drove him close to the Saud family. 

Muhammad ibn Saud ruled over the area of al-Diriya, today on the outskirts of Riyadh, around the time when Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was unsuccessfully preaching in Mecca and elsewhere across the Middle East. In 1744, fleeing from Medina, Abd Al-Wahhab arrived in al-Diriya and sought protection from ibn Saud. The two formed an alliance dividing power and responsibilities: ibn Saud ruling over the military and political matters and Abd al-Wahab over the religious ones. Armed with religious legitimacy, ibn Saud expanded his rule beyond al-Diriya, establishing the first Saudi state. 

The death of Abd al-Wahhab did not impact the power-sharing arrangement that had been solidified during his lifetime. The descendants of Abd al-Wahhab (the Sheikh family) remained in charge of religious affairs under Saudi rule. To this day, they legitimise the political power of the House of Saud by approving succession and endorsing the king's decisions. In exchange, the Sheikh family enjoys a privileged position in the state structures and plays a key role in the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

Mr. Barmin contends that what Prince Mohammad bin Salman is doing is dangerous as it goes against what was normal for so long and he is making many enemies:

The Wahhab-Saud pact survived more than 250 years, guaranteeing religious legitimacy for Saudi power in the Arabian Peninsula. So has its time finally come? Has it run its course and is no longer needed by the House of Saud? 

In the past few years, the Saudi authorities have been gradually and cautiously limiting the extent of the Sheikh family's power. In August 2010, for example, the late King Abdullah issued a decree that only state-vetted scholars were allowed to issue fatwas.
Under King Salman, and his son - MBS, more drastic measures have been taken. In April 2016, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice was stripped of arresting powers which curbed its policing functions. In December 2016, the king appointed more moderate clerics to the Council of Senior Scholars, the highest religious body in the country. And in 2017, music concerts were allowed, mixed public events for both genders were held, and cinemas were scheduled to reopen after 35 years. 

However, the most monumental shifts are yet to take place in the Saudi power structure. The country's legal system operates within Islamic law, which is the ultimate source of legislation in Saudi Arabia. Strictly abiding by traditional interpretations of Islamic law is a crucial element of the worldview Abd al-Wahhab introduced. This is why, in simplified terms, breaking the Saudi-Wahhabi pact would mean breaking up with this traditional interpretation and potentially codifying law rather than relying on judges to interpret it. 

A more important question at this point is whether the country needs to part with its Wahhabi roots at all in order to implement reforms and open up to foreigners. The diminishing significance of religious authorities is a general trend across Gulf monarchies and it seems that Saudi Arabia is set to slowly embrace a similar model. 

The Saudi religious establishment has been publicly supportive of the crown prince's war on corruption and the weakening of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice even if they feel disadvantaged as a result of these developments. The centuries-old monolithic religious structure might turn out to be a paper tiger whose fate is in the hands of the monarch. 

Yet, MBS breaking up with the decades-long policy of cosying up to the religious elites in favour of modernisation, could provoke some to call it corruption and an embrace of Western influence again. It is also likely that the policies MBS is introducing would force a lot of dissenters among the clerics underground. Discontent could simmer for years before surfacing in some form or another. 

MBS's policies are catering to young Saudis, but they do not hold the key to power. It is the older generation that has lived through decades of conservative rule, the disenfranchised princes whose access to power has shrunk and the vast religious elites who are now in a position of vassals that legitimise the Saudi royal family.

Many of them feel marginalised which could drive them to extremes and bring about a repeat of 1979. (see Can Mohammed bin Salman break the Saudi-Wahhabi pact?)

Religious hardliners and President Rouhani spar again

Iranian President Rouhani reacted to the harsh criticism of protestors by religious hardliners by informing them (hardliners) that everybody was accountable and could be questioned and criticized, even Imam Mahdi, the final Shiite Imam. Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdī is the last of the twelve Imams of the Twelver Shia Muslims and is also known as Imam Zaman (Imam of the present/time). Somewhat similar to Christian millenarianism, Imam Mahdi is considered to be the ultimate savior of the humankind, bringing peace and justice to the world. Unsurprisingly, the hardliners were not amused as the infallibility of all imams is a key part of the belief system of the Shiite Muslims. To question or criticize imams is deemed blasphemous. 

On Jan. 13, Tehran Friday prayer leader Kazem Sedighi, a hard-liner, reacted to the protests, saying, “The nation’s gathering [against the unrest] turned into a sea and cleaned the rubbish.” This description of the protesters as rubbish led to a series of criticisms from moderate and Reformist figures and consequently the president. 

“A number of people protested in the streets; whoever protests is ‘dirt and dust’ or cows or calves or rubbish? Why do you speak like this? Why do you insult and treat society rudely?” Rouhani said in a direct reference to Sedighi on Jan. 14. 

The Iranian president added, “You should speak accurately. Our nation is a big nation. There was a protest and it ended.”

Of note, following his disputed re-election in 2009, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked protesters by dismissing those who alleged vote fraud as "dirt and dust."
Meanwhile, Rouhani has come under attack for his remarks that no one is above criticism, not even the 12th Shiite imam, the Mahdi. 

Twelver Shiite Islam holds that the Mahdi is in a state referred to as the "greater occultation" and is waiting to reappear to rule the world.  

In a speech believed to have been influenced by the protests across Iran, Rouhani sought not to dismiss the protesters, saying Jan. 8, “Everyone should be criticized and there is no exception [to this principle]. All the officials in the country can be criticized. No one in the country is infallible. If one day the Hidden Imam [Mahdi] reappears, then we can criticize [him] too. … The Prophet [Muhammad] allowed [others] to criticize him. We don’t have anyone above the prophet in history.” 

Following these remarks, hard-line clerics said that criticizing Shiite imams, who are deemed infallible, would in effect mean that they are not in fact infallible. Rouhani’s defenders, however, said the president was trying to say that people can question imams in order to get an answer, just as the president and other officials in Iran can be questioned. Moderate Ayatollah Mohsen Gharavian said Jan. 15, “The goal of Mr. Rouhani in his recent remarks involving the critique of the infallible imams wasn’t equivalent to rejecting them, but rather meant the possibility of questioning them.”

Source: Reuters

In marked contrast, the influential Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom, headed by powerful cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, issued a statement Jan. 14 saying the rejection of Muhammad and the imams’ infallibility "is in explicit opposition to Islam and the Shiite faith. … We strongly recommend that some officials refrain from entering issues related to [people’s] beliefs in their speeches.”  

Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, considered to be the spiritual father of the hard-liners — including conservative cleric Ebrahim Raisi, who lost to Rouhani in the 2017 presidential election — tweeted Jan. 15, “They are saying that people can criticize the infallible imams. … They said this not in [a distant country] but in the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now, with the presence of such [figures on the public stage], how much more should the Hidden Imam [Mahdi] suffer?”

Other hard-line and conservative clerics have joined the attacks on Rouhani. Mohsen Araki, a hard-line cleric, said Jan. 14, “Apparently, you have forgotten what you studied [at the seminary] when you were young. It is better now for you to focus on politics. When you don’t have the necessary knowledge, it is better to leave people’s beliefs alone.”

Following the ruckus over his remarks, the president’s office issued a statement Jan. 15 saying he never said the Shiite imams must be criticized. ( see Confrontation between Rouhani, hard-line clerics heats up)

Thai government prosecutes 84 year old scholar

Not only secular and liberal but religious people are also persecuted and prosecuted in religious nationalist states. Sulak Sivaraksa, a famous Buddhist social activist and scholar, was charged with insulting royalty under Thailand's draconian lese majeste law that could have resulted in a decade-long imprisonment of the old man. Sivaraksa's crime was not saying something about the current king. In an academic conference in 2014, he questioned a duel fought on the backs of elephants 400 years ago. In the end, the charges were dropped.

Source: Renowned Buddhist scholar faces jail for ‘criticizing’ Thai monarchy

Sulak Sivaraksa was charged in October under the draconian lese majeste law that protects the monarchy from libel and defamation. The Bangkok military court had agreed to hear views from historians and experts before it decided to drop the charges for lack of evidence.
Sulak, a veteran academic and proclaimed royalist, said he had petitioned Thailand's new king, Vajiralongkorn, for help in dropping the charges against him.
"I contacted many people for help but no one dared to. So I petitioned the king. If it weren't for His Majesty's grace, this case would not have been dropped," he said.
His case stems from a 2014 university lecture when he told the audience to "not fall prey to propaganda" and questioned whether King Naraesuan had really won the 1593 battle by defeating a Burmese prince in solo combat mounted on a war elephant. The story is one of Thailand's most celebrated historical feats and the date of the combat is marked each year with a military parade on Jan. 18.
Insulting the monarchy is punishable by three to 15 years in prison. The law in writing appears to only protect the king, queen, and heir apparent but in practice the rules are more widely interpreted.
Thailand's military government has been criticized for its frequent use of the law to silence critics since it seized power in May 2014. The law has been widely condemned including by rights groups and the U.N., which has called for it to be revoked. Some 100 cases of lese majeste have been prosecuted since the coup, according to the legal aid group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.
Sulak has often criticized the lese majeste law and has faced at least five previous charges.
"In a dictatorial regime if people want to express opinions, to have freedom of speech, you have to be punished," he said. "And this is not the first time I have been punished." (see Thailand drops royal insult charges against elderly historian)

America was not founded as a “Christian nation.” Fight for religious freedom

Paul Rosenburg in Salon (see the article Celebrate religious freedom — the way the Founding Fathers originally intended) explains how the religious right has hijacked the idea of religious freedom to impose Christian doctrine on the unsuspecting Americans. 

Before fake news there was fake history, and one of the most significant examples has long been the religious right’s idea that America was founded as a “Christian nation.” It’s a popular misconception sometimes used to promote a profoundly anti-democratic agenda, the "Handmaid’s Tale"-style belief that Christians have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions – including government – until the second coming of Jesus. 

We arrive once again at Religious Freedom Day on Jan. 16, when the Christian right will claim that its “freedom” to oppress others is under horrendous assault. For the third year in a row, they’ll be countered by a growing movement of modern-day Jeffersonians seeking to reclaim the real meaning of that day, and the real history that it celebrates — the hard-won freedom of all to practice whatever form of religious belief, or non-belief, their consciences guide them to. 

“When Christian Right leaders talk about religious liberty, they often really mean theocratic supremacism of their own religious beliefs inscribed in government,” author Frederick Clarkson pointed out in 2016, when I first wrote about Religious Freedom Day. Nothing has changed in their core agenda, but the awareness and willingness to confront it has grown, along with the understanding of how they operate.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution was remarkable precisely because it didn’t claim to derive authority from God in the typical top-down manner, but instead, bottom-up, from the people, following the arguments used by John Locke to justify government, as well as his views on religious tolerance and the distinctions between secular and religious spheres of power. God is never mentioned in the Constitution, nor is any form of religion except in the negative: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Source: Celebrate religious freedom — the way the Founding Fathers originally intended

In the same Salon article, Paul interviewed Frederick Clarkson (who writes about the Dominionist Family Research Council’s approach to organizing within churches in a forthcoming article at The Public Eye, “A Manual to Restore a Christian Nation that Never Was”) on how to expose the lies of Dominionists and Christian nationalists and how to preserve religious freedom in the US and protect Jefferson's legacy. Some of the questions and answers are reproduced below:

In discussing the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation, you write, "This feature of the movement — one that stokes much of its followers’ passion — may also contain the seeds of its undoing." What do you mean?  

The problem for Christian nationalists is that it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. For example, when it came time to forge a coherent national government out of the 13 colonies, the mostly Christian religious and political leaders of the time opted for religious equality under the law, recognizing that if the government could favor a sect or religion, it could control how people think. This is one among many flaws that have always been present in the Christian nationalist narrative, but since most of society didn’t see it, or did not take it seriously, the movement has advanced without being much challenged on the point. 

The religious supremacism inherent in Christian nationalism is repulsive to most people, regardless of their political and religious views. I think if we got serious about taking Jefferson and Madison’s foundational ideas of religious equality under the law into the 21st century, Christian nationalism would crumble. 

The Declaration of Independence is used to smuggle God into the Constitution, but it was written by Thomas Jefferson, who by Cureton's standards was lacking in the very "Christian worldview" that he claims as our nation's lost foundation. How do people like him deal with this contradiction? 

They mostly avoid addressing it. They sometimes point out that Jefferson invoked God at various time and attended church while president. That he said religious things and attended religious services is not, of course, proof against his very public stances in favor of separation of church and state as the best way to guarantee religious freedom for all. That is a problem they cannot actually solve. History is not on their side. 

What can we learn by comparing the actual history of religion in America to the Christian nationalist fantasy?  

When we learn that Christian nationalism is a lie, we get a much clearer sense of hope and possibility in seeing that we are all in this together. We also learn something about what we are up against and therefore have the opportunity to better figure out what needs to be done. I think we also learn that we have been complacent, taking hard-won freedom for granted. But we can also learn of the weakness of their argument, and begin to formulate strong, fact-based arguments against it. 

We can also learn that religious freedom is a powerful, inspiring and authentically revolutionary idea. It is as dangerous to the rich and the powerful today as it was in the 18th century. Religious freedom made possible the best advances in human and civil rights in our history. But we can also see how forces of oppression see that too, and are doing everything they can to neutralize it. 

How does this historical comparison relate to the one you focus on, regarding the history of religious freedom in Virginia and the Bill of Rights? 

I think looking at the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and its role in shaping our constitutional approach to religion and government, exposes the lie of Christian nationalism in a way that allows us to clear away the fog of the long, slow religious war they are waging in America. We also get to see their techniques of strategic misdirection. It’s like learning how a magician performs an illusion: They show us a map of history that points to the Declaration of Independence as the source of the Constitution’s approach to religious freedom. But once we know the story of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and the truth about the origins of our Constitution’s approach to religious freedom, the misdirection is revealed. It is helpful to know our actual history and its meaning, and it is humbling to know how we have allowed the Christian right to use this false narrative to its advantage. 

What is the best way to understand the threat to America that Dominionism represents? How can we best respond to that threat? 

First, we need to take the time to understand that the challenge that we face may not be what we think. Dominionism is not as exotic or as rare as it is sometimes portrayed. It is a comprehensive theology relating to conservative Christians taking control over all areas of life, not just church and state. Its influence is getting wider and deeper, partly because there are many dedicated thinkers and capable doers in this movement. Some are political and governmental leaders. 

Now one might say, what’s wrong with that? Don’t they have a right to bring their Christian values into the public square? To which we say, of course. But by the same standard, we are not required to turn a blind eye to their words, their actions, and their unambiguous intentions. This is what theocratic theorist Gary North called “the dilemma of democratic pluralism.” North asserts that we are obliged to tolerate views that are in fact antithetical to democratic pluralism. The Christian right knows this, and is smart about exploiting our dilemma. How do we oppose something our philosophy requires us to tolerate? 

Let’s not kid ourselves about the profoundly antidemocratic nature of the Dominionist mission. Religious freedom and democracy are not settled matters. We are living the dilemma of democratic pluralism.

How do we address that dilemma? 

There are a lot of things we can do, but here are three things for a start. One is that we need to become much better informed about Dominionism and the way it manipulates the idea of religious freedom to advance an agenda that is anything but free. 

Second, we need to be much better citizen activists, especially in electoral politics. The system we have is competitive. Let’s not cede the playing field to the Christian right, which has invested so much in ideological development and the building of electoral capacity for several generations. It has worked well for them, but they are a well-organized minority: They cannot prevail if the rest of us mobilize in our own best interests. 

Finally, when we hear politicians and religious or interest-group leaders go on about how religious freedom is a “cherished” or “treasured” value, let’s ask them to get real. Religious freedom is not a lovely antique, a family heirloom or a relic of a bygone era. It is a dynamic, progressive value that underlies every other constitutional freedom we have -- and it is under siege. We need to require our leaders to lead in this regard and stop patronizing us.

Nationalism vs. globalism: A talk with Professor Yuval Noah Harari

A very interesting discussion with Professor Tuval Noah Harari on the future of the humankind. Professor Harari is one of the foremost thinkers alive today. He has written two international bestsellers on topics that few experts feel confident to write about. Sapiens: A brief history of humankind tells the story of the homo sapiens from the time, around hundred thousand years ago, when they were not even the most important human species on earth, to the present while Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow is about humanity's future on this planet.

Professor Harari argues that nationalism is an idea whose time has passed. It served most of the mankind well but now it has no solutions to the complicated problems that the humanity faces today. Whether it is climate change, technological disruption or genetic bioengineering, nationalists have no answers so they simply deny that these problems exist or just do not talk about it. Professor Harari contends that other (more global) loyalties have to come and not replace nationalism but co-exist with it, if humans have to survive in the form they are now.

About identities, Professor Harari expounds, "Identity is always problematic because identity is always based on fictional stories that sooner or later collide with reality. Almost all identities, I mean, beyond the level of basic community of a few dozen people, are based on a fictional story. They are not the truth. They are not the reality. It's just a story that people invent and tell one another and start believing. And all identities are extremely unstable."  

Professor Harari explains that nationalism is a lot less deadly than before. We do not have many armed conflicts between nations. Even in the 20th century, millions died for nationalism, but it is hard to imagine it can happen today. For all the talk about the rise of nationalism in the Western world, its power today, according to Harari, is "far, far smaller than a century before." However, nationalism hinders our way in solving problems that are immense and immediate. If humans do not change their focus, things can unravel fast. He says, "One of the things, I know as a historian is that you should never underestimate human stupidity. It's one of the most powerful forces in history."

Trump, Merry Christmas and White Christian Nationalism

Here are few articles on President Trump's focus on Christmas and "war on Christmas."

Independent informed the readers about Trump's ending the "war on Christmas":

For those who felt they needed the President's permission, Donald Trump has declared: "We can say Merry Christmas again."

Mr Trump repeatedly vowed during his campaign to end the so-called “war on Christmas", a commonly held belief among many of the President’s Christian supporters.
His comment came during a speech celebrating the passage of the tax reform bill.

Some of Mr Trump's supporters have felt that saying the more neutral and inclusive “happy holidays” to mark celebrations of Hannukah, Eid, or other holidays taking place around the same time, has undermined the Christian majority in the country.
The "war" extends to some feeling as if political correctness is a forced and unnecessary social practice as well. 

Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University told CNN that Mr Trump “is no one's idea as an evangelical Christian, but he is very much using the same rhetoric as the war on Christmas...And it fits very much into his worldview that the people he's representing have been left behind by this liberal society".

Mr Trump claimed on the campaign trail that Americans would say “Merry Christmas in every store” during his presidency, implying that the phrase had gone out of use. (read the article Donald Trump announces 'we can say Merry Christmas again')

The CNN informed its readers that almost one in three adult Americans are bothered by at least some degree by the declining emphasis on religion in the way Americans celebrate Christmas:

Did President Donald Trump live up to his promise to end the "war on Christmas"? Depends on who you ask.
While some would quibble with the very idea that a war on the holiday exists, recent polling does suggest that the Christian nature of Christmas is less culturally prevalent than in the past.

A Pew Research Center survey, published last week, found that most US adults believe the religious aspects of the holiday are emphasized less now than they used to be. But overall, just 31% of adults said "they are bothered at least 'some' by the declining emphasis on religion in the way the U.S. commemorates Christmas."
Meanwhile, the "remaining two-thirds of the U.S. public either is not bothered by a perceived decline in religion in Christmas or does not believe that the emphasis on the religious elements of Christmas is waning," according to the Pew poll.

Throughout his presidential campaign -- and during his first year in office -- Trump emphasized he would "make Christmas great again" by ending the "war on Christmas," a concept that is the revival of a quintessential conservative culture war.
"If I become president, we're going to be saying Merry Christmas at every store," he promised supporters in 2015, among the many times he made such a yuletide pledge.
Fast-forward to October 2017 -- two months ahead of the annual holiday -- and Trump repeated such rhetoric at the Values Voter Summit. "Guess what?" the President told those gathered. "We're saying 'Merry Christmas' again."

His Christmas rhetoric -- and interest in making speeches in front of Christmas trees -- has inspired everything from "Saturday Night Live" sketches to merchandise (there is an official "Make Christmas Merry" hat sold on the Trump campaign website, and dozens of Trump-inspired Christmas-themed sweaters on websites such as Etsy and Amazon).
The Pew survey suggests that while most Americans still celebrate Christmas, the way they think about and commemorate the holiday appears to be moving in a more secular direction.
About 55% of US adults "say they celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, including 46% who see it as more of a religious holiday than a cultural holiday and 9% who celebrate Christmas as both a religious and a cultural occasion." That's slightly down 4 percentage points from 2013, when 59% of Americans said they celebrated Christmas as a religious holiday, including 51% who saw it as more religious than cultural.

A vast majority of Americans — including 56% of Republicans — say the "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" debate is "made up" and not a "real issue," according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. (Read the article In his 1st year in office, did Trump end the 'war on Christmas'?)

Newsweek article reminds the readers that Nazis also used Christmas to promote a divisive nationalism, albeit Trump does not promote genocide or violence against minorities like Nazis:

Trump isn’t the first political figure in history to co-opt Christmas. In fact, some see parallels between Trump’s speeches in front of Christmas trees and attempts by authoritarian regimes like the Nazis to manipulate popular celebrations to promote a political ideology. But by weaponizing Christmas in this way, Trump is bringing a dangerous tradition of politicizing religious holidays into the United States, one expert says.  

“Because Americans have enjoyed a relatively stable political system, Christmas in the U.S. has been relatively immune to the overt politicization of the holiday,” Joe Perry told Newsweek. He is the author of the book Christmas in Germany: A Cultural History, which examines the way Nazis used Christmas to spread fascism.

“But not completely immune. The far right’s engagement in the ‘war on Christmas’ explicitly posits that there is one single true or correct Christmas. The holiday’s true nature is somehow under threat from outsiders and liberals who act as forces of degradation, multiculturalism and secularization,” Perry continued.

In this context, Trump has been using the so-called war on Christmas to wage a culture war that pits multicultural liberals against Christian conservatives. He began doing this long before Christmas. Meanwhile, some members of the religious right support Trump’s most nationalist, race-baiting form of political rhetoric, including his reclaiming of Christmas.
Likewise, Nazi Germany’s propagandists rooted their idea of Christmas in visions of ethno-nationalism. They rewrote the lyrics of Christmas carols, promoted Nazified holiday traditions and launched numerous Christmas charity events for poor Germans. The ultimate goal was to draw a clear line between those who belonged and those who should be excluded and not benefit from the joys of Christmas.

Trump’s rhetoric differs from that of Nazi Germany’s, most notably because he has never advocated genocide. But Trump’s talk about Christmas coexists with re-emerging white identity politics, Randy Blazak, a sociology professor who studies white nationalism, told Newsweek.

“Committed white nationalists love Trump’s bring back Christmas campaign almost as much as evangelicals,” he said. “His followers see this as gospel and a rebuking of multiculturalism and political correctness, and the growing influence of Jews, Muslims, atheists and other non-WASPs.”

President Donald Trump signs a proclamation in front of a Christmas tree, as Vice President Mike Pence stands behind him

Source: How Trump and the Nazis stole Christmas to promote White nationalism

Perry said that Trump hasn’t gone nearly as far as the Nazis in promoting his vision of the holidays, and he sees major flaws in describing Trump as a Nazi-like figure. But there are some clear parallels.

“Trump and the Nazis share aspects of race baiting and perhaps broader aspects of extreme conservatism—many political ideologies do,” Perry said.

“Frankly, I’m not sure how far Trump himself is willing to go to use the holiday to promote anti-Muslim or anti-minority visions of America, or if he even really understands what he is doing with his ‘merry Christmas’ tirades.” (Read the article How Trump and the Nazis stole Christmas to promote White nationalism)

Blasphemy convictions in Egypt increasing

Blasphemy trials and convictions are increasing under President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. This was not what many, who protested against Egypt's first and only fairly elected President (Morsi) in June 2013, expected. President Morsi was a member of Muslim Brotherhood and was accused to forcing religion on the Egyptian society. General Sisi, who led the coup against President Morsi, was supposed to be liberal and progressive. However, like all past military strong-men/dictators of Egypt, Sisi soon adopted authoritarian ways and decided to treat any opposition to his rule brutally. Human rights and liberalism were ignored and anyone talking about political freedoms was arrested or silenced in other ways. Accusitions of terrorism was used to silence religious opposition while liberal opposition to Sisi was condemned because it defamed Egyptian nation, Egyptian institutions and Islam allegedly on the behest of its foreign masters. Blasphemy charges is a very convenient tool as it can even be used against devout and practicing Muslims. Pakistani government and military has also used blasphemy to silence opposition.

Following are some of the articles on blasphemy trails in Egypt

From International Policy Digest:

While a spirit of critical thinking can be detected in the writings of many Egyptian intellectuals about sensitive religion-related topics, these intellectuals have been systematically subjected to hate campaigns and crimes according to Human Rights Watch. Here are two examples.
In the 1990s, the story of professor Farag Foda, an activist in the field of human rights, is a case in point. He was assassinated by Al-Jama’a Al-Islamiyya in 1992 not because of his atheism and infidelity but because of his harsh criticism of the violence of armed Islamic groups. While Foda was a critic of religious intolerance, his murderers, religious zealots, proved him right. Because the killers didn’t like Foda’s writings, they simply killed him.
The Egyptian liberal theologian and university professor, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, also suffered a major religious persecution in the 1990s and had to flee to the Netherlands. The crime of Abu Zayd was his academic work. When certain individuals refused to accept his academic research, they took it to the Egyptian court instead of the Egyptian debate. The court declared him an apostate and based on this sentence, he was not to remain married to his wife Ibtihal Younis, a French Literature professor. The logic behind the forced divorce is that Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims.
Constitutionally, blasphemy (contempt of monotheistic religions) is based on article 98 of the Egyptian Penal Code, which was added 1982 and then amended in 2006. According to this law, citizens who insult or ridicule heavenly religions, propagate extreme ideas for the purpose of inciting strife or contribute to damaging national unity can be confined for a period of no less than six months and no more than five years. This is, in other words, a legal license for the Egyptian state and its religious institution to persecute its own intellectuals. (read the article Don’t Blaspheme in Egypt)

From Ahram online:

Members of the satirical performance art troupe Atfal El-Shawaree (Street Children) posted a video online that some deemed "blasphemous," calling on authorities to charge them under a law that critics say is often misused to violate the right to freedom of expression. 

"Religion has its sanctity, the video posted by this group undoubtedly defamed Islam," Ahmed Kereima, a scholar of Islamic Sharia, said in a phone interview with TV host Ahmed Moussa on Saturday. "Therefore I immediately call on the top prosecutor to charge them with defaming Islam."

On Sunday, Alexandria prosecutors started looking into a complaint filed by a lawyer in Egypt's second biggest city against the group for "insulting religion." In May, the troupe posted a video mimicking the speech of anchors on the state-owned religious Al-Quran Al-Karim (The Holy Quran) radio station. 

Egypt's anti-blasphemy law – Article 98 (f) of the penal code – has been used recently to target several people in high-profile cases, including four Christian students who were sentenced to five years; renowned writer Fatma Naaout who was sentenced to three years; and TV presenter Islam El-Beheiry who was sentenced to one year.

Article 98 (f) criminalises “whoever exploits religion in order to promote extremist ideologies by word of mouth, in writing or in any other manner, with seditious intent, disparaging or contempt of any divine religion or its adherents, or threatening national unity, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to five years, or pay a fine of at least 500 Egyptian pounds.”

Naout was sentenced to three years in jail for saying on her Facebook page that the Eid Al-Adha tradition of slaughtering sheep was the "greatest massacre committed by human beings." El-Beheiry is currently serving a one-year sentence in prison after he stirred controversy by questioning the credibility of some sources of the Prophet Muhammad's sayings, a prime source of Islamic jurisprudence. In February, four Christian minors were sentenced to five years in jail after making a video mocking members of the Islamic State group beheading an individual after the militants finished Islamic prayers...

Many in Egypt – a conservative and deeply religious country where the predominant Sunni Muslim majority constitutes 88 percent of the population – consider religion a "red line" that should not be crossed, at least publicly,  not even by state officials. This "red line" was put in place by legislators in 1981 – during the El-Zawya El-Hamra religious strife – when the Egyptian penal code was amended to prohibit the "insulting of religions."

The law was enacted at the time to protect the rights of religious minorities. However, some lawyers and religious researchers believe that the law is now being abused.

Although the Egyptian constitution –passed in 2014 in a majority referendum – protects freedom of thought, belief and expression, many of the country's clerics, officials and religion institutions are against the questioning of established, mainstream religious beliefs.

The penal code has three articles that criminalise acts that can broadly be defined as blasphemous; articles 160, 161 and 98 (f). (read the article Egypt's anti-blasphemy law: Defence of religion or tool for persecution?)

A still image from the satirical performance by Atfal El-Shawaree (Street Children) 

Source: Egypt's anti-blasphemy law: Defence of religion or tool for persecution?

From Al-Monitor:

Hazem, like other activists who had hoped the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood regime would usher in a new era of greater freedom and more openness, is now deeply disappointed.

“I was optimistic back in 2015 when I heard President [Abdel Fattah al-] Sisi’s promises that religion would never again have a say in politics. I believed he would steer the country toward a more liberal direction. It hasn’t happened,” he said.

The prosecution of a prominent filmmaker over accusations of contempt of religion for a “controversial” scene in his film and an attack on a church in the district of Giza on Dec. 22 by a mob calling for the church’s demolition are just some of the recent developments signaling a trend of growing conservatism and increased intolerance in the society. Film director Amr Salama was summoned for interrogation by prosecutors on Dec. 18 over his film “Sheikh Jackson,” Egypt’s submission for the Oscars. This happened after a lawyer filed a legal complaint against the filmmaker and the film’s cast, accusing them of “defaming Islam.” The lawsuit was prompted by a scene in the film that shows a Michael Jackson lookalike dancing inside a mosque as worshippers pray. The film has since been referred by prosecutors to Al-Azhar for review to determine if it is indeed “blasphemous.”

Salama’s prosecution comes on the heels of several high-profile convictions over contempt of religion charges since the coup against Morsi in 2013. Blasphemy convictions have intensified under Sisi, with more such cases and convictions during his era than during the Morsi era. Despite his pluralistic discourse, Sisi is appeasing the ultraconservative Salafists who supported him in the 2014 presidential election in the conviction that any secularist tendencies on his part would undermine his base in the street, say analysts. (read the article Egypt’s parliament in bid to ban atheism)

Pakistan: Religious nationalism in retreat from 1947 to the mid-1970s

Pakistan was formed on the basis of religious nationalism but in its initial years,  Islamic modernism was the dominant paradigm as Nadeem Farooq Paracha explains in his article. The ruling elite, from 1947 to the mid-1970s, wanted to implement Islamic principles, not Islamic punishments. The mullah and the cleric did not have much to do with the affairs of the state.

Source: Smokers' corner: Curbing the mullah

In Questioning the Authority of the Past historian Dr Ali Usman Qasimi explains how from 1947 till about the mid-1970s, the state and subsequent governments consciously kept the ulema away from directly influencing government legislation.

Usmani adds that this was not due to the fact that those who ran the state and governments between the mentioned years were secular. Instead, their idea of faith and its role in the formation of Pakistani nationalism was different from those held by the ulema and the clerics.

The civil-military establishment which was at the helm of state and government affairs from 1947 till the early 1970s was an extension of the idea of faith and Muslim nationalism developed and evolved by the likes of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Syed Amir Ali, Chiragh Ali, Ahmaduddin Amritsari, Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, Dr Khalifa Abdul Hakim, and to a certain extent, Dr Fazalur Rehman Malik.

These scholars were the main shapers of ‘Islamic Modernism’ in South Asia. As an idea it encouraged the acquirement of universal sciences and philosophies to facilitate a rational, practical and informed reading of Islam’s holy scriptures beyond the ‘dated’ interpretations penned by ancient ulema or contemporary clerics.

From the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries, these scholars, through hefty scholarly treatises and philosophical discourses, urged the snatching away of matters of faith from the clutches of clerics and ‘dogmatic ulema.’

They advocated addressing the faith’s ‘stagnant’ and ‘retrogressive’ state through modern scholarly, scientific and cultural means so that its ‘true form’ (which was vibrant and supple) could be brought back to life. To them this recouped form was to become the engine empowering the rejuvenation of South Asia’s Muslims into becoming an enlightened and dynamic polity.

The founders of Pakistan led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah were very much a part and parcel of this narrative and of the evolving tradition of Islamic Modernism in South Asia.
For example, just a few months after the country’s creation in August 1947, Jinnah green-lighted the creation of the Institute for the Reconstruction of Islam (IRI) headed by the celebrated Jewish-journalist-turned-Muslim-scholar, Muhammad Asad.

Ishtiaq Ahmad in 1987’s The Concept of Islamic State quotes IRI’s first scholarly initiative as a detailed treatise which suggested that “no specific form of government had been prescribed by Muslim scriptures and it was up to the Muslims of every age to agree on one that suits their conditions.” The report emphasised that no matter what form of government Muslims decide to enact, it needed to be run on one of the central Islamic principles of “socio-economic justice.”

Even though the 1949 Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly declared that Pakistan was to become an ‘Islamic Republic’, Usmani reminds his readers that the Resolution did not envision any special authority for the ulema. (see Smokers' corner: Curbing the mullah for full article)

Who are evangelical Christians?

It is widely accepted that evangelical Christians are the main force behind the rising tide of religious nationalism in the US. The triumph of President Trump in 2016 presidential election was not possible without evangelical support. One year later, the evangelicals are still one of the most loyal supporters of President Trump. But who are these evangelicals? Some researchers simply ask a person whether he or she is an evangelical or a born-again Christian i.e. give priority to self-identification. They do not worry about an objective definition or think it is impossible to define evangelicals objectively (because being born-again is a personal experience which cannot be measured objectively). However, as a very large number of American, sometimes having very different political, social and religious beliefs/attitudes, self-identify themselves as evangelicals, it is important to dig a little deeper than simply asking a person whether he or she is an evangelical or is a "born-again" Christian. 

The disparate nature of evangelicalism makes its members difficult to define. They don’t have a single authority like the Roman Catholic pope or Mormon First Presidency, so you can’t just phone a central office and ask for the official definition. Since they span a range of denominations, churches, and organizations, there is no single membership statement to delineate identity. As a result, individual observers are left to decide how to define what makes someone or something evangelical. To the pollster, it is a sociological term. To the pastor, it is a denominational or doctrinal term. And to the politician, it is a synonym for a white Christian Republican.

So what is an evangelical, for the love of God, and why does it even matter?...

David Kinnaman, the president of Barna Group and author of the forthcoming Good Faith: Being a Christian When Society Thinks You’re Irrelevant and Extreme argues that “The way one defines ‘evangelical’ influences the story they tell about the most influential group within the most influential religion in the world’s most influential country.” 

Depending on how you define the term, evangelicals comprise between 7 percent and 47 percent of the American population. Divergent definitions have led to inconsistent, even contradictory survey results about evangelicals’ beliefs and characteristics. Reports based on these surveys can shape elections, public policies, and broader public opinion. (see Defining 'Evangelical')

Billy Graham, the most prominent evangelical of the 20th century, himself acknowledged the definitional issues. With the growth of political importance of the evangelicals, researchers and evangelicals have come up with other subjective indicators to identify an evangelical. For example, historian Dr. Bebbington talks about the “quadrilateral of priorities” as the basis of evangelicalism. Joel Rainey, in his article on the identification of evangelicals, argues that, despite the negative press, the evangelicals are not all conservative, Republican fanatics that hate all immigrants, Muslims and LGBT. They are bearers of good news and for the advancement of civilization:

In a 1987 interview, Reverend Billy Graham—arguably the most prominent evangelical preacher of the twentieth century—was asked what an evangelical was. “Actually, that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody too,” Graham told religion reporter Terry Mattingly. “The lines [have] become blurred. . . . You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals, and somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals.”

The Evangelical Movement
Evangelicalism began among Protestants in Great Britain in the 1730s. The movement spread as a result of a series of “Great Awakenings” during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

A plethora of new Christian denominations and new branches within existing denominations sprang up in the wake of these religious movements, each emphasizing spreading the gospel. These denominations tended toward fundamentalism and shared what University of Stirling historian David W. Bebbington calls the “quadrilateral of priorities”—the basis of evangelicalism:

• The need to be born again (a personal conversion)
• The supremacy of biblical authority
• Salvation through the death and resurrection of the Son of God
• Active sharing of the gospel through evangelism

Evangelical churches have historically tended to be Protestant, although evangelical movements occasionally spring up within Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism-Episcopalianism...

At heart, evangelicals are simply bearers of the good news of Jesus Christ. This news is that Jesus loved humanity enough to enter our world and do what was necessary to bring healing and understanding, and to offer the opportunity for a genuine relationship with him (see Who are evangelicals?).

The National Association of Evangelicals (America’s largest coalition of evangelicals, which was established in 1942 and claims to represent more than 45,000 local churches from around 40 different denominations and millions of Americans) agrees with Bebbington's  “quadrilateral of priorities” but crucially also gives four gives statements to which a person has to agree strongly to be designated as an evangelical. These four statements ignore the necessity of "born-again" experience:

The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

Evangelicals are a vibrant and diverse group, including believers found in many churches, denominations and nations. Our community brings together Reformed, Holiness, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other traditions.

Our core theological convictions provide unity in the midst of our diversity. The NAE Statement of Faith offers a standard for these evangelical convictions.

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus

• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts

• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

These distinctives and theological convictions define us — not political, social or cultural trends. In fact, many evangelicals rarely use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves, focusing simply on the core convictions of the triune God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism and discipleship.

Defining Evangelicals in Research
Evangelicals are a common subject of research, but often the outcomes of that research vary due to differences in the methods used to identify evangelicals. In response to that challenge the NAE and LifeWay Research developed a tool to provide a consistent standard for identification of evangelical belief.
The NAE/LifeWay Research method includes four statements to which respondents must strongly agree to be categorized as evangelical:

• The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

• It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.

• Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.

• Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation. (see What is an Evangelical?)

Some feel that evangelicals may also be distinguished from other Christians, along with the “quadrilateral of priorities,” on the basis of eschatology. The evangelicals strongly believe in a particular description/type of the end-of-times:

Different from other denominations, the top five identifying beliefs of evangelical Christians are:

1. They point to a specific, personal conversion experience in which they are "born again" or "saved." According to PrayerFoundation.com, "individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation."

2. Evangelical Christians believe in the Bible as God's inspired Word to humankind, perfect in truth in the original text. It is the "final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith  — above all human authority," according to EvangelicalBeliefs.com.

3. Evangelicals believe the work of Jesus on the cross, through his death and resurrection, is the only source of salvation and forgiveness of sins. PrayerFoundation.com makes it clear that salvation is through faith alone. 

People can do nothing to earn their way to heaven. Instead, as EvangelicalBeliefs.com points out, believers do "good works in grateful response to our pardon, not to cause it."

4. Evangelical Christians are strongly motivated to share the gospel either one-on-one or through organized missions. Emphasis is placed on the Great Commission's call to share with the world the Christian message of salvation through Christ, and to "be publicly baptized as a confession of faith," according to PrayerFoundation.com.

5. Most, though not all, evangelicals believe there will be a rapture in the end times where the church will be "caught up with Christ before the Great Tribulation, leaving nonbelievers behind to suffer on Earth," states the Pew Research Center. This idea has gained attention through the "Left Behind" book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the related movies. (see 5 Beliefs That Set Evangelicals Apart From Other Christians)

Barna Group, a conservative research group, has a nine-point criteria to identify an evangelical. In their surveys, they do not ask respondents whether they are born-again Christian or evangelical to identify them as evangelicals. The evangelicals, according to Barna Group are those who:

1. have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ;
2. believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior;
3. believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; 
4. say their faith is very important in their life today; 
5. believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
6. believe that Satan exists; 
7. believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; 
8. assert that the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings; and 
9. describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. (see Is Evangelism going out of style?)

So, in addition to quadrilateral of priorities, to be an evangelical, one also has to believe in a perfect God, the existence of Satan, and Christ's sinless life on earth.

The above discussion on the definition of evangelical prioritizes their identification on the basis of religious beliefs, not on the basis of their political orientations. But the self-identified evangelicals vote as a group on numerous salient political issues. What should be given importance, religious beliefs or political attitude? Since the term "evangelical" started as a religious term, one could argue that religious beliefs should be given more importance and some evangelicals are trying to do that:

For some Christian conservatives, the political behavior described by journalists and political pollsters misses the essence of true, church-going evangelicalism. As Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest evangelical Protestant denomination, said last year: “Secular people have for a long time misunderstood the meaning of ‘evangelical,’ seeing us almost exclusively in terms of election-year voting blocs or our most buffoonish television personalities” – including many of those who comprise Trump’s evangelical advisory board.

“Part of the problem with the political identity of evangelicals is that typically the questions that pollsters ask are, ‘Are you a born-again or evangelical Christian?’ ” says Marsden, “and you have all sorts of people who say, ‘I guess so.’ ”

“That makes it seem that groups of Evangelicals are bigger than they actually are,” says Marsden. “And it also invites all sorts of people who aren’t very deeply religious to say that they are in this cultural group.”

With a more ethnically diverse and theologically-focused definition of evangelicalism, the movement may not seem so politically uniform, scholars suggest.

“The crisis over the ‘evangelical’ label is a crisis for the 20 percent of white Evangelicals who did not vote for Donald J. Trump, as well as the lion’s share of nonwhite Evangelicals,” says Professor Schmalzbauer. “White Evangelicals who sympathize with Trump’s rhetorical defense of white Christian America and his religious nationalism are not worried about the future of the evangelical brand.”

“The soul searching and agonizing is among moderate to progressive Evangelicals, Latino and Asian-American Evangelicals, and evangelical scholars – especially those who do not ‘pray Republican’ or who reject the Trump takeover of the Republican Party,” he continues. (see In Trump era, what does it mean to be an 'Evangelical'?)

Source: In Trump era, what does it mean to be an 'Evangelical'?

However, politically and socially, a religiously-focused definition (instead of one-question self-identification) is problematic as it casts millions of American who call themselves evangelicals and have social and political attitudes similar to most religiously-defined evangelicals out of the group. What should the non-evangelical group that always votes with the evangelicals be called? It makes sense to study groups of people which vote in the same way and have similar political convictions as a group. Shouldn't the evangelical term be used to identify a political group instead of a religious group as most of the people who self-identify as evangelical are politically similar, but may not be religiously similar? Furthermore, the meaning of evangelical has changed over the last four centuries, so it can change again.

Many evangelicals, who usually vote for the Democratic Party and for socially liberal policies, are unhappy with the current usage of the term but have resigned to the fact that political realities will triumph doctrinal issues and have stopped identifying themselves as evangelicals.