I don't know why so many commentators (Wajahat Ali for example) are stating that Pakistan's nuclear program began with General Zia-al-Haqq. It began when Khan returned from Amsterdam in the mid-1970s when Zulfiqar Bhutto was ruling PM.
AQ Khan was upset like all Pakistanis at the time over India's gaining the bomb. He knew he had the ability to fix that problem by stealing secrets from the nuclear sites in Holland. He wrote them down in his notebook, secretly, and proceeded to gain Bhutto's approval for the start of Pakistan's nuclear program.
This is all documented in Gordon Corera's book "Shopping for Bombs." A must read on Pakistan's nuclear history.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Huckabee a Radical Islamist
Look at this nut; he's clearly in cahoots with the Taliban. Why hasn't Fox News shown this despicable man for who he truly is?
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.
"It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.
The former governor, who rallied Christian evangelicals to make him a surprise force in Iowa, has put his faith front and center in his campaign. His stump speech sounds like a pastor's pitch from a pulpit. Campaign ads emphasize faith and call him a Christian leader. He frequently quotes Bible verses.
As his fortunes have improved, Huckabee has faced a drumbeat of questions and criticism about his gubernatorial record and the role of faith in his administration. He also has made some missteps while trying to fend off a challenge — and critical TV ads — from Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Mormon whose faith unsettles some religious conservatives.
In the NBC interview, Huckabee, a longtime opponent of legalized abortion, said he does not believe that women should be punished for undergoing the procedure, but that doctors might need to face sanctions.
"I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead," Huckabee said.
He also argued that his emphasis on his Christian beliefs does not mean he's alienating atheists. He said, if elected, he would have no problem appointing atheists to government posts.
"The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict," Huckabee said.
Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas.
"I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple," he said. "You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol."
Pipes and Spencer on Obama
Daniel Pipes' latest entry on his web site surmises whether Muslims would think Barack Obama would be seen as an apostate if they figured he had been a Muslim at some point in his life.
What Pipes is implying is whether psychotic Muslims - coaxed by Pipes and his ilk- would try to assassinate America's next would be president due to the notion that he might possibly be viewed as a traitor to their faith.
Doesn't he have better things to write about? At least more important things?
And here we have Robert Spencer again babbling on about "Islamic Law" again. He knows so much because he's quoting from the Reliance - an important Shafi'i fiqh work -but by no means the sole authority on the rules of the Islamic religion. Again, as I am always wont to say, our religion has a broad set of rules and apostasy has rules to it whereby many Muslim scholars differ. Spencer makes the mistake that extremist Khawarij make - they have one book or a collection of books and they think they can derive the rules of the religion from them.
It's a good thing no one has given Spencer ijaza to give fatwa because if someone had Barack Obama might be in trouble.
What Pipes is implying is whether psychotic Muslims - coaxed by Pipes and his ilk- would try to assassinate America's next would be president due to the notion that he might possibly be viewed as a traitor to their faith.
Doesn't he have better things to write about? At least more important things?
And here we have Robert Spencer again babbling on about "Islamic Law" again. He knows so much because he's quoting from the Reliance - an important Shafi'i fiqh work -but by no means the sole authority on the rules of the Islamic religion. Again, as I am always wont to say, our religion has a broad set of rules and apostasy has rules to it whereby many Muslim scholars differ. Spencer makes the mistake that extremist Khawarij make - they have one book or a collection of books and they think they can derive the rules of the religion from them.
It's a good thing no one has given Spencer ijaza to give fatwa because if someone had Barack Obama might be in trouble.
Tariq Ali on Pakistan - Must Read
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=14611
A very informative interview with Tariq Ali by the wonderful folks at Democracy Now.
A very informative interview with Tariq Ali by the wonderful folks at Democracy Now.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Bhutto's Son to Lead PPP
Wow, it all makes sense now. Benazir Bhutto's 19 year old son, Bilawal Zardari, will become the leader of the Pakistan People's Party. "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge," he said. Right, because you were democratically elected to lead the PPP?
That's called a monarchy or something along those lines. How can democracy be the best revenge when Bhutto assigned her husband to take over the party leadership instead of allowing members of the PPP itself to designate their leader? And then he goes ahead and gives it to his son.
That is total hypocrisy. Bhutto's last will and testament demonstrates fully her disregard for the democratic process by placing the PPP's leadership in the hands of her corrupt family.
What type of signal does that send to the people of Pakistan? It tells them very clearly what democracy means in the real world - just more of the same.
That's called a monarchy or something along those lines. How can democracy be the best revenge when Bhutto assigned her husband to take over the party leadership instead of allowing members of the PPP itself to designate their leader? And then he goes ahead and gives it to his son.
That is total hypocrisy. Bhutto's last will and testament demonstrates fully her disregard for the democratic process by placing the PPP's leadership in the hands of her corrupt family.
What type of signal does that send to the people of Pakistan? It tells them very clearly what democracy means in the real world - just more of the same.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Zionism Loses Again
Not a shred of evidence. I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court so Pipes, Kaufman and every other Zionist idiot can have their bubbles burst.
$156M Terrorism Damage Award Thrown Out
CHICAGO (AP) — A federal appeals court overturned a $156 million award Friday against U.S.-based Muslim activists for their involvement in the terrorist death of an American teenager in the West Bank more than a decade ago.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge in the case had failed to require the parents of 17-year-old David Boim to properly show a link between the boy's death and the fundraising activities of the charities.
Because of that error, it sent the case back for a possible new trial.
Attorneys for the parents, Stanley and Joyce Boim, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
The Boims had sued the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development; the American Muslim Society, also known as the Islamic Association for Palestine; the Quranic Literacy Institute of suburban Oak Lawn; and an alleged Hamas fundraiser.
Their son, a yeshiva student, was gunned down in 1996 while waiting with other students at a bus stop in Beit El, on the West Bank.
All the defendants denied financing terrorism.
In the 2004 trial, a federal court jury had set damages at $52 million. A U.S. magistrate tripled the amount in accord with U.S. anti-terrorism law. It was the first in which jurors awarded damages from U.S.-based charities accused of bankrolling Hamas, Boim attorney Nathan Lewin said at the time.
The couple, who had moved to Jerusalem in 1985, filed the suit under a federal law permitting American victims of terrorism overseas to seek damages against organizations that raise funds for terrorists in the U.S.
The alleged Hamas fundraiser cited in the suit, Muhammad Salah, was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying under oath on a questionnaire stemming from the Boims' lawsuit. The jury, however, acquitted Salah of taking part in a racketeering conspiracy aimed at bankrolling Hamas. He was sentenced in July to 21 months in federal prison.
The Aftermath: Will Pakistan Fall Apart?
Benazir Bhutto was the latest victim of suicidal terrorism. She and twenty or so of her supporters were decimated by a terrorist who is likely linked to a Wahhabi terror organization known as Lashkar i Jhangvi. The apparent response of this organization to the operation that killed Bhutto was a fax sent to an Italian news agency stating that America's latest puppet has been taken down.
If not already apparent, US foreign policy is flushing very quickly down the toilet. Everywhere one looks American interests are being harmed or threatened. World hegemony does not seem to be a game us Americans are good at. Islamic radicals are looking more and more powerful with every bomb blast and assassination they pull off, while the United States continues to languish in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight for operations in either of those two nations.
And then there is Pakistan. The only Muslim country with nuclear weapons. I read a report once that a bear was once able to sneak into a Russian nuclear facility without security detecting it. Pakistan's nuclear materials likely have even less security surrounding them. Add to that the fact that the Pakistani military likely has no clue how to handle the reactions of the Pakistani public after Bhutto's death as well as how to handle militants within Pakistan who are most certainly planning on how to capitalize on their recent and successful political move.
Extremism is being played out on both ends of the world. In Washington, American policy in Pakistan for the last twenty odd years is blowing back. The radicals the Americans and Pakistanis recruited to fight the Russians have simply reemerged to become their worst nightmare. These are men who are loyal to no one and who believe that no one, whether man, woman or child, is allowed to stand in their way of a Utopian Islamic society in their warped understanding of Islamic teachings.
Washington and Bhutto wanted the same thing: her back in the throne in Pakistan. The radicals understood what that could potentially mean for them and so they did the logical thing - they killed her. The Bush administration wanted to bring back a woman to power who was not once, but twice removed from her position due to corruption charges; a person who actively funded and recognized the people who would eventually kill her; and they wanted to bring her back into power in spite of the fact that she had corruption charges against her by her own nation. These things were simply waved away as Musharraf was forced to allow her back into Pakistan as he created an ordinance that removed the charges from her and her husband.
Throughout the history of Islam the Khawarij have been curtailed and defeated. First by Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, and then by the Ottomans in the 18th century when the Wahhabis spread throughout Arabia. Now the Khawarij are running rampant throughout the world and they have found a new safe haven in Pakistan. US foreign policy has exacerbated the problem of the Khawarij and has brought them undue attention. Pakistan now faces a threat unlike any it has ever faced. It has almost no central leadership. There is a lack of unity that could allow extremists to gain immense power. Most Pakistanis are fed up with extremism and terrorism, but who will lead the majority? Musharraf cares more to keep himself alive than bother to fight the extremists his country has always nurtured.
US foreign policy is coming full circle now. So is Pakistan's infatuation with supporting radical groups. It looks as though the Pakistani people will ultimately be the ones who will suffer, but who will also have to fix the misdeeds of their own government and ours.
If not already apparent, US foreign policy is flushing very quickly down the toilet. Everywhere one looks American interests are being harmed or threatened. World hegemony does not seem to be a game us Americans are good at. Islamic radicals are looking more and more powerful with every bomb blast and assassination they pull off, while the United States continues to languish in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight for operations in either of those two nations.
And then there is Pakistan. The only Muslim country with nuclear weapons. I read a report once that a bear was once able to sneak into a Russian nuclear facility without security detecting it. Pakistan's nuclear materials likely have even less security surrounding them. Add to that the fact that the Pakistani military likely has no clue how to handle the reactions of the Pakistani public after Bhutto's death as well as how to handle militants within Pakistan who are most certainly planning on how to capitalize on their recent and successful political move.
Extremism is being played out on both ends of the world. In Washington, American policy in Pakistan for the last twenty odd years is blowing back. The radicals the Americans and Pakistanis recruited to fight the Russians have simply reemerged to become their worst nightmare. These are men who are loyal to no one and who believe that no one, whether man, woman or child, is allowed to stand in their way of a Utopian Islamic society in their warped understanding of Islamic teachings.
Washington and Bhutto wanted the same thing: her back in the throne in Pakistan. The radicals understood what that could potentially mean for them and so they did the logical thing - they killed her. The Bush administration wanted to bring back a woman to power who was not once, but twice removed from her position due to corruption charges; a person who actively funded and recognized the people who would eventually kill her; and they wanted to bring her back into power in spite of the fact that she had corruption charges against her by her own nation. These things were simply waved away as Musharraf was forced to allow her back into Pakistan as he created an ordinance that removed the charges from her and her husband.
Throughout the history of Islam the Khawarij have been curtailed and defeated. First by Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, and then by the Ottomans in the 18th century when the Wahhabis spread throughout Arabia. Now the Khawarij are running rampant throughout the world and they have found a new safe haven in Pakistan. US foreign policy has exacerbated the problem of the Khawarij and has brought them undue attention. Pakistan now faces a threat unlike any it has ever faced. It has almost no central leadership. There is a lack of unity that could allow extremists to gain immense power. Most Pakistanis are fed up with extremism and terrorism, but who will lead the majority? Musharraf cares more to keep himself alive than bother to fight the extremists his country has always nurtured.
US foreign policy is coming full circle now. So is Pakistan's infatuation with supporting radical groups. It looks as though the Pakistani people will ultimately be the ones who will suffer, but who will also have to fix the misdeeds of their own government and ours.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
DRC Among Top Ten Most Under Reported Humanitarian Stories of 2007
Attention Planet Earth...
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/reports/topten/Conditions Worsen in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
The headlines emerging from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2007 paid scant attention to the humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in the eastern province of North Kivu. More than a year after the first democratic elections in decades were supposed to bring stability to this conflict-ridden region, fighting between armed groups has continued in North Kivu.
Supported by MONUC, the UN force, the government is now in open combat with the forces of rebel leader Laurent Nkunda. A number of different groups such as the Mai Mai and the Rwandan Hutu rebels of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are involved in the fighting.
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes in the past year, many of whom have been displaced multiple times. The displaced are often forced to hide in the forest, with little access to food or basic health care and under constant threat of attack from the various armed groups. With few avenues to receive health care, displaced Congolese are increasingly vulnerable to easily treatable diseases and conditions such as malnutrition, malaria, respiratory infections, and obstetrical complications. Outbreaks of cholera have struck Rutshuru and Goma, the provincial capital of North Kivu.
MSF teams have reinforced their activities to try to meet the increasing medical needs, but fighting and insecurity make it difficult for humanitarian workers to deliver assistance to the population. Large areas remain inaccessible, with many roads simply cut off by the insecurity.
One particularly disturbing aspect of DRC's conflict is the alarmingly high rate of sexual violence. In North Kivu, MSF cared for more than 2,375 victims of sexual violence from January through October 2007. In the DRC's Ituri district, the setting of conflict between different armed groups from those operating in North Kivu, 150,000 internally displaced people are still unable to return home. In a state of utter destitution, they remain vulnerable to exploitation and assaults.
Through the Bon Marché hospital in Bunia, capital of the Ituri region, MSF has treated 7,400 rape victims over the last four years. More than one-third of these people were admitted over the last 18 months. MSF also responded this year to a number of disease outbreaks in other provinces, including an epidemic of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in southern West Kasai province.
The Demographic Argument is Inherently Racist
An Interview with Hanan Ashrawi - The Demographic Argument is Inherently Racist
12.17.2007 | Bitterlemmons.org
By Bitterlemons
bitterlemons: Israel's demand to be recognized as a "Jewish state" at Annapolis caused an uproar among Palestinians. This doesn't seem like a new demand, so why the uproar?
Ashrawi: It is new in a sense. It is new as a prerequisite for negotiations. The demand has always been the recognition of Israel. Then Israel added the recognition of Israel's "right to exist", and then the recognition of it's right to exist as a "Jewish state". But when the PLO recognized Israel in 1993 there was an assumption that that was it, in the context of a two-state solution and international law and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and Security Council Resolution 242.
This issue of the Jewishness of the state came up recently mainly because of the so-called demographic issue--which to me is an inherently racist issue--which became the central motivation for the two-state solution among the Israeli right, including Ariel Sharon. The fear of the demographic balance, projections for the birthrate and so on, led people to this position, and now Israel wants to ensure that there is always a Jewish majority.
bitterlemons: Why is this position unacceptable to the Palestinians?
Ashrawi: Once you start raising this issue it means that you want to eliminate the Palestinian refugees' right of return because they happen not to be Jewish. Israel sees the return of Palestinian refugees as a demographic way of destroying the state of Israel. Hence it has become a main prerequisite for qualification for the "good housekeeping seal": if you are a Palestinian who adheres to the right of return you are not qualified for negotiations or as an interlocutor because you want to destroy Israeli demographically.
It is also unacceptable to the Palestinian citizens of Israel. These are the people saying Israel should be a state for all its citizens. The irony is that this is seen as something entirely unacceptable by Israel. But every state should be a state for all its citizens. It cannot be a state for a select number of citizens depending on ethnicity or religious affiliation. So in a sense, Israel also wants the Palestinians to negate the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel and ensure that they remain second or third class citizens.
Finally, there is a question of principle. People recognize states. They do not recognize the right of any state to exist. The moment you recognize a state you recognize its right to exist. But you don't recognize the nature of the regime or form of governance. I don't only recognize the US as long as it is maintains a democratic, presidential system, France as long as it is a secular republic or Iran as long as it is an Islamic state. It is ironic that at a time when we as Palestinians are struggling to have a state that's pluralistic, democratic, open, inclusive and tolerant and are fighting internally against absolutist and exclusionary ideologies, we are asked by Israel to accept their form of exclusionary ideology.
bitterlemons: Israel claims that upholding the right of return would be the end of a two-state solution because two Palestinian states would essentially be created. Is this a fair position?
Ashrawi: A right is a right and it cannot be negotiated. You do not enter negotiations having relinquished a right and violated international law. You have to uphold international law, recognize rights and then negotiate their implementation.
It is Israel that is destroying the two-state solution with its settlements and by refusing to accept a viable democratic state on the 1967 borders. There are now voices increasingly calling for a one-state solution and democracy as the answer, with one voice and one vote.
To me, the demographic argument is by definition racist. I think Palestinians have the right to independence, statehood and self-determination as a legal and political imperative. It is not an issue that has to become a threat or that we formulate in response to somebody else's position.
bitterlemons: Israel says the idea of two states for two peoples is embodied by UNGA Resolution 181. Is this your interpretation?
Ashrawi: The language used was a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state". If they want to accept 181, then let us take all of it. Then we go back to the whole partition plan. We have agreed to give them 78 percent of historic Palestine. If they want to use 181, then they can have 54 percent of Palestine and then they can say they have a "Jewish state".
bitterlemons: But is that your understanding of 181? Does it call for this kind of ethnic division?
Ashrawi: No it doesn't. But it describes the state as Jewish and that's why Israel wants to use it. 181 was a response to the Jewish Question. It was decided to give part of Palestine to Jews for as long as it would not endanger the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population. Now Jews have a state. But does this mean that this state can be exclusionary and discriminatory? Does it mean that this is the language that should be used in twenty-first century? If they want to use 181, let's take it in its totality.
bitterlemons: In view of the apparent US endorsement of the Israeli demand, what can Palestinians do?
Ashrawi: We don't have to accept the Israeli demand. If anyone came up and said the US should be legitimate only as a Christian state there would be an outcry. But the fact that the US took their cue from the Israelis and adopted Israeli language is not new. It doesn't mean we have to accept it.
bitterlemons: But how significant is it?
Ashrawi: It depends on how you pursue it. It's significant in the sense that the US adopted the Israeli position, but this is not new. But will it be translated into concrete steps when it comes to refugees, or the suggestion by some Israeli racists of a land swap based on demography? Would the US endorse such racist solutions? Would they accept the negation of the rights of Palestinians? That's the issue.
bitterlemons: Do the Americans understand that this is the issue?
Ashrawi: If they don't, they have no business mediating. The implications of these words are enormous. The Palestinians see this as a way of forcing them to accept the Israeli narrative and therefore negate the Palestinian narrative and Palestinian legitimacy. If you want a peace process you have to incorporate the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative.
12.17.2007 | Bitterlemmons.org
By Bitterlemons
bitterlemons: Israel's demand to be recognized as a "Jewish state" at Annapolis caused an uproar among Palestinians. This doesn't seem like a new demand, so why the uproar?
Ashrawi: It is new in a sense. It is new as a prerequisite for negotiations. The demand has always been the recognition of Israel. Then Israel added the recognition of Israel's "right to exist", and then the recognition of it's right to exist as a "Jewish state". But when the PLO recognized Israel in 1993 there was an assumption that that was it, in the context of a two-state solution and international law and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and Security Council Resolution 242.
This issue of the Jewishness of the state came up recently mainly because of the so-called demographic issue--which to me is an inherently racist issue--which became the central motivation for the two-state solution among the Israeli right, including Ariel Sharon. The fear of the demographic balance, projections for the birthrate and so on, led people to this position, and now Israel wants to ensure that there is always a Jewish majority.
bitterlemons: Why is this position unacceptable to the Palestinians?
Ashrawi: Once you start raising this issue it means that you want to eliminate the Palestinian refugees' right of return because they happen not to be Jewish. Israel sees the return of Palestinian refugees as a demographic way of destroying the state of Israel. Hence it has become a main prerequisite for qualification for the "good housekeeping seal": if you are a Palestinian who adheres to the right of return you are not qualified for negotiations or as an interlocutor because you want to destroy Israeli demographically.
It is also unacceptable to the Palestinian citizens of Israel. These are the people saying Israel should be a state for all its citizens. The irony is that this is seen as something entirely unacceptable by Israel. But every state should be a state for all its citizens. It cannot be a state for a select number of citizens depending on ethnicity or religious affiliation. So in a sense, Israel also wants the Palestinians to negate the right of Palestinian citizens of Israel and ensure that they remain second or third class citizens.
Finally, there is a question of principle. People recognize states. They do not recognize the right of any state to exist. The moment you recognize a state you recognize its right to exist. But you don't recognize the nature of the regime or form of governance. I don't only recognize the US as long as it is maintains a democratic, presidential system, France as long as it is a secular republic or Iran as long as it is an Islamic state. It is ironic that at a time when we as Palestinians are struggling to have a state that's pluralistic, democratic, open, inclusive and tolerant and are fighting internally against absolutist and exclusionary ideologies, we are asked by Israel to accept their form of exclusionary ideology.
bitterlemons: Israel claims that upholding the right of return would be the end of a two-state solution because two Palestinian states would essentially be created. Is this a fair position?
Ashrawi: A right is a right and it cannot be negotiated. You do not enter negotiations having relinquished a right and violated international law. You have to uphold international law, recognize rights and then negotiate their implementation.
It is Israel that is destroying the two-state solution with its settlements and by refusing to accept a viable democratic state on the 1967 borders. There are now voices increasingly calling for a one-state solution and democracy as the answer, with one voice and one vote.
To me, the demographic argument is by definition racist. I think Palestinians have the right to independence, statehood and self-determination as a legal and political imperative. It is not an issue that has to become a threat or that we formulate in response to somebody else's position.
bitterlemons: Israel says the idea of two states for two peoples is embodied by UNGA Resolution 181. Is this your interpretation?
Ashrawi: The language used was a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state". If they want to accept 181, then let us take all of it. Then we go back to the whole partition plan. We have agreed to give them 78 percent of historic Palestine. If they want to use 181, then they can have 54 percent of Palestine and then they can say they have a "Jewish state".
bitterlemons: But is that your understanding of 181? Does it call for this kind of ethnic division?
Ashrawi: No it doesn't. But it describes the state as Jewish and that's why Israel wants to use it. 181 was a response to the Jewish Question. It was decided to give part of Palestine to Jews for as long as it would not endanger the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population. Now Jews have a state. But does this mean that this state can be exclusionary and discriminatory? Does it mean that this is the language that should be used in twenty-first century? If they want to use 181, let's take it in its totality.
bitterlemons: In view of the apparent US endorsement of the Israeli demand, what can Palestinians do?
Ashrawi: We don't have to accept the Israeli demand. If anyone came up and said the US should be legitimate only as a Christian state there would be an outcry. But the fact that the US took their cue from the Israelis and adopted Israeli language is not new. It doesn't mean we have to accept it.
bitterlemons: But how significant is it?
Ashrawi: It depends on how you pursue it. It's significant in the sense that the US adopted the Israeli position, but this is not new. But will it be translated into concrete steps when it comes to refugees, or the suggestion by some Israeli racists of a land swap based on demography? Would the US endorse such racist solutions? Would they accept the negation of the rights of Palestinians? That's the issue.
bitterlemons: Do the Americans understand that this is the issue?
Ashrawi: If they don't, they have no business mediating. The implications of these words are enormous. The Palestinians see this as a way of forcing them to accept the Israeli narrative and therefore negate the Palestinian narrative and Palestinian legitimacy. If you want a peace process you have to incorporate the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative.
Bhutto Assassination
Some reflections on Benazir Bhutto's death:
1. I have to start off with my recent perceptions of her. She was a corrupt politician who was more interested in her political legacy than in the welfare of her nation and people. President Bush said today that Bhutto was someone who fought against terrorism. She did so, conveniently, post 9-11. During the mid 1990s she was openly pro-Taliban as the Pakistani government was one of the few nations in the world that recognized that neo-Khawarij regime.
2. Her death could cause major problems for Pakistan, but I think Musharraf will be smart about this and will likely move to some sort of martial law system in order to curb violence and unrest. He needs to postpone elections only briefly because otherwise his opponents will claim he is attempting to block the political process.
3. I was surprised somewhat by the coverage of Bhutto in the US press this morning. CNN changed her picture three times this morning around 8:45 AM. Every picture tried to portray her as some sort of fallen angel. Again, this is a woman who sold out her people in order to increase her bank account as well as killing her political opponents.
4. Pakistan and Democracy: what happens now? Nawaz Sharif is a nobody. Musharraf is on thin ice. Who will lead Pakistan? It's a very grim situation there, but one thing is for certain: most Pakistanis are moderate people who are inclined to Western values of democracy and freedom in their truest sense. They are progressive and liberal in many facets. Extremism does not have a great hold in Pakistan, but what should be rightfully feared is that someone in the military who is pro-Taliban & al-Qaeda will take over as Musharraf did. I don't think that's a likely possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Pakistanis need to regroup and really rally for democracy.
5. I am disgusted with the US media. Their coverage of Bhutto as some sort of martyr is despicable and inappropriate. Man, she really did a good job of portraying herself as some sort of beacon of hope for Pakistan. This woman was liable to be arrested at any moment by Interpol because of all the money laundering she and her husband were involved in with 3 to 4 different countries. She was a crook, plain and simple, yet our wonderful press is making her out to be the next Mother Teresa. This is like if Michael Vick was trying to run for Senator of Georgia ten years from now and then he was murdered and all anyone was talking about was how great a football player he was without any mention of his dog fighting crimes. This is so Orwellian.
6. Bhutto's legacy: The impression she has left is one of a woman standing up for democracy and fighting against extremism. This is how she will likely be seen until Armageddon. Dissidents and progressives who actually know something about her history will know better. She fought for democracy when convenient for her, but when she was in power assassinations of opponents and corruption were the way of life for her. She was a crook and while she did not deserve such a horrible ending to her life we should all remember that this is a person who cared only for herself and her bank account.
7. My research at Harvard led me to believe that Bhutto would not last long in Pakistan. Unfortunately for her my research proved correct. Musharraf barely made it out alive on two major assassinations attempts a few years ago, while he has had many others. Musharraf's security was arranged by the Pakistani Army and the attempts on his life demonstrated that the Army had been infiltrated by Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers. So if he had the best security around and was almost killed then how could Bhutto possibly stay alive? She didn't as we unfortunately see today.
We are from God and to Him we return.
1. I have to start off with my recent perceptions of her. She was a corrupt politician who was more interested in her political legacy than in the welfare of her nation and people. President Bush said today that Bhutto was someone who fought against terrorism. She did so, conveniently, post 9-11. During the mid 1990s she was openly pro-Taliban as the Pakistani government was one of the few nations in the world that recognized that neo-Khawarij regime.
2. Her death could cause major problems for Pakistan, but I think Musharraf will be smart about this and will likely move to some sort of martial law system in order to curb violence and unrest. He needs to postpone elections only briefly because otherwise his opponents will claim he is attempting to block the political process.
3. I was surprised somewhat by the coverage of Bhutto in the US press this morning. CNN changed her picture three times this morning around 8:45 AM. Every picture tried to portray her as some sort of fallen angel. Again, this is a woman who sold out her people in order to increase her bank account as well as killing her political opponents.
4. Pakistan and Democracy: what happens now? Nawaz Sharif is a nobody. Musharraf is on thin ice. Who will lead Pakistan? It's a very grim situation there, but one thing is for certain: most Pakistanis are moderate people who are inclined to Western values of democracy and freedom in their truest sense. They are progressive and liberal in many facets. Extremism does not have a great hold in Pakistan, but what should be rightfully feared is that someone in the military who is pro-Taliban & al-Qaeda will take over as Musharraf did. I don't think that's a likely possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Pakistanis need to regroup and really rally for democracy.
5. I am disgusted with the US media. Their coverage of Bhutto as some sort of martyr is despicable and inappropriate. Man, she really did a good job of portraying herself as some sort of beacon of hope for Pakistan. This woman was liable to be arrested at any moment by Interpol because of all the money laundering she and her husband were involved in with 3 to 4 different countries. She was a crook, plain and simple, yet our wonderful press is making her out to be the next Mother Teresa. This is like if Michael Vick was trying to run for Senator of Georgia ten years from now and then he was murdered and all anyone was talking about was how great a football player he was without any mention of his dog fighting crimes. This is so Orwellian.
6. Bhutto's legacy: The impression she has left is one of a woman standing up for democracy and fighting against extremism. This is how she will likely be seen until Armageddon. Dissidents and progressives who actually know something about her history will know better. She fought for democracy when convenient for her, but when she was in power assassinations of opponents and corruption were the way of life for her. She was a crook and while she did not deserve such a horrible ending to her life we should all remember that this is a person who cared only for herself and her bank account.
7. My research at Harvard led me to believe that Bhutto would not last long in Pakistan. Unfortunately for her my research proved correct. Musharraf barely made it out alive on two major assassinations attempts a few years ago, while he has had many others. Musharraf's security was arranged by the Pakistani Army and the attempts on his life demonstrated that the Army had been infiltrated by Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers. So if he had the best security around and was almost killed then how could Bhutto possibly stay alive? She didn't as we unfortunately see today.
We are from God and to Him we return.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Condi on Hamas and Gaza
Most Muslims around the world probably see the Bush administration as criminal, but would likely be willing to work with it in order to secure peace.
The Bush administration wouldn't agree with such an idea it seems.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the problems the people of Gaza are suffering from are Hamas's fault. "The responsibility for what is happening in Gaza should be put directly on the shoulders of Hamas," Rice said.
That's an interesting statement. "It is the policies of Hamas that have led to its own isolation and by implication the Gaza as well," Rice added.
The responsibility of what is occurring in Gaza is actually Israel's responsibility, not Hamas'. Israel is the occupying force there. They bear full responsibility, no matter what Condi thinks. It's noticeable that she said "should be," as opposed to "is." Condi knows better than that. She knows full well why the people of Gaza are suffering.
Why are they suffering? It is not due to "the policies of Hamas," as Rice claims, but due to US and Israeli policies. You can read reports from certain human rights organizations to gain context of why and how Gaza is being systematically isolated and blockaded. T
he Palestinian people voted for Hamas in their elections in 2006. The US and Israel did not like their choice in voting in a fair and free election and so they refused to acknowledge the values they like to consistently espouse in public - freedom and democracy. The Palestinians demonstrated their freedom and democracy by voting for Hamas instead of Fatah - the corrupt organization that had brought nothing to its constituents. They are now paying the price for doing so.
What has Hamas done to deserve Condi's finger pointing? They resist Israeli aggression, will not give away Palestinian land as is hoped Mahmood Abbas will, and they assert their own national aspirations, which is a major no-no in the US grand imperial strategy. If weaker nations think they can be independent of the US then they end up like Vietnam, Cuba, or Nicaragua - bombed, blockaded, boycotted, etc., until they decide to reenter "society" on the US's terms.
Hamas enacted a ceasefire with Israel - meaning no more suicide bombings - in 2005. Israel increased its barbarity as Hamas decided to tone down its violence. Yet it is Hamas which deserves the blame of Condi Rice. Go figure.
The Bush administration wouldn't agree with such an idea it seems.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the problems the people of Gaza are suffering from are Hamas's fault. "The responsibility for what is happening in Gaza should be put directly on the shoulders of Hamas," Rice said.
That's an interesting statement. "It is the policies of Hamas that have led to its own isolation and by implication the Gaza as well," Rice added.
The responsibility of what is occurring in Gaza is actually Israel's responsibility, not Hamas'. Israel is the occupying force there. They bear full responsibility, no matter what Condi thinks. It's noticeable that she said "should be," as opposed to "is." Condi knows better than that. She knows full well why the people of Gaza are suffering.
Why are they suffering? It is not due to "the policies of Hamas," as Rice claims, but due to US and Israeli policies. You can read reports from certain human rights organizations to gain context of why and how Gaza is being systematically isolated and blockaded. T
he Palestinian people voted for Hamas in their elections in 2006. The US and Israel did not like their choice in voting in a fair and free election and so they refused to acknowledge the values they like to consistently espouse in public - freedom and democracy. The Palestinians demonstrated their freedom and democracy by voting for Hamas instead of Fatah - the corrupt organization that had brought nothing to its constituents. They are now paying the price for doing so.
What has Hamas done to deserve Condi's finger pointing? They resist Israeli aggression, will not give away Palestinian land as is hoped Mahmood Abbas will, and they assert their own national aspirations, which is a major no-no in the US grand imperial strategy. If weaker nations think they can be independent of the US then they end up like Vietnam, Cuba, or Nicaragua - bombed, blockaded, boycotted, etc., until they decide to reenter "society" on the US's terms.
Hamas enacted a ceasefire with Israel - meaning no more suicide bombings - in 2005. Israel increased its barbarity as Hamas decided to tone down its violence. Yet it is Hamas which deserves the blame of Condi Rice. Go figure.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Liberty City 7 Mistrial
Alas, our government loses again in attempting to convict dumb guys doing dumb things of very serious charges. If they want to try dumb people then when is Joe Kaufman going to be thrown in court on charges of supporting Kahane and wearing wussy hyper blue contact lenses?
From the Broward New Times:
See also: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1213libertycity7,0,6695433.story
From the Broward New Times:
See also: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1213libertycity7,0,6695433.story
Now It's The Liberty City Six
Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:04:15 AM
After a joke of a federal trial, a beleaguered federal jury acquitted one member of the Liberty City Seven and failed to reach a verdict on the others (here's the Sentinel version and Herald story).
Now Judge Joan Lenard has called for a new trial on January 7. Seriously, we're going to start this farce up again in three weeks? Is the jury going to hear the truth about the informants this time?
Government, do us all a favor and give it a rest. The people have spoken: Your case isn't convincing. Go catch some real terrorists and put this sad saga behind you.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Exposing Robert Spencer
There's scholarship and then there's Dershowitz scholarship. Dershowitz scholarship is shoddy at best, maliciously devious at its worse. Robert Spencer, the head of Jihad Watch, falls under the latter category. He follows in the footsteps of other "anti-terrorism experts" like the disgraced Steve Emerson. Spencer, whose knowledge of the Qur'an extends to translations by Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and Muhammad Asad, doesn't seem to rely on the more authoritative exegesis of Qurtubi, ibn al-Arabi, or Imam al-Tabari, to name a few. I guess he didn't learn that at UNC when he was studying the nature of Jesus Christ.
In any case, Spencer has personally studied Islam and has focused much of his attention on issues focused upon the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule as well as on what he terms the "jihad ideology" - radical Islam, extremism, etc. Spencer declares that jihadists have a sounder theological framework based upon classical Islamic sources. He also asserts that Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens during the period of classical Islam. All of this is easily refutable. Spencer likes to portray himself as a calm, smooth intellectual who has really dug deep into classical Islamic scholarship to discover and expose the real dark nature of Islam. All he really does in essence is demonstrate his lack of qualifications for such an endeavor.
For the purposes of this blog I will simply show a few of Spencer's scholarly blunders. Later on I'll show more. I'll probably never get around to his books because I'm not about to waste money on garbage so I'll just wait until I get back into school and see if my library carries his garbage.
The first one is about an article he wrote about Surah al-Tawba (Chapter 29). In this article (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/09/blogging-the-qur%E2%80%99an-sura-9-%E2%80%9Crepentance%E2%80%9D-verse-29-part-2/), Spencer cites a pact between "the Caliph Umar" whom Spencer says lived from "634 to 644" and a Christian community. Based upon these dates, Spencer seems to be suggesting that the pact was between Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second khalifah) and a Christian community. He cites ibn Kathir as his source for this pact. The pact is harsh on the Christians, by today's standards.
Now, as any historian should know, you don't just take something at face value. You must investigate whether your primary source is authentic or not by studying the secondary literature. Spencer apparently did not do that because all I had to do was Google "Pact of Umar" and lo and behold I got a nice article about the pact on Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not exactly scholarly, but I don't have the resources as of now to do a more serious investigation).
Whatever our opinions about Wikipedia, it does offer important information, especially in regards to this subject. So, firstly, Spencer says that it was the Caliph Umar who ruled from 634-644. Accordingly, that is incorrect as Wikipedia cites a number of Western specialists on Islamic history stating that:
"Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs."
So, it was not written by Umar ibn al-Khattab as Spencer erroneously suggests. Second, the document itself is under scrutiny by Western historians, something Spencer wholly misses. Instead, Umar ibn al-Khattab has his own authentic pact with the Christian community of Syria when the early Muslims conquered Jerusalem. It is called the Umarriya Covenant:
"In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent. This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa’ of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed. No Jews are to live with them in Illyaa’ and it is required of the people of Illyaa’ to pay the Jizya, like the people of the cities. It is also required of them to remove the Romans from the land; and whoever amongst the people of Illyaa’ that wishes to depart with their selves and their money with the Romans, leaving their trading goods and children behind, then their selves, their trading goods and their children are secure until they reach their destination. Upon what is in this book is the word of Allah, the covenant of His Messenger, of the Khulafaa’ and of the believers if they (the people of Illyaa’) gave what was required of them of Jizya. The witnesses upon this were Khalid ibn Al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Written and passed on the 15th year (after Hijrah)."
Spencer cites the wrong Umar. He quotes a potentially fabricated document and asserts that it speaks for all of "Islamic law." He then goes on to quote radical Islamic thinkers like Syed Qutb and Mawlana Mawdudi to reinforce his argument that Muslims/Islam want to subjugate Christians and humiliate them (gee, isn't that circular logic?). He quotes only ibn Kathir as his primary classical Islam scholar, likely because that's where he found the explanation of Surah al-Tawba and because he doesn't read Arabic.
Quoting Qutb and Mawdudi is strange, indeed. If you wanted to show that Islam was truly radical then I would assume you would want to quote some great Islamic scholar from the classical period, such as Abu Hanifa or Malik - not modern Muslim activists like Qutb and Mawdudi who are well known for their hostility to non-Muslims, even some Muslims. That's like if I wanted to show why the Miami Dolphins are the greatest NFL franchise in history and I only interviewed Dan Marino and Don Shula.
Spencer goes after "Islamic law" regularly stating that because there are books or Muslim scholars who wrote harsh things about Christians and Jews a thousand years ago or even last year then that means Islam is really hostile to Jews and Christians. He fails to recognize the difference between texts and known history. Has Spencer ever wondered what the condition of Muslims were under Christians? Essentially, that's not even a subject of study because Muslims couldn't dream of living anywhere in Europe or Russia before the Enlightenment. Jews had a terribly difficult time living under Christianity, but Muslims are rarely know to have ventured into Christian lands because of the likely fact that they would have been forced to convert or killed. Christians on the other hand who lived under Islam's authority, though having to live as second class citizens, could still live and practice their faith, which was unheard of for minorities in the Christian world prior to the Enlightenment.
Were Jews and Christians treated as second class citizens under Islamic rule? By today's standards of freedom and equality, of course. Anyone with an objective outlook will see that clearly. But what is Spencer comparing? Is he comparing the 13th century Muslim world with today's world? How is that a valid comparison? If you were going to make a proper comparison you would compare the status of minorities in Europe under Christian rule with the status of minorities under Islam. How does that pan out? It's not even a comparison. Spencer knows that full well, but he likes to make faulty comparisons so he can sell books.
I will stop here. Spencer likes to focus on Surah al-Tawba quite a bit so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if God wills.
In any case, Spencer has personally studied Islam and has focused much of his attention on issues focused upon the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule as well as on what he terms the "jihad ideology" - radical Islam, extremism, etc. Spencer declares that jihadists have a sounder theological framework based upon classical Islamic sources. He also asserts that Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens during the period of classical Islam. All of this is easily refutable. Spencer likes to portray himself as a calm, smooth intellectual who has really dug deep into classical Islamic scholarship to discover and expose the real dark nature of Islam. All he really does in essence is demonstrate his lack of qualifications for such an endeavor.
For the purposes of this blog I will simply show a few of Spencer's scholarly blunders. Later on I'll show more. I'll probably never get around to his books because I'm not about to waste money on garbage so I'll just wait until I get back into school and see if my library carries his garbage.
The first one is about an article he wrote about Surah al-Tawba (Chapter 29). In this article (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/09/blogging-the-qur%E2%80%99an-sura-9-%E2%80%9Crepentance%E2%80%9D-verse-29-part-2/), Spencer cites a pact between "the Caliph Umar" whom Spencer says lived from "634 to 644" and a Christian community. Based upon these dates, Spencer seems to be suggesting that the pact was between Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second khalifah) and a Christian community. He cites ibn Kathir as his source for this pact. The pact is harsh on the Christians, by today's standards.
Now, as any historian should know, you don't just take something at face value. You must investigate whether your primary source is authentic or not by studying the secondary literature. Spencer apparently did not do that because all I had to do was Google "Pact of Umar" and lo and behold I got a nice article about the pact on Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not exactly scholarly, but I don't have the resources as of now to do a more serious investigation).
Whatever our opinions about Wikipedia, it does offer important information, especially in regards to this subject. So, firstly, Spencer says that it was the Caliph Umar who ruled from 634-644. Accordingly, that is incorrect as Wikipedia cites a number of Western specialists on Islamic history stating that:
"Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs."
So, it was not written by Umar ibn al-Khattab as Spencer erroneously suggests. Second, the document itself is under scrutiny by Western historians, something Spencer wholly misses. Instead, Umar ibn al-Khattab has his own authentic pact with the Christian community of Syria when the early Muslims conquered Jerusalem. It is called the Umarriya Covenant:
"In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent. This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa’ of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed. No Jews are to live with them in Illyaa’ and it is required of the people of Illyaa’ to pay the Jizya, like the people of the cities. It is also required of them to remove the Romans from the land; and whoever amongst the people of Illyaa’ that wishes to depart with their selves and their money with the Romans, leaving their trading goods and children behind, then their selves, their trading goods and their children are secure until they reach their destination. Upon what is in this book is the word of Allah, the covenant of His Messenger, of the Khulafaa’ and of the believers if they (the people of Illyaa’) gave what was required of them of Jizya. The witnesses upon this were Khalid ibn Al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Written and passed on the 15th year (after Hijrah)."
Spencer cites the wrong Umar. He quotes a potentially fabricated document and asserts that it speaks for all of "Islamic law." He then goes on to quote radical Islamic thinkers like Syed Qutb and Mawlana Mawdudi to reinforce his argument that Muslims/Islam want to subjugate Christians and humiliate them (gee, isn't that circular logic?). He quotes only ibn Kathir as his primary classical Islam scholar, likely because that's where he found the explanation of Surah al-Tawba and because he doesn't read Arabic.
Quoting Qutb and Mawdudi is strange, indeed. If you wanted to show that Islam was truly radical then I would assume you would want to quote some great Islamic scholar from the classical period, such as Abu Hanifa or Malik - not modern Muslim activists like Qutb and Mawdudi who are well known for their hostility to non-Muslims, even some Muslims. That's like if I wanted to show why the Miami Dolphins are the greatest NFL franchise in history and I only interviewed Dan Marino and Don Shula.
Spencer goes after "Islamic law" regularly stating that because there are books or Muslim scholars who wrote harsh things about Christians and Jews a thousand years ago or even last year then that means Islam is really hostile to Jews and Christians. He fails to recognize the difference between texts and known history. Has Spencer ever wondered what the condition of Muslims were under Christians? Essentially, that's not even a subject of study because Muslims couldn't dream of living anywhere in Europe or Russia before the Enlightenment. Jews had a terribly difficult time living under Christianity, but Muslims are rarely know to have ventured into Christian lands because of the likely fact that they would have been forced to convert or killed. Christians on the other hand who lived under Islam's authority, though having to live as second class citizens, could still live and practice their faith, which was unheard of for minorities in the Christian world prior to the Enlightenment.
Were Jews and Christians treated as second class citizens under Islamic rule? By today's standards of freedom and equality, of course. Anyone with an objective outlook will see that clearly. But what is Spencer comparing? Is he comparing the 13th century Muslim world with today's world? How is that a valid comparison? If you were going to make a proper comparison you would compare the status of minorities in Europe under Christian rule with the status of minorities under Islam. How does that pan out? It's not even a comparison. Spencer knows that full well, but he likes to make faulty comparisons so he can sell books.
I will stop here. Spencer likes to focus on Surah al-Tawba quite a bit so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if God wills.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Moon Sighting and Prayer Times
I just heard again from someone that if we want to do local moon sighting like people did a thousand years ago then we should also determine our prayer times by looking at the shadows.
Muzzamil Siddiqui also made this argument.
That's a false analogy, as Imam Hamza pointed out.
How? Due to the fact that the Sun has a set pattern of rising and setting everyday, every year. It does not change (yes, it's off by a little, but it's so insignificant that we cannot notice it). So we can create a prayer chart very easily by just observing the sun each day for one year.
The moon is not the same. Especially when we are required to physically sight the moon. The moon does not follow a set pattern each year like the sun does. It changes every year. And then we must also factor in that there is no guarantee that we will be able to see the moon on that day. This is why it's impossible to have a set calendar. We can know pretty well when the moon should be visible, but there is no guarantee as to if we will actually see it.
People think, erroneously, that this issue has to do with being backward or something - as if people who advocate for local sighting don't like technology. Dude, I love my 50" Sony HDTV. It's not about technology. In fact, we don't have any technology that can tell us when the moon will be visible. There are so many factors involved that it makes it impossible to scientifically prove that the moon will be visible at this place and time. But we can be assured of where the moon will NOT be visible - such as in Saudi Arabia on December 9th, 2007. We can know for sure where the moon will definitely not be visible, and that's no small consolation.
In all honesty, I'm not an astronomer. I know very little, but enough to understand the main issues. I don't know why this is such a big issue. It's really a simple issue - uncomplicated.
Muzzamil Siddiqui also made this argument.
That's a false analogy, as Imam Hamza pointed out.
How? Due to the fact that the Sun has a set pattern of rising and setting everyday, every year. It does not change (yes, it's off by a little, but it's so insignificant that we cannot notice it). So we can create a prayer chart very easily by just observing the sun each day for one year.
The moon is not the same. Especially when we are required to physically sight the moon. The moon does not follow a set pattern each year like the sun does. It changes every year. And then we must also factor in that there is no guarantee that we will be able to see the moon on that day. This is why it's impossible to have a set calendar. We can know pretty well when the moon should be visible, but there is no guarantee as to if we will actually see it.
People think, erroneously, that this issue has to do with being backward or something - as if people who advocate for local sighting don't like technology. Dude, I love my 50" Sony HDTV. It's not about technology. In fact, we don't have any technology that can tell us when the moon will be visible. There are so many factors involved that it makes it impossible to scientifically prove that the moon will be visible at this place and time. But we can be assured of where the moon will NOT be visible - such as in Saudi Arabia on December 9th, 2007. We can know for sure where the moon will definitely not be visible, and that's no small consolation.
In all honesty, I'm not an astronomer. I know very little, but enough to understand the main issues. I don't know why this is such a big issue. It's really a simple issue - uncomplicated.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Saudi Moon Sighting and Zulfiqar Ali Shah's "Scholarly" Paper
Amazingly, Saudi officials were able to spot the new moon of Dhul Hijjah last night making Wednesday, December 19 the tenth day of Dhul Hijjah, the Day of Arafah.
The Saudi officials were able to see the new moon despite it not having been born yet - an impressive feat of astronomy indeed. If only they could apply their miracle work to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
There's not much to say about Saudi Arabia. I don't live there. I don't know what methodology they employ (flipping a coin?) in determining the Eid dates. I live in the United States. I'm an American. I don't give a hoot about Saudi Arabia.
The beef I have though is with people who peddle their flawed Islamic scholarship - people like Zulfiqar Ali Shah, who seems to pop up out from the shadows every Eid with a new "scholarly" paper on why the Fiqh Council of North America and the Islamic Society of North America's positions on Eid are valid.
Anyone from South Florida who knows Mr. Shah is likely to turn down any of his fatwas. He's just your typical Ikhwani/Jamat Islami propaganda officer. He doesn't do real scholarship. Take a look at Imam Hamza Yusuf's and Imam Mukthar Magraoui's articles on moon sighting to see real Islamic scholarship. Imam Hamza made a fool out of Mr. Shah in demonstrating how Mr. Shah incorrectly (or maliciously) left out parts of quotes from certain Muslim scholars in order to back up his own faulty points. He took a page out of the old Dershowitz playbook.
In any case, Shah's paper, which I had the pleasure of going through tonight, makes no real argument in favor of Muslims all over the world having to, being obligated to, follow the pilgrims in Mecca. He even has to add the fine print to the end of his article stating that there is absolutely no proof, none whatsoever, whether Qur'an or hadith, that says Muslims who live in - fill in the blank- have to follow the pilgrims in Mecca. No evidence whatsoever.
He does many of us a great favor though by offering evidence in support of just following your own moon sighting. He even quotes the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who adamantly declared that there is no precedence in the history of Islam of Muslim's being obligated to follow the pilgrims in Mecca. Yes, I do think I would go with Mufti Taqi Usmani on this issue since he carries a bit more weight than Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (who?).
Some major flaws of his article, or my own short comings, were that Mr. Shah leaves all of his evidence in the original Arabic from which he quotes it. I'm sure Imam Zaid or Imam Hamza will hopefully come around and translate it all for us, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem with leaving all of his proof in Arabic is that we have no idea what he's saying. And if his previous papers are a hint, he's not exactly the most honest scholar so there's no real way of knowing as of right now for me if Mr. Shah is being truthful in his citations.
Let's say he's being honest though. Nothing he says in the article proves without any doubt that Muslims the world over must follow the pilgrims in Mecca. Nothing. He's quoting scholars from a thousand years ago about how Muslims everywhere must follow the pilgrims. Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn't because how did Imam al-Qurtubi in Andalusia know when the pilgrims were celebrating Eid al-Adha? He didn't obviously, it was impossible for him to find something like that out. So why would he write a fatwa stating something like that, if he did?
On a methodological level, as Mufti Taqi Usmani pointed out, it would make no sense for Muslims to follow local moon sighting for eleven months of the year and then all of a sudden follow Arabia for one month. Islam is a logical religion. That's not logical. That's maybe acceptable in the Ikhwan universe where suicide bombings are OK, but it's not acceptable for the normal Muslims who don't subscribe to crazy political-religious arguments that factor in "Muslim unity" more than actually celebrating the holy day on the proper date.
All of this nonsense -Saudi, ISNA, the Fiqh Council - is just more Salafi/Ikhwan propaganda. There's no real scholarship involved because these "scholars" don't follow the traditional system of Islamic scholarship like the people they like to quote. The sooner American Muslims reject their political-religious arguments, the better insha-Allah.
Mr. Shah's latest article is just another attempt at creating a false sense of security for Muslims all over the world. Celebrating Eid on the same day is not going to do anything for the Muslim Ummah. Palestinians will still be under occupation, Iraq and Afghanistan will still be in chaos, Pakistan and Bangladesh will still be crappy Third World nations, and the Israel Lobby will still dominate American foreign policy. Celebrating Eid on the same day as your brothers and sisters all over the world is not the Easy button. Making your intentions for God alone and living according to the Sunnah of His last Messenger, prayers and peace be upon him, is a good start towards alleviating many problems in this world. It's not for world domination. It's for the hereafter domination. We don't live for this world, as many of the Ikhwan seem to believe unfortunately. We live for the afterlife. This dunya is for Joe Kaufman and Alan Dershowitz and George Bush. Let them have it because they'll have no share in the next life.
The Saudi officials were able to see the new moon despite it not having been born yet - an impressive feat of astronomy indeed. If only they could apply their miracle work to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
There's not much to say about Saudi Arabia. I don't live there. I don't know what methodology they employ (flipping a coin?) in determining the Eid dates. I live in the United States. I'm an American. I don't give a hoot about Saudi Arabia.
The beef I have though is with people who peddle their flawed Islamic scholarship - people like Zulfiqar Ali Shah, who seems to pop up out from the shadows every Eid with a new "scholarly" paper on why the Fiqh Council of North America and the Islamic Society of North America's positions on Eid are valid.
Anyone from South Florida who knows Mr. Shah is likely to turn down any of his fatwas. He's just your typical Ikhwani/Jamat Islami propaganda officer. He doesn't do real scholarship. Take a look at Imam Hamza Yusuf's and Imam Mukthar Magraoui's articles on moon sighting to see real Islamic scholarship. Imam Hamza made a fool out of Mr. Shah in demonstrating how Mr. Shah incorrectly (or maliciously) left out parts of quotes from certain Muslim scholars in order to back up his own faulty points. He took a page out of the old Dershowitz playbook.
In any case, Shah's paper, which I had the pleasure of going through tonight, makes no real argument in favor of Muslims all over the world having to, being obligated to, follow the pilgrims in Mecca. He even has to add the fine print to the end of his article stating that there is absolutely no proof, none whatsoever, whether Qur'an or hadith, that says Muslims who live in - fill in the blank- have to follow the pilgrims in Mecca. No evidence whatsoever.
He does many of us a great favor though by offering evidence in support of just following your own moon sighting. He even quotes the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who adamantly declared that there is no precedence in the history of Islam of Muslim's being obligated to follow the pilgrims in Mecca. Yes, I do think I would go with Mufti Taqi Usmani on this issue since he carries a bit more weight than Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (who?).
Some major flaws of his article, or my own short comings, were that Mr. Shah leaves all of his evidence in the original Arabic from which he quotes it. I'm sure Imam Zaid or Imam Hamza will hopefully come around and translate it all for us, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem with leaving all of his proof in Arabic is that we have no idea what he's saying. And if his previous papers are a hint, he's not exactly the most honest scholar so there's no real way of knowing as of right now for me if Mr. Shah is being truthful in his citations.
Let's say he's being honest though. Nothing he says in the article proves without any doubt that Muslims the world over must follow the pilgrims in Mecca. Nothing. He's quoting scholars from a thousand years ago about how Muslims everywhere must follow the pilgrims. Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn't because how did Imam al-Qurtubi in Andalusia know when the pilgrims were celebrating Eid al-Adha? He didn't obviously, it was impossible for him to find something like that out. So why would he write a fatwa stating something like that, if he did?
On a methodological level, as Mufti Taqi Usmani pointed out, it would make no sense for Muslims to follow local moon sighting for eleven months of the year and then all of a sudden follow Arabia for one month. Islam is a logical religion. That's not logical. That's maybe acceptable in the Ikhwan universe where suicide bombings are OK, but it's not acceptable for the normal Muslims who don't subscribe to crazy political-religious arguments that factor in "Muslim unity" more than actually celebrating the holy day on the proper date.
All of this nonsense -Saudi, ISNA, the Fiqh Council - is just more Salafi/Ikhwan propaganda. There's no real scholarship involved because these "scholars" don't follow the traditional system of Islamic scholarship like the people they like to quote. The sooner American Muslims reject their political-religious arguments, the better insha-Allah.
Mr. Shah's latest article is just another attempt at creating a false sense of security for Muslims all over the world. Celebrating Eid on the same day is not going to do anything for the Muslim Ummah. Palestinians will still be under occupation, Iraq and Afghanistan will still be in chaos, Pakistan and Bangladesh will still be crappy Third World nations, and the Israel Lobby will still dominate American foreign policy. Celebrating Eid on the same day as your brothers and sisters all over the world is not the Easy button. Making your intentions for God alone and living according to the Sunnah of His last Messenger, prayers and peace be upon him, is a good start towards alleviating many problems in this world. It's not for world domination. It's for the hereafter domination. We don't live for this world, as many of the Ikhwan seem to believe unfortunately. We live for the afterlife. This dunya is for Joe Kaufman and Alan Dershowitz and George Bush. Let them have it because they'll have no share in the next life.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Another Mistrial Declared
What is the score for the US Government so far? 0-3???
See: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-security-guard-charged,0,3553161.story
This time a former air force base security guard, who happened to be Muslim, was accused of leaving off his alias Muslim name on purpose due to his connections to a controversial Imam in DC. The prosecution accused of doing so on purpose.
The majority of jurors apparently wanted to find the man not guilty. One of the jurors went so far to say that despite the prosecution's stated desire to leave religion out of it, the prosecution couldn't stop talking about the former security guards faith.
So Sami al-Arian was found not guilty on eight of seventeen counts with the jury 10-2 in favor of acquitting him of the other charges (he eventually reached a plea agreement in order to get out of jail and avoid being tried again and being stuck in jail for even longer), the Holy Land Foundation as well was able to gain justice... what is our government doing exactly?
Not to mention the case against Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a former Howard University professor, and Muhammad Salah, a former grocer from suburban Chicago. Both were acquitted of racketeering charges, which could have landed them in jail for life. They were convicted of lesser charges with the possibility that they will not even face jail time. And amusingly, they were charged with aiding Hamas before it was declared a terrorist organization by the US. I'm sure the prosecution had a great time trying to explain that.
And the three above mentioned cases had to do with allegations of funding Palestinian organizations, not al-Qaida. Again, the cases had nothing to do with attacks on US soil. And even if they were funneling money to Hamas - how do you try them on charges to attack another country? Hamas and Hezbollah have never launched attacks on the United States. When did US courts become Israeli jurisdiction? What if these guys were funneling money to groups to launch attacks on Venezuela or Cuba or Iran? Would Ashcroft have announced large press conferences for such cases? Would such individuals even be tried or would they be handed medals of honor?
The Liberty City 7 case is also seemingly deadlocked. Will it be 0-5 for our government?
The Jose Padilla case was the only bright spot so far for the US Government. And even that case had nothing to do with al-Qaida. Padilla was charged with conspiring to help rebel groups in Bosnia and Chechnya in the mid 1990s. All allegations of dirty bombs and al-Qaida were dropped from his case by the prosecution.
I guess the official tally is 1-4 so far. That's not a good record. But it's one the Dolphins would love to have at this point - and that's not saying much.
It seems obvious that our DOJ is after people who support Palestinians. It's not about fighting terrorism, but stopping self determination - specifically that of the Palestinians. If they cared about terrorists within our midst then they could start by investigating Brothers to the Rescue and other organizations based out of the US which have been accused of terrorism by foreign governments. Our government only seems to care when its the Israelis making the accusations.
See: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-security-guard-charged,0,3553161.story
This time a former air force base security guard, who happened to be Muslim, was accused of leaving off his alias Muslim name on purpose due to his connections to a controversial Imam in DC. The prosecution accused of doing so on purpose.
The majority of jurors apparently wanted to find the man not guilty. One of the jurors went so far to say that despite the prosecution's stated desire to leave religion out of it, the prosecution couldn't stop talking about the former security guards faith.
So Sami al-Arian was found not guilty on eight of seventeen counts with the jury 10-2 in favor of acquitting him of the other charges (he eventually reached a plea agreement in order to get out of jail and avoid being tried again and being stuck in jail for even longer), the Holy Land Foundation as well was able to gain justice... what is our government doing exactly?
Not to mention the case against Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a former Howard University professor, and Muhammad Salah, a former grocer from suburban Chicago. Both were acquitted of racketeering charges, which could have landed them in jail for life. They were convicted of lesser charges with the possibility that they will not even face jail time. And amusingly, they were charged with aiding Hamas before it was declared a terrorist organization by the US. I'm sure the prosecution had a great time trying to explain that.
And the three above mentioned cases had to do with allegations of funding Palestinian organizations, not al-Qaida. Again, the cases had nothing to do with attacks on US soil. And even if they were funneling money to Hamas - how do you try them on charges to attack another country? Hamas and Hezbollah have never launched attacks on the United States. When did US courts become Israeli jurisdiction? What if these guys were funneling money to groups to launch attacks on Venezuela or Cuba or Iran? Would Ashcroft have announced large press conferences for such cases? Would such individuals even be tried or would they be handed medals of honor?
The Liberty City 7 case is also seemingly deadlocked. Will it be 0-5 for our government?
The Jose Padilla case was the only bright spot so far for the US Government. And even that case had nothing to do with al-Qaida. Padilla was charged with conspiring to help rebel groups in Bosnia and Chechnya in the mid 1990s. All allegations of dirty bombs and al-Qaida were dropped from his case by the prosecution.
I guess the official tally is 1-4 so far. That's not a good record. But it's one the Dolphins would love to have at this point - and that's not saying much.
It seems obvious that our DOJ is after people who support Palestinians. It's not about fighting terrorism, but stopping self determination - specifically that of the Palestinians. If they cared about terrorists within our midst then they could start by investigating Brothers to the Rescue and other organizations based out of the US which have been accused of terrorism by foreign governments. Our government only seems to care when its the Israelis making the accusations.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
On Holocaust Denial and the Muslim World by Dr. Finkelstein
Some reflections on Holocaust denial in the Muslim world: Finkelstein speaks at Islamophobia conference in Istanbul
Islamophobia and Holocaust Denial
12.08.2007 | Transcript (MS Word) | IslamophobiaConference.org
By Norman G. Finkelstein
A frequent allegation used to demonize Muslims is that Holocaust denial is widespread in the Muslim world. Recent remarks by President Achmadinejad of Iran seem to have reinforced this prejudice against Muslims.
No rational person can deny that during World War II the Nazis and their collaborators systematically murdered 5-6 million European Jews.
It is correct that no truth is sacred and that in the course of time even what seem to be the most obvious truths have frequently been shown to be false. It is equally correct that human beings are fallible, none has a monopoly on truth, and an overwhelming majority can be wrong while a minority of one can be right.
However serious persons are also very careful before rejecting an obvious truth that is supported by a vast amount of evidence. It requires more than showing that a fact here or there might be wrong to demolish a scholarly edifice constructed over many years and labored on by many competent minds.
In the case of truths that bear on moral concerns such as human suffering compassionate human beings are especially cautious to question established truths because of the needless offense and injury they might cause. Japanese would rightfully be outraged if someone were to say, But isn’t it possible that the U.S. did not drop an atomic bombing on Hiroshima?, just as Iranians would be rightfully outraged if someone were to say, But isn’t it possible that the U.S. did not overthrow the Mossadeq regime and the SAVAK did not torture political prisoners.
In addition, every culture, every religion honors the memory of the dead and one aspect of honoring that memory is respecting the specific circumstances of their deaths. It should be obvious that it is deeply offensive to rewrite these circumstances for the sake of political convenience or, worse, for amusement.
Yet, there are many understandable reasons why Holocaust denial is to be found in the Muslim world. The assertion that the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews in an assembly-line fashion does seem hard to believe. I remember a very decent Palestinian in a refugee camp whispering to me not in malice but in wonderment, Did it really happen? In fact many Jewish leaders in the West did not believe it themselves when witnesses from the death camps managed to escape and inform them.
Moreover, because Israel has consistently lied about the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, alleging that Palestine was empty before the Jews came and that the Arabs are responsible for all the wars Israel has fought, it is unsurprising that many Arabs would also conclude that Israel is lying about what happened to Jews during World War II.
It is also true that the Nazi holocaust has been used as a weapon to legitimize Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians as well as against its Arab neighbors. It is often said that because of the unique suffering of Jews during World War II it is understandable that Israel sometimes goes to extremes to defend itself. Because the Nazi holocaust has been used to deny Palestinians their rights, it was perhaps inevitable that some Palestinians would seek to deny the Nazi holocaust in order to “neutralize” this potent weapon.
However, another approach, which also has the virtue of being consistent with truth and morality, is to turn this weapon against Israel’s brutal policies. The meaning of the Nazi holocaust should not be Never Again to Jews but Never Again to Anyone. The lesson of the Nazi holocaust should not be to rank human suffering in order to diminish the horror of “lesser” forms of human suffering. Instead, as the epitome of human suffering the lesson of the Nazi holocaust should be to sensitize us to all forms of human suffering. Wherever there is mayhem and murder, wherever there is hunger and homelessness, wherever there is discrimination and degradation – there is the Nazi holocaust. That, at any rate, is the lesson my late parents, who survived the Nazi holocaust, taught me.
It might also be noted that the U.S. and Israel typically invoke the memory of the Nazi holocaust for the purpose not of averting the horrors of war but to justify inflicting them. Whenever the United States and Israel prepare to attack Muslims it is almost always the case that the leaders will be compared to Hitler. In the 1950s-1960s Nasser was compared to Hitler, in the 1990s and again in the 2000s Hussein was compared to Hitler. Now Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are being compared to Hitler. Those who oppose the illegal war plans of the U.S. and Israel are accused of being like the appeasers of Hitler. It is hard to conceive a more cynical exploitation of the suffering of Jews during World War II than its use to justify murderous wars of aggression.
It should finally be said that before the so-called West deplores Holocaust denial in the Muslim world, it should take a closer look at itself.
The U.S.-imposed economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s were responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Respected United Nations officials called these sanctions genocidal, yet U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the “price is worth it.” She did worse than deny genocide; she justified it.
In the 1980s during the U.S.-backed wars in Central America, tens of thousands of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans were killed. The Truth Commission of Guatemala called it a genocide. But in bestselling books nowadays it is said that these murderous wars are a model for how to defeat the insurgents in Iraq. Is this the meaning of Never Again?
In the 1960s-1970s during the U.S. aggression against Indochina, 3-4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians were killed. But the only question that is asked in the U.S. is, When will the Vietnamese apologize for what they did to us?
The Muslim world is demonized for denying the Nazi holocaust. And it is undoubtedly true that, however understandable, such denial is wrong. Indeed, it shames and demeans the deniers not those whose martyrdom is being questioned.
It is true that the U.S. does not deny the many holocausts it has committed. But this is because to deny a fact you first have to acknowledge its existence. The U.S. has not yet even taken this first step of acknowledging the existence of the numberless colossal crimes it has committed.
Norman Finkelstein
1 December 2007
New York City
Islamophobia and Holocaust Denial
12.08.2007 | Transcript (MS Word) | IslamophobiaConference.org
By Norman G. Finkelstein
A frequent allegation used to demonize Muslims is that Holocaust denial is widespread in the Muslim world. Recent remarks by President Achmadinejad of Iran seem to have reinforced this prejudice against Muslims.
No rational person can deny that during World War II the Nazis and their collaborators systematically murdered 5-6 million European Jews.
It is correct that no truth is sacred and that in the course of time even what seem to be the most obvious truths have frequently been shown to be false. It is equally correct that human beings are fallible, none has a monopoly on truth, and an overwhelming majority can be wrong while a minority of one can be right.
However serious persons are also very careful before rejecting an obvious truth that is supported by a vast amount of evidence. It requires more than showing that a fact here or there might be wrong to demolish a scholarly edifice constructed over many years and labored on by many competent minds.
In the case of truths that bear on moral concerns such as human suffering compassionate human beings are especially cautious to question established truths because of the needless offense and injury they might cause. Japanese would rightfully be outraged if someone were to say, But isn’t it possible that the U.S. did not drop an atomic bombing on Hiroshima?, just as Iranians would be rightfully outraged if someone were to say, But isn’t it possible that the U.S. did not overthrow the Mossadeq regime and the SAVAK did not torture political prisoners.
In addition, every culture, every religion honors the memory of the dead and one aspect of honoring that memory is respecting the specific circumstances of their deaths. It should be obvious that it is deeply offensive to rewrite these circumstances for the sake of political convenience or, worse, for amusement.
Yet, there are many understandable reasons why Holocaust denial is to be found in the Muslim world. The assertion that the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews in an assembly-line fashion does seem hard to believe. I remember a very decent Palestinian in a refugee camp whispering to me not in malice but in wonderment, Did it really happen? In fact many Jewish leaders in the West did not believe it themselves when witnesses from the death camps managed to escape and inform them.
Moreover, because Israel has consistently lied about the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, alleging that Palestine was empty before the Jews came and that the Arabs are responsible for all the wars Israel has fought, it is unsurprising that many Arabs would also conclude that Israel is lying about what happened to Jews during World War II.
It is also true that the Nazi holocaust has been used as a weapon to legitimize Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians as well as against its Arab neighbors. It is often said that because of the unique suffering of Jews during World War II it is understandable that Israel sometimes goes to extremes to defend itself. Because the Nazi holocaust has been used to deny Palestinians their rights, it was perhaps inevitable that some Palestinians would seek to deny the Nazi holocaust in order to “neutralize” this potent weapon.
However, another approach, which also has the virtue of being consistent with truth and morality, is to turn this weapon against Israel’s brutal policies. The meaning of the Nazi holocaust should not be Never Again to Jews but Never Again to Anyone. The lesson of the Nazi holocaust should not be to rank human suffering in order to diminish the horror of “lesser” forms of human suffering. Instead, as the epitome of human suffering the lesson of the Nazi holocaust should be to sensitize us to all forms of human suffering. Wherever there is mayhem and murder, wherever there is hunger and homelessness, wherever there is discrimination and degradation – there is the Nazi holocaust. That, at any rate, is the lesson my late parents, who survived the Nazi holocaust, taught me.
It might also be noted that the U.S. and Israel typically invoke the memory of the Nazi holocaust for the purpose not of averting the horrors of war but to justify inflicting them. Whenever the United States and Israel prepare to attack Muslims it is almost always the case that the leaders will be compared to Hitler. In the 1950s-1960s Nasser was compared to Hitler, in the 1990s and again in the 2000s Hussein was compared to Hitler. Now Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are being compared to Hitler. Those who oppose the illegal war plans of the U.S. and Israel are accused of being like the appeasers of Hitler. It is hard to conceive a more cynical exploitation of the suffering of Jews during World War II than its use to justify murderous wars of aggression.
It should finally be said that before the so-called West deplores Holocaust denial in the Muslim world, it should take a closer look at itself.
The U.S.-imposed economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s were responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Respected United Nations officials called these sanctions genocidal, yet U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the “price is worth it.” She did worse than deny genocide; she justified it.
In the 1980s during the U.S.-backed wars in Central America, tens of thousands of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans were killed. The Truth Commission of Guatemala called it a genocide. But in bestselling books nowadays it is said that these murderous wars are a model for how to defeat the insurgents in Iraq. Is this the meaning of Never Again?
In the 1960s-1970s during the U.S. aggression against Indochina, 3-4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians were killed. But the only question that is asked in the U.S. is, When will the Vietnamese apologize for what they did to us?
The Muslim world is demonized for denying the Nazi holocaust. And it is undoubtedly true that, however understandable, such denial is wrong. Indeed, it shames and demeans the deniers not those whose martyrdom is being questioned.
It is true that the U.S. does not deny the many holocausts it has committed. But this is because to deny a fact you first have to acknowledge its existence. The U.S. has not yet even taken this first step of acknowledging the existence of the numberless colossal crimes it has committed.
Norman Finkelstein
1 December 2007
New York City
Friday, December 7, 2007
Wudu
I just went to the bathroom before jumah. I came out of the stall as another man was finishing up his business at the standing stall. I went to wash my hands and then do wudu. He left the bathroom.
That's just nasty.
I could go on about how Islam teaches purity and whatever, but seriously, that's just nasty.
Alhamdulillah though, completing a fresh wudu definitely makes you feel clean.
That's just nasty.
I could go on about how Islam teaches purity and whatever, but seriously, that's just nasty.
Alhamdulillah though, completing a fresh wudu definitely makes you feel clean.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Zuhdi Jasser - Leader of (no)One
Zuhdi Jasser is an American Muslim from Arizona who runs an organization called the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
He is the only listed member of his organization on AIFD's web site. He is the chairman of the Board of Directors, which consists of himself.
He is, in essence, a joke.
He is a nobody. He is a self promoter like Joe Kaufman who should never be taken seriously because his arguments are not serious. He is an alarmist. He has little understanding of his religion and is better off not speaking about Islam, Islamic history, or Islamic theology.
He's a physician. If you need medical advice then it's plausible you might want to speak with him.
If you need help understanding American Muslims then it's probably wise not to speak with Mr. Jasser because he is so outside of the loop of what American Muslims believe about themselves and the world they live in that his views on such issues would be misleading.
He advocates the movement of Thomas Haiden. Haiden says Muslim should only follow the teachings of the Qur'an and not the Sunnah of the God's final Messenger, God's prayers and peace be upon him.
He is always on the wrong side of issues that concern American Muslims. He has questioned the intelligence of Americans serving as jurors in the Holy Land Foundation case by wondering if they were competent enough to analyze the gargantuan amount of "evidence" provided by the prosecution. As one juror said, the case was strung together with macaroni noodles. He misses the main point about the case - HLF was not funding terrorism - it was funding orphans in the Palestinian territories, feeding the hungry, etc. It might have been more appropriate to have held the trial in Tel Aviv because the case essentially had no connection to US domestic and international terrorism.
Mr. Jasser likes to advocate for "ijtihad" and Islamic spirituality. It is apparent from his writings that he has little concept of what these terms mean nor of how they should be implemented in today's world. Like I said, he's a physician, not a mujtahid.
Mr. Jasser has also cried about the US House passing a resolution on Ramadan. He views it as an insult of sorts. In a country where most Americans have little knowledge about their Muslim neighbors and our nation is waging wars against two Muslim nations, while threatening war with another, it seems a bit appropriate that the House stand behind American Muslims and show respect to their faith amongst other things. This is not out of line for Congress which has passed numerous bills commending Jewish organizations and the history of Jews in America. Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious grouping in the United States. Buddhists lobby constantly for their interests in China or Vietnam. Jews do the same for Israel.
Mr. Jasser is nothing more than an apologist and advocate for the right wing. He does not have American Muslims as his interest, just himself.
He is the only listed member of his organization on AIFD's web site. He is the chairman of the Board of Directors, which consists of himself.
He is, in essence, a joke.
He is a nobody. He is a self promoter like Joe Kaufman who should never be taken seriously because his arguments are not serious. He is an alarmist. He has little understanding of his religion and is better off not speaking about Islam, Islamic history, or Islamic theology.
He's a physician. If you need medical advice then it's plausible you might want to speak with him.
If you need help understanding American Muslims then it's probably wise not to speak with Mr. Jasser because he is so outside of the loop of what American Muslims believe about themselves and the world they live in that his views on such issues would be misleading.
He advocates the movement of Thomas Haiden. Haiden says Muslim should only follow the teachings of the Qur'an and not the Sunnah of the God's final Messenger, God's prayers and peace be upon him.
He is always on the wrong side of issues that concern American Muslims. He has questioned the intelligence of Americans serving as jurors in the Holy Land Foundation case by wondering if they were competent enough to analyze the gargantuan amount of "evidence" provided by the prosecution. As one juror said, the case was strung together with macaroni noodles. He misses the main point about the case - HLF was not funding terrorism - it was funding orphans in the Palestinian territories, feeding the hungry, etc. It might have been more appropriate to have held the trial in Tel Aviv because the case essentially had no connection to US domestic and international terrorism.
Mr. Jasser likes to advocate for "ijtihad" and Islamic spirituality. It is apparent from his writings that he has little concept of what these terms mean nor of how they should be implemented in today's world. Like I said, he's a physician, not a mujtahid.
Mr. Jasser has also cried about the US House passing a resolution on Ramadan. He views it as an insult of sorts. In a country where most Americans have little knowledge about their Muslim neighbors and our nation is waging wars against two Muslim nations, while threatening war with another, it seems a bit appropriate that the House stand behind American Muslims and show respect to their faith amongst other things. This is not out of line for Congress which has passed numerous bills commending Jewish organizations and the history of Jews in America. Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious grouping in the United States. Buddhists lobby constantly for their interests in China or Vietnam. Jews do the same for Israel.
Mr. Jasser is nothing more than an apologist and advocate for the right wing. He does not have American Muslims as his interest, just himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
