Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings

HuffPost Blog

"Millions of Democrats are voting for a presidential candidate linked to an FBI criminal investigation. These voters either don’t know there’s been a year-long FBI investigation of Clinton’s emails, don’t care, or would vote for Clinton even she faced Espionage Act indictments. Potentially our next Commander in Chief will be interviewed by the FBI soon, as will her top aides. This state of affairs would never take place in any other leading democracy, but American politics is unique."..................

What happens if Clinton wins the nomination, and the FBI recommends indictments after July 25, 2016?

If the FBI recommends indictments, and the DOJ indicts Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party would be handing Donald Trump the White House by nominating the former Secretary of State. I explain in this YouTube segment why Clinton should concede the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders, before the political ramifications of a contested convention, and before the FBI discloses its findings.

First, there used to be a time in American history when Bernie Sanders would be the only choice for Democratic nominee. Not long ago, an FBI investigation meant the end of a presidential campaign. Clinton would have been forced to conceded at any point in U.S. history before 2016, linked to a criminal FBI investigation.

Unfortunately, the inept Republican Party, combined with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s uncanny ability to circumvent scandal, have made even FBI investigations morally relative. Because of Ken Starr, Benghazi hearings, and the notion that anything Republicans advocate must either be a conspiracy, or some plot to harm Hillary Clinton, voters simply roll their eyes at controversy. I addressed why only Hillary Clinton is capable of enduring these issues during my CNN New Day appearance.

Second, millions of loyal Hillary supporters would still vote for Clinton, even if the FBI recommended Espionage Act indictments. Since “gross negligence” can be used to prosecute Clinton under the Espionage Act, and since convenience wasn’t the reason for owning a private server, indictments are likely. Also, if indictments become a reality, the fracture within the Democratic Party, caused by people who’d still vote for a candidate facing criminal indictment, would be irreparable. The rest of the world would either be laughing, or in disbelief, that Clinton decided to continue her campaign for the presidency (with supporters still loyal), even with the threat of jail time. Rest assured, even more Bernie supporters would refuse to vote for Clinton, if her campaign continued its quest for the White House, alongside criminal indictments.

Then there’s the likelihood of criminal charges. Every “legal scholar” or pundit defending Clinton assumes that merely convenience, or absent-mindedness, was the reason for a private server. Since there was almost certainly political utility involved in circumventing U.S. government networks, the DOJ has intent and motive to indict Clinton.

Israel Stops Four Tons of Rocket Chemicals From Being Smuggled Into Gaza

TheTower

Four tons of a chemical used to manufacture long-range rockets were stopped from being smuggled into Gaza, Israeli security announced Tuesday.
Security forces seized the ammonium chloride before Passover at the Nitzana border crossing between Israel and Egypt. The crossing is also used to facilitate the shipment of goods into Gaza.
The Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, said they believe that the smuggler is a Gaza-based Hamas supporter who used his importing license to bring the material in for use in Hamas’ weapons facilities.
The four tons of ammonium chloride, which is usually used in fertilizers but can also be used to make explosives, had the potential to be employed in the production of hundreds of rockets. The chemicals were hidden within a 40-ton shipment of salt. Security forces had been on high alert because of unusually high levels of salt imports recently, the Israel Tax Authority said in a statement.
“Ammonium chloride is defined as a dual-use substance and its passage into the Gaza Strip requires a permit since it is liable to be used by Gaza-based terrorist organizations—such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad—in the production of long-range rockets,” they added.
The agency noted that “dozens of attempts to smuggle items and materials that are prohibited from importation into the Gaza Strip—such as sulfuric acid, diving suits, rocket propulsion fuel components, polyurethane, sulfur, fiberglass rolls and specially coarse coal for use in iron smelters and metalwork—and which are suspected of being for use by local terrorist organizations” have been stopped by the Israeli government.
At the same time, Israel allowed more than 10,000 truckloads of goods to be delivered to Gaza in the month of March, according to the NGO Gisha.

Obama and the European Union

George Friedman (Founder and Chairman of Geopolitical Futures, a global analysis company.)

"European integration was an American idea. If the European Union falls apart, it is hard to see how NATO survives, even in its current state," 

US President Barack Obama has re-emphasized the importance of the European Union, saying it was one of the most important inventions of the past 70 years. This claim comes after he told the British public that they should vote to stay in the EU, to the anger of those supporting an exit. They felt that Obama was interfering in British internal affairs by taking sides in a domestic dispute. Obama claimed that given historical US involvement in Europe, in wars and recovery, this was justified.

A distant second after the more important question of why Obama is involving himself, is whether he thinks his opinion actually matters. Assuming he understands that his views matter in Britain about as much as British Prime Minister David Cameron’s opinion on the Republican primaries matters in the US, we need to think through what Obama is trying to do, since he clearly knows that he carries little weight in the matter, and might actually alienate British voters.

To begin at the beginning, European integration was an American idea. While Paul-Henri Spaak and Robert Schuman may have thought of the idea, it was the Marshall Plan that first had increased European integration as one of its goals. The Americans believed that their mission was to revive Europe and that the infusion of money wasn’t enough. Creating a harmonized economic structure was central to the recovery, so the United States pressed for some form of integration.

France resisted integration at first because it was not prepared, so soon after the war, to collaborate with Germany. The British rejected the idea because they felt they had a special relationship with the United States given the wartime alliance, and didn’t want to be tossed in with the rest of Europe, particularly the French.

It was Charles de Gaulle who finally embraced the idea, but not for economic reasons. His reasons were geopolitical. Europe was fragmented, the east was occupied by the Soviets and the Americans were an overwhelming presence. De Gaulle knew that Europe could not counterbalance the Americans or Soviets, but he believed that Europe could balance between them. Economic integration with Germany, along with smaller European states, would put France in the position of the leading European power, as Germany would play a subordinate role. Best of all, the British would not join this formation, which meant that France’s only rival in Western Europe would stay outside. He saw this as the path to resurrecting French influence. Out of this, over the course of decades, the EU emerged in the form of the Maastricht Treaty. Europeans and Americans both tend to forget the American role and the French calculation that got this rolling.

All this happened prior to such clarifying events as the Berlin Blockade by the Soviets. This led to the American strategy of containment, and alongside that, the creation of NATO. American strategy was to hem in the Soviet Union from the North Cape of Norway to Turkey. The military containment was to be complemented by an increasingly productive and prosperous Europe. Psychologically, the contrast between a prosperous Western Europe and an impoverished Eastern Europe would weaken the Soviet position and strengthen the American. But more important, a prosperous Europe meant that it could support a European military component inside NATO. It was the American plan that the Europeans play the primary role in defending against a Soviet attack while the United States would provide some forces stationed there, massive reinforcements and, of course, a nuclear deterrent.

For the United States, European prosperity was a critical factor behind the strength of NATO. This was the idea behind the Marshall Plan, and it is why the United States was always pleased to see European economic integration. But there was another reason – Germany. The United States, like the European powers, did not want to see Germany re-emerge as a major power. But it wanted Germany to be able to at least support itself, and ideally, field a substantial force against the Soviets. Germany would be the battlefield in any US-Soviet conflict because of geography.

The US wanted a prosperous Germany, but one whose prosperity was tied up in a system of integration that took away German room to maneuver. The US had fought two wars against Germany and while American casualties were far less than others in Europe, they still were deep in the American mind. So the United States wanted a strong but constrained Germany. The US was prepared to see Europe recover enough to be a strong economic competitor to the United States, so long as the Soviets were blocked by German forces and Germany was constrained in a web of prosperity.
Now, the integration that the United States put into motion is threatening to collapse, Germany is the dominant European power, but other EU countries are increasingly ignoring it, and Russia is active to the east. The structure the US created after World War II is coming apart.

With it, NATO is threatening to come apart. NATO is built on the assumption that there is a common interest among the European countries and the United States. The problem of the EU today is that it is not clear that European countries have a common interest. If they have competing interests on not only economic matters, but on cultural and political issues like refugee migration, then NATO will cease to function. It is not functioning well anyway. As I have written in the past, the EU has almost 200 million more people than the United States and a GDP slightly larger, yet has a small fraction of the effective military power of the United States.

If the European Union falls apart, it is hard to see how NATO survives, even in its current state. If that happens, the direction of Germany’s foreign policy is a huge unknown, matching the huge unknown of Russia. In a certain sense, the geopolitical reality of Europe is still in place. Germany is powerful, with unknown intentions. Russia is economically fragile but militarily possibly potent. And France and Britain have little trust in each other or resources to act. The situation is far from 1914 or 1939. Still, the configuration of nation-states is familiar.

From the American point of view, this is the worst-case scenario. Germany is freed of constraint not by its will but because of the failure of the EU. Russia, rather than facing a united alliance, is facing fragmented and squabbling European states. And the United States is facing its old question. Should it withdraw from trying to manage Europe and leave it to its own devices, or should the US remain involved through NATO, which is more a liability to the United States than an asset.

Obama is an American president and he is facing, in the distance, the potential for the re-emergence of the old Europe that twice drew the US into wars. His policy, which has been the policy of every president since Harry Truman, is to play a significant role in Europe and to maintain the architecture it crafted 70 years ago. And that explains why he doesn’t want the EU to collapse.

Unanswered in this is why he thinks announcing US desires will matter in the least. The US has tolerated the imbalance in NATO with only formal complaints. It has already accepted the rise of Germany, which was inevitable anyway. And it will involve itself against Russia under any circumstances. Obama has named no consequence for the Europeans from the US if the EU fails, nor is there any he can name. But it is understandable why he speaks up, however impotently, persuading only those who already agree with him.

The world that was created in the 1940s is coming apart. A Europe made up of separate nation-states has been a dangerous place for the US Retaining the European Union is desirable given American history. It may be desirable given European history. That doesn’t mean it can be preserved.

Panama Papers: More Names Revealed

German News

The new BND Bruno Kahl gets sucked into the Panama Papers. Kahl was Supervisory Board of Bundesdruckerei, as a whistleblower, the Panel wanted to warn of an offshore deal Bundesdruckerei. The Supervisory Board ignored the warning. It is puzzling why Kahl despite this sensitive matter to be head of the service now.

The new BND Bruno Kahl, who is also a close friend of Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, has since 2011, the Supervisory Board of Bundesdruckerei, which reports to the Federal Ministry of Finance. Observers in the European services puzzle why a man who appears indirectly in the Panama Papers, is lifted in such a sensitive position.
Bundesdruckerei is said to have used a front company in Panama for its operations in Venezuela, according to the Panama Papers. In the years 2012 and 2013, an informant turned to the Supervisory Board of Bundesdruckerei to inform members of dubious dealings Bundesdruckerei, reports the Mirror.

But Kahl and the other board members did not want to listen to informants . Instead, let Bundesdruckerei inform the informants through a lawyer that he never intended to resume contact with her ​​or the Supervisory Board. On the Supervisory Board of Bundesdruckerei also August Hanning, of from 1998 to 2005 BND chief and under the cooperation between the BND and NSA was carried out at the spying of data on a large scale sitting. The NSA wiretapping scandal played Hanning down. "I want to make it clear that, of course, you have to expect that anyone who communicates openly, is monitored," citing him the FAZ.

In connection with the business of Bundesdruckerei in Panama also Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble refused to contact the informant who had previously turned to Kahl, Hanning and the other board members. "It is intolerable that the finance minister has just announced full-bodied in the public wanting to take action against tax havens, and must give a day later to have in his subordinate Bundesdruckerei ignored evidence of the use of shell companies", Sahra Wagenknecht said the incident ,
The Finance Ministry announced in a statement a little later: "The facts are known and was also the subject of prosecutorial investigations and external and internal investigations Bundesdruckerei (...) evidence of illegal or even criminal conduct have not been found."

Bruno Kahl was from 1 December 2010 until December 26, 2012 Vice Chairman of the Board of TLG Immobilien. He was a member of the Supervisory Board of WestLB AG successor Portigon Financial Services, reported Bloomberg. He is currently Head of Department VIII (privatization, investments and federal property) in the Federal Ministry of Finance.

ISIS Targeted by Cyberattacks in a New U.S. Line of Combat

The United States has opened a new line of combat against the Islamic State, directing the military’s six-year-old Cyber Command for the first time to mount computer-network attacks that are now being used alongside more traditional weapons.

The effort reflects President Obama’s desire to bring many of the secret American cyberweapons that have been aimed elsewhere, notably at Iran, into the fight against the Islamic State — which has proved effective in using modern communications and encryption to recruit and carry out operations.

The National Security Agency, which specializes in electronic surveillance, has for years listened intensely to the militants of the Islamic State, and those reports are often part of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. But the N.S.A.’s military counterpart, Cyber Command, was focused largely on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — where cyberattacks on the United States most frequently originate — and had run virtually no operations against what has become the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.

A review of what should be done to confront the Islamic State is on Mr. Obama’s agenda on Monday, when he is scheduled to attend a conference in Hanover, Germany, with the leaders of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Of these efforts, the cybercampaign is the newest. It is also the one discussed in least detail by officials of many countries, and its successes or failures are the most difficult to assess from the outside.

The goal of the new campaign is to disrupt the ability of the Islamic State to spread its message, attract new adherents, circulate orders from commanders and carry out day-to-day functions, like paying its fighters. A benefit of the administration’s exceedingly rare public discussion of the campaign, officials said, is to rattle the Islamic State’s commanders, who have begun to realize that sophisticated hacking efforts are manipulating their data. Potential recruits may also be deterred if they come to worry about the security of their communications with the militant group.
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter is among those who have publicly discussed the new mission, but only in broad terms, and this month the deputy secretary of defense, Robert O. Work, was more colorful in describing the effort.

“We are dropping cyberbombs,” Mr. Work said. “We have never done that before.”
The campaign has been conducted by a small number of “national mission teams,” newly created cyberunits loosely modeled on Special Operations forces.

While officials declined to discuss the details of their operations, interviews with more than a half-dozen senior and midlevel officials indicate that the effort has begun with a series of “implants” in the militants’ networks to learn the online habits of commanders. Now, the plan is to imitate them or to alter their messages, with the aim of redirecting militants to areas more vulnerable to attack by American drones or local ground forces.

In other cases, officials said, the United States may complement operations to bomb warehouses full of cash by using cyberattacks to interrupt electronic transfers and misdirect payments.

The fact that the administration is beginning to talk of its use of the new weapons is a dramatic change. As recently as four years ago, it would not publicly admit to developing offensive cyberweapons or confirm its role in any attacks on computer networks.

That is partly because cyberattacks inside another nation raise major questions over invasion of sovereignty. But in the case of the Islamic State, officials say a decision was made that a bit of boasting might degrade the enemy’s trust in its communications, jumbling and even deterring some actions.

“Our cyberoperations are disrupting their command-and-control and communications,” Mr. Obama said this month, emerging from a meeting at the C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., on countering the Islamic State.

Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered broad outlines of the new campaign against the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL, during a news conference in February.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/us/politics/us-directs-cyberweapons-at-isis-for-first-time.html?utm_source=Active+Subscribers&utm_campaign=4354cfcfe5-MR_04252016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_35c49cbd51-4354cfcfe5-64065145 

Q&A: BOKO HARAM IN CAMEROON

In May 2014, Cameroon declared war on Boko Haram at the Paris Summit. Since then, Boko Haram has intensified its activities in the Far North Region of the country, making Cameroon the second most targeted country, in terms of attacks, by the sect. Hans De Marie Heungoup, Cameroon analyst at the International Crisis Group, provides insights on the rise of Boko Haram in Cameroon, the stakes for the country and efforts made by the Government to overcome the jihadist organisation.

How would you describe the rise of Boko Haram in Cameroon?

The penetration of Boko Haram in Cameroon took place gradually and in several phases. At each phase, the group has been able to change its modus operandi and adapt to the response of Cameroonian defence forces. While the first frontal attack of Boko Haram against Cameroon dates back to March 2014, the presence of members of the sect in the Far North was signaled as far back as 2009. In fact, in July 2009, after clashes between Boko Haram militants and security forces at Maiduguri in which more than 800 members of the sect were killed, including the founder Mohamed Yusuf, several members of Boko Haram found refuge in and/or transited through the Far North of Cameroon. But up until then, Cameroon had shown only little interest in the Islamist group.

Boko Haram’s interest in Cameroon grew between 2011 and 2013. This is an interesting phase because it is during this period that Boko Haram started spreading its religious ideology, mainly in the Logone and Chari and Mayo Sava divisions of the Far North, recruiting Cameroonians as fighters and using this part of the territory as a rear base or safe haven. Specifically, from 2011, in addition to seeking refuge on Cameroonian territory after attacks in Nigeria, members of Boko Haram regularly bought foodstuffs on different markets in the Far North. They also infiltrated former networks involved in trafficking, smuggling of motorbikes, adulterated fuel (zoua-zoua) and Tramol (drug) in the far north. It was also between 2011 and 2013 that they established most of their networks of arms caches on Cameroonian territory, with Kousseri serving as their logistics base. At the same time, like Chad, the Far North of Cameroon served as transit points for weapons bought by Boko Haram from Libya and Sudan. Fotokol in Cameroon has been one of the entry points of these arms into Nigeria.

While until 2012 the presence of Boko Haram in the Far North was rather passive and unknown to the public, despite a few targeted killings and abductions of Cameroonians in the Mayo Sava and Logone and Chari divisions, the practice of kidnapping of foreigners, adopted from February 2013, marks a shift by Boko Haram to a more active approach on Cameroonian soil. Between 2013 and 2014, the jihadist group abducted 22 foreigners (French, Chinese, Canadians and Italians) in Cameroon and released them each time after the payment of ransoms the total amount of which was at least $11 million and the release of about forty of its members detained in Cameroon. In 2014, Boko Haram moved from the active approach to a frontal approach with attacks on police stations and military bases. Thus, from March 2014 to March 2016, Boko Haram carried out more than 400 attacks and incursions in Cameroon, as well as about fifty suicide bombings that left 92 members of security forces dead, injured more than 120 others and killed more than 1350 civilians.

Over the last two years, Boko Haram has been able to alternate between low-intensity attacks requiring only about ten fighters on motorbikes and conventional attacks that can mobilise more than 1000 fighters, as well as armored vehicles and mortars. Up to now, the abduction of the Vice-Prime Minister’s wife in July 2014, the thirty or so conventional attacks on Fotokol, Amchide and Kolofata in 2014 and 2015, as well as a series of suicide attacks that hit Maroua in July and August 2015 are the most spectacular actions carried out by Boko Haram in Cameroon.

After this peak period, Boko Haram, whose firepower was at its best between July 2014 and March 2015 when it also controlled more than 30 000 square kilometers of territory in northeast Nigeria, gradually declined from January 2015 following renewed engagement of the Nigerian army ahead of the presidential election, and then the coming to power of Muhammadu Buhari who overhauled the apparatus to fight Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Furthermore, the engagement of Chadian and Cameroonian troops, who inflicted huge losses and setbacks on Boko Haram, significantly weakened the group to the extent that, for the past nine months, it has not been able to carry out any conventional attacks in Cameroon and has lost most of the territories that it was holding in Nigeria (Cameroonian troops declare that they have killed more than 1500 members of Boko Haram in fights and arrested more than 900 suspected members. The Islamist group has also suffered huge logistical losses). Conscious of the new power balance, the jihadist organisation has resorted to purely asymmetric warfare, giving preference to suicide bombings and low-intensity attacks. From July 2015 to March 2016, Boko Haram carried out more than 50 suicide attacks in Cameroon, killing more than 230 people and wounding 500 others. This war has had an adverse effect on the economy of the Far North of Cameroon which was already the poorest and the region with the lowest school enrolment rate in the country before the war. It also led to an influx of 65 000 Nigerian refugees to Cameroon and caused the internal displacement of more than 93 000 people.

Why did Boko Haram start attacking Cameroon?

Boko Haram started launching a frontal attack on Cameroon because the Government strengthened the security apparatus in the Far North and dismantled about ten arms caches of the sect, as well as corridors for the transit of weapons. In fact, Cameroonian authorities were in an increasingly untenable situation at the beginning of 2014. Despite the head-in-the-sand policy adopted at the beginning which consisted of turning a blind eye on the presence of Boko Haram members in the Far North in the hope that they would not take on Cameroon, the sect continued to abduct foreigners and Cameroonians. Moreover, the Nigerian Government and press accused Cameroon of serving as a rear base and support for Boko Haram. Faced with such pressures and following the abduction of ten Chinese nationals at Waza, the only rational option for Cameroon was to declare war on the sect. Of course, once war was declared in May 2014, Boko Haram, in turn, increased its attacks in Cameroon to the extent that the country became the second major target of the Islamist group.

How effective are the Cameroonian government’s counterinsurgency efforts?

To combat Boko Haram, Cameroon has deployed two military operations, namely Operation EMERGENCE 4 made up of units of the regular army and Operation ALPHA comprising of units of the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR), the elite corps of the Cameroonian army. In addition to these operations, we have the multinational joint task force whose first military sector is based in Mora and comprises of 2450 Cameroonian troops. On the whole, about 7000 men have been deployed by Cameroonian defence forces in both operations they and the regional joint task force have efficiently warded off conventional attacks by Boko Haram. However, Cameroonian troops find it more difficult to thwart suicide bombings.

Moreover, the weakness of Cameroon’s response against Boko Haram is the absence of a policy and measures to combat radicalization and a program for de-radicalization. Similarly, given that this region is the poorest and has the lowest school enrolment rate in the country, and that these factors have facilitated recruitment and indoctrination by Boko Haram, the Government’s response on the socioeconomic development level in the Far North is still fragmented, poor and ill-adapted to the stakes.

How do you analyse the state of the regional cooperation against Boko Haram?

To address the threat posed by Boko Haram, the states in the region (Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Benin) under the aegis of the Lake Chad Basin Commission set up a multinational joint task force. The regional task force has been slow to put in place, but after several delays, the multinational task force was set up and only finally went operational later in 2015. However, the multinational force is witnessing financial and logistical difficulties that are affecting its full operationalisation and few donors have so far delivered on their pledges. As such, only the first sector of the force is operational as of now.

The other specificity of the regional response is that it has assumed more of a bilateral rather than multilateral orientation: like the military cooperation between Chad and Nigeria or Nigeria and Cameroon that, despite the bottlenecks recorded at the beginning, has improved significantly over recent months to the extent that the right of hot pursuit is now a reality. However, the major shortcoming of this regional response is that it focuses on military aspects. No serious brainstorming is done on development issues and the fight against radicalization at the regional level. In the same light, no reflection has been initiated on the ways to end this crisis now that Boko Haram is weakened.

What do you see as the future of Boko Haram in the region and what will this mean for counterinsurgency efforts?

The most likely scenario, in my view, is that Boko Haram will become a sort of criminal network with several small independent leaders. This network will comprise of fake religious leaders, real traffickers and criminals and remain in the area for several years until the states of the region resolve to adopt an African Marshall plan to boost trans-regional development: that will require investestment in social sectors such as schools, health centers; and development of high intensity labor force projects in the region to sustain fishing and agriculture around Lake Chad, to support the local industrial sector and build roads between and within provinces of the area. All these should be accompanied by a de-radicalization and counter radicalization project at the transregional level.

Hans De Marie Heungoup is Cameroon analyst at the International Crisis Group. He conducts field research and provides analysis on prevailing security, social, legal, governance and political issues; proposes policy initiatives for governmental, intergovernmental, political, and nongovernmental stakeholders to address and resolve sources of conflict; and prepares detailed reports and briefing papers setting out relevant research findings and policy recommendations.

ERDOGAN HAS A DREAM: In His Younger Years, Dreaming of Conquest?

Very powerful speech by Shaykh Maulana Nazim el Kibrisi at a stadium in Anvers, Belgium - 1994.

In the audience is:

Necmettin Erbakan, head of the Milli Gorus movement and Prime Minister of Turkey.
Tayyip Erdogan, head of the AKP party, former mayor of Istanbul and current Prime Minister of Turkey.

Sevki Yilmaz, member of parliament from the banned Refah Party from the province of Rize in Turkey.

Abdullah Gul, current president of Turkey
 Courtesy of: OSMANLI DERGAHI-New York
Sheikh Abdul Kerim el Kibrisi naksibendi naqshbandi