Thursday, April 30, 2009

ADL comes out against Wilders

What does this mean? That Geert Wilders and his supporters in the U.S. and abroad are even less mainstream than they think they are. Even the ADL, with all of its fanatical support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, won't go so far as to join the ranks of Wilders' supporters. They seem to realize how ridiculous and hypocritical Wilders' call is for defending his right to free speech (to defame Islam), while simultaneously demanding that the right to freedom of religion not apply to Muslims.

ADL Condemns Anti-Islam Remarks Made by Dutch Parliamentarian During Appearances in S. Florida

Date: April 28, 2009

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly condemns remarks made over the last few days at various appearances throughout South Florida by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. In his speeches, he claimed that "Islam is not a religion" and "the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam." Mr. Wilders also stated that the Koran is a book of hatred, and that Mohammed was both "a pedophile and a warlord."

Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida Regional Director, issued the following statement:

The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders' message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals.

This rhetoric is dangerous and incendiary, and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist, radical Islamists.



That I can agree with. But I wonder if Abe Foxman agrees with this.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Juan Cole: Pakistan is Safe

From a man who knows the country very well:

Readers have written me asking what I think of the rash of almost apocalyptic pronouncements on the security situation in Pakistan issuing from the New York Times, The Telegraph, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in recent days.

And Stephen Walt also is asking why there are such varying assessments of Pakistan's security prospects. He suggests that one problem is the difficulty of predicting a revolutionary situation. But Pakistan just had a revolution against the military dictatorship! The polling, the behavior in the voting booth, the history of political geography, aren't these data relevant to the issue? Why does no one instance them?

As I have said before, although the rise of the Pakistani Taliban in the Pushtun areas and in some districts of Punjab is worrisome, the cosmic level of concern being expressed makes no sense to me. Some 55 percent of Pakistanis are Punjabi, and with the exception of some northern hardscrabble areas, I can't see any evidence that the vast majority of them has the slightest interest in Talibanism. Most are religious traditionalists, Sufis, Shiites, Sufi-Shiites, or urban modernists. At the federal level, they mainly voted in February 2008 for the Pakistan People's Party or the Muslim League, neither of them fundamentalist. The issue that excercised them most powerfully recently was the need to reinstate the civilian Supreme Court justices dismissed by a military dictatorship, who preside over a largely secular legal system.

Another major province is Sindh, with nearly 50 mn. of Pakistan's 165 mn. population. It is divided between Urdu-speakers and the largely rural Sindhis who are religious traditionalists, many of the anti-Taliban Barelvi school. They voted overwhelmingly for the centrist, mostly secular Pakistan People's Party in the recent parliamentary elections. Then there are the Urdu-speakers originally from India who mostly live in Karachi and a few other cities. In the past couple of decades the Urdu-speakers have tended to vote for the secular MQM party.

Residents of Sindh and Punjab constitute some 85% of Pakistan's population, and while these provinces have some Muslim extremists, they are a small fringe there.

Pakistan has a professional bureaucracy. It has doubled its literacy rate in the past three decades. Rural electrification has increased enormously. The urban middle class has doubled since 2000. Economic growth in recent years has been 6 and 7 percent a year, which is very impressive. The country has many, many problems, but it is hardly the Somalia some observers seem to imagine.

Opinion polling shows that even before the rounds of violence of the past two years, most Pakistanis rejected Muslim radicalism and violence. The stock of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda plummeted after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The Pakistani Taliban are largely a phenomenon of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas west of the North-West Frontier Province, and of a few districts within the NWFP itself. These are largely Pushtun ethnically. The NYT's breathless observation that there are Taliban a hundred miles from Islamabad doesn't actually tell us very much, since Islamabad is geographically close to the Pushtun regions without that implying that Pushtuns dominate or could dominate it. It is like saying that Lynchburg, Va., is close to Washington DC and thereby implying that Jerry Falwell's movement is about to take over the latter.

The Pakistani Taliban amount to a few thousand fighters who lack tanks, armored vehicles, and an air force.

The Pakistani military is the world's sixth largest, with 550,000 active duty troops and is well equipped and well-trained. It in the past has acquitted itself well against India, a country ten times Pakistan's size population-wise. It is the backbone of the country, and has excellent command and control, never having suffered an internal mutiny of any significance.

So what is being alleged? That some rural Pushtun tribesmen turned Taliban are about to sweep into Islamabad and overthrow the government of Pakistan? Frankly ridiculous. Wouldn't the government bring some tank formations up from the Indian border and stop them?

Or is it being alleged that the Pakistani army won't fight the Taliban? But then explain the long and destructive Bajaur campaign.

Or is the fear that some junior officers in the army are more or less Taliban and that they might make a coup? But the Pakistani military has typically sought a US alliance after every coup it has made. Who would support Talibanized officers? Not China, not the US, the major patrons of Islamabad.

If that is the fear, in any case, then the US should strengthen the civilian, elected government, which was installed against US wishes by a popular movement during the past two years. The officers should be strictly instructed that they are to stay in their barracks.

What I see is a Washington that is uncomfortable with anything like democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan; which seems not to realize that the Pakistani Taliban are a small, poorly armed fringe of Pushtuns, who are a minority; and I suspect US policy-makers of secretly desiring to find some pretext for removing Pakistan's nuclear capacity.

All the talk about the Pakistani government falling within 6 months, or of a Taliban takeover, flies in the face of everything we know about the character of Pakistani politics and institutions during the past two years.

My guess is that the alarmism is also being promoted from within Pakistan by Pervez Musharraf, who wants to make another military coup; and by civilian politicians in Islamabad, who want to extract more money from the US to fight the Taliban that they are secretly also bribing to attack Afghanistan.

Advice to Obama: Pakistan is being configured for you in ways that benefit some narrow sectional interests. Caveat emptor.

---

Update: In answer to some comments below. First of all, the Pakistani military is not "unable" to stop the Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province. The Zardari government is just not desirous of alienating the Pushtuns by being heavy-handed. They only sent in 250 special ops troops to deal with Buner, which is a very light touch for an army with lots of artillery, tanks and fighter jets.

Pakistan now is not like Russia in 1917. Its two main political parties are of old standing, have contested many elections, have millions of supporters and canvassers. The main threat to the PPP government is parliamentary-- that it will be unseated by the Muslim League if it fails a vote of no contest and there are new elections.

All the military coups in Pakistan have been made from the top by the army chief of staff. Therefore Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is the man to watch. He was Benazir Bhutto's army secretary and has ties to the Pakistan People's Party. Not a Talib.

The hype about Pakistan is very sinister and mysterious and makes no sense to someone who actually knows the country.

Evidence that Jihad Watch isn't really about jihad at all

The folks at Jihad Watch have commented on the Egyptian decision to eradicate all pigs because of the possibility, at least in their minds, of the swine flu spreading to or in Egypt.

Now, isn't their website dedicated to discussing matters pertaining to jihad?

I guess not, and that is only one blog post amongst many others in the past few years that has shown the steady shift away from monitoring jihadi violence at JW to a general hostility to anything that has to do with Muslims and Islam. It's not just a battle against Muslim extremists that JW seems to be fighting anymore, but a cultural one as well that likes to take shots at Muslims and their respective cultures whenever available.

As stupid as Egypt's decision is, why use that news to pull a cheap shot on Islam? Or Muslims? Of course, Raymond Ibrahim used the opportunity to tie in the Qur'an's calling of (some) Jews apes. But why? What point does it serve except to reemphasize how vitriolic Ibrahim's and JW's outlook on Islam and Muslims is?

These guys might actually be respectable commentators if their hate of Islam and Muslims wasn't so obvious.

The Qur'an does not teach hatred of Jews, Part II

Jihad Watch loves to quote the verse of the Qur'an I explained in the post below as an example of how Islam teaches the hatred of Jews. They quoted it again today. But in light of the exegesis about that verse it becomes clear that the verse in question, from Surah 5, verse 82, refers specifically to the Jews living at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans..." Interestingly enough, the Qur'an doesn't say that "Muslims will be the strongest in enmity to the Jews and Pagans." Instead, God simply warns the Muslims that the Jews and Pagans will show the most hatred towards them. God doesn't even say that Muslims should show the same hostility back to the Jews and Pagans. He could have if He wanted.

But JW goes a step further today by quoting a hadith that they have claimed is genocidal. David Horowitz and Robert Spencer have crusaded against this hadith demanding that Muslims who claim to be against genocide repudiate this hadith. The hadith is quoted in the news article at JW today as a means of suggesting that a French youth of African origin who murdered a Jewish man in France probably got his ideas about killing Jews directly from the Qur'an and the hadith of the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him. That may be true, but such an interpretation is not orthodox within Islam, and there is no justification within Islamic law for killing an innocent Jewish person.

Well, interestingly enough there are various versions of this "genocidal" hadith in Sahih Muslim, where JW gets it from. The obvious import of the hadiths on this topic of Muslims and Jews fighting each other is that the Prophet was prophesizing about the future and that one of the signs of the Day of Judgment would be a fight between Jews and Muslims. This hadith is quoted in ibn Kathir's book, coincedentally called The Signs Before the Day of Judgment!

See this hadith for example, which clearly shows that the Prophet was prophesizing a sign before the final hour: "Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: 'The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.'" Sahih Muslim, 6984. This is the hadith that comes right before the one JW quotes. Notice that it doesn't say that the Muslims will fight the Jews, but it is the exact opposite (the Jews will fight the Muslims). It also doesn't say that the Muslims will kill all the Jews, but only that the two will fight and the Muslims will win. It is not clear what exactly is going on in this battle, whether it's a small group of Muslims and Jews, or all Muslims and Jews. It would be nice to know if Spencer or someone else can look up the hadith commentary on these hadith and see what classical Muslim scholars have said about them.

Muslims, theologically, do not believe that they can bring the final hour into being on their own. Some Christians think they can do this, but Muslims have typically not been into the movement of trying to manufacture the final hour. Islamic theology on the final hour teaches that all of the power belongs to God alone. Only He can bring the signs of the final hour and the final hour itself into being.

As for the extremist Muslim youth who murdered that poor Jewish man, he was probably taught by other extremists an interpretation of Islam that is not orthodox, that is not really Islam. He is a murderer, plain and simple, under any school of Islamic law. Abu Hanifa, one of the great early Muslim scholars, considered acts done by Muslims in non-Muslim lands that violated the latter's laws as acts of banditry. Islam does not teach the murder of Jews and Christians simply because they are Jewish or Christian. This has no basis within the Qur'an or the teachings of the Prophet.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Qur'an does not teach hatred of Jews

Sorry to burst the bubble of some anti-Muslim folks out there, but the Qur'an does not teach the hatred of Jews. I quote Robert Spencer quite a bit, but that is because he is at the forefront of the movement that is essentially against Islam and Muslims. Spencer says the following regarding Islam and Jews:

Ahmedinejad's Jew-hatred is common throughout the Islamic world: This is fueled by the fact that the Qur'an teaches that the chief enemies of the Muslims will be the Jews (5:82).


No, some Muslims may teach that, but that is not why this verse was revealed. In fact, it was revealed specifically about the Jews who lived during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. It was not revealed about Jews generally. From the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:

Allah then showed their enmity towards the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, saying: (Thou wilt find) O Muhammad (the most vehement of mankind in hostility) and most vile in speech (to those who believe) Muhammad and his Companions ((to be) the Jews) the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah, Banu'l-Nadir, Fadak and Khaybar (and the idolaters) and the most vehement in hostility to the believers among the idolaters are the idolaters of Mecca.


See? Specific, not general. The verse is about those Jews who were hostile to the Muslims in the lifetime of the Prophet. Okay, that's just one book that says that. Let's try another. How about the Tafsir al-Jalalayn?

You, O Muhammad (s), will truly find the most hostile of people to those who believe to be the Jews and the idolaters, of Mecca, because of the intensity of their disbelief, ignorance and utter preoccupation with following whims...


Again, its about the Idoloters and Jews who lived during the time of the Prophet. Amazing what you can discover when you research a little bit. So, this verse does not teach that the chief enemies of the Muslims will be Jews. It only tells us that Allah told His Prophet that his worst enemies would be the Meccan idolaters and the Jews who lived in Madina. This was not on account of their being Jews, but of being treacherous against their Muslim neighbors.

Now, as for the spread of Antisemitism in the Islamic world - it is something that needs to be rejected by truly devout believers. It makes no sense that our Prophet would defend the Jewishness of his wife Safia, God be well pleased with her, and then his followers would curse those very same people generally. It's one thing to speak out against the oppression that the Israeli government has inflicted upon innocent Palestinians, but it's quite another to urge the murder and harming of innocent Jews. That has no place in Islam.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Geert Wilders and Islam

Some parts of the right-wing establishment are gushing over Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who wants to ban the Qur'an. Robert Spencer is chief among these people. In fact, he's one of the leaders in defending Wilders. Spencer says that Wilders is a brave soul to call out Islamic teachings that advocate violence against non-Muslims. He insists that freedom loving people should defend Wilders' right to free speech. Fair enough.

But where does Spencer draw the line with someone like Wilders? Wilders said the following at a speech he made in my neck of the woods, South Florida, just a few days ago:

We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it's not a religion. It is a totaltarian ideology and the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam...

I think we have to have a contract, in any Western Country, a contract, a binding contract signed by everybody there, of Assimiluation. We need a Pledge of Allegiance in all Western countries for people to adhere to our values as well...

We have to stop the building of new Mosques. We have to close the Mosques where incitement of violence is taking place...


Aside from this, Wilders has also said "I want the fascist Koran banned."

Now, for all the right-wingers who want to defend Wilders' right to free speech, I ask whether they will speak out against his demands that Muslims throw their holy book in the trash, or that they speak out against his demands to limit Western Muslims from their right to practice their religion peacefully or build religious institutions.

Wilders, if he had his way, would essentially make it severely difficult to practice my faith. I would become a criminal if I owned a copy of the Qur'an. I would be unable to build a new mosque in America (do these people know how over crowded many of our mosques are here in the U.S.?). I would have to swear loyalty to a set of values I may not 100% agree with (whose values anyway? Liberal values or conservative? Democratic or Republican?). Theoretically, Wilders' application of such a law would force conservatives to swear loyalty to things they hate, like being pro-choice, pro-gay, etc. And vice versa for liberals if conservatives had their way.

Sure, I would defend Wilders' right to speak freely as much as he wants. But the things he is calling for are completely against the values we Westerners cherish. Spencer consistently denounces the laws in classical Muslim literature that call for the marginalization of non-Muslims. But this is exactly what Wilders is arguing for, except for it to apply to Muslims in the West.

Noticably, Spencer doesn't say a word about these issues. He simply ignores them to applaud Wilders' hate speech against Islam and Muslims, just like many on the right. At least some on the right who are against Muslim extremism have the decency to know the difference between legitimate criticism of Islam and neo-Nazis like Wilders who call for the banning of the Qur'an and laws to make it difficult to practice Islam. Spencer is obviously not that bright or decent.

Public Opinion Favors Torture Investigation

Despite the overwhelming calls from establishment journalists and from the partisan pundits who cable news networks routinely provide forums to on their evening programs who assert that we should look to the future and forget the past, the American public favors investigations into the torture issue during the Bush administration, according to Democracy Now! See this also from Gallup (the American public seems to be overwhelmingly a part of the "far left").

That's good news for a law abiding citizenry. Now only if our elites would favor such a strategy. Especially when torture has been shown to be ineffective or even harmful to our nation. This Miami Herald report blind sides Dick Cheney, Robert Spencer, and other advocates for torture, and shows how ideological and short sighted their vision is.

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any ''specific imminent attacks,'' according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.


Spencer befuddles me sometimes. He advocates for so many liberal ideals (women's rights, gay rights), yet he then can turn around and justify torture like it's no big deal.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Pakistani Troops Moving In; Are the Taliban Even Muslim?

CNN and Dawn are reporting that Pakistani military troops are moving in to protect the capital city of Islamabad from the encroachments of the Taliban.

Pakistani troops rushing to protect government buildings and bridges in Taliban-infiltrated Buner district just 60 miles from Islamabad were met with gunfire Thursday that killed two police officers, authorities said.

It was not immediately clear if the gunmen were Taliban militants, but the clash in the district is likely to heighten concern about the viability of a government-backed peace deal with the Taliban in northwest Pakistan.


Uhm, ya think? Anyway, this is a good response to the threat Pakistan is currently facing. It might also be a good idea if the politicians, when they gain the requisite fortitude, send troops after the Taliban, instead of just protecting the borders.

Meanwhile, Fawzia Afzal-Khan is wondering whether the Taliban are even Muslims. A great question considering their complete intolerance and anger that leads to the murdering of fellow Muslims.

I walked out that day from the premises of the Red Mosque thinking that these “Muslimahs” had a point, at least regarding the deep class inequalities and injustices that marred the psychic, economic and political landscape of the country of my birth. Their anger against the “comprador elite” was justified—and hence also against Western, specifically US imperialist interests being shored up by this ruling class. Indeed, of late, the US itself has helped the case of the various Taliban groups by continuing to bomb the hideouts of these and Al-Qaeda outfits in the Northern Areas with their remotely-piloted Drone and Reaper predator missiles. But I no longer think of the Pakistani Taliban and their female counterparts as deserving of any empathy whatsoever. In fact, I am prepared to go as far as calling them non-Muslims.

What sort of Muslims—nay, human beings—can justify the public whipping of that poor 17-year-old Swati girl, Chand Bibi, which the world was shocked to see circulating on the net? What sort of Muslims—nay, human beings—kill and maim MUSLIM worshippers at mosques such as the one in Jamrud, a town in the tribal Khyber region, where a suicide bomber struck during Friday prayers, leaving more than 50 dead and over a 100 wounded, most critically, in one of the bloodiest recent attacks in the nation. And the 22 Shi’ites dead in another recent suicide bombing at a Shi’ite mosque in northern Pakistan? And the remote-controlled bombing of CD shops in Peshawer? And the attack on the Frontier Corps post in Islamabad leaving eight of them—all working class-- dead? And the attack on the police cadets in training on the outskirts of Lahore—all of them of poor backgrounds? What ire against them??

Yup. They are the Khwarij of our age.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Pakistan in dire straits

I just watched an interview of Pakistani ambassador Hussain Haqqani with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Blitzer kept pressing Haqqani to admit that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's claim that Pakistan was in deep trouble was true, or at least close to the truth. Haqqani rebuffed this suggestion by Clinton. Instead, he asserted that the Pakistani government will fight the Taliban and other tribal groups supporting them tooth and nail.

My evaluation of what is going on? Well, after reading the Council on Foriegn Relations' piece on Pakistan's gloomy future, I have to say I'm not overly worried, but I am mildly concerned. The reason I am not overly worried is because I know how most Pakistanis think: they want Western materialism with a decent diet of Islamic teaching to keep them strait and narrow. In other words, 99% of Pakistanis, even the religious parties, would puke if the Taliban took over the nation. They have no tolerance for such a harsh and rigid Islamic government.

My concern is with the way the current government, led by Asif Zardari, is handling the crisis. It was absolutely wrong to allow these extremists to govern part of the nation. Could you imagine if the US allowed the KKK to govern over Alabama, for example? No, you couldn't. And Pakistanis are wondering if their government is either extremely clever or extremely stupid. I think it is the latter. The problem with Zardari is that he is not a real politician. Former President Pervez Musharraf was though. He at least had the knowledge and guts to go after these extremists when they threatened the country during the Lal Masjid episode last year.

It has become painfully obvious that these extremists have goals that include taking over the entire country of Pakistan. Let's hope that Pakistani politicians have the courage to stand up for their people and not cave into the demands of extremists who are bent on turning Pakistan into a rigid and extremist state. If the Taliban and their loyal band of bearded tribes keep pressing further into Punjab then it will only be a matter of time before Pakistan once again becomes a military state being led by another general turned statesman. Maybe that is the only way to keep the Taliban out and maybe keep them at bay once and for all. In any case, the politicians better realize that these extremists mean business and deal with them accordingly for having threatened the entire nation.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Jihad Watch Okay with Waterboarding? Torture?

John McCain has said it's torture. But I guess the folks at Jihad Watch, specifically Robert Spencer, have no beef with torture. Spencer had this to say about a CNS News report that alleges the CIA told them that using water boarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammad helped obtain info that thwarted an alleged attack on Los Angeles:

Good thing they're not waterboarding anymore, eh? As we watch American cities go up in flames, we can at least pat ourselves on the back that we did not transgress against delicate 21st century sensibilities.

I guess torturing people is part of the Western heritage that Spencer wants to help preserve from the jihadists who want to kill us. The rational here is that torture is surely alright - I mean, it's not like it will lead to false confessions or faulty intelligence. Right?

Wrong. Dead wrong according to the New York Daily News, who report this:

U.S. counterterrorism officials are reacting angrily to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times was a “success” that produced actionable intelligence.

“Cheney is full of crap,” one intelligence source with decades of experience told The Mouth on Tuesday.

Another retired counterterrorism official who read reports when they arrived in Washington detailing the confessions of Mohammed, known as “KSM,” said most of the information he coughed up during the waterboarding sessions involved things he thought his CIA-contract interrogators already knew, or were just his ideas for mayhem.

“Most of the (cables) were reports of actions that KSM was only remotely thinking of undertaking - they didn’t even reach the planning stage,” the retired counterterrorism official said. “So it’s a bit of a stretch for Bush administration officials to say these were attacks they had disrupted.”


Yeah! Go torture!


AIPAC in trouble?

Imagine the hoopla if this were Keith Ellison and CAIR or ISNA or MAS. It would be rightly warranted. Instead, you know what will happen. A slight slap on the wrist of Rep. Jane Harmen. And in a week everyone will forget this. Unless the Lobby's power is sinking, as it seems to be in light of the writing's of mainstream journalists (Roger Cohen in the NYT) and academics (Stephen Walt in Foriegn Policy recently).


WASHINGTON — One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage, current and former government officials say.

The lawmaker, Representative Jane Harman of California, became the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee after the 2002 election and had ambitions to be its chairwoman when the party gained control of the House in 2006. One official who has seen transcripts of several wiretapped calls said she appeared to agree to intercede in exchange for help in persuading party leaders to give her the powerful post.

One of the very few members of Congress with broad access to the most sensitive intelligence information, including aspects of the Bush administration’s wiretapping that were disclosed in December 2005, Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

Ms. Harman denied Monday having ever spoken to anyone in the Justice Department about Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former analysts for Aipac. Her office issued a statement saying, “Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former Aipac employees.”

The statement did not, however, address whether Ms. Harman had contacted anyone at the White House or had participated in phone calls in which she was asked to intervene in exchange for help in being named chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee.

David Szady, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former top counterintelligence official who ran the investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, said in an interview Monday that he was confident Ms. Harman had never intervened. “In all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation,” Mr. Szady said.

The officials who were familiar with the transcripts, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue involved intelligence matters, also said they knew of no evidence that Ms. Harman had intervened in the case.

One of the officials said he was familiar with the transcript of “at least one phone call” in which Ms. Harman discussed weighing in with the department on the investigation of the Aipac officials and her possible chairwomanship of the Intelligence Committee. (She did not get the post.) He identified the California donor as Mr. Saban, a vocal supporter of Israel who turned the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers into a global franchise.

The CQ article, citing unnamed present and former national security officials, said a preliminary review was halted by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales because he wanted Ms. Harman’s support in dissuading The New York Times from running an article disclosing a program of wiretapping without warrants conducted by the National Security Agency.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement Monday that Ms. Harman called Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief of The Times, in October or November of 2004. Mr. Keller said she spoke to Mr. Taubman — apparently at the request of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A. director — and urged that The Times not publish the article.

“She did not speak to me,” Mr. Keller said, “and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision.”

Shortly before the article was published more than a year later, in December 2005, Mr. Taubman met with a group of Congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish.

The former officials who spoke to The Times did not know about Mr. Gonzales’s reported role nor about Ms. Harman’s contacts with The Times. Aides to Mr. Gonzales declined to comment.

A spokesman for Mr. Saban did not return telephone calls. A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said the speaker had no comment.

The possibility that Ms. Harman might be under investigation surfaced in news reports in 2006. The CQ report provided new details, including quotations attributed to the transcripts of one of Ms. Harman’s conversations. Ms. Harman, CQ said, told the person who requested her aid that she would “waddle in” to the matter, “if you think it would make a difference.” Before ending the call, CQ reported, Ms. Harman said, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

It is unclear when this conversation was supposed to have taken place, but Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman were fired from Aipac in March 2005 and indicted a few weeks later. They were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act when they shared with colleagues, journalists and Israeli Embassy officials information about Iran and Iraq they had learned from talking to high-level United States policy makers.

The trial of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman seems on track to begin in June in Alexandria, Va.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs

I've recently caught on to the division within the ranks of the anti-Muslim right. For those of you who don't know, Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and LGF's Charles Johnson have had a fall out. The funniest thing about it all is that Spencer had this to say today about Johnson's accusations against him:

Johnson, of course, relies heavily on fellow libelblogger Kejda Gjermani's guilt-by-association pieces purporting to establish that I am a "religious supremacist." Since this is supposed to be a "hidden agenda" of mine, it is impossible to respond to -- no one can prove that he doesn't hold various positions secretly. But it is also ridiculous: I travel around the country giving talks calling upon people to defend the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, equality of rights of all before the law, and the concept of non-establishment of religion.

The horror. Spencer is being accused of... taqiyya. The last time Spencer and I debated this issue (taqiyya) he had nothing but questions for me after I clearly explained that Muslims have no sanction under any orthodox interpretation of Islamic law to lie to a non-Muslim government that they live under to further some jihadist plot. Spencers response? Just questions:

All right. So if a Muslim believes he will be persecuted if he does not speak well of a non-Muslim ruler, he should lie. Does this allow him to lie if he fears he will be persecuted if he does not speak well of non-Muslim rule in general? In other words, may he lie if he fears that he will face difficulties if he declares his preference for Sharia rather than for democratic pluralism? And may he lie if he is working for the institution of Sharia in a non-Muslim, democratic and pluralist state, but doesn't want the non-Muslim rulers to find out that that is what he is doing, because he may then face persecution?

Isn't he the Islamic expert? I thought he knew everything there was to know about taqiyya. I just told him the orthodox meaning of taqiyya in Sunni Islam. Spencer just ends up asking me a bunch of questions and then tells me there is no distinction between what I said and what he said. No, that's just avoiding the facts, as Spencer usually does when he knows he's stuck.

I doubt there is any Islamic legal material that discusses what Spencer is thinking, i.e. a justification for a Muslim to work under cover while actively trying to overthrow a government he lives under. The fact of the matter is, there were not many Muslims living in non-Muslim lands when most of the corpus of fiqh was developed. The taqiyya the Qur'an discusses is within the context of the Muslims who lived under the persecution of the Quraysh during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him. They were tortured and beaten because of their beliefs (a side note: this is something Spencer rarely mentions in his writings). The Qur'an gave these early Muslims a way out of being beaten and tortured: just lie. Say whatever the evildoers want you to say to avoid the torture.

Now, do these verses somehow translate into giving sanction to Muslims who live in the West to lie to their governments in order to secretly over throw them from within? As I said to Spencer when discussing these verses, I don't know where or how such a sanction can be derived. If he can show us some evidence of this in Sunni sources, that say explicitly what he refers to, then maybe we can all benefit (interestingly, when I was discussing this in light of what Hugh Fitzgerald said about taqiyya, Spencer chimed in with direct quotes from tafsirs discussing taqiyya. What he pasted said exactly what I told him later on, namely what I am currently discussing in this post. Leave it to Spencer to leave things ambiguous and unclear when he can't prove what he wants to prove). Otherwise, this game about taqiyya is what we all think it is: a nasty game of accusations meant to defame all Muslims, no matter their ideological or religious attitudes. I mean, does Spencer have any Muslim friends? And if he does, does he ever wonder if they're practicing taqiyya? It's a terrible way to live a life. Especially for his Muslim friends.

In any case, the episode between him and Johnson is fun to watch. As for Spencer's accusations against Muslims for practicing taqiyya? What comes around, goes around.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Exposing the Taliban for the Liars They Are

Dawn.com’s Huma Yusuf argues that we shouldn’t forget the past just because Sufi Mohammad wants us to.

Now that the Nizam-i-Adl regulation has been passed, women in Swat can be punished for emerging from behind the veil. Drug addicts and bribe takers will be maligned through robust campaigns while prostitutes and pimps are to be expelled from the valley. The sale of CDs will be restricted and hoarders will be exposed and reprimanded. Even corrupt police officers will be checked by the ever vigilant members of the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi (TNSM). In other words, all manner of minor transgressors and petty criminals who offend right-wing, religious sensibilities will be dragged to qazi courts in the name of justice.

But Taliban militants who have blown up girls’ schools, kidnapped security and media personnel, and beheaded innocents get off scot-free.

On Tuesday, TNSM chief Sufi Mohammad claimed that the new regulation would protect militants accused of brutal killings from prosecution. According to an article in Dawn:

Asked on Tuesday in a television interview whether the new courts would hear complaints from Swat residents about Mullah Fazlullah or his followers, Sufi Mohammad said they could not.

‘We intend to bury the past,’ the TNSM chief told a private television channel, sitting off-screen. ‘Past things will be left behind and we will go for a new life in peace.’


Sufi Mohammad’s forget-the-past attitude would be laughable if it weren’t so upsetting. Given how controversial the Nizam-i-Adl regulation is, the only way the TNSM could have earned any credibility is by doling out justice under the regulation to all offenders in Malakand – particularly the unabashedly violent militants who Mohammad claims to manage.

No one should excuse the Taliban for this exercise in hypocrisy. We should not for a moment forget that they are choosing to forget the past only because it serves them well in this instance.

In all other circumstances, the Taliban in Pakistan have proved to be vengeful and vindictive, capable of holding long-term grudges that end up being fatal for many innocent Pakistanis.

Speaking to The New York Times in March 2008, Tariq Pervez, the director general of the Federal Investigation Agency, explained that terrorists were stepping up their activity in Punjab in an effort to target Pakistan’s law-enforcing personnel.

At that time, Mr Pervez suggested that militant groups based in Pakistan’s tribal areas were singling out Lahore because Punjabi law-enforcing personnel had been involved in the operation at Islamabad’s Red Mosque in July 2007 and were the targets of terrorists seeking revenge.

Indeed, suicide bombings in many parts of the Punjab, including attacks on security forces in Islamabad and the recent Manawan police academy attack, have later been described as an attempt by militants to seek revenge for the excesses of the Lal Masjid operation.

Last December, in the picturesque village of Shalbandi in Buner, a suicide bomber belonging to the Taliban killed 30 people in order to avenge the death of six militants killed by the villagers four months prior. The attack took place at a school that was serving as a polling station during by-elections for the National Assembly.

Chances are, all militant deaths will at some point be avenged in the most brutal and unnecessary fashion. Given this reality, Sufi Mohammad’s decision to leave the past so as to progress into the future exposes an unforgiveable double standard. If Taliban militants are not willing to forget the past when it is young men from their ranks who end up dead, then the residents of Swat, Buner and other terror-ravaged areas should not agree to get over the past and move on. They should demand that Swat-based militants be the first to face speedy trials in the newly appointed qazi courts - and they should be punished according to the strictest dictates of the Sharia law that they spilt blood to see enforced in the region.

Sufi Mohammad’s reliance on his own version of divine logic should not trump the basic tenants of justice.

Update to Obama = Bush

Al-Jazeera is reporting: "Barack Obama, the US president, has said that intelligence officials who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on so-called terrorism suspects will not be prosecuted for their actions.

Obama issued the statement ahead of the release of several memos dating from the Bush administration era which authorised the harsh interrogation of detainees by CIA employees.

"It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the department of justice that they will not be subject to prosecution," he said in Thursday's statement.

Uhm, some other group of people once used that same line of thinking. And it didn't hold much water. Why should it work now?

Obama = Bush

I had been saying from the beginning that Obama was not much different than Bush and other Republicans, such as McCain, in regards to foreign policy and domestic issues. What did I hear from his suppporters? Just crap. More crap. Nothing but crap. Can't really defend someone when his actions speak louder than his rhetoric. But Obama is now actively defending the old Bush regime. Ain't that a mutha.

From the Democracy Now! interview with Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com on the effects of the FISA bill over our freedom to be free from government intrusion.

Where are the Dems and Republicans who are real patriots and will stand up against this? (crickets). Why not have a tea-party over this, something more serious than the bailing out of big companies who ran themselves into the ground? (crickets).


AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, can you talk about the significance of the Jewel v. NSA case?

GLENN GREENWALD:
Yeah, that was—that is an amazing case, because what happened was, in 2008, when the Democrats voted for that FISA bill, part of what the FISA bill did was it immunized the telecoms from the lawsuits that were pending based on this illegal spying. And what the Democrats said at the time was, “Well, don’t worry about the fact that we’re immunizing the telecoms, because we’re not immunizing government officials, the Bush officials who ordered the illegal spying. You can still impose accountability on them.” And so, the organizations that have brought the lawsuits against the telecoms took the Democrats at their word, like EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and they commenced lawsuits against the Bush officials who ordered the illegal spying. And that was a lawsuit commenced in October of 2008 called—that’s the Jewel case that you just referenced.

And in October 2008, the Bush administration said to the lawyers who brought the lawsuit, “Well, we don’t really have time to answer the lawsuit, because we’re going to be on our way out the door in January, so we’d like to extend the time to answer into April of 2009, so the new administration can be the ones who handle this lawsuit.” And, of course, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were ecstatic. They thought, well, of course we’d rather have Obama answer the lawsuit than Bush.

And yet, last Friday, the Obama administration, the Justice Department, filed the first response to this lawsuit, one claiming that the Bush administration illegally spied on Americans, and what Obama said was, number one, that the program that the lawsuit is alleging occurred. The activities that it’s alleging are too secret, and grave national security harm would result if the court looked at this program and ruled on whether it was illegal, and thus demanded its dismissal.

And then the Obama administration invented a brand new radical argument that not even the Bush administration had espoused that says that the government is completely immune from any lawsuits for illegal spying, unless they deliberately or willfully disclose to the public what it is that they learned. So they basically said government officials are immune, when they break the law, from lawsuits, except in the narrowest of cases. And so, the Obama administration sought to bar any lawsuits against Bush officials for illegal spying, after they spent the last eight months assuring the public that Bush officials would still be held accountable even though telecoms were immune.

AMY GOODMAN:
Explain more, Glenn Greenwald, about this issue of sovereign immunity.

GLENN GREENWALD:
Well, the idea of sovereign immunity actually is one that comes from the British king. The idea was that the king is too important and too elevated, he’s the sovereign, and therefore is immune from being sued by his subjects. And when the Constitution was written, essentially the idea of sovereign immunity became the government can’t be dragged into court by citizens, unless it agrees in advance to waive its sovereign immunity.

And what the Congress has done in many, many cases was pass laws that essentially say that if government officials do certain things, the immunity is waived, and they can be sued. And in the wake of the eavesdropping abuses that were discovered and documented in the mid-1970s as a result of the Church Commission, the Congress passed numerous laws, that the president signed into law, that said exactly that. They passed FISA and the Wiretap Act and amendments to the Stored Communications Act, which explicitly said that if the government illegally engages in surveillance on Americans, they can be sued, that causes of action exist on the part of the victims of the illegal eavesdropping to sue the government officials who are responsible. And the laws say that as explicitly as possible.

And what the Obama administration is claiming is that there are provisions of the PATRIOT Act which secretly or implicitly repeal those laws and that the intent of the PATRIOT Act was to immunize government officials, to expand the sovereign immunity so that government officials can no longer be sued for illegal eavesdropping, notwithstanding these explicit laws that say that they can, in the absence of claims that they willfully disclose to the public what they learned. In other words, government officials, according to the Obama administration, can sit there and read your emails and listen in on your phone calls, even when doing so is illegal and even when they know that what they’re doing is illegal, and you can’t sue them unless they willfully disclose to the public what it is that they learn.

It is an extraordinarily extremist claim of government immunity that, as I said, not even the Bush administration espoused. And it’s designed to protect government officials, including Bush officials, from any consequences for having spied illegally on Americans.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Zardari caves to Taliban

Asif Zardari, President of Pakistan, has caved to the Taliban in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). He has essentially allowed one part of the country to adopt its own laws, while the rest of the nation operates under more secular laws. While this could be deemed a function of federalism within Pakistan, it is more likely that the murderous ways of the Taliban forced Zardari to cave in. There was no democratic process involved here. Nobody took a poll in the NWFP and asked all adults what type of government they wanted. Instead, the Taliban shot and killed their way to establishing "shariah" law in the NWFP. What type of law are they going to establish? A pseudo-Islamic legal system that harbors no mercy for anyone who steps out of line. Unlike the Prophet, who they claim to emulate, their hearts are made of stone and they carry no rahma for anyone who disagrees with them.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari signed into law
Monday a peace deal for the nation's violence-plagued Swat Valley, according to a presidential spokesman.

Women wearing burqas in North West Frontier Province.

Women wearing burqas in North West Frontier Province.

The deal implements Islamic law, or sharia, in the Swat Valley region of North West Frontier Province.


Last week, pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Mohammad announced he was pulling out of a peace deal for Swat Valley, saying the government was not serious about implementing Islamic law, or sharia, in the region.

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Saturday the peace deal remained intact.

Mohammad brokered a cease-fire in February between the Pakistani government and his son-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah, who commands the Taliban in Swat Valley.

Although details of the deal were not immediately available, it was understood that the area will come under the Taliban's strict interpretation of sharia.

The central government has little control in the area, but it launched an intense military offensive in late July 2008 to flush out militants from areas of the North West Frontier Province.

As retaliation for the military presence, the Taliban carried out a series of deadly attacks, beheadings and destruction of girls' schools. They also continued to gain ground, setting up checkpoints throughout the area.

Pakistan is under enormous pressure to control the militants within its borders. The militants are blamed for launching attacks in neighboring Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces are fighting militants.

Swat Valley was once one of Pakistan's biggest tourist destinations. It is near the Afghanistan border and is 186 miles (300 kilometers) from the capital, Islamabad.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

The dehijabization phenomenon

Muslim men are going through with this sort of issue as well. Instead of taking off hijab, Muslim men are shaving their beards, or becoming less religiously motivated to perform obligatory prayers. In some form of another, I think this is a pattern many Muslim men and women follow who were rejuvenated by Islamic talks and classes (whether taught by Sufis, traditionalists, Salafis or Ikhwanis), but who did not have an adequate support system in place to keep their "faith" up.

The dehijabization phenomenon
By Darah Rateb

Why am I wearing this?

The headscarf was once viewed as a sign of rebellion. Western women fought for their liberation by removing confining corsets and diminishing the amount of cloth clad to their bodies in public: in short, declaring their sexuality to the masses, and inviting their approval. In clear contradistinction to the excessive glitz women are subjected to by the modern fashion, make-up and nip/tuck industry, the modern Muslim woman concealed her sexuality in public, and allowed it to flourish in private. Now, it seems a new rebellion is taking place.

Aqsa Parvez was a young, Asian-Canadian teenager was brutally murdered by her family in late 2007 for removing her headscarf (hijab). Her death remains shocking as honour killings were previously unrelated to the headscarf, but also because it was yet more evidence to show a serious desire held by hundreds of women around the world to remove their headscarves.

I moved to Egypt in 2000, as the country was going through an ‘Islamic awakening’. Left, right and centre, I saw women donning headscarves seemingly overnight - usually after listening to a lesson by Amr Khaled - the now world famous Muslim televangelist - or someone similar. Others went much further. I remember my shock when someone I knew revolutionized her wardrobe within 24 hours; gone were the low-cut tops, the glitter-clad tight-fitting hipster jeans, and knee high red suede boots. In their place: long flowing black cloaks or abayas.

For the following nine years, I lived, worked and traveled in Africa, South-East Asia, the Middle East, Europe and North America. In the midst of my travels, I noticed a startling phenomenon in the past 3 years: the removal of the cloth, once so adorningly clung to by Muslim women world wide - what I like to call “dehijabization”.

A small piece of evidence; Facebook profile pictures of girls in hijab are increasingly replaced; sometimes, the replacement picture is as simple as a woman in loose clothes with her long, flowing hair showing, while at other times it is women posing in bikinis or mini-skirts. Women all over the world are casting off the hijab.

The question remains: Why? Why did women who spent years, or decades, in hijab decide to dehijabize? What is it that women feel must be fulfilled in life without the hijab that is apparently missing while wearing it?

I decided to ask around. Some women had originally decided to wear the hijab to counteract serious sins they had committed in the past. Ironically, some women also removed the hijab because they felt that they were sinners, and were therefore unable to live up to what they felt should symbolize a woman in a hijab. A huge number of women noted that even the most religious of Muslim men were proposing to women who were not in hijab, leaving the women in hijab feeling rather inadequate; if a religious man is uninterested in a woman in a headscarf, who will be?

Many others grew exhausted of the ‘out-of-place’ feeling they had- either because they were in a majority non-Muslim country, where the hijab was viewed as dehumanizing, or because they were in a Muslim majority country which, as a consequence of Westernisation, increasingly viewed the hijab as ‘unsophisticated’ or a sign of poor education.

Yale University anthropologist Carolyn Rouse noted the hijabization phenomenon in 2004 in her book “Engaged Surrender” as one that was about identity, rather than spirituality. Post 9-11, many women felt the need to show their solidarity and oneness with the Muslim ummah. Donning of the hijab - formerly a spiritual act - achieved that political end.

With that kind of ‘Muslim uniform’ in the 21st century comes a sad if unintentional reality - the individual Muslim woman is simply aggregated into one big, undifferentiated lump, leaving her just as objectified as the “sexually liberated” non-Muslim Western woman. Many, whether in the West or in the Muslim world, choose to give her uneasy glares and glances, while boxing her as an “oppressed woman”, who has the inability to do anything unless it is explicitly related to Islam.

The flip side of the coin is that because of the same obsession with the cloth and not its meaning, Muslims in general will demand that any Muslim woman in a hijab not simply be Muslim, but morph into an infallible angel. In this regard, the blame falls much more on the Muslim than the non-Muslim, for the Muslim should know that nowhere in the Islamic tradition is the hijab a sign of perfect character. Rather, it is the fulfillment of an Islamic duty – just like many others.

In truth, it is these Muslims who I suspect bear much of blame for the dehijabization phenomenon. There is much fear mongering instilled by many present day Muslim preachers, who have somehow made the hijab tantamount with faith itself and told to prepare for an eternity in hell if living without it. Yet, where in any of the books written by of the learned scholars of this religion is there any mentioning of the hijab as one of the kaba’ir, or major sins? A sin it may be, to be sure – but is it so dire? Perhaps it is, but the Prophets, the Messengers and the scholars of this religion emphasized it much less than other duties and responsibilities. Yet, modern day preachers will emphasize it more than they will anything else.

But this brings me to the most important point of dehijabization. Women who remove the headscarf because they choose to interpret the Islamic tradition in their own way without training; they are just as problematic as these preachers. Perhaps this is the most alarming and now widespread reason for dehijabization - women who claim that the hijab is not fard (obligatory). This was cited as the most common reason used by the majority of women I have come across who have dehijabized.

Islamic law comes down to 4 things: The Qura’n, the sunna, ijma’a (consensus), and qiyas (logical judgement). Islamic law crystallized around the interpretations of experts over many centuries: those that are now extant and most common are the 4 Sunni schools of law. For centuries, scholars have learnt Islamic law through those interpretative deductions; all these 4 schools came directly from Prophetic teachings and are upheld with their own particular interpretations all over the world. People in Egypt may not realize, but they pray in accordance to the Shafi’i madhab, while those in India follow the Hanafi interpretation of prayer.

For someone who has not dedicated their life to the study of Islam to declare that they have the same ability to interpret the Qur’an as the erstwhile amateur, comes across to me as incredibly arrogant, even while they may not realize their obvious arrogance.

Yes, there are several different interpretations, but they all must come from the basis of Islamic law. But on the hijab, there is no difference of opinion. The 31st verse of the 24th chapter of the Qur’an mentions the word khimar, which unequivocally means a veil covering the head, according to the agreed upon definition by the majority of classical commentators. The commentators (mufasiroon) further comment by stating that the noun khimar (the singular of khumur) was a loosely worn veil which was worn long before the advent of Islam and long after.

However, during the period of the revelation, it was customary that women bared their breasts while covering their hair. In fact, as Arab men went off to battle, women used to bear their breasts to encourage them to be brave; in some cases, they would show their breasts during warfare. With the advent of Islam, until now, Muslim women have been showing only their hands and faces, in accordance with the prescriptions of the Prophet, and the passing of his prescriptions from that time until this day. That methodology is followed not just in terms of the hijab, an admittedly small piece of cloth, but in the whole of this religion.

It’s irrelevant what I, as an author, do or not do vis-à-vis the issue I write about. But on a personal note, I do happen to wear a hijab, in awareness of my duty. Like most women, I often think to myself that men should learn to control themselves, and how perhaps if they did, women would not be obliged to conceal their sexuality in public, and dress any way we would like. But in the final analysis, God has a hikma or a wisdom as to why He created men this way, and why He asked women to cover themselves - He Knows best and He is All-Knowing.

Darah M. Rateb is the Managing Consultant of the Visionary Consultants Group, a Muslim world – West relations research consultancy with bases in the UK, Egypt and Malaysi

Glenn Beck: Is He On Drugs???

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorNASA Name Contest