Mission: Imperative!

2006-10-12T22:27:00.000-07:00

Feeling Syria's Pain

Wanna hear a classic howler of Middle East coverage in the U.S. press? No problem! First, you should know that, according to WaPo, there's supposedly a wave of conversions among Syrian Sunnis to Shiism, thanks to the recent "divine victory" by Hezbollah. The story, by the redoubtable Ellen Knickmeyer, goes on to claim that "some Syrians say the government is uncomfortable with the expansion of the Shiite minority, seeing it as a sign of the growing regional influence of Iran."

Hahahaha! So now the Syrian regime is "uncomfortable" about "the growing regional influence of Iran"? Get out of here, Ellen Knickmeyer! Syria is Iran's catamite in the Levant, and if Tehran is enjoying "growing regional influence," it's largely due to the willingness of the Syrian regime to assume whatever position its Iranian patron demands. That includes arming Hezbollah (another of Iran's intimates), and celebrating the "divine victory" that has left Hezbollah Land in near-total rubble. If the regime is suffering any discomfort, maybe that's because it has obligingly dropped the soap one time too often in Iran's shower.

As for the purported wave of Syrian conversions to Shiism that is the actual focus of Knickmeyer's story, I'll believe it when I see these converts bleeding on Ashura. Have they really decided that Hassan Nasrallah is still alive because Ali is the Prophet's heir? I don't think so. One of these converts explained the matter pretty clearly.

According to Knickmeyer's piece, "'I've converted politically,' explained Sayed, who said he first prayed as a Shiite during this summer's fighting between Hezbollah guerrillas and the Israeli military. 'I'm belonging to the politics of Hasan Nasrallah.'"

There's a story here, but it's not the one Knickmeyer wrote. The real story is about the desperate twists and turns of a flailing Arab Nationalism. Arabist politics used to be perceived by many Shiites as a threat. With the rise of Nasserism, for example, some Iraqi Shiites feared being lost in a sea of hostile Sunnis, while others feared that Arabism's confiscatory economics would ruin a community made up substantially of small merchants. Now, with little to claim but a half-century of failure and destruction, what's left of the Arabist impulse is playing itself out in Islamist terms. In Alawite-led Syria, Arabism has momentarily become a Shiite game (at least according to this story), one played out at the behest of a country -- Iran -- that historically holds Arabs in contempt.

But while WaPo turns its big spotlight on some temporary café converts who think that Hezbollah has brought the Arabs together, other Shiites regard Hezbollah in very different terms. The Shiite Mufti of Tyre Ali Al-Amin, for example, is surely a far more legitimate voice of Shiism than are some scattered nuts in Damascus. He lives daily with the ruinous results of Hezbollah's "divine victory," and he has repeated condemned Nasrallah in harsh terms for bringing ruin to Lebanon's Shiites while serving the interests of Iran. I'm still waiting for WaPo's story about him.

2006-10-11T22:29:00.000-07:00

How Arab security states breed insecurity
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff

Sometimes when you get away from your part of the world and view it from afar, the wider perspective can make the dark spots appear less troublesome. Unfortunately, seen from the west coast of the United States, where I have started an extended academic visit, the Arab world appears ever more troubled and troubling than it does from within.

The trend in the Middle East seems to be heading toward more incoherence and violence, not less. The situations in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq are the most troubling right now, as local communal tensions and incompetent governments are aggravated by foreign interventions and alliances, leading to still weaker central governments and greater risks of chronic political violence.

Yet these three troubled lands are not aberrations within a region of otherwise stable and coherent countries. They are only the most glaring examples of low-quality statehood in an Arab world where the concept of sovereign, stable and independent states remains thinly grafted on a deeper foundation of ethnic, tribal and religious identities. The ugly choice that seems to face most Arab citizens is to embrace security and stability in degrading modern police states where human dignity and freedom are banished; or risk chaos and civil war where normalcy is a forlorn hope.

Three particular trends seem to define the broad deterioration in the previous half-century of relative stability and development. One is the continuing intervention of foreign armies and governments, often justifying themselves by claiming to seek more stable societies, but usually only creating more instability and incoherence. Iraq and Afghanistan are the most glaring examples of this phenomenon, which has plagued the region for over two centuries now, with no end in sight.

With the smaller oil-rich states remaining exceptions to the rule, a second trend is the waning of central government power in most Arab countries, alongside the weakening of a few strong regional powers that used to throw their weight around and intervene to resolve disputes in the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the two best examples of such countries that now seem to have little power to intervene constructively around the Middle East, as witnessed by their inability to improve conditions in Lebanon or Palestine, despite attempts to do so.

The third trend is the diffusion of centralized state power to a more complex array of actors in society, including armed militias, political groups, criminal gangs, tribal and religious leaders, corporate powers and charismatic individuals. The latest actors to join this line-up are international military forces, such as those in Lebanon and Afghanistan.

The cumulative impact of these three main trends is the slow degradation of the concept of centralized nation-states in the Arab region. This is probably an inevitable reflection of the fact that the modern Arab nation-state as we have known it since around World War I has not responded to the interests of two of its three primary constituencies: the Western powers that midwived these states, and their own citizens, whose lives generally improved from the 1920s to the 1970s, but since the mid-1980s have seen political and economic conditions deteriorate on the whole.

The Arab state's third constituency - its self-appointed rulers - seems to be doing okay in most cases, as evidenced by ruling families, parties and political elites in some "republics" that have remained in power for decades. The problem is that countries that primarily serve their own rulers are not very credible or sustainable entities; so we now witness the slow unraveling of some of these Arab countries that have proven to be politically brittle. They have slowly transformed themselves into odd lands, defined by armed gangs, militias, or chronic stalemate.

The main problem in the Arab world is not terrorism or innate political violence; it is the incoherence of modern statehood in the manner and form that it has been grafted onto this region during the past century or so. In principle, Arabs are perfectly able to manage statehood and its attributes, such as the rule of law, political representation, pluralism, and the peaceful contestation of power. But in practice most Arabs have not had an opportunity to practice these things in governance systems that they have defined and chosen, and within logical sovereign frontiers that they have drawn themselves.

The deadly and chronic combination of local tyrants, Arab-Israeli warfare, and Western military intervention over many decades has brought us to this sad situation today. We will flee our current terrible fate by reversing these trends of Western militarism, Israeli dictates and assaults, and Arab strongmen, rather than perpetuating them in the name of a false and elusive security that how threatens entire nation-states after having killed many human beings.

Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

2006-10-10T22:12:00.000-07:00

Why I'll be a dead man when Islam reforms?

I believe Islam is destined to experience reformation just like all the other great faiths. No matter how long it'll take, it will happen one day or another provided that Muslims stop blaming the West, Jews, blah, blah, and start looking in the mirror. However, I truly believe that it won't happen in my life time. Why? Because of many reasons, among them is this editorial by The Daily Star, an English language newspaper that circulates with the Herland Tribune. Instead of taking about reformation, instead of saying that Islam needs reform, the editorial plays the usual chorus: nothing is wrong with us, nothing is wrong with covering a woman's face, it's all the west's fault.

When I finished reading the editorial, I got the feeling it was a mere translation of the Arabic joke articles that appear in the local government owned paper.

If an editorial such as that appears in Lebanon's most respected English publication, what hope do we have then?

My 2 cents regarding Jack Straw and the face veil: if you have the right to cover your face, I have the right to know whom am I talking to. Case closed.

2006-10-09T21:51:00.000-07:00

North Korea N-test

Going against world opinion, North Korea seems to have done the unthinkable in this day and age: it exploded a nuclear device and this has earned it universal condemnation. Even China, which is seen as perhaps the one country with which North Korea has some kind of relationship and which enjoys maybe some leverage with Pyongyang has condemned the test calling it "brazen" and expressing its "resolute opposition" to it. Japan, as expected since it would feel directly threatened by North Korea's nuclear capability, has called the test "unpardonable", while Australia -- a close ally of America -- has called for further UN sanctions. Of course, a major argument that goes against North Korea exploding a nuclear device is based on simple economics. The country does not have any trade with the rest of the world and the majority of those who live under its totalitarian regime have a very poor standard of living. As if all this weren't enough, it has fallen victim to severe famine in recent years, which may have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of North Koreans. Clearly, in such a situation, for any government placed in as precarious an economic position as North Korea's, to embark on a nuclear weapons programme and conduct a nuclear test is to show a complete disregard for the needs of its people for basic necessities and other socio-economic development.

However, some analysts based in East Asia have said that the test may not be a provocation but rather a way -- in Pyongyang's mind at least -- of forcing the US to negotiate directly with it. This logic says that the country may well be willing to give up its nuclear programme in return for aid and security guarantees. In this regard, China's demand, made following the test on Monday, that North Korea return to the six-party talks it left in November last year needs to be heeded by Pyongyang. Countries such as Australia that are now advocating sanctions should remember that North Korea is already among the most isolated and closed countries in the world and imposing further sanctions on it will only drive it further into reclusion and disproportionately affect its people. Clearly, the way forward is not to isolate it but to engage with it, in any case, that is the only approach that would make possible the application of any leverage with the North Korean leader. This makes sense because it was in 2005 that the country declared itself to be a nuclear power, hoping to gain the attention of the US towards substantive talks, but that only invited international opprobrium and UN sanctions. Clearly that approach did not work and now Pyongyang has exploded its first nuclear device. The world community needs to immediately engage in a dialogue with the country before it decides on any further rash decisions.

2006-10-08T23:15:00.000-07:00

About those poll numbers...

I've been trying to write about this poll and its results-which many consider depressing while I consider interesting-and I had received many emails asking and looking for answers but I was distracted by the rising tension in Baghdad and the unexpected curfew.

I'm not going to apologize, praise or give excuses for what was shown about my people's attitude in that poll but I will try to find some objective answers and identify relevant factors of influence that led to these results.

Now that I spent enough time mulling this over, I can say that having 40% of Iraqis who disapprove of attacks on US troops is actually a surprising figure (in a good way) and it's not that bad at all. I mean the numbers indicate that war has more support in Iraq than it has in the UK itself or in countries in the Middle East where America is not waging a war! But again, if we want to comment on these numbers we need to keep a few points in our minds...

The magnitude of pressure and misinformation the people here are subject to from the media is a factor that cannot be ignored. Since April 2003 and till now virtually all the media kept describing the US presence as a force of occupation even when the legal status of the forces ceased to be so long time ago.
For over three years, the media kept focusing on the mistakes and shortcomings of the US military and US administration in what I can only describe as force-feeding hatred to the Iraqi people.

It's not only the media, there are also our politicians. A good deal of the political class here is guilty of treason; some betrayed the US after posing as allies and friends while some betrayed the people by dragging them to an absolutely unnecessary confrontation with the US military.
Both types have been trying to convince the people that America is responsible for instability and chaos in Iraq.

The behavior of Iraq's neighbors, Arab league, UN and the anti-war crowds in America and Europe has had a no better influence than the media or our irrational politicians and clerics.

What do you expect the attitude of the common Iraqi to be when he watches, hears or reads about the fairly wide anti-war movement in the west?
When there are Americans who say America is wrong or say the war isn't for a just cause and when Americans say the US presence in Iraq is bad, and when that is the only side of the image the media focuses on, it becomes an invitation for Iraqis to resist this presence and there's no doubt many will answer the invitation whether with words or violent action since they will get the impression that they're legitimately resisting something bad.

We have little in our culture about compromise or working-out-our-differences-peacefully. Radical solutions often seem more tempting to the ordinary, less educated people.
When everyone, and I mean everyone, keeps telling them America is their enemy, the common reaction would certainly involve violent means of expression...yes, that's our common way in showing our disagreement with others in this part of the world.
It sucks, it's backward and it's savage but it's the fact and it will not change overnight, such changes happen slowly.

We should not expect pleasing answers from confused people, living in extremely difficult conditions, subjected to extreme emotional, physical and psychological stress and being misguided and misinformed by biased media and corrupt leaders.

After all this pressure and suffering, 40% of Iraqis still view America as their friend...now really, you can't find that in many countries that America did not fire a single bullet at especially in the Middle East.
There are 40% of Iraqis who view American soldiers (not only American people) as friends and in my opinion this should be considered a good foundation for building a much better relationship.
Some improvement in performance combined with removing some of the sources of negative influence can make the numbers change drastically.

I said in the beginning I would not apologize for or praise my people's attitude but I've changed my mind. I can't ignore the part of the poll that says 94% of Iraqis disapprove of al-Qaeda! I'm sure we can't get such a result anywhere else in the Arab or Muslim world...well, maybe not even in the west...who knows!

2006-10-07T19:26:00.000-07:00

Strength lies in love and peace
Sivananthi T.

The dramatisation of Gandhi's "inner dialogue" in a recent play "Sammy" depicted him and his conscience discussing and debating the ideals and the ideas that moulded his life.

After studying both the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita, he discovered the undying truth: love and peace were commodities of the strong. With this idea as his bedrock, he launched the non-violence movement. Many would find it surprising that the saviour of the colonialists inspired the anti-colonialist: "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

He was firm in his view that violence had no part in his movement simply because "violence... when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

Love, truth and peace are weapons of such great power and might that they are unassailable and it was with these weapons that he routed the British from India.

The inner dialogue is a crucial step for all those who intend to live lives of integrity, rooted in values. We need to be completely and utterly honest with our own selves, to closely examine our convictions, our beliefs, our actions and our thoughts. We need to measure whether these reflect our highest aspirations for ourselves.

Such towering beacons of peace and non-violence are needed now more than ever. In the current climate, when too many people feel that war, terror and violence are the only effective means of putting forward an agenda, a Gandhi of any race, any creed, any faith is most welcome.

But Gandhi did have a shortcoming and that was his lack of outer dialogue with some Muslims, in particular Mohd Ali Jinnah. If Gandhi had been able to engage with Jinnah effectively, the course of India and Pakistan may have been very different.

This clearly shows that although inner dialogue is exemplary, outer dialogue is just as critical. To build links between people, between nations and between cultures, real dialogue is required.

So it was refreshing to hear someone saying: "In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.

A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures... The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions that underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby ..."

I felt the speaker hit the nail on the head: perhaps this was the missing link in the world dialogue today. How can one effectively bridge one culture which is completely secular with another which is completely religious? Because one's way of thinking excludes the very basis of existence for the other and as such both cannot really "dialogue."

Most would be surprised to know that these passages are from the Pope's speech which has sparked off so much controversy. It may well seem that an obscure quotation may have hijacked the content and the aim of the speech.

However I cannot but feel that though there are some lone players encouraging dialogue and understanding there are greater forces at work. These forces gain more from polarising people than bringing them together. I cannot help but also feel that the protests and the threats against the Pope and Christians was the precise image that a media with a specific agenda was looking for, and they were handed it on a platter. These are all pieces of evidence used by certain powers to create and consolidate an identity and an image of Islam and Muslims.

I could not help but think had only one learned, religious scholar from any one of the Middle Eastern countries stood up and said, "I agree with you on the substance of what you said but I feel that your example is inappropriate and thought brother, you know not what you say, I forgive you," this would have turned the tables. Would that have been too difficult?

The writer is a communications consultant who works on gender, urban governance and transparency issues. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com

2006-10-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

Differences in news coverage
By Esra'a (Bahrain)

Why are our emotions constantly toyed with? Is it due to the fact that most of us tend to follow our hearts rather than where the actual facts lead us to? Is your average reader/viewer truly that gullible?

A current event which would serve as a good example of how news agencies employ propaganda techniques is the coverage of Israel's recent war on Hezbollah. If we critically examine the way the "facts" of this war were communicated to us through mass media, we can see the similarities and differences of not only the styles of reporting, but also the policies and political stance of the news networks.

During this war, the New York Times took an interesting stance by revealing Israel's usage of U.S bombs. On August 25, 2006, the New York Times published an article by David Cloud, implying that America's tax dollars are contributing to Lebanon's destruction. Cloud implies through excessive reporting that Israel may have illegally used cluster bombs which violate America's policy. The author includes Israel's historical use of such weapons, as well as statistical information from the Lebanese government and the UN, outlining severe casualties:

The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.

The use of these statistics makes it easier for readers to sympathize and side with Lebanon during this conflict. The author cites sources to expose what he perceives as the reality of this war. The general public considers statistics from the UN to be either flawless or well-researched, making it harder to question such facts. Thus, it can be argued that this particle report is guilty of grey propaganda, meaning that while the source is clearly defined, the readers are not certain whether the information is accurate or not.

Amnesty International expressed concern for the Lebanese public when the number of victims were increasing due to Israel's use of force. Amnesty may have employed the method of glittering generality (used to make us accept and approve a story or event without examining the evidence.) They often use materials in a way that make it harder for the readers to question its sources, and they tend to include as many personal experiences as they can in order to make it easier to "give in." First-hand experiences are emphasized to mount the evidence against Israel:

Amnesty International delegates visiting towns and villages in south Lebanon found that in village after village houses had been subject to heavy artillery shelling as well as having been destroyed by precision-guided, air-delivered munitions.

This makes it hard to question the validity of the information, so is Amnesty striving to enforce this mentality upon its readers, or do they mean to inform? A static similarity between these kinds of sources is that they serve a certain ideology; they have a very specific aim. More often than not, the aim is to convince people, rather than mislead them. If a news network or an organization is promoting a specific theory disguising it as the "truth," the editors and reporters of that news network would consider it their duty to be truthful to the public, and thus, in their collective opinion, there will be nothing unethical about exaggerating a report or including false information. In such a case, it can be argued that the aim would justify the means.

This entry has nothing to do with the war, and everything to do with how it's (still) being reported. I don't wish to discuss who did what and why, but rather who is telling us what, and through what method of reporting?

The media today isn't so great in telling us what to think. Many of us can easily disagree with what's given and have the ability to pick it apart. But mass media is great in telling us what to think about, meaning if a certain event doesn't go through the media's filters, it will go unnoticed. And that's depressing, I can't imagine why people consider themselves to be completely aware (politically and otherwise) when they depend on news that's summarized in less than 5 minutes. We probably aren't aware of 95% of this world's real events.

2006-10-05T22:18:00.000-07:00

Commentary: Iran's troublesome behavior
Jalal Alavi

-- Historically speaking, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the source of much international as well as domestic tension. From the 1979 hostage crisis to the development of a suspicious nuclear program (according to the International Atomic Energy Agency) to the draconian treatment of its subjects, the clerical regime has managed to endure as an important source of unacceptable behaviour both in and outside its borders.

How could this endurance be explained? Though I think a proper discussion of the issue would be impossible within the limited scope of one article, the exercise of severe suppression at home and the establishing of politically motivated commercial networks abroad seem to top the list of reasons behind the Islamic Republic's deplorable endurance for so long.

As far as its domestic policy of repression is concerned, the Islamic Republic's years of severe human and civil rights violations, which include the torture and killing of numerous dissidents and political prisoners, can speak for themselves. These records have been meticulously documented over the years by such humanitarian organizations as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Reporters Sans Frontieres, and are readily available to those who may, hopefully some day, be interested in reviewing them.

To this one should also add, of course, the recent government closures of various print media (e.g. Shargh and Nameh), and plans to purge Iranian universities of student activists and many of Iran's most distinguished academics labelled by the regime as liberal or secular in orientation. Trade unionism has also very much suffered as a result of more intensified crackdown policies recently introduced by the regime, not least for fear of further national strikes of the kind the public transportation industry was involved in a few weeks ago.

As far as its international commercial ties are concerned, the Islamic Republic has been the source of many lucrative contracts for countries and regions as diverse as Russia, China, Japan, Europe and Africa - mainly as a way of securing both livelihood and longevity. It is interesting to note that, according to news accounts, many such contracts have never made it to parliament for public scrutiny and have thus remained classified to this very day, especially those related to the oil and gas sectors. A quick review of local newspaper accounts covering the disputes between Iran's Guardian Council and the local oil industry's management apparatus during the latter years of the Khatami presidency would serve as a good example, among many, of the above account.

These disputes, which were later censured from above as improper discussions (exposes), once more reflected not only the entrenched nature of rival economic camps within the regime's corrupt power structure, but also the Islamic Republic's overall strategy of employing commercial and financial institutions abroad as a way of buying international influence and securing a tight grip on power.

A careful analysis of recent remarks made by figures representing the major powers over Iran's defiance of the United Nations would clearly reveal the strength of Iran's global commercial links, on the one hand, and the profiteering attitude of many Security Council members, on the other. It is, after all, mainly as a result of this same sort of dynamic that the international community has yet to come up with a meaningful response to the Iranian regime.

In contemplating the reasons behind its endurance for 27 long years, one should also take note of the important correlation that exists between the regime's success in exploiting its commercial and financial ties globally and its maltreatment of Iranian citizenry. In this respect, quite a large segment of the democratic community, because of its hitherto insatiable interest in doing business with the clerical regime, is at least partially responsible for the Islamic Republic's ill behaviour towards its subjects.

In other words, and despite traditional calls by realists to the contrary, had this segment of the democratic community and its leaders at some point set respect for human and civil rights as an explicit precondition for doing business with the non-democratic world, neither the people of Iran nor the international community would be facing the kind of crises they are facing today. As it stands, the intense adversity associated with this historical short-sidedness has not only affected the lives of billions of people worldwide, but also has made a mockery of that community's purported subscription to democratic ideals.

In relation to the above, one should also take note of the fact that it is partially as a result of such short-sightedness that Iran is now being ruled by a small clique of incompetent clerics obsessed with despotism in the name of Islam and a hatred of all that seems Western in origin. Had the democratic community - as a matter of principle - prevented the Iranian regime (or any other authoritarian regime, for that matter) from exploiting its relationship with the West as a means for silencing voices of dissent and democratic accountability, Iran would not be the pariah state it is today. This indeed is a major dilemma of our day in need of urgent rectification.

In all, the world has become a much smaller place, and what this means for the democratic community (liberal and social alike; Venezuela included) is that it can no longer ignore the adverse consequences of its unqualified relationship with the non-democratic world. In the case of Iran, the democratic states (especially members of the European Union and Japan) should consider taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the nuclear crisis in order to re-evaluate their commercial and financial ties to Iran based on the above discussion. Again, this would, in the long run, prove much more beneficial to them than if they were to solely focus on the finding of a win-win solution to the nuclear standoff.

As for the United States, it is the duty of its citizens and grassroots organizations somehow to force the George W. Bush administration, as well as future administrations, to show an aversion to the use of force and violent regime change, and, instead, capitalize on the US's years of lack of relations with the Iranian regime by leading the democratic community to heed the call made above.

In short, the community of democratic nations must strive to keep its contacts (commercial or otherwise) with the Iranian regime at the lowest level possible until such time the Islamic Republic either gradually crumbles or matures into showing full respect for the human and civil rights of the Iranian people. Should the community decide to ignore the above concerns altogether, it will be doing so at its own peril.

Jalal Alavi is a sociologist and political commentator residing in Britain. This article, save for the title, first appeared on the Mail & Guardian Online on 19 September.

2006-10-04T21:38:00.000-07:00

What Moktada Knows!

Maybe you thought you knew why the U.S. invaded Iraq. Maybe you thought it had something to do with Saddam Hussein, or the goal of spreading democratic values in the Middle East, or that maybe the point was Iraq's oil, or that the invasion at least reflected a policy that served some political or economic end. Silly you! We finally know exactly why the U.S. is in Iraq, and it all has to do with the Twelfth Imam.

Sez who? Sez the irrepressible Moktada Al-Sadr, the Shiite "cleric" who divides his time between vicious murder by night, and unintentional standup comedy by day. Last Friday, Al-Sadr delivered a sermon [Arabic link] in Kufa in which he revealed the truth (as he grasps it) about the U.S. invasion. According to him, the Pentagon has "a complete and hefty file" on the Twelfth Imam (lacking only a picture!), is anticipating his return to Iraq, and has amassed a force in the country so as to meet him with military might!

The Awaited Imam is a figure who disappeared from Iraq in the 10th century, and whom Shiite believers regard as being in a state of "Greater Occultation" -- a condition of some complexity that we need not go into here. The point is that believers have long awaited his Earthly return. He has a shrine in Samarra, by the way.

In the past week the Iraqi story that has most interested Westerners has been the U.S. intelligence report about the war that was leaked to the newspapers for political reasons. By contrast, most of my Iraqi friends have been utterly fascinated by Moktada's sermon, which a lot of them regard as being a piece of much-needed comic relief.

It's rare that one actually hears anything directly from Al-Sadr; he escapes from his handlers only occasionally. Not long ago, for example, we heard directly from Al-Sadr on the subject of Iraqi interest in soccer, which Moktada revealed to be the result of a Zionist scheme!

Perhaps because Al-Sadr has a following of thug murderers, the Western press treats him as a credible figure. It publishes written "interviews" with him even when no reporter has spoken with him, and cites written statements issued in his name that he has surely never seen. The Juan Cole wing of nutty academicians hails him as a "young Shiite nationalist" of great promise (though even Cole found Moktada's recent remarks to be "worrisome"), and major Western newspapers have anointed him as Iraq's new political "kingmaker."

It cannot be said of Al-Sadr that if he didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. He does exist, unfortunately, and yet we've invented him anyway.

2006-10-03T05:03:00.000-07:00

What Secret is This?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

I can not understand all this secrecy over the recent Washington report which says the war on Iraq has increased terrorism. This is the conclusion the world's media has made in its reports and coverage, including the conservative American press. The report is the work of 16 intelligence agencies. Until the report is published in full, its summary suggests that it includes the most publicized secret in the world since the appearance of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, hundreds of videos showing abducted people, and ID cards found in the clothes of hundreds of people who were killed. They included Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans, Mauritanians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Syrians, Palestinians and Sudanese. Had these nationals entered Iraq during the rule of the deposed president Saddam Hussein, they would have been executed before they could even use their weapons, since Saddam would not have shown tolerance for ideas, extremism or even religiousness.

Yes, Iraq was free from terrorism during most of Saddam's rule, until he invaded Kuwait. His army was defeated, his borders were opened and groups of armed opposition managed to infiltrate the country. After that, his forces could only maintain control over the big cities and the highways during the day.

However, after the fall of the Iraqi regime and its incompetent president Saddam, (Paul) Bremer, the most incompetent governor in the history of wars, volunteered to demobilize half a million Iraqi military men who had mastered the art of fighting through twenty years of war experience. He also kicked out the security and intelligence forces with all the information that they possessed about anything that moved in Iraq. As a result, the whole of Iraq became a field for terrorism par excellence.

This analysis does not require all US intelligence agencies to figure out because it represents the basics of politics, and it is common knowledge, and the most apparent conclusion.

We are very much surprised to see this report is classified. Before that, we were surprised to see that intelligence experts took so long to discover the truth about terrorism and Iraq. We are similarly astonished to hear the current oversimplification. It is said there would not have been terrorism, had Iraq not been invaded. Even after they ran away from the ruins of Torra Borra, Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden and his colleagues were spread like cancer in at least 15 countries around the world. They still have their supplies coming in. Preachers and promotions go to them and weapons are stored in territories under their control.

No doubt Iraq has become an extended battlefield, and this has expanded the movement of Al-Qaeda. It has attracted more recruits to its folds. Now Al-Qaeda has more publicity than is necessary for partisanship and confrontation. There is no doubt about this at all. However, the belief that extremism and terrorism would have not become dominant in the past three years is a wrong notion, which contradicts all kinds of reality on earth. Terrorism was not born in Iraq and is not confined to its borders. It is a very long battle. The fight against communism took fifty years. The new war on terror might take as much time. In other words, we still have thirty years ahead of us in our fight against terrorism. Therefore, we should not jump to conclusions and make predictions.

About Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed:
The general manager of Al -Arabiya television, Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

2006-10-02T22:23:00.000-07:00

I (heart/love) Sanity

The French school teacher who wrote this anti-Islam article in the Le Figaro received several death threats. Several of them were threating to behead him. Also, jihadi websites posted the teacher's name and address and very detailed maps showing how to easily reach the man's house!

Anyway, this new was posted on Al Arabiya's website. Many of the comments posted were sane and great. Sanity does exist in the Arab world. It's just buried under the tones of sand. It'll take time for it to appear and be dominant.

I chose a few comments and translated them for you.

"In the West, there is freedom of expression in all aspects of life. They are not afraid of criticizing Jesus Christ and yet Christianity still didn't get destroyed. We also didn't hear about murder plots against Tom Hanks or the director because of the movie The Davinci Code. So till when will we hear about us threatning to kill this or that because of an opinion that contradicts my faith? We have to show how civilized our nation is by working and thinking freely without fear so we can stand head to head in front of the great nations without slogans and assasinations.We have to draw a bright picture about our civilization which is far from assasinations. These death threats to the author, will they make him believe even more in the thoughts he published or the opposite?"

"A stupid threat coming from stupid people and Muslims in France will pay the price for this. The French teacher will not get killed, but the French reaction to the death threats can result in an awakening of radical European groups like the neo Nazis who will find this issue a golden opportunity to attack Muslims, kill them, and burn their houses. In the future we will see who will really bear the price of the radical Islamists' stupidity, the French teacher or Muslims in France."

"The West could be wrong in their judgment on Islam and Muslims, but Muslims were the ones who portrayed this negative and wrong picture about themselves."

"Muslims should protest via lawful means. However, death threats are part of terrorism and violence and is against Islam and Muslims."

"Behead him because he insulted Islam?? Is this our religion?? Is this the teaching of our religion and prophet Muhammed? Fear Allah you Islamists who tarnished the image of Islam in the entire world, who made the entire world repull against Muslims because of your barbaric and absurd acts. Instead of cutting his head off, you could have convince him that he was wrong and it is wrong to insult the faith of others."

2006-10-01T22:13:00.000-07:00

TEACHING ISLAMIC STUDIES - POST-9/11

By Kristin Zahra Sands

We are living in a world of nearly instantaneous communication. Visual and oral media reports are crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries with a speed and impact that written texts cannot. Our public and political conversations increasingly use a variety of abbreviated and formulaic means of communication that only hint at complex social, economic, and political issues worldwide.

As we veer from one crisis to another with the Muslim world, there are a number of topics one needs familiarity with in order to make sense of events.

To mention just a few, there is the history of the creation of the state of Israel and the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Then there is the history of the rest of the modern Middle East. There is
the history of the economic, military, and political agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The list goes on.

How many of us are well read on European history and the current situation of its immigrant communities? How about the timeline and details of European and American military interventions in the Muslim world? How many of us understand global economics? How many non-Muslims are familiar with the basic texts, practices, and interpretations of Islam and the histories of Muslim cultures?

Faced with the daunting challenge of comprehending the many historical and contemporary factors leading up to current events, it is hardly any wonder that we all gravitate toward the simplicity of images, symbols, and slogans that encapsulate what might otherwise seem too exhausting to even contemplate.

The uproar that followed the published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad is a case in point that reflects the failure of our common political conversations. In an increasingly interdependent world, we are all faced with the necessity of making sense of complicated situations that demand extremely difficult and painful decisions that are heavy with unintended consequences.

What is needed in this avalanche of images and soundbites is a greater emphasis on low-tech, unglamorous, and labor-intensive education. Teaching Islamic studies post-9/11, as I have, is much more challenging than in previous years. Although my non-Muslim students freely acknowledge their ignorance of Islam and the Muslim world at the beginning of my classes, they carry with them the baggage of years of media images portraying the "veils and violence" of Islam.

It takes time and patience to avoid apologetics, to avoid Islam bashing, and to demonstrate instead, example by example, the richness and variety of Muslim cultures and peoples, past and present. It takes time to learn foreign languages. It takes time to encourage critical thinking, not only of written texts, but also of visual and multimedia products. It takes time to address the complexities of the relationships between religious, ethnic, and political communities. But it is time well spent.

Creating an environment conducive to dialogue, debate, and deliberate action requires patience and persistence. It may not be as spectacular as the controversies that periodically grab our attention, but it works, one student at a time.

Kristin Zahra Sands is a Mellon Fellow and professor of Islamic Studies at Sarah Lawrence College. She is also a fellow at New York University's Center for Religion and Media.

2006-09-30T21:00:00.000-07:00

SPECIAL REPORTS

IN PURSUIT OF ARAB REFORM

We can wait no longer
By Dr Amir Al-Naffakh

Reform is imperative. It cannot be bypassed or delayed any longer.

In the Arab world, it is already overdue. The middle class has been decimated and poverty is widespread, while security-obsessed states have grown stronger at the expense of civil-society institutions.

Reform is required as vindication of a brilliant past, when the Arab community had its own culture marked by innovation and accommodation of the other.

This was a reflection of Islam, which had released both the community's and the individual's potential for creativity, reform and change.

Widespread authoritarianism

Reform also serves as recognition of the present and as an outline for the future where a well-considered reconciliation between Western modernity and the thinking embraced by most schools of contemporary political Islam is forged.

These schools have their own notions and methods as regards democratic reform and the need to push it through. However, political authoritarianism has established itself as a ubiquitous phenomenon.

Any attempt to challenge it from within society is met with exclusion through repression. External challenges face political rejection and popular resentment.

Listening skills

This is so despite the fact that reform is essentially an endeavour to widen the margin of shura - consultation - freedom, democracy and political participation as adopted in the theory and practice of Islam.

Reform involves economic development which promotes social mobility in the interests of renewal and advancement. This would create a cultural and political environment conducive to tolerance and hope.

In this perspective, reform is sought by generations that feel betrayed by political regimes determined to shun reform with flimsy excuses and a lopsided logic that says reform should be made step by step. Reform is sought by generations that feel betrayed by political regimes

In reality, political dogmatism, predominant in the Arab world, and a lack of participation in state decision-making, refutes this argument.

The other argument against an overall initiative is based on the claim that each state has its own conditions, political system and internal circumstances.

Accordingly, reform must come from within as its makers will be better equipped to deal with peculiar conditions.

The real meaning of phrases such as "internal circumstances" or "from within" need to be cleared up.

Cultural identity

They can refer to the regimes, political communities and civil society, which by no means have identical interests, tendencies or purposes. This is backed up by a proposition centred on cultural specificity and identity.

The whole package is then delivered in a messianic discourse assigning to the "elites" the task of selling it to the Arab public.

To be sure, the common denominator between the Arab regimes is that they run a police state rotten to the core whose sole concern is to ward off such overdue political demands as democracy, human and civil rights.

In this context, any talk about specificity and identity is meaningless when people live in poverty and are viewed with suspicion even for their silence.

It is as though Arab peoples' specificity is ingrained in despotism and such values as freedom and democracy are its antithesis. This, in fact, is diametrically opposed to the principles of Islam that guarantee human rights and freedom.

Validating the regimes

There are those who say that existing reform initiatives are flawed in terms of vision and diagnosis; they say launching initiatives without presenting reforms first to the Arab rulers, who might delete and amend what they deem unsuitable, is unwise.

Thus, the argument goes, reform initiatives would threaten the entire political edifice and consequently undermine stability; "extremist" forces and opposition parties that have no inkling of statesmanship would take over.

They say such forces are ostensibly dissenting out of jealousy over the privileges that go with huge wealth; once they are in power they will only bring about political and social disorder.

The implicit goal is to discredit reform initiatives. These are simply futile attempts to perpetuate a form of government that is both despotic and patrimonial.

The regimes in question have failed in the management of a peaceful political life, in their promise of development, in modernising their own state structure and institutions and in respecting the very constitutions drafted by them.

Yet, they give themselves the right to act as representatives and trustees of the Arab people, to decide on their behalf what they consider to be good for the people in every sphere of their lives.

To differ is sedition. Being the only choice available, and holding all the power in their hands, obedience to the ruling elite is a duty. They afford themselves all this even though they lack such criteria of legitimacy as consensus as known in Islam.

Various interpretations

Political leaders and sections of the public see an immediate solution to the Palestinian problem and any reform plan as inseparable.

Here, reform is rejected for two reasons: First, because the US is proposing an initiative in this direction - as if this is a good enough pretext to balk at changing a decadent political state of affairs.

Second, because reform is rejected by those who have suppressed all rights except their own right to reproduce despotism.

The irony is that reforming the structures of government that have caused the present crisis in state and society is portrayed here as an obstacle to resolving the Palestinian problem.

There are those who call for stopping the Arab people's deteriorating condition - a result of the cumulative impact of misrule - by other means than those based on the existing regimes' own logic.

Arab governments convene meetings where plans to reform the Arab League are scrapped because of inter-Arab squabbling.

The international community says it wants internal reform; the Arab peoples are yearning to see their economic and political conditions reformed; but the existing regimes are aborting such aspirations.

This absurd spectacle finds expression in the regimes' own discourse. They are reportedly interested in mending inter-Arab fences.

The priority, however, is not about replacing controversial clauses in the Arab League statutes and then cheering any compromise settlement as the ultimate goal.

What is needed

What is needed are specific political and legal measures within a set time limit so that the demand for democratic reform does not lose its momentum in the face of the public call to reject external initiatives on the grounds that they encroach on national sovereignty.

A primary task of any reform project is to immediately engage the Arab people in the process of political modernisation.

However, the requirements and conditions for this modernisation process should be fulfilled starting with an objective analysis of the social as well as political structures. A content analysis of the dominant discourse and practice is equally needed.

Historical impediments to attaining a pluralist culture should be identified.

Political measures are necessary for democracy, as is identifying the social conditions necessary for Arab civil society to overcome the weakness of its institutions in order to spearhead peaceful transformation to democracy.

Another important element is a sense of historical responsibility and political earnestness as regards the political community, the political system and the ruler.

Although historical events are made by a combination of objective conditions, the subjective factor still plays a role in speeding up events.

Popular support

One advantage of the reform initiatives being proposed is their popularity in the Arab street. This may put pressure on Arab regimes and prompt them to put forward their own plans under the scrutiny of the international community and its organisations.

Moreover, such initiatives would show the authoritarian regimes that they are in a historical predicament that can no longer be evaded by shifting it to society and state in the form of a permanent crisis.

It is becoming evident that any initiative would corner the regimes and give vent to the indignation felt by Arab societies in deep crisis.

In this duel, where the battle lines are being drawn between Arab regimes and the international community, any loss sustained by the regimes is a gain to public freedoms in Arab societies.

Dr Amir Al-Naffakh is a professor of Islamic philosophy at Baghdad University.

2006-09-29T00:47:00.000-07:00

War on peace...

Yesterday around noon, the 'Virgin Mary Old Eastern Church' in Baghdad was attacked with a series of bombings that involved the use of at least three explosive devices.

The sequence in which the bombs were set off indicates the terrorists were trying to inflict as many casualties as possible among the worshippers who were preparing to leave the church after the Sunday ceremony.

What really makes me sad and angry is that churches are the most peaceful places in the country.

Churches did not turn into bomb factories or hideouts for criminals. They remained beacons for peace and love unlike our mosques and Husseiniyat that drifted far away from their original purpose and sadly became sources of fear and death and changed to become homes to torturers and kidnappers.

It's not the first time churches come under attacks from criminal extremists but if this attack was an act of revenge for what the pope said, then it shows how ignorant those criminals are and how much blind hate they have in their hearts because that church is an orthodox church, not a catholic!

But No, this is not about the pope's "offensive" remarks and I cannot find any motives behind such attacks but hate; hate for everything that represents peace.

Regardless of the motives of the attack, the government and its security apparatus are to blame for not providing sufficient protection for Christian worship places after the terrorists declared their intentions to launch a wave of attacks against these sites.

Ironically, instead, the interior ministry announces a plan to provide more protection for mosques and Husseiniyat.

2006-09-28T00:39:00.000-07:00

The divide between Islam and the west
By Ikram Sehgal

Over the last few years, the simmering discontent among the world's Muslim community at actions taken by the west in the fight against terrorism is because of the perception that it is aimed directly against them. This has slowly led to unbridled anger and animosity. The tragedy of 9/11 acted as a catalyst that triggered a series of events that not only tarnished the image of Muslims but also of Islam. With almost one-fifth of the world's population of 6.5 billion, after 9/11, Islam got projected as a radical faith whose followers were highly intolerant of all other faiths and ideologies. Muslims were branded as fanatics, an image shaped by the extreme actions of a miniscule minority that exists on the fringes.

Neither Islam nor the Muslim world is seen as it should be, i.e. in light of their progressive values. That Islam is a radical faith is a patently false and erroneous idea. The progressive values of the faith are quite different from what the world hears today. Islam preaches tolerance, leniency, love, forgiveness and understanding. Muslims in general have not committed any transgressions. The sins of a handful of terrorists of Osama bin Laden's terror network are being visited upon Muslims.

Concurrently the popularity of the US has taken a severe beating, becoming the focus of Muslim anger despite giving aid and lending a helping hand to the world's deprived irrespective of caste, creed, religion or any other consideration. Muslims now view the USA with suspicion and hostility because the policies being pursued by the US seem to be singularly insensitive to Muslim sensitivities. Thankfully, President Bush now seems to have taken note of the situation and is making an effort to bridge the gap.

The situation was tailor-made for the OIC and the Arab League to play a meaningful role in it, solving problems faced by the Islamic world and fostering understanding between the Muslims and the west. However, all such expectations remain unfulfilled. One has no desire to delve into the reasons behind their inaction. Today we stand at the crossroad, which may create a divide that will widen as action, reaction and counter-reaction set in. If this chasm becomes impossible to bridge, only the innocent will get caught in the crossfire. There is an urgent need to tone down rhetoric. All political, religious, and intellectual leaders should reach out to each other, with governments endeavouring to do what they can.

One of the most influential forums in the world in politics and economy, the World Economic Forum (WEF), in 2004 launched the Council of 100 leaders of all faiths, or C-100 as the initiative has been dubbed. C-100 has special significance because it is a practical manifestation of Inter-faith dialogue at the highest level. The C-100 draws together 20 leaders each from the fields of politics, religion, business, media and opinion.

As animosity between Islam and the west intensified after the September 11 attacks, many organisations took it upon themselves to rebuild ties between the Islamic and western worlds. The C-100 is distinguished because of its ability to rely on the particular strengths of the business community as a powerful agent of positive change. It provides a platform for the members to generate new collaborations and/or mobilise additional support for existing projects that strengthen intercultural relations between the west and the Muslim world. The council seeks to promote Islamic-western cooperative projects that aim for a highly leveraged impact across many countries.

Billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal, the leading Saudi businessman and the world's fifth-wealthiest man, threw his weight behind C-100 and donated $1 million to the effort. C-100 is co-chaired by Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury, United Kingdom and HRH. Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, Chairman King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, Saudi Arabia. The group represents the first global effort to set in motion a unique kind of cooperation between the western and Islamic worlds. That there is an urgent need for such an initiative is stating the obvious because of the ever-growing perception among Muslims all over the world that they are being targeted for no reason, and for no real fault of theirs. Slowly but surely, the communication gap is deepening between Muslims and the west, and there is an increasing need to overcome the sense of alienation that has affected Muslims.

The C-100 comprises leaders of all faiths who act as a clearinghouse for action-oriented projects for advancement of Islamic-western reconciliation. It seeks to engage societies in the west and in countries with predominantly Muslim populations at multiple levels to improve mutual understanding within and across cultures, to address key misunderstandings and the forces that spawn and drive discord and to promote cooperation based on mutual respect.

The objectives are pursued through two tracks. Track one is discourse - sustaining in-depth dialogue: It facilitates dialogue between WEF members during its annual meetings that help to strengthen bonds of C-100 members into a community and provide the analytical basis upon which they choose which projects to pursue together. Track two is projects -- catalysing cooperative action: C-100 recognises that many organisations are actively involved in building Islamic-western cooperation and it supports existing and new projects that could benefit from exposure to the Forum's unique network.

After the rather insensitive remarks of the Pope and the continuing Muslim reaction to what is transparently a "technical" apology, one must propose a track three: education of the leaders and intellectuals in the west about Islam and what it stands for and what it does not. A sample document must be prepared and circulated among decision-makers that religions are not different in beliefs, only in practice, to dispel misconceptions and false perceptions, to make a deliberate effort to reducing escalating animosity. The pope's invitation to ambassadors of Muslim countries for an interactive dialogue is a welcome step in the process.

The C-100 initiative promotes understanding and dialogue between the two worlds and provides an environment that is conducive for leaders of varying backgrounds to engage in collaborative problem-solving. Things are fast deteriorating. Many in the west perceive Muslims as being fanatical, violent and lacking tolerance, and Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see westerners as being selfish, immoral and greedy as well as violent and fanatical. C-100 can make a huge difference as it has the potential to be the instrument that can bring about a better understanding between Muslims and the west.

The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com

2006-09-27T03:49:00.000-07:00

Cole and the Muslim-Rage Machine
(IraqPundit)

Excuse me while I pass along an important message to my fellow Muslims. You Muslims who are still burning Benedict in effigy, rejecting Vatican apologies, demanding a retraction, and engaging in other anti-papal mayhem, kindly note that you've been given a pass by a certain Juan Cole. Who's he? Think of him as the bride at every Muslim wedding and the corpse at every Muslim funeral. Know what I mean? Anyway, you have his blessing to be just as ridiculous as you wish. He says we Muslims shouldn't be held to grown-up standards of judgment and behavior because Western great-grandfathers were mean to Muslim great-grandfathers. Now we've got a complex.

Cole pats us on our fragile little heads this way: "Some commentators have complained about Muslim sensibilities" in reaction to the Pope's recent use of a 700-year-old quote hostile to Islam. "But in my view, this sensitivity is a feature of postcolonialism. Muslims were colonized by Western powers, often for centuries, and all that period they were told that their religion was inferior and barbaric. They are independent now, though often they have gained independence only a couple of generations (less if you consider neocolonialism). As independent, they are finally liberated to protest when Westerners put them down."

Now, some of you may regard Cole's condescension as a particularly unsavory aspect of postcolonialism. But those of you who like being excused as pathetic have other matters to address.

For example, what about the Ottoman Turks, fellow Muslims who colonized so many other Muslims for centuries? What's their excuse for protesting against the Pope? And they've been so prominent in the anti-Benedict coverage, too! It was Turks who regarded their Arab subjects as "inferior and barbaric." Indeed, they had a charming rhyme ("Arab Jarab") that means, "Arabs are a plague!" Poor Turks! They even ruled swaths of Europe, and left behind the most backward societies on that continent. I'm afraid that Cole's formulation leaves the Turks without a cover for their fulminations. Indeed, doesn't it give Arabs like me license to burn the Turkish prime minister in effigy? Western enablers can do better than that!

There's another thing. Don't tell anyone, but Muslim great-grandfathers were sometimes mean to Christian great-grandfathers. You know, they made them pay a special tax, they wouldn't let them repair their churches; they forced them to wear certain clothes or colors; they wouldn't even let them ride horses because then they'd be higher than Muslims who weren't riding horses. There's also that thing about being the descendents of monkeys. Maybe we need some formula here whereby acts of oppression are divided by periods of victimization, with the result providing a greater or lesser license for future acts of rage.

But I'll let you work that out. I'm too busy putting the finishing touches on my effigy of Prime Minister Erdogan. Got a match?

2006-09-26T05:17:00.000-07:00

Slander cannot be met with slander
Farish A Noor

The repercussions following the statements made by Pope Benedict XVI are being felt till today, though by now the modalities of global Muslim protest have become evident and well-known to close observers of political Islam. As expected, following the speech that was delivered while the Pope was in Germany recently, there have been hundreds of protests all over the Muslim world, calling on the Pope to apologise for what he had said and calling on the Western world to be sensitive to the concerns and sensibilities of Muslims the world over.

That such a reaction was forthcoming was to be expected: It has to be stated again that the choice of quotes used in the speech by the Pope was anything but enlightened, and that uttered by a man of his standing and delivered before such a public gathering, was bound to lead to a reaction on the scale that we have seen thus far. What is more, it should be noted that apart from the reaction from the Muslim world, there was little unease or disquiet about the Pope's speech elsewhere. Proof, if any was needed, that there exists an unhealthy tolerance for abuse of Islam and Muslims in many parts of the non-Muslim world today.

Furthermore, as it has been noted by the author Karen Armstrong, this pedestrian and common form of Islamophobia and prejudice towards Muslims has become so widespread that there now exists a common consensus between the conservatives behind the Pope and even secular Muslim-haters in the West. In her words: "Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.'

But here it pays to take a degree of objective distance from the issue and look at the matter from a broader perspective. While the comments made by the Pope were morally questionable both in their content and intention, one also has to question the logic at work in the reaction of some Muslims to the event. It has also been reported that many an Islamist group had reacted to the speech of the Pope with calls for violence and retribution: A stupid and counter-productive reaction if any, for it simply reinforces the stereotypical view (repeated in the Pope's speech) that Islam is a religion of the sword and that Muslims are fundamentally violent.

Consider the following statements that were issued by one radical Islamist group in Iraq, said to be linked to Al Qaeda: In its press statement the Mujahideen Shura Council stated bluntly that "We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen." In bellicose terms bordering on the hysterical the statement then proceeded to "tell the worshippers of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated" and that "you will only see our swords until you go back to God's true faith Islam." If the Pope's speech had done damage to inter-religious dialogue, then such a reaction was calculated to ensure that the final nail would be hammered into the coffin.

It remains an oddity till today that many Islamist groups react to provocation at a drop of a hat, and that their reactions often follow the predictable path of rhetoric and pyrotechnics. Fiery speech may gain a group some precious minutes on the TV screen, but in the long run they do untold damage to the understanding and image of Islam (both in the eyes of Muslims and other faith communities) that will take ages to heal.

It would also be hypocritical for some of these Islamist groups to demand an apology from the Pope while remaining blissfully oblivious to the venomous speeches and tirades that issue forth from their own ranks, be it in the form of mosque sermons, videos, pamphlets, recordings or death threats. Muslims cannot, and should not, demand respect for our faith as long as we are not prepared to show the same respect to the beliefs of others.

Yet how many Muslims have criticised the extremists and conservatives in their midst, who continue to ply the crowd with sordid stories of "Christian conspiracies" against Muslims, or with lurid accounts of the alleged "decadent, immoral" lives and values of the so-called "infidels".

To reiterate the main point of this article: We are indeed living at a time when Muslim-Western relations are at an all-time low. It is also a fact that the divide between the Western and Muslim worlds is not a neutral one, but rather one based on unequal and unjust divisions of power, wealth and privilege. However in order to redress this imbalance and injustice on a global scale, a global view of the world is needed which sees humanity as a singular community.

Divisive speech on either side of the divide will do little to help the situation; and if anything it can only perpetuate the very differentials of difference and power which is at the root of this injustice.

Stupid, insulting and even destructive comments from either community should be met with a rational voice tempered with logic and morality, and not threats of violence couched in the flimsy rhetoric of victimhood.

If Muslims felt insulted by the Pope's comments, then we need to realise that many non-Muslims likewise feel insulted by the barbed accusations and slander that have come from some self-appointed spokesmen for Islam.

Where is the solution to this? Islam reminds us that logic and reason are universal qualities inherent in all creation. To abandon the way of rational, logical discourse at this stage would not only be an abdication of the responsibility to dialogue, but would also lead to a further marginalisation of Muslims on a global level.

And above all, Muslims need to remember that in our reaction to abuse and slander we are nonetheless guided by a moral principle that is higher: One cannot react to slander with even more slander; anymore than one can react to racism with even more racism.

If the moral compass has been lost by the Pope, our duty - as Muslims and non-Muslims alike - is to restore this balance, and not to let the ship of humanity flounder even more.

Dr Farish Ahmad-Noor is an academic researcher at the Centre for Modern Orient Studies (ZMO) in Germany. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com

2006-09-25T00:49:00.000-07:00

If

If Christianity can turn from this

to this.

And if Germany can turn from this

to this

And if Japan can turn from this

to this

Then don't tell me Islam can't be reformed. Don't tell me the Arab/Muslim world can't change. It might take years, even centuries. But it is destined to happen. History tells us so.

2006-09-24T12:09:00.000-07:00

Al-Sahab Media: The Strength and Weakness of Al Qaeda
(By Diana Mukkaled)

Many would rush to the conclusion that the impact of the latest al-Qaeda's tapes is exactly as it was a few years ago. but the truth of the matter is that the sight of Osama Bin Laden threatening America and the west, or celebrating the attacks on New York and Washington, or the countless other Video statements released over the years no longer have the same impact on us as they once did.

Bin Laden's appearances have become a rare occurrence, and that the Al-Qaeda leadership from a media perspective at least, has been restricted to the statements of Ayman Al-Zawahri, the groups second in command. But even in these rare video statements, you can't help but feel that we are watching someone whose time has come and gone, like an old movie star, who's having difficulty accepting that their star has faded, and who longs for the glory days of old.

Leaving aside the political and ideological laced al Qaeda messages which are always brought to us by its Al Sahab Media Production Company and should never be taken lightly, is the media aspect of the movement, which requires a bit of consideration, particularly because in today's conflicts manipulation of the media has become the fiercest weapon. In many ways, this is why Islamist who are Al-Qaeda sympathizers brag that the terrorist movement has been successful in its propaganda activities, there by achieving a victory over the US and the West in this aspect, where many movements before the emergence of al-Qaeda failed.

In the last year al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri has appeared in nine videotapes, the last of which was broadcast a day before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In his many appearances over the years al-Zawahiri has evolved from a disheveled militant hiding in a mountain to a TV presenter in a studio and now finally an intellectual sitting in his library surrounded by numerous books.

It is no secret the Al-Qaeda are trying hard to portray its image as an organization that sponsors international independent movements which carry the same ideological perspective as they do. Advocates of this perspective may not be insane but the ideology which they support carries its large share of madness and dementia.

It is true that this violence once shook the world's foundations, but now these scenes from a propaganda video could easily shift into the comedic realm in a blink of an eye. The irony lies in the fact that the ability to inflict violence does not require an equal degree of intelligence. Violence needs intentions as well as a demonic will.

Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and satellite channel "Future Television".

2006-09-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

The 9/11 Post on 9/12
(View from Iran)

A bunch of us are lamenting the inequalities of the world that drive people into extremism. What can we do to make it fairer? We ask ourselves. My, aren't we patronizing? [Note to self: add links]

I agree that we need to focus on the ways that we contribute to unfairness but we should not be so naive as to think that that will save us from extremism, particularly militant Islamism. Unfairness, after all, is at the heart of militant Islamism. Islamism does not demand a more just society, but a more unjust society.

Is there really something that we can do to please militant Islamists other than bombing Israel into oblivion? C'mon, admit it. They are not about to change their opinions of us because we care about their human rights or economic disparities. They won't even change their opinions if we negotiate peace. They won't change their opinions if we step in in Darfur or Kashmir or Chechnya or Bosnia or Palestine or any of hundreds of trouble spots. Their minds are made up.

Oh, and the other thing we do is call for the moderate Islamic world to raise their voices. C'mon. It's not something we can call for. It's not something we can demand. We can only engage those voices when they do rise up. But why should they? Moderates are at heart, well, moderate. We moderates do not go out and kill people who violate our moderate code of ethics. We don't demand loyalty. We don't believe in blasphemy. How can moderation compete with certainty?

Look, on this side of the conversation (I am living in Iran, remember) the West seems hypocritical, divided, and flailing. It's time to own up to hypocrisy: time to admit that the world demands hypocrisy. Living in the world demands that we negotiate the grey areas. It isn't as if there is a simple path to good or a simple path to bad. There is a reason that we say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If we really want to defuse the Islamist movement, we would all convert; we would give up wine and pork; we would follow the nebulous Shari'a law; we would pray 5 times a day; and we would follow the strongest and most brutal among us. Even that, as moderate and observant and secular Muslims all over the world know, would not be enough. For some, the only sense of freedom comes from the oppression of others.

Militant Islamism is imperialistic, appealing, and unappeasable. It is not ours to defuse. It is a discipline that demands obedience. We can only compete with it by offering an equally compelling discipline. In lieu of that, we need to realize that people, particularly young men, need to feel a sense of purpose. How are we going to provide that? Habitat for Humanity in lieu of extremism? What do you think? I think that now I am being naive.

On the other hand, it is crucial for us to know the difference between militant Islamism and, well, something a bit different. The Islamic Regime of Iran, for instance, must answer to its huge population. When ideologues govern, they face the same issues as governors do everywhere: roads, water, electricity, and hospitals. Governing is a force for moderation.

It is important to draw distinctions between those who govern and those who do not.

2006-09-22T04:29:00.000-07:00

Pope's Comments Lead to Inter-Faith Message
Barbara Ferguson, Arab News

WASHINGTON, 22 September 2006 - Muslims and Christian groups held a joint press conference here on Wednesday night to express their hopes that reason would prevail over anger regarding Pope Benedict XVI's comments last week.

"Violence is not the answer," said Imam Mahdi Bray, of the Washington DC-based Muslim American Society (MAS). "We cannot demonstrate that Islam is not a violent religion by reacting violently. We firmly condemn the burning of churches and actions of violence."

Speaking to journalists during a joint press conference between the MAS and Christian groups in Washington, Bray added that the Muslim community must "move on and practice good common sense."

David Robinson, executive director of Pax Christi USA, the largest Catholic movement for justice and peace in the US, said: "The statement by Pope Benedict last week included a reference to an ancient characterization of Islam that I personally find very regrettable."

Robinson called for the need of "a continued dialogue between our two faiths," and announced that he, and members of Pax Christi, would join Muslims in fasting during the month of Ramadan as a show of solidarity and understanding of Muslim priorities.

Three days after saying he was "very sorry" about the reaction to his remarks delivered last week in Germany, Pope Benedict again tried to clarify them.

"I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together," he said adding that he hoped he had made clear his "profound respect for world religions and for Muslims."

"This quotation, unfortunately, was misunderstood," he said from Vatican City on Wednesday, alluding to protests and attacks on churches by offended Muslims.

In a speech last week, the pontiff quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, who declared that the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) brought "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Many American Muslims have accepted the pope's apology, and said the time has come to move on.

"We believe the pope's apology is sufficient as apologies go, but we are concerned as to what deeds will move us forward," said Bray. "I am concerned that there has been a tendency here to say Islam is a religion of violence ... Unfortunately, when it comes to violence, the devil is an equal opportunity employer."

Phil Jones, director of the Church of the Brethren Witness, told journalists at the briefing "it is important and vital that we communicate and serve with one another across religious understandings."

"I think his problem is that he's a German academic who hasn't realized yet he's a pope," said Rev. Thomas J. Reese of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "He's an extremely bright man, but he doesn't have any street smarts."

Before becoming pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger focused on protecting Christianity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a position in which he became known as a hard-line enforcer of church orthodoxy.

The Rev. Jeffrey R. Keyes, a priest at St. Edward Catholic Church in Newark, New Jersey, told reporters that most of the reaction is based on what was quoted in the media, rather than the totality of his address.

"When you compare his efforts to reach out to the Muslims to those of the previous pope, there's a lot to be desired," said Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, CAIR. "We hope that the incident is not a signal of things to come."

Throughout the United States, many local Catholic leaders have agreed to meet with representatives of the Muslim community, Hooper said. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles, met with a council representing 70 mosques in Southern California.

2006-09-21T02:08:00.000-07:00

When will we be ready to accept criticism?

Are those who demand an apology from the pope ready to apologize for some of their own mistakes? Or have they never made any mistakes?

Regardless of what the pope said, the Arab and Muslim world, through the tense and offensive reactions, showed once again how incapable its leaders are to respond to criticism in a civilized way.

Here we always insist that the greatest miracle of the prophet is the words he was sent with, the same words that tell Muslims to use logic and kindness in their attempts to invite others to the Islamic faith, the same words that discourage them from using a rude or repulsive tone in their conversations.
The sad thing is that in spite of all these advices, most of the common people and the elites choose offensive, rude if not violent reactions as a first measure to counter criticism.

One friend reminded me of the assassination attempt that targeted the former pope two decades ago wondering what the reaction of the pope was...as we all know he eventually visited the assailant and pardoned him.
No mosques were blown up and no speech of a clash of civilizations was made.
So why don't we admit that the "other" is better than us at responding rationally when criticized? Why don't we learn from others?
When we closed our ears to anything that doesn't match our beliefs and refused all criticism wasn't that enough reason for the deterioration of our civilization?

Ok, let's suppose the pope criticized the Muslims' way in spreading their belief, can anyone prove that wrong??

This question pushed me to review some recommended books of Islamic history, books that are held high and considered cornerstones in the documentation of Arab-Islamic history. I started to review these books looking for facts as to whether Islam was spread peacefully.

Yes, many entered in Islam voluntarily over history but I want to shed light on a certain part of history when the sword was used. That's the stage that must be studied and revisited. And there must be no shame felt in criticizing or renouncing it if that's necessary and it should not be treated as a divine story that cannot be questioned.

Let's take a look at the campaigns led by the first set of Caliphs who ruled the Islamic state after the death of the prophet and see in which of these campaigns the faith was spread peacefully and in which ones other means were implemented and which of the peoples of the region entered in Islam voluntarily...
Iraq? Persia? Spain? Egypt?

Which of those nations embraced the Islamic call voluntarily?
I will start from Iraq to state my thoughts about the Islamic invasion of Iraq and I will try to find which statement is closer to the truth; with sword, or through a peaceful invitation?

Anyone with the slightest knowledge about the ancient Middle East knows the enormous difference in riches between green Mesopotamia and the deserts of Arabia. This difference makes it natural to expect that early Muslims who lived in the desert looked ambitiously to the rich lands of their neighbors in Mesopotamia.

I will provide historical texts from some of the most respected books in Islamic history such as al-Tabari, Seerat Ibn Hisham and Tafseer Ibn Katheer. These books show that the questionable motives behind invading Iraq were not secret but were rather mentioned boastfully every time our historians celebrate the achievement of adding Iraq to the young Islamic state.

The story began when the first Caliph Abu Bakr sent two of his toughest generals to Iraq (both are notorious for crimes they had supposedly committed).
Abu Bakr sent Khalid Bin al-Waleed to the south parts of Iraq and sent Iyadh Bin Ghanam to the west (upper Euphrates valley). To motivate the two generals he told them that the first to reach al-Heera would become the Emir and have superiority on the other.

Khalid understood the message and according to al-Tabari he made a speech to his army in which he said "Don't you see soldiers that food piles in that land are as big as mountains!? I swear to God that even if it wasn't for Jihad and even if it was only for the treasures then it's worth fighting for to make these riches our own and leave behind the days of hunger and poverty".

The first village the army met on the road was inhabited by Christian Arabs who were taken by surprise at the size of the invading army. They wondered what Khalid wanted from them and tried to negotiate for peace.
The negotiator of the village and its chief Bin Slooba managed to save his village only after he agreed to pay 90 thousand Dirhams in tribute.
Next was another village that paid as much as 190 thousand Dirhams.

The story continued until the army arrived at the first village that refused to pay the tribute and refused to obey the orders of the army, and so was the battle of "Alees" that town was also inhabited by Christian Arabs.
Khalid Bin al-Waleed vowed to make "a river flow out of their blood".

Khalid's men killed 70 thousands of the town's people in one day and one night according to al-Tabari's story.
But the spilled blood did not form a river which upset Khalid but al-Qa'qa (one of Khalid's lieutenants) advised him to direct water from the river to the spot of the slaughter through a canal. That way a river of blood was formed and Khalid kept his vow.

The invasion went on in this manner and the men from the desert for the first time knew the word million, which at that time they referred to as "one thousand thousand".
The treasures that fell in the hands of the army were enormous, for example in one battle, Khalid won the helmet of a Persian general that had an estimated value of one hundred thousand Dirhams.

Saad Bin Abi Waqqas assumed leadership from Khalid later and the invading army reached the city of Mada'in (south east of Baghdad) and history relays to us some stories that tell of the ignorance and cruelty of that army.

In one storehouse they found great amounts Kafour (an aromatic substance extracted from Eucalyptus used in medicine) which they thought was salt because of its abundance and color and used for their bread which came out bitter!
Some soldiers rushed to break some boxes that were sealed with lead thinking they contained food to find they were full of silverware!
One war trophy was a 60 arm-long carpet made of silk and gold and decorated with precious stones and made in the shape of Mesopotamia's map.
How did they deal with that treasure?
They simply ripped it apart and divided it among the Emirs of the army. It was said that Imam Ali sold his share for 20 thousand Dinars!

Some books mention that the collective contents of the Persian King's safes was equal to three billion Dinars or "3 thousand thousand thousand Dinars".

And some books mention that the share of the regular soldiers who fought the war in Iraq reached up to 12 thousand Dinars each.
And after Iraq became part of the state, books say that the 3rd Caliph Omar collected one hundred million Dinars or "one hundred thousand thousand Dinars" in tax money.

Now I will use a few quotes from the Hadeeth (the sayings of the prophet) that should be enough to silent the angry voices and I'd like to hear what our angry clerics have to say about them...will they renounce these texts? Or will they admit that they have a lot in common with the quotes used by the pope?

Saheeh Muslim/the mosques and prayer chapter:

The prophet (pbuh) said: I was sent with words of wisdom and assisted with horror.

Saheeh al-Bukhari/al-Jihad and the march:

The prophet (pbuh) said: Heaven lays in the shade of swords.

Saheeh al-Bukhari/Tafseer al-Quran (the explanation of Quran):

"You were the best nation brought to the people"
Meaning: The best people to the people, bringing them with chains around their necks until they enter in Islam.

Saheeh Muslim/al-Jihad and the march:
The prophet (pbuh) said: The killer's right is to rob the killed.

The prophet (pbuh) said: I was ordered to fight the people until the say 'There's no God but Allah'.

Now after reading texts that are mentioned in our respected books I wonder why we always put the sword as a symbol under 'There's no God but Allah'?
Isn't the call for Islam convincing enough by itself that some countries or Jihadi groups add a sword to it?!

The truth is that the religious institutions here are corrupt and despotic. And while they reject criticism today, they are looking with fear at the criticism coming out from the inside of the very same institutions which in some cases I find harsher and more explicit that the quotes the pope used in his speech.

First of all, we need to review these texts and history books that Muslim scholars insist on relying on, and before they judge others' knowledge they must present what proves the opposite of the stories or facts they reject. Or, they should abandon these texts and declare them invalid.

Now let's see, the chief cleric of the al-Azhar university accused the pope of ignorance about Islamic history, right? Let's hear what another history scholar from al-Azhar said in one of his books about the same stage of Islamic history as the one the pope was referring to.

Sheikh Khaleel Abdul Kareem in his book "Shadu al-Rababa fi Ahwal al-Sahaba" (first edition 1997) said:

"Did the invaded people take the belief of the invaders voluntarily? What were they expected to do after seeing with their own eyes their men being slaughtered even after they surrendered and raised the white flag? Or when they saw their houses burned down, women taken slaves, belongings purged and taxes imposed, where they expected to keep their religion or move to embrace that of their invading masters to get away from the punishment?"

I believe this testimony which comes from one of al-Azhar scholars is way more critical than the words the pope quoted...

By the way, Khaleel Abdul Kareem was prosecuted more than once but was never pronounced guilty because of his factual and objective approach in which he used examples and proofs taken from the history texts approved by al-Azhar and the like.
His prosecutors backed off when they realized that denouncing him would mean renouncing the history the live by and that's what none of them dared to do.

Some accuse the pope of bad timing but I wonder what is going to be the best time to accept criticism and accept questions? Next year? a decade from now? When?

There will be no such time for our clerics who derive their power from this history, and to them, questioning or criticizing this history is a threat to their holiness and power.

2006-09-20T03:47:00.000-07:00

'Inter-faith understanding key to dialogue'
By Firas Al-Atraqchi

When an alleged terrorist plot to blow up airliners out of London's Heathrow Airport was thwarted in August, George Bush, the US president, alluded to a war between the West and "Islamic fascism".

On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush again referred to the war on terrorism, specifically citing the foe as Islamic fascists.

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a medieval text which criticised Islam and the Prophet Muhammad as forbearers of evil and violence.

After an uproar from the Muslim world, the pope apologised, saying the quote did not reflect his personal opinion and the Vatican issued a statement that said it supported inter-faith dialogue.

But such dialogue cannot be possible without an inter-faith understanding of sacred texts and interpretations.

Jane McAuliffe, dean of Arts and Sciences at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and a professor in the departments of History and of Arabic at Georgetown, believes that North America and Europe have increasing Muslim populations, and while this is sometimes a source of conflict, it is also a frequent opportunity for collaboration.

McAullife is the editor of the recently completed Encyclopaedia of the Quran, which contains nearly 1000 entries presented in five volumes and is the first comprehensive, multi-volume reference work on the Quran to appear in a Western language.

Aljazeera.net: If a researcher with your expertise in Arabic and history were to have reflected on Islamic-Western relations 50 years ago, could she have predicted the world we live in today? Where do you see these relations in 50 years?

Jane McAullife: I think that it is impossible - and irresponsible - to speak of either "Islam"or "the West" as monolithic, undifferentiated entities. There are countless connections between Muslims and non-Muslims in both Muslim-majority countries and Muslim-minority countries.

Both North America and Europe have ever-increasing Muslim populations, and while this is sometimes a source of conflict, it is also a frequent opportunity for collaboration.

Muslims and non-Muslims are getting to know each other as fellow citizens, people who work in the same organisations, whose children attend the same schools and who, together, can join forces to address the issues and problems that they confront in their various communities.

What factors went into deciding to compile such an extensive body of work on Islam, its history and minutiae?

The Encyclopaedia of the Quran is a six-volume reference work that is devoted to one aspect of Islam, the foundational scripture which has guided, and continues to guide, the lives of Muslims. My decision to launch this large research project was based on a compelling needs assessment: there is no existing reference work of this sort for the Quran in Western languages.

If, for example, you look at the analogous field of biblical studies, you'll find dozens of encyclopaedias and dictionaries of the Bible. But until the appearance of the EQ, there has been nothing like this for the Quran.

A distinguishing feature of the EQ is its combination of alphabetically arranged entries on the major themes, persons, places and concepts of the Quran, combined with major articles that review the state of contemporary scholarship in all areas related to the study of the Quran.

How did you research the volumes of work you included in the encyclopaedia? Did you consult with Islamic scholars?

From its beginning the EQ was a collaborative project between Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have served as associate editors, as members of the advisory board and as authors of articles for the EQ.

We began our task more than 10 years ago by compiling a list of entry words and article titles that we wanted to include in the EQ. These lists were researched and refined in several rounds of discussion. When consensus was reached on the content list for the EQ, the associate editors and I began to select the names of authors who could be invited to write the individual entries.

I then started to send invitations to authors and was gratified by the quick and enthusiastic response that I received to these invitations.

How has your work been received by academia on the one hand, and the general public on the other? Has there been support or criticism for your work?

Reviews of the EQ in both scholarly publications and those intended for a more general readership have been strongly positive.

Scholars in both Islamic studies and other fields of the humanities and social sciences have expressed their gratitude for a reference work that can assist them in their own work and can help to open the field of Quranic studies to them.

Among the general public, particularly here in North America, there is a tremendous hunger for accurate information about Islam in all of its multiplicity. Many people are trying to read the Quran [in English translation] and they are eager for reference sources that will help them to understand what they are reading.

2006-09-19T05:25:00.000-07:00

Somalia Islamists vow to punish Italian nun's killers

MOGADISHU: Powerful Islamists in Mogadishu today (Sept 18, 2006) vowed to bring the killers of an Italian nun to justice and said they were confident the shooting would not undermine the unprecedented peace in the capital.

Gunmen shot dead sister Leonella Sgorbati and her bodyguard yesterday outside a children's hospital in north Mogadishu where she had worked since 2002.

The killings were a blow to Mogadishu's new Islamist rulers' attempts to prove they have pacified one of the world's most lawless cities since chasing out U.S.-backed warlords in June (2006).

The Islamists arrested two men in the attack.

"This was a very unfortunate act," Ibrahim Hassan Addou, in charge of foreign relations for the Islamists, told Reuters.

"We will work hard to avoid such incidents from happening again. This will not affect the security of Mogadishu."

The attack drew immediate speculation of links to Muslim anger over Pope Benedict's recent remarks on Islam, but Addou said such incidents happen everywhere in the world.

"We want to reduce the probability of such acts happening again, by making the security tighter and bringing these criminals to justice as soon as the investigation is over," he said.

Sgorbati, born in 1940 in Piacenza in northern Italy, was from the Missionaries of the Consolation order based in Nepi near Rome. Her colleagues and students said they were shocked by the killings.

"Myself and the whole of Somalia is saddened," a sobbing Ibado Muse, who worked with the slain nun, said. "No one will be able to fill the gap she left."

Borne out of local courts practicing strict sharia law, the Islamist movement in June seized Mogadishu from U.S.-backed warlords who had run it for the past 15 years.

The Islamists have brought some order to the capital, which was awash with guns and where assassinations were common.

But critics say the Islamists harbour al Qaeda-linked militants in their ranks. The Islamists deny that, saying the West does not understand them and believes U.S. propaganda.

Top Islamist leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys has been accused by Washington of links to terrorism.

But in a TV talk show last night, he said he shared a hotel with U.S. anti-terror officials during a recent trip to Djibouti and was not questioned by them.

"I was staying in the same hotel with them. They did not ask me anything," Aweys said.

"They were at airport that I landed at and flew from, they didn't look like people who are looking for me," he added.

2006-09-18T04:50:00.000-07:00

Holy See, Holy To-Do
(IraqPundit)

The Muslim world is roiling over remarks by Pope Benedict XVI'; offended politicos, clerics, and the ever-unhappy Man in the Muslim Street in Pakistan, Malaysia, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere are demanding an apology. A couple of churches have been firebombed (neither of them Catholic), while in Iraq, there's actually a threat to murder Iraqi Christians unless Benedict makes amends.

(As it happens, the Christians of Iraq are overwhelmingly members of Eastern rite churches and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Vatican. But why should the righteous defenders of Muslim honor bother themselves about such details? They're too busy sharpening their khanjars so as to demonstrate the peaceful nature of Islam.)

So what did Benedict say exactly? He delivered a lecture last week in Germany on faith and reason, and it contained a quote from a 14th century document, a dialogue between the Byzantine emperor and a Persian scholar.

In the course of their discussion about religion, the Emperor Manuel II Paleologos says, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Now, Benedict didn't suggest in any way that these were his own views; this was an academic lecture. Thus, Muslims like myself who find these words ill-considered should indeed demand an apology, but not from Benedict. Muslims should join IraqPundit in demanding an apology, personal and abject, from Manuel II Paleologos. I'm aware he's been dead for centuries (and for that matter, may never have spoken the words at all), but details like that are nothing compared to the pure flame of my righteous anger!

Actually, Benedict has already issued a statement saying he didn't intend any offense, though apparently that's not good enough for some people. In retrospect, it's clear that Benedict would have been wiser -- and certainly more diplomatic -- had he distanced himself from the quotes in his abstruse text.

On the other hand, I can think of a lot more pressing matters for Muslims to be angry about. How about taking to the street over the murderers who have been disgracing our religion by shedding oceans of innocent blood in its name? On Thursday, a car bomb blew up outside a Baghdad orphanage. In all the wide sweep of the Muslim Street, is there no one sufficiently disgusted to raise his voice over such a thing? It should be easy enough, especially since a common excuse has been that the perpetrators of such evil cannot be Muslims. Surely, if such "non-Muslims" are killing Iraqi Muslims in great numbers, it's worth the attention of the pious. Speak up, the death cries of hundreds and hundreds of innocent Iraqis murdered every month are drowning your outrage.

2006-09-17T13:20:00.000-07:00

Pope's Remarks Reveal Need for Dialogue
By Pamela K. Taylor

When Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without clear disagreement, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II challenging a Muslim scholar by declaring that Prophet Muhammad brought nothing new except that it was evil and inhuman, it grieved my American Muslim heart that people today, even the leader of a great world religion who is supposedly very learned, can be so mistaken about the teachings of our Prophet. Worse than the Pope's commentary was the fact that much of this misunderstanding can be laid at the feet of radical elements within the Muslim community. Most alarming, though, is the fact that the Pope, who has great sway over the opinions of the world's 1 billion Catholics, seems ready to close the door on dialogue and discussion at a time when they are most needed.

The Pope surely had to know that Manuel's challenge was going to be grossly offensive to Muslims around the world. Any such characterization of a revered religious figure would naturally be offensive to his or her followers. At a time when tensions run high between certain elements in the West and in the Muslim world, one would expect better of the leader of a world religion. One would expect him to foster understanding and rapprochement rather than stirring up the pot with provocative remarks.

The Pope also had to know that Manuel's accusation is patently false. Some of the new ideas Muhammad taught included the basic humanity of women and the sacredness of their rights, the equality of all races, nations and tribes, and the belief that people of other religions have a place in Heaven.* It is shameful that his teachings about women have been ignored or distorted by much of the Muslim world. It is even more shameful that extremists ignore his teachings about interfaith harmony, aggression, justice and peace, and distort the notion of jihad to go on a rampage of terror around the globe. But those distortions and disregard do not change the Prophet's teaching.

Extremism, issues in human rights, the appropriation of our faith to serve political ends, and the distortion of the concept of jihad are problems that the Muslim world must confront. Conservative, liberal, progressive and secular Muslims are all struggling to change the course of radical Islam. It is a struggle that is made harder when Western leaders insult Islam, defame our Prophet, or make bellicose statements about the Muslim world.

Rather than fanning the flames of conflict with a nasty jab at Prophet Muhammad, I wish the Pope had instead engaged in a serious dialogue with Muslims, as have the Midwest Council of Catholic Bishops and Focolare, which is a very successful international Catholic interfaith movement. While it is good that the Vatican's spokespeople have said the Pope regrets that his remarks caused affront, it would be better if the Pope disavowed Manuel's description of the Prophet, and called for further discussion with Muslims, both in order to understand one another better and to share ideas and strategies about how to tackle the problem of violence in the name of religion and the use of religious rhetoric for political ends. Both Catholicism and Islam have had challenges in this department - from the Crusades to the Irish Republican Army, from Al-Qaida to Hamas and Hezbollah. We would both surely benefit from sharing our experiences and learning from each other. I hope that the Pope will take the lead, but if he does not, I hope Catholics around the world will use this situation as a catalyst to open doors of dialogue with their Muslim neighbors, rather than as a reason to shut off communication. I hope Muslims will do the same with their Catholic neighbors.

*References on women: Qur'an chapter 4, verse 1; chapter 33, verse 35; and the Prophet's farewell sermon in which he emphasized that women are not to be denied their rights. On races: chapter 49, verse 13 and various narrations of the Prophet which establish parity between the arab and the non-arab, and the black and the white. On people's of other faiths - Qur'an chapter 2, verse 62, chapter 5 verse 69, chapter 28, verse 55, chapter 29, verse 46, and chapter 109.

Pamela Taylor is Co-Chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America, Director of the Islamic Writers Alliance, and a resident of West Chester, OH.

2006-09-16T12:30:00.000-07:00

Lebanese Professor: 'To Be a Shi'ite Now...'

In an article published on August 7, 2006 in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, Mona Fayyad, a professor at the Lebanese University, attacked the uniform pro-Hizbullah, pro-Iran thinking expected of and imposed upon Shi'ites in Lebanon. [1] In the days following its publication, several reactions to Fayyad's article were published in Al-Nahar and on the Internet.

The following are excerpts from an English translation of Fayyad's article that was posted on the Internet, [2] and excerpts from the reactions.

"To Be a Shi'ite Means That You Do Not Question the Meaning of Resistance and Pride"

"We are going through a catastrophic and existential period that will have long-lasting impacts on our country and region for the next century; and since we are facing such a dangerous juncture, I saw fit to pose some questions that one might pose to one's self, or in secret, and wouldn't dare publicize, in fear of being accused of being a foreign agent or a traitor, or even a blasphemer. Confronting difficult questions and putting them out in public could help prevent us from falling to the precipice from which there is no return, and could help leaders take the appropriate decisions in order to stop this hellish war, whatever the cost may be.

"What is the meaning of being Shi'ite for the majority of Shi'ites at this point and at this critical juncture?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you entrust your fate to the wise and infallible leadership without daring to ask any question, even if just as a point of understanding.

"To be a Shi'ite means watching the Al-Manar channel, or New TV or NBN, exclusively, and that you enjoy their inspirational songs and their exclusive news, and that you look with enmity on all other channels because they are either 'American' or 'Zionist,' as long as they refer to Israeli forces by their name, and do not call them the 'forces of the enemy,' and do not have enough eulogies and only broadcast information.

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of victory. Is it the victory of armies while keeping soldiers - flush with weapons - alive, while destroying all of what is built, and the killing of the human beings that worked hard to build it up, and constitute the true protection for the fighter himself?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of resistance and pride. Is it fleeing from bombing and being heaped together on the tile floors of schools...?

"To be a Shi'ite is to contribute to the creation of a Lebanese 'Karbala 2,' as the Iraqi 'Karbala 1' did not perform its role as needed in building up the Arabs and carrying them on to victory over the enemy."

"Didn't We See... That Syria is the Cornerstone of This Region?"

"To be a Shi'ite is to be a hero that does not feel hurt nor complain, and does not have psychological crises, and accepts sacrificing himself and his country and everything that was accomplished so that he can teach Israel a lesson, and expose its craziness and ensure its defeat, as was indicated to us by the Syrian Minister on the BBC, that Israel is the loser... You see it is now hated more than ever before, and it is indicted by most of the nations of the world... now that they see for sure - and the lesson is still proceeding - the extent of its savagery and folly.

"When you are Shi'ite, you have to accept this logic, and even praise it, admiring its eloquence, its wisdom, and its global role in spreading the legal education and the enactment of international treaties and its role on a popular level, in resistance and liberation. Didn't we see, through this war on us, that 'Syria is the cornerstone of this region?' These are the very words of the [Syrian] minister himself.

"Of course all this destruction was necessary in order to ensure with concrete evidence the validity of this reasoning; because of the level of our objective thinking, we only work with evidence and empirical experimentation.

"To be a Shi'ite is to accept that your country be destroyed before your very eyes... and that it comes tumbling down on your head, and that your family be displaced and dispersed and becomes a 'refugee' at the four corners of the nation and the world, and that you accept standing up to the enemy with no complaints as long as there is a fighter out there with a rocket that he can launch at northern Israel - and maybe even at its south - without asking about the 'why' or about the timing or about the usefulness of the end result.

"To be a Shi'ite is to accept that you sacrifice all, as long as you have someone who will compensate you with money, and that someone will look over you as you rebuild what he destroyed. What is your problem with that?

"You see, we are a people of heroes that knows nothing but sacrifice, and we can absorb mental shocks and the death of loved ones and the humiliation of displacement and the destruction of the infrastructure of the state - since it is a weak, corrupt and follower state. Is it not enough to have on our side a strong country [i.e. Syria] whose foundations we work to support in confronting the unjust American might and the Israeli war machine from hell? - that machine whose weakness we have to prove, as well as its inability to inflict any harm on the fighters of Hizbullah, or on its ability to limit their military capabilities, and to prove that at any price?"

"What is the Purpose of Liberating a Country? Is it to Destroy it All Over Again and to Make it Possible for it to Be Occupied Once More?"

"To be a Shi'ite is to keep silent and not to ask what is the purpose of liberating a country. Is it to destroy it all over again and to make it possible for it to be occupied once more? And not to ask about the role of the leadership: Is it to preserve its military power and keep its men flush with arms without any care or concern for the normal human being? Being a Shi'ite means that you can only thank Hizbullah for its heroism and sacrifice. It is not your role to contribute to 'weakening' it or to 'breaking its word' or to making it know when to back down or compromise to preserve its victory on the one hand and to preserve the Lebanese nation and its people, as well as its development, on the other hand!! That means never to question whether pride takes precedence over the lives of others and whether stones take precedence over arms."

"To Be a Shi'ite Means to Incapacitate Your Mind and to Leave it to Khamenei to Guide You... and He Imposes on You a Notion of Victory That is No Different Than Suicide"

"To be a Shi'ite means to confer on the leader of the resistance his role as a loyal hero to the cause of the Arab nation in its entirety, not only whether you like it or not, but whether that nation likes it or not. You only have to hear the popular praise of the masses, that was preceded by the praise the masses heaped on their loyal hero 'Abd Al-Nasser, and is still shedding tears for its other hero, Saddam Hussein. And the masses are still able to heap praise on any hero that tickles its dreams and its feelings so that it can sleep tight at night... or to recover its lost dignity under the boots of rulers like Saddam, as long as we, and only we, pay the price until your real awakening.

"But the question is, to what degree can we rely on these incapable masses, who are enslaved by their rulers, to liberate themselves without even thinking about reconsidering this Jihadist and revolutionary plan!! Are they empowered? Are they wise enough? Have they prepared the ground for that? Do they have tools for fighting and remaining steadfast other than the arms of zeal and emotion and oratory?

"If you are a Shi'ite you are not to ask this leadership how the groundwork was prepared to absorb this indiscriminate war and its 'potential' consequences. Where are the hospitals, the ambulances, not to speak of the shelters? These are the responsibilities of the state - which was never consulted in declaring war - so that it can be blamed for its weakness and lack of wit. You see, the state is only needed when it is called upon to heal wounds, but the wise and existential decisions are not within its realm.

"To be a Shi'ite means to incapacitate your mind and to leave it to [Iranian Supreme Leader] Khamenei to guide you and to decide for you what he wants concerning arms for Hizbullah, and he imposes on you a notion of victory that is no different than suicide."

"Isn't it a Priority to Make Iran a Regional Shi'ite Superpower? What is the Problem With Sacrificing a Country Called Lebanon?"

"To be a Shi'ite means to defend the meddling of the Iranian [Foreign] Minister Mottaki in Lebanese state affairs without even trying to care for appearances. Maybe he came to 'point out' to the ministers of Hizbullah that they [the Hizbullah ministers] 'did not agree' to the seven-point plan, especially the point about the multinational force, so that the door of the resistance would not be shut, and so that we can remain a country exploited and abused, after it was proven that the Shab'a Farms are Syrian and would be dealt with in accordance with Resolution 242... And in that he is warning them about putting their Lebanese identity before their following Iran.

"They have to, against their own will, put the Iranian nuclear program and the interest of the state of Iran ahead of the interest of their state, and ahead of the preservation of the lives of the Lebanese or their possessions, whether these Lebanese are Shi'ite or otherwise, but especially if they are Shi'ites. Isn't it a priority to make Iran a regional Shi'ite superpower? What is the problem with sacrificing a country called Lebanon? Or the Shi'ites of this 'Lebanon'?"

"If You are a Shi'ite and You Dare Write Such Writings and Think Such Thinking, Then You Must Be a Foreign Agent and a Traitor"

"And in this tense mood, if you are a Shi'ite you have to listen to your Shi'ite speaker, who is disturbed and angry, and who wants to turn the world on top of the [Lebanese reform movement] 14th of March, and who wants to forbid the deployment of multinational forces. And you hear him distribute labels of foreign servitude, treason, Americanism and Zionism left and right, without raising your lip. You have to absorb his anger and agree with all his opinions, of which we have mentioned but a small sample. This is what takes you as far as possible from thinking: who the heck you are? Are you a Lebanese citizen? Does your being a Shi'ite mean that you have to give priority to Iran over Lebanon? Do you have the freedom to have your own opinions? Freedom of expression? Is it possible to think calmly and to ask where are we going with this nation, the institutions of this state, with pluralism, with the coexistence that we have to defend now?

"If you are a Shi'ite and you dare write such writings and think such thinking, then you must be a foreign agent and a traitor, in favor of partition and naturalization of Palestinians [in Arab states]. You must be with the Zionist and Israeli projects, and you defend the state, with its corruption and favoritism, and you support the biased American policies, and you accept its short-sightedness, and its support for the terrorism of the Zionist state, and its failure to give the Palestinians their state like all other creatures of God, under the pretext of not supporting the terrorism of Hamas. And that means you support Israel itself and its satanic war machine and its extreme savagery, and you justify its killing, its occupation, and its folly, and you are lucky if you are not accused of being the one destroying houses on people's heads and the dismemberment of children's corpses and scattering them on the heaps of debris - [all this] by raising your voice.

"Did I forget any of the symphony? If I did, please excuse me, because I cannot miss any of the news shows any more. I have to go see who is being displaced and whose house is being destroyed at the moment - that is, if he manages to survive."

Reactions to Mona Fayyad's Article

Two articles in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar - one from August 10, 2006, by Naif Karim and another from August 12, 2006, by Sanaa Haj - accused Mona Fayyad of superficiality and of distorting the facts, and mimicked the style of her article.

Karim wrote: "The hypothetical Shi'ite is supposed to give up his weapons and sleep in the arms of the wolf, relying on the protection of the international community and not troubling himself or his country with [issues of] liberating territories... [or] liberating Lebanese prisoners... The hypothetical Shi'ite is supposed to accept it as inevitable fate that there are networks of Israeli agents who plant bombs and kill activists from Sidon to Ba'albek... A Shi'ite who counts as a pure Lebanese is one who condemns [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid Al-Muallem and [Iranian Foreign Minister] Manuchehr Mottaki for their open interference in Lebanon's affairs, [but] throws flowers to Condoleezza Rice and approves of the New Middle East that she is weaving from the blood of our children." [3]

Sanaa Haj, a university lecturer, wrote: "To be a Shi'ite means having to justify [the activity of] the resistance [i.e. Hizbullah] - to foreign [parties] and unfortunately also to domestic [ones]... [It means having] to convince others every day that you are loyal to your country, which you nourish with your blood and your determined stand, and to constantly prove that you are an Arab and not an Iranian... to endure the sight of your family members in South Lebanon being killed and uprooted from their homes... to keep silent and not dare to express your enthusiasm and your joy at the victories of the resistance, so as to not offend the sensibilities of certain people in Lebanon..." [4]

In an August 12, 2006 article in Al-Nahar, Isma'il Sharaf Al-Din responded to Naif Karim's claims, saying that Karim had not answered the legitimate questions raised by Mona Fayyad. Sharaf Al-Din, who sees himself as a displaced Shi'ite, wrote that he agreed with Fayyad's statements and wished to add one of his own: "As a Shi'ite, you must first of all demand an accounting from those who started this adventure, which, as an initial result, caused more than one million Lebanese, most of them Shi'ites, to be displaced from their homes, with [entire] cities and villages being emptied of their inhabitants." [5]

Reformist columnist 'Aziz Al-Haj posted a reaction on the reformist website Elaph, stating that Mona Fayyad "is not the only one who writes with such candor out of love for Lebanon and its people." He listed many others who had written in the same vein, in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and in the Kuwaiti press, and who had incurred a torrent of curses, insults, and accusations of being communists. [6]

------------------------------------------------
[1] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 7, 2006.
[2] The translation was posted on the website "New England Americans for Lebanon" and has been lightly edited for style. http://www.10452lccc.com/hizbollah/fayad10.8.06english.htm, August 11, 2006.
[3] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 10, 2006.
[4] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 12, 2006.
[5] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 12, 2006.
[6] http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/ElaphWriter/2006/8/168599.htm, August 10, 2006.

2006-09-15T06:30:00.000-07:00

Is it really Islam?
By Esra'a (Bahrain)

Seems as though Islam these days is being harshly criticized by the masses, especially after 9/11's anniversary which served as a reminder of what caused the event. I wrote a couple of things elsewhere trying to enlighten people about the true nature of the religion and its application in politics, I should add them here too.

I'm very happy to be a Muslim. It's actually due to respect for my religion that I don't do a lot of bad things. How terrorists manage to back their actions up with Islam is beyond me, I just laugh at the people they successfully fool though. Terrorists, as people, are never blamed. Their religion is blamed. So the best way to make others not hate you is to manipulate them into hating your religion instead. And if it keeps producing people who are anti-Islam instead of people who are anti-terrorism, then "Muslim" terrorists have done an excellent job at lying and getting away with it.

Firstly, I'd like to address the Arab-Muslims vs. Jews factor.

A lot of Muslim beliefs trace back to Jewish traditions. Differences between Jews and Arabs are very minor - their cultures were practically the same in pre-Islamic Arabia. Jews spoke Arabic as their official language and it was the language of trade. They lived together, supported each other, and were family to each other.

We have no reason to hate Jews, in fact a lot of Jews admire Islam. What your average Jew is against is the kind of things that actual Muslims are against too - radicalism, hatred, terrorism, and other forms of extremism. Really, if you narrow it down and eliminate all the useless propaganda you'll see that our issues today have very little to do with religion and a lot to do with political philosophy and its influence on religion throughout many years. Half the things labeled un-Islamic or Islamic today didn't even exist in the history of Islam or its development, so how can we ever trust religious leaders with decisions like that?

I respect Jews because my religion tells me to do so. The Koran acknowledges the existence of Judaism and Christianity. In fact, it is specifically stated in the 2nd Surrah that Jews and Christians have a huge chance of getting into heaven, which is broken down in different stages. To me, that reads "tolerance." If they have the same or similar results in Judgement Day, that just shows that they're not so "evil" after all. "Muslim" infidels exist - the West calls them "terrorists." We back home call them infidels, because they are denying the words of God. If Muslims, who are or should be familiar with the Koran, deny their actions as "Islamic", how do others manage to state otherwise?

No interpretation of the Koran can ever support their meaningless behavior, unless you take 99% of its preachings out of context, and that's lying.

Other religions are not a threat to Islam. The only threat to Islam is ignorance of Islam - and that's what the terrorists are guilty of. And if you blame Islam, then you are indirectly supporting such terrorists because you don't accuse them as individuals who are wrong, you blame a religion many follow and consider the Truth, and people will want to defend that. How? Terrorism! Blaming Islam gives others the idea that it IS Islam! And certain Muslims, probably ones in corrupt societies where education and the social structure is abysmal, would want to represent and defend Islam in a similar manner. That doesn't mean they know anything about Islam, it means they were misled through blind accusations and through corruption within their own society.

Violence breeds violence, and ignorance breeds further ignorance. Ignorance of Islam breeds further terrorism. Terrorism will exist because of people who deny the reality of the fact that evil people exist, and not evil religions that have existed for many years (and have never had the 'terrorist' affect. Things done by certain Muslims are not things justified through Islam.) Terrorists are not representing a religion. They are representing a very dark aspect of human nature - as are gangsters, serial killers, mob behavior, and many other nasty things that humans are capable of.

Muslims who justify terrorism don't trace their claims back to the Koran. They are unfortunate victims of outright propaganda, and not just through media. Through socialization, institutions, and the influence of religious and authoritarian leaders in corrupt societies. Muslims abroad know very well that terrorism isn't justified in the Koran and is in fact forbidden. But what's taught in corrupt schools isn't what's taught in the Koran. Misinformation is a way to maintain social control, just take Saudi Arabia as the perfect example.

That is to say, the corruption of a Muslim country has a lot to do with the upbringing of the new pro-terrorism generations. There's a really interesting documentary called Afghan Alphabet. It gives you a detailed explanation of youth education in Afghanistan. If you're interested in how certain Muslim kids are taught and why they have the mentalities that others complain about, find and watch this documentary. It's a visual eye-opener for anyone wanting to see the issue behind Islam, and why Islam itself is not the issue. It's racism and terrorist ideologies disguised as Islam, and kids are by nature gullible enough to follow it. No reason whatsoever to assume that it's real Islam, however.

There are millions of decent Muslim kids with a decent Islamic education - it would be laughable to assume that Islam is the issue, otherwise they would all be "terrorists" too. I want to make it clear that a lot of people, or media outlets, are measuring a very small percentage of Muslims and are confusing their political cultures with their religious beliefs.

As for the question of why a lot of Muslim countries happen to be corrupt, this isn't the fault of Islam. It's merely a coincidence that Islam happens to be the official religion of many corrupt countries. Corruption is the fault of leadership, not religion. It has never traced back to religion. No one has tried tracing all corrupt countries back to religion because no one will succeed - corrupt countries represent a lot of different religions. Just think of certain African nations that are more backwards that the Middle East will ever be. Islam is not their religion. For many, Christianity is. Yet you don't see anyone tracing their corruption back to Christianity, they trace it back to bad leadership, because that’s the real problem!

The majority of Muslims are against terrorism. Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world and the fastest growing religion in America itself, if all of us supported terrorism, the world would be at war!

Islam For Today has a nice page dedicated for Muslims against terrorism.

Here's what you see in the mainstream media:

Here's what you don't see in the mainstream media:

(The text reads: Against terrorism.)

I'll say this as a Muslim who lived in a Muslim country all her life: I've yet to meet a Muslim who supports terrorism. In fact, I've yet to meet a real Jew who supports the idea that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Anyone who knows the origins of Islam should know that a clash of religions shouldn't really exist. This media shit doesn't represent reality at all. For those relying on assumptions I suggest you get out there in an attempt to re-define Islam for what it truly is.

I'll leave you with this note:

If you want to fight the "enemy", fighting this religion is a waste of time and will do you absolutely no good. Disagree with it. Question it. But maintain respect for those who practice it, and never assume what their opinions or intentions are. They vary greatly from one Muslim to the other. The enemy lies within corrupt ideologies and corrupt societies. Let's tackle those issues instead, it will do a world of good.

2006-09-14T04:20:00.000-07:00

Come in from the cold, Annan urges Iran and Syria

Iran and Syria, the two Middle Eastern countries regarded as pariah states by the US administration, must work with the international community to stabilise peace in Lebanon and settle the crisis in the wider region if they want to be accepted as full members of the family of nations, according to Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations.

Speaking at the end of a hectic two-week diplomatic mission to the region, including visits to both Tehran and Damascus, Mr Annan said he believed both countries "will have to take some responsibilities" if they were to overcome their isolation. But after talks with both President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad in Iran and Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian head of state, he concluded that they were "very keen to be accepted...and have normal relations with the rest of the world."

At the same time he spelt out his concern that the ongoing violence in Iraq had radicalised opinion in the region, while Arab leaders were "scared stiff" of another crisis between the US and Iran over that country's nuclear programme.

"This region cannot take another crisis," he said. Leaders in the region, where he visited Israel and Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Iran and Syria, were worried about growing hostility towards the US.

"Iraq has really caused a problem," he said. "It has radicalised the region."

"America is in a situation now where it cannot stay, and it cannot leave. Some argue that its presence is a problem; the other side, that if it leaves, the situation will get much worse...so whatever the US has to do, the timing of any withdrawal must be optimal, in the sense that it will do least harm, and will not trigger disintegration of Iraq, when the region and the world will blame the US."

The UN secretary-general, who has less than four months left in office, spelt out his hope that stabilising peace in Lebanon might provide a basis for a comprehensive peace process in the region, including "the Palestinian problem, the Syrian problem and the Lebanese problem." But he admitted that the situation was complicated by tensions with the US over both Iran and Iraq.

When in Iran and Syria, the principal backers of the Hizbollah militia in Lebanon, he urged both governments to help cut off the flow of arms to non-government forces in the country. Mr Assad said he would step up border patrols but Mr Ahmadi-Nejad stopped short of giving a firm assurance.

Mr. Annan said he did not believe either country revelled in its pariah status. "It is a question of having no choice," he said. "Syria's behaviour has isolated itself, but I think it is bravado. Iran is very keen to be accepted and have normal relations with...the rest of the world."

On Iran's nuclear programme, he said: "I think we are headed for a confrontation, unless we find a way to get all the people to step back a bit and reflect. But I am not sure how much room for flexibility either side is going to give."

He said that Iran's leaders "are living with the fear that they may be attacked. Their economy is not so strong. They are not making as much progress as other countries. When they travel in the region...they see how even smaller countries are moving on. But they have sanctions, they are isolated, they are having plane crashes because they cannot get spare parts. Who will say, this is the way we want to be? A country that is a major oil producer does not have a single oil refinery. It does not make sense."

Yet as far as Iran's nuclear ambitions were concerned, the government was "very confident, rightly or wrongly. [It] will not bend, and is prepared for the worst."

The primary purpose of Mr Annan's trip was to bolster support for the Lebanon peace plan. On that score he persuaded member states of the European Union, including France, Italy and Spain, to step up contributions to the UN peacekeeping force that will back the Lebanese army in the south of the country, and provide naval patrols. He overcame initial Israeli opposition to persuade Ehud Olmert, prime minister, to lift his air and sea blockade of Lebanon. And he gained the backing of both Israel and Hizbollah for the UN to broker a deal for the release of the two Israeli soldiers abducted by Hizbollah.

2006-09-13T06:39:00.000-07:00

"Voices From Iran"
(View from Iran)

I read a report from the Foreign Policy Centre (what's up with British spelling?). This report includes several anonymous interviews with key Iranian figures (it would take about 10 minutes to figure out who most of them are). It is a useful document for people who want to hear Iranians speak for themselves. I've pulled a few quotes, but there is a lot more.

From the Reformist Journalist:

The West and Iran:

"I don't like to speak all the time with analogies, but I think the West is approaching Iran in exactly the wrong way. It's like there is a dangerous element, a radical element in this country and perhaps at the moment it is holding us hostage. Rather like a terrorist who runs down the street with the police chasing after him and then takes refuge in a building. What should the police do? Negotiate with the people in the building until the people deliver the terrorist to them or the terrorist gives himself up; or attack the building, killing the terrorist but also killing lots of other people? If the United States were to attack Iran it would be like storming the building, a tragic mistake, because negotiation can resolve this dispute without anybody getting killed. ..."

On Ahmadinejad:

"The best way to deal with Ahmadinejad would be if he were left alone for a couple of years. If he can't use foreign pressure to repress more, he will face internal challenges. The most dangerous class is the workers - he told them he would raise their salaries. He has given them too much expectation, there's a possibility they could strike."
"Engagement with Iran has a much better effect for pushing the reforms, if the world wants to fully change the people, even those considered to be hardliners. Even they could become pro-Western. Why do I think that? Well, there's a strategic element in foreign relations. The current situation for Iran isn't good. We are surrounded by a lack of friends. We don't have many Muslim allies - people are Iranians first, then Muslims. Engagement is the most effective weapon. We can use our capacity in the region to contain terrorism. Isolation just fires back. The ex-officials of US make sense - there need to be more talks."

From the Human Rights Activist:

On democracy:

"Democracy is not like a plane, you can't just export it. You have to have social basics and foundations on which to build democracy. People must want democracy if you want to create democracy. If you truly want to change this government, you have to bring in a completely democratic government. The voice must be heard in the West - I want to make a union between a peace loving Iran and a peace loving West."

On Iran's nuclear capabilities:

"The international community worries about Iran being a nuclear power. There is no reason to worry, it won't be an atomic bomb that will destroy West. There is no such bomb. It will be Chernobyl style events that might destroy our own nation. All of this expertise and equipment were acquired on the black market. These factories and reactors lack safety standards. The West has very transparent reactors, and at the same time you have the greens and the environmental lobby keeping a check. When something is secret and unknown, you can have no confidence for safety. We should be worried, not you. You're scared for us, and that's very strange."

From the Feminist:

On higher education:

"Higher education gives women a clearer understanding of inequality and oppression, and that understanding will produce change. It's already happening, in vocal opposition to policies that sanction polygamy, temporary marriage, free divorce for men, and child custody to fathers and their families. If you pick up a women's magazine in Tehran, you'll find it's full of stories of wives suffering at the hands of despotic husbands, a long list of wife-beatings, suicides and loss of children. At the moment it's happening at this kind of anecdotal level because the courts discriminate against women, not just in terms of outlook or judgment but technically speaking, so a man's testimony is equivalent to that of two women."
"But change is inevitable, regardless of which faction holds the presidency. Education is giving Iranian women a new understanding of freedom, the freedom of choice, which is not displaced by sharia law. Ultimately the mullahs cannot make women wear the hijab or the chador, and the women of Iran are beginning to see this."

There is a lot more. You can download it at the Foreign Policy Centre's Site.

2006-09-12T02:14:00.000-07:00

They are blaming the victim!

With every anniversary of the September attacks the Arab media reserve wide space to cover the commemoration of the terror attack with visible assertion from the media that what happened in 9/11 was a terror attack and no channel or paper would use a different description. Sounds good so far?

I find myself compelled to follow the responses from Arab media and commentators in the hope that I could find a change, a review of calculations or a rereading of facts that is different from the previous. But the media is keen to disappoint me every single time because after the short friendly introduction that leads into the main coverage of the terror attack I find a flood of blaming, condemnation, chastising and scorn directed against (guess who?)…the victim of course, the victim of that very terror attack!
It makes me feel there's only a fine line of shyness stopping those people from praying for the souls of the terrorists, after all they, in the mentality of the media, are also victims of America (who in turn is the victim of that same terror attack!).

As I write the first few lines of this post Omar directs me to an AFP story about the media and 9/11 which left me in shock; the nonsense spread from Arabs to Americans themselves that some in the American MSM are firing their criticism arrows at the victim, turning logic upside down in an offensive and insulting manner explaining that by saying they are searching for solutions to the problem or to avoid another 9/11. many go as far as criticizing and condemning the American administration that had only been in office for six months when America cam under the attack that'd been in planning for years which means the terrorists had no clue what that administration's policy would be like and didn't even know who was going to be in office when they started planning the attack.

You also see others who criticize the American response to the attack calling it "savage" or "brutal" which are words commonly used by the Arab media that at the same time ignores the savage brutality of the attack in the first place.

Concentrating on the response and ignoring the attack that provoked it is an act of denial and running away from reality, and concentrating on the "erroneous" American policy is something I cannot accept because it comes either from dictatorships that see a threat for them in the American policy that calls for liberty and democracy, or from fascist religious powers that see in the pluralism and tolerance that America calls for a danger to their dominance on the minds of their people, or from some American politicians blinded by ambition and care only about discrediting their opponents.

Like we said in a previous post, did Moscow's pro-Arab, pro-Islamist policy keep the Russian people safe from the hands of radical terrorists who use their extreme interpretation of religion as a cover for violence?
NO...

Now let's ask ourselves some clear questions and let's go with those critics and suppose we changed the western policy toward "central and vital" Arab and Muslim causes, the question is, will that be enough to make dictators and extremists believe in peace with the west?

I don't think so. Those dictators and extremists always seek to keep a state of low-level confrontation and to keep the possibility for war open because their dominance over their people depends on their ability to create enemies and convince their people that those enemies are whom hatred and anger must be directed at.

I'll try to clarify more and dig up the main reason for the conflict which, I believe, is the thousand year-old interpretations of Quran which were made (the interpretations) divine and holy by despotic rulers and clerics who used these interpretations of the Quran to prohibit rational thinking and obstruct the natural course of mental and cultural evolution of the society asserting that the solution is in returning to the Salaf (ancestors and their doctrine) and not in going forward, these are the kinds of interpretations that shaped the visions of the terrorists who carried out the attack and other attacks.

These interpretations state clearly without any chance for confusion what the attitude toward non-Muslims must be; either convert them to Islam, or force them to pay the Jizya (tax/tribute) or it is war and of course the idea of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect based on equality does not exist, neither do peace treaties. What exists instead is Hudna (temporary cease-fire) which ends once enough power to fight and/or eliminate the enemy is gained.

Now I wonder, if the west chose to change its policy would this encourage the interdependent clerics and dictators to change those interpretations or cancel them along with the set of beliefs derived from them?

Again I don't think so and this what makes the confrontation inevitable. Inevitable because they want it and not the "other" and no matter how the west tries to avoid it, it (war) will come to the west.

The war in fact is one between the set of ideas that seeks to pull the word back into the dark ages and the set of ideas that seek freedom of mind and wants to move human civilization forward.

Changing policies will not change the "holy" heritage which our enemies want to impose, first on us in this region to later export it and impose it on the west.

This is our war first, it's our war as citizens of this region to preserve our humanity so as not to turn into violent, death-spreading mutants.

It's the war of those of us who believe in rewriting history and breaking away from its chains and it's the war of those who look forward to liberating their minds from the dominance of totalitarian interpretations of religion, and it's your war too.

Your duty is to help save us from being smashed between the hammer of dictators and the anvil of religion so that we can take our natural place and play a positive role in this life.

And it's also your battle to stop the murderers from acquiring deadly power so that we can be sure what happened in 9/11, or something much worse, does not happen again.

2006-09-11T06:34:00.000-07:00

Karzai thanks US for its help on eve of 9/11
President Hamid Karzai thanked the United States on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, for its sacrifices in the battle against Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The fight against international terrorism must continue with greater resolve, Karzai added in a statement on Saturday.

The United States led the invasion that toppled the extremist Taliban government weeks after 9/11 after the hardliners did not hand over their Al-Qaeda allies blamed for the atrocities.

"The Afghan people join me in expressing my strong solidarity with the People of the United States as you mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks," Karzai said in a statement.

Afghanistan, which had long suffered at the hands of terrorism, understood the "tremendous loss", he said.

Karzai said though it was regrettable that it took 9/11 for the world to appreciate the threat of international terrorism when Afghanistan had long called for help against the growing threat.

"For many years, the Afghan people were held hostage in their own country, and subjected to unspeakable atrocities, by foreign terrorists and their Taliban friends," he said.

"The world must continue the fight against the menace of terrorism with greater resolve and dedication," he said.

Karzai said progress in Afghanistan in the past five years would not have been possible without US help.

2006-09-10T21:48:00.000-07:00

Tourists in Bin Laden's Land
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

It is quite beyond me how tourists continue to flock to our region despite its growing bad reputation; the numerous wars, the abductions and decapitations, and its ubiquitous negative presence in the world's news headlines that constantly dominates news stories -- terror upon terror. After years of violence, hostages, and bombings, I do not understand how travel agencies still manage to persuade people from Germany, Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and even America to visit Egypt's Pharaonic tombs, Petra's ancient passages, the Crusader forts in Syria, to bask in the sun on Tunisian beaches, or spend winters in Morocco's Marrakesh and summers in Egypt's Hurghada, and undertake the pilgrimage in Jerusalem. Fortunately, planes will not be taking tourists to have breakfast in Baghdad's Al-Rashid's Hotel and lunch in Darfur's camps.

These tourists must be living on a different planet where no newspapers exist and where there is no access to the news; how else can we explain the steady annual influx of 10 million tourists to the Middle East when God's land is full of countries free from Al Qaeda, the Arab revolutionaries, and other mentally-ill fighters?

This angry Jordanian opened fire on the first tourists he encountered in Amman's Roman amphitheatre without realising that these people are probably the closest to his stance, people who had come to enjoy the culture of his country. They are friends, not enemies. Most visitors of archaeological sites in the Arab world and those who spend summers in its cities, markets, and beaches visit out of love and fascination for the region's heritage. They are the ones that frequently disagree with their government's political views and sympathise with the Arabs and their causes, travelling for leisure and cultural tourism, contributing their savings to our region's economy.

In my view, these visitors are so naive that they cannot differentiate between a visit to Hollywood's studios and the Middle East's ruins, since both produce the same terror, except that the latter is a reality and can be viewed free of charge on the Internet.

Some might say that the terrorists do not care about classifying tourists as friends and that their aim is to frighten them, thus deprive the country of essential revenues, internally weaken it politically, and alienate it from the outside world. That is all true and the evidence is that the incidents in Luxor, Sharm al Sheikh, Hurghada, and the Sinai region in Egypt were all attacks aimed at crippling tourism, the economy and visiting tourists. They succeeded for a short period of time in reducing the number of visitors but they soon returned like moths attracted to the same light that burns them.

It goes without saying we cannot persuade Al Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to learn how to be civilised, but what is strange is that tourists do not learn their lesson from their ill-fated predecessors and head to the relics of Mexico's Pharaohs, Rome's ancient amphitheatre, and the remains of the Hellenic Greek temples and bask on warm beaches that are far from the Middle East's jungles and its beasts.

About Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed:
The general manager of Al -Arabiya television. Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

2006-09-09T21:49:00.000-07:00

Living Under The Cloud
As Iran's leaders raise the stakes, many people are already feeling the pain
By AZADEH MOAVENI / TEHRAN

The early risers in my neighborhood arrived at the local bakery one recent morning to find the doors locked and the stone oven cold. They milled about for a while and then began speculating about why the bakery should mysteriously be shut. Before long, they settled on an explanation: the Iranian government had sent all the country's flour to Lebanon. Since the war in Lebanon ended last month, Iranians have become convinced that their government is spending outrageous sums on Lebanon's Shi'ites to shore up support for Iran's longtime client Hizballah. The rumors grow more outlandish every day: the Lebanese are receiving free SUVs or plasma televisions. As shop owner Behjat Karimi, 47, put it, "What else of ours are they going to give away next?"

The bakery, it turns out, was merely closed for remodeling. But a general sense of suspicion still hangs in the air, and Tehran probably can't ignore it. To the outside world, the Iranian government projects an image of national resolve as it defies U.N. Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium. But the regime's ability to withstand international pressure may depend on how forgiving Iranians are about the sluggish economy. The rate of inflation is at least 19%, and unemployment has edged up to 15%. At a press conference last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fended off criticism of his economic program by swinging attention to foreign policy and calling for a debate with President George W. Bush. Some former Iranian officials and other analysts speculate that Ahmadinejad is stoking the nuclear crisis with the West in part to divert attention from the economy. "This is the first government in years to make big economic promises to people," says a close associate of Ahmadinejad's with knowledge of his government's thinking. "If it fails to deliver, it will be a catastrophe not just for this administration but for the entire regime."

The war in Lebanon has provoked economic anxieties. Nightly news broadcasts that Iranians watch on their illegal satellite dishes show Hizballah doling out thick stacks of cash to displaced Shi'ites, courtesy of Iran. Because President Ahmadinejad enjoys pandering to public sentiment in the Arab world, the flow of Iranian resources to Lebanon is no secret. But this spending on a faraway Arab community infuriates Iranians and revives an ugly Persian chauvinism that considers Arabs uncultured and backward. One story I heard last week has the wife of Hizballah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah receiving a gift of Iranian caviar and thinking it was some sort of jam.

The discontent is rising. At a recent dinner party, all my guests rattled off fresh complaints about the government's misplaced priorities: a businessman who legally imports foreign goods says the government hasn't stopped the influx of smuggled products; a musician couple can't find affordable housing in Tehran; an English teacher at a government-run language institute complains of the school's harsh new dress code. "Instead of caring about our coat lengths, maybe [Ahmadinejad] should pay attention to what counts," says Farah, 32, the teacher.

For now, the Establishment doesn't seem threatened by people's grievances. But moderates are worried that a serious confrontation with the U.S., possibly involving military strikes, would provoke a legitimacy crisis for the regime. All of which suggests that Iran may defy the West over its nuclear program for as long as it can manage, and adapt at the last minute to avoid a military clash. Until then, even the threat of sanctions could prove useful by offering Iran's President an external source of blame for the nation's economic problems.

Iranians seem resigned to the likelihood that with tensions rising, the situation at home is likely to get worse. Earlier last month, police confiscated all the illegal satellite dishes in my neighborhood under the guise of preventing the broadcast of impure content. The "real" story circulating among residents went like this: a regime official had recently begun importing small, laptop-size satellite dishes that work indoors. If the government rounded up the rooftop dishes, everyone would be forced to buy the official's dishes. For a while, people on my block stood outside debating what to do. The elders finally shook their heads in dejection while their children traded ringtones on their mobile phones.

2006-09-08T21:21:00.000-07:00

Removing Saddam strengthened Iran
By Adla Massoud

Political Islam expert Vali Nasr (pictured) says the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq by the US during the invasion of the country in 2003 strengthened Iran's strategic viability and increased its regional popularity, especially among Iraq's Shia majority.

Nasr, author of the recently published book The Shia Revival, says despite its defiant rhetoric Iran is really seeking open and wide-ranging normalisation talks with Washington.

Professor of Middle East and South Asia Politics at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, Nasr was one several Middle East experts recently invited by George Bush, the US president, to brief him on internal Iraqi religious and political dynamics.

The following excerpts are from his interview to Aljazeera.net.

Aljazeera.net: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have voiced fears of a Shia revival in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Will a sectarian war engulf this "new" Middle East?

Vali Nasr: I think in individual countries they do fear the Shia revival because, unfortunately, Iraq, which is the very first stage of transfer of power from Sunnis to Shia, has gone very badly for a variety of reasons.

There was an enormous amount of blood shed in Iraqi politics for a very long time ... Iraq after 1991 became far more of a sectarian state than it was before, and the Americans mishandled many things - they weren't as prepared, which aggravated the situation.

As did also the influx of foreign fighters with their own agenda who may have thought the best way to get the Americans out of Iraq was to provoke a civil war by generating sectarian violence, hitting the shrines …

Secondly, the Shia want to avoid what happened in Iraq as do the Sunnis. So we are in a period of calm where the sectarian violence in Iraq is impacting all the debates about political transition, democracy, opening, and power sharing in the region.

Many have blamed Washington's policies for putting a defiant Iran in command of the Islamic street. Do you agree?

Yes and no. Saddam Hussein was definitely a bulwark against Iran because the Baathist government in Iraq was extremely anti-Iranian. It goes back to the days of the Shah ever since 1958.

But now Iran will definitely have a greater say in any Iraqi government that comes to power and is friendlier to Iran - especially if that government is a Shia government.

Secondly, the US has become bogged down in Iraq in a major way militarily and that takes away from its capability to contain Iran. And Iran knows that.

Part of Iran's power comes from the fact that it's very difficult to effectively contain it.

The public mood in America is not in favour of military activity abroad ... when Israel was not able to beat Hezbollah in a country of only 3.5 million people, when 130,000 US troops are bogged down in Iraq, obviously Iran feels it has a lot more room to manoeuvre and say "no" to the international community and to the nuclear issue.

Also, while the Iranian power was on the rise in the 1990s, nobody was watching, the economy was growing and the price of oil went up, it became very wealthy. It's a country of 70 million people.

There were many indicators that Iran was on the move during the [former Iranian President Mohammed] Khatami years. But the military edge of this, the more regional military edge of this, has only become evident now.

Iran's reading of the Arab street has been fairly good. At the time when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was in a stalemate, there was frustration and anger on the streets because of the fact that the peace process was not going anywhere.

There was increasing difficulty between Palestinians and Israelis and then Iraq was producing so much unhappiness in the region. The Iranians did not focus on winning support among the palaces of the Arab world.

They went directly for the kind of things that make them very unpopular in the West and very popular on the Arab streets. So Iranian President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad started to attack Israel and question the Holocaust.

That has damaged Iran greatly in terms of its diplomacy with the West. But these pictures were sold on the streets in Damascus and Beirut before the war between Israel and Hezbollah.

The recent conflict in Lebanon has boosted Hezbollah's popularity to an unprecedented level and has given the mullahs - Hezbollah's backers - greater leverage to use at the international bargaining table. What does Tehran really want?

There are big things that Tehran wants and there are little things that Tehran wants. Iran wants to be recognised as a great power in the region. It wants to be like India is in South Asia. They basically want their position to be accepted and acknowledged. And the nuclear issue is part of that.

Iran wants to sit as an equal with the US and not be talked down to.

That should be an outcome of negotiations rather than a pre-condition for negotiations.

Also, you are right, as time has passed particularly after the Lebanon war, Iran feels increasingly more confident not that the overall goal has changed but that they would like to make any kind of negotiation from a position of strength.

I personally think they want to talk. That's why President Ahmadinejad gave an interview to CBS's Mike Wallace.

That's why in his interview he complained about the fact that President Bush did not answer his letter, it's the reason why again he called for a public debate with Bush a few days ago. And they do condescendingly say they want to talk but not the way in which the West wants to talk.

Why won't the US talk to them?

There are multiple reasons. This Bush administration began by putting Iran in the axis of evil. There are domestic considerations for engaging in talks, for both countries. You become ultimately a prisoner of your own rhetoric.

Secondly, the US believes that Iran is not serious. And the US has not really made up its mind yet about normalising relations with Iran. Or what that means. What the US wants is for Iran to stop doing specific things that the US is bothered by: namely their support for Hezbollah, support for terrorism, stop meddling in Iraq, and above all suspension of uranium enrichment and ending the nuclear programme in Iran.

But you know these are specific issues that the US would like Iran to deal with but it doesn't change the overall relation between the US and Iran.

The Iranians argue that if they were to do these things, they would still be in a position of difficulty. Once Ahmadinejad said in his own usual crude way, "If we gave up the nuclear programme, they will ask for human rights. If we gave up human rights they will ask for animal rights."

The US is refusing to engage directly with Iran, but will oil interests force US-Iran reconciliation?

I don't know if it will impose reconciliation but it is definitely a pressure factor. First of all, it's very difficult even if everybody at the UN agreed to punish Iran economically by imposing sanctions on Iran because ultimately those sanctions will include the oil sector.

If you include oil sanctions on Iran, then the price of oil is going to go up dramatically in such a way that will impact Western economies and Japan far more quickly than it will impact Iran itself. So oil is a limiting factor on the United Nations and the US.

Secondly, the easiest way in which Iran can always threaten any kind of counteraction is to attack oil tankers or to close off the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. And you know Iran does not even have to succeed there, just the threat of it will already send the prices up.

As a result, Iran has the ability to impact oil markets in ways that would constrict US policymaking. I don't think it's necessarily a path to reconciliation so much as it is a path to preventing further escalation of tension.

With Iran remaining defiant and ignoring a deadline set by the UN Security Council to suspend enrichment of uranium, do you think it's more likely Israel will attack Iran before the US does?

I don't think it would be too likely for two reasons. One, Iran is not anywhere close to having a nuclear bomb. In fact, the very fact that the IAEA just said Iran has been going rather slow on the uranium enrichment indicated that they are having technical problems.

Before Iran gets to a bomb it has to master many technologies, not just enrichment. They have to master bomb making and many other things before they can actually be a threat.

Many estimates, including US intelligence agencies, have put a time-frame anywhere from five to eight years away if all is well. So there is no imminent threat that would require a sort of military pre-emptive strike.

We might actually be at a time-frame right now - despite the hard talk from both sides - that the cost of a military attack on Iran may be higher than the benefit. In other words, an attack won't achieve much; it will only push the nuclear programme back. But the political, military and security cost of attacking Iran will be higher than the gains you are going to get.

What is the key to breaking up Iran's hegemony in the region?

There is no easy solution to this. In other words, there could always be a military solution, but I don't think there is a good military solution, and if there is a war, it's not going to even change the regime.

Like we saw in Lebanon, an attack will only stabilise the regime further, it will cause anger on the streets, and if Iran is attacked it won't have any incentives to play by the rules either. This will be tremendously destabilising to the Persian Gulf and to the whole region.

Secondly, the countries in the region don't have the capability to contain Iran because they don't have the military capability to do so. Once upon a time Iraq and Iran balanced one another out. Saudi Arabia doesn't have that capability so they are going to look at the US to provide that military capability.

The question is, to what extent is the US committed to staying in the Persian Gulf. But ultimately I think for the Arab countries, particularly the Persian Gulf countries and the US, the best way is to find a way to engage Iran, give Iran an interest in stability and order in the region.

When you keep a power like Iran out in the cold, you give it an incentive to try to show that it exists and matters. And that is something the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are better positioned to do with support from the West than the West on its own.

2006-09-07T15:39:00.000-07:00

What we need is a united vision

The war with terror is still on and as every new anniversary of the September attacks approaches it is a reminder of how fierce this war is and how deep and cruel the evil inside that terror is.

We in Iraq need no special occasions to remind us of that; the front is still on fire and the daily confrontation leaves no place for doubt in our minds about the aggressive nature of terrorism against everything that opposes its ideology even when the opposition is represented by an Arab or Muslim trend whether Sunni, Shia or any other variation, let alone the Christians, Jews, Buddhists or non-religious people.
This aggressive ideology does not aim at achieving limited tactical objectives like many conventional wars are but it presents its goals as an attempt to impose one doctrine on the entire world as it considers everyone who does not abide by this doctrine an infidel who deserves no less than death as punishment.

What concerns me here while we are amid this continuous confrontation on the first front of war on terror is the world's position from this war. When I say Iraq is the first front in this war, I mean what I say and it's not a personal opinion but it's what the leaders of al-Qaeda have said and it's what the acts and intentions of terror-supporting regimes have proven through rejecting the democratic change in Iraq and siding with al-Qaeda to make Iraq fail by all means they have. Such regimes have been providing terrorism with financial, logistic and media aid showing clearly that their goal is one which is not allowing a plural democratic power from emerging in the middle east since that is also a common threat to both, totalitarian regimes and the ideology of terrorism.

Looking at how many free countries deal with this war disappoints me, their failure to form a united front to deal with the challenge and hesitation in addressing the magnitude of the threat has reflected negatively on us who have chosen freedom and pluralism and rejected totalitarianism and extremism.
This failure to agree on a common policy is one of the main pretexts used by the enemy in making wrong judgments and even helps terrorists pretend they are right by exploiting the fact that the west itself is not in agreement over confronting them and that the war on terror is merely waged by a few "Zionist-backed crusaders".
This gives the terrorists the advantage as they watch our differences grow and countries break away from the alliance or act reluctantly; the terrorists view each of these as a sign for victory and an indication that it's a matter of time until the global alliance against them collapses.

What we need now is a united world vision in this regard, a vision that can be implemented through a road map that we all approve and agree within which on adopting the strategy of preemptive war with all its political, military, economic and cultural means.

On the other hand lack of coordination and consensus in looking at and dealing with terror and terror-supporters can only lead to more losses and more victims on our side, some of us in this world need to make up their mind now, realize the seriousness of the threat and stop being inept is playing the global role that history assigned to the free and powerful west.

I wonder what's stopping many countries in Europe from doing what they have to do despite the clear intentions of the enemy and the fact that this enemy made clear its hostility to everything and everyone different, and we see this hostility translate into indiscriminate slaughter that doesn't even care about knowing the religious, political or social orientation of its victims like we saw in September 11 or Madrid or Egypt or London or Jordan and like we see every single day in Iraq.

Terrorism did not target governments or armies as much as it targeted civilian life in the form of markets, trains, hospitals, worship places and even crowds of children and old crippled people.

Then why is the delay and why is the reluctance in taking a firm position and standing united to face the threat?

I think the short-sightedness of some countries, especially in Europe, comes from the following points:

The world in general thinks the threat is currently directed at the United States only for political reasons related to America's stance regarding the issues of the Arab and Muslim world especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. This in my opinion is utterly shallow, such politicians who reiterate this theory are like parrots imitating the totalitarian regimes in the region that use conspiracy theories and feed hatred to their people trying to convince the people that the problem lays within the west and use this to repress aspirations for reform.

It also looks clear that many countries think they can stay away from harm by running away from the confrontation but lessons from history, near history that is, prove that this strategy carries no cure for the disease.

The Soviet Union for example was an avid supporter of Arab countries and assisted them during various chapters of their long conflict with Israel; the Soviets provided Arabs with weapons, money, political support and even technically fought on their side at some points but what did the Soviets, and later the Russians, get in return for those favors?
All I can see is thousands of jihadists roaming through what remained of the Soviet Union spreading death and fear and murdering Russian civilians even inside Moscow itself in the hope they can impose a Salafi regime in that part of the world… all the time Moscow spent sucking up for Arab dictators couldn't spare the Russian blood.

The same with the Europeans who kept pampering Iran for so long and in return the Mullah's reward them by developing missiles that can strike deep into the heart of Europe! And it seems the next reward from Iran will be supplying these missiles with more impressive fireworks.

As you can see It's not only the direction of the threat that the world fails to see but it's also the size of this threat, many think America is exaggerating it to help pass its plans for the world while in fact I see that America is only looking farther than the rest of these countries, maybe it was September 11 that made America see and believe that the threat is actually growing with time and that one day in the future it will have to deal with terrorists armed with much more deadly weapons that they have now.

This is going to happen sooner or later and we already see the feverish pursuit of some countries for acquiring weapons of mass destruction and there is no clearer way to declare such intentions than to declare one's intentions of wiping this or that country off the map.

It might be true that the threat at this point is not big enough and might not equate for a possible serious harm but the case will not remain so for a long time if we did not stand firm to contain it and put an end to its growth.

The other thing I see in some countries' attitudes is frankly a form of parasitism, cowardice and irresponsible dependence by trying to through the entire load on the shoulders of America in a mean, yet stupid, policy to avoid paying the price on the short term. They forget that by doing so they are not really saving lives and treasure but only delaying the payment for some time but the price then will be much bigger.

If only they could look deeper they would see that a sooner victory in the Middle East and helping this region evolve into a democratic and prosperous one means a better market and a lesser threat and even less immigration from the south/east to the north/west and that sacrifices made today will make the world a better place for future generations whom we can spare from paying for our mistakes.

2006-09-06T05:20:00.000-07:00

Former Syrian VP Khaddam: The Syrian Regime 'Aims to Drag Lebanon into Civil War'

In an August 28, 2006 interview with the Lebanese TV channel Al-Mustaqbal, former Syrian Vice President 'Abd Al-Halim Khaddam, who is today an expatriate leader of the Syrian opposition, ridiculed senior Syrian officials' excuses for non-intervention in the recent Israel-Hizbullah war. Khaddam argued that the Syrian regime's refusal to mark the borders with Lebanon is a pretext aimed at continuing the resistance in southern Lebanon, since, he said, these borders "can be marked on the map within an hour." He also revealed information that, following Israel's May 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon, while he was still serving as vice president, Syria issued instructions to portray the liberation of the Shab'a Farms as one of the goals of the Lebanese resistance, a goal that had not been named in the past.

The following is a translation of the main points of the interview:

All Elements in Lebanon Must Accept the Fact That the State is the One That Makes the Decisions

"The guarantee that there will be no second round [of the war] is the [establishment] of national Lebanese unity, and [when] all Lebanese elements will accept the state as the one that makes the decisions and has the responsibility. But if things remain as they are... then the problem will move to the intra-Lebanese arena..."

Hafez Al-Assad Gave an Order to Prevent Resistance in the Golan

"In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and the war became a direct [war] between us and Israel on Lebanese soil. We fought in Beirut, in the mountains, [and] in the Beqaa and we stopped the Israeli advance between 'Ayn Zhalta and Sultan Ya'aqoub in the western Beqaa region. Then came the decision for a cease-fire. After that, [then-Syrian president] Hafez Al-Assad decided to exhaust Israel in Lebanon. [Even before that,] when Hafez Al-Assad decided that traditional war with Israel had become impossible because of what became clear during the [1973] October War, he gave strict orders to the [Syrian] armed forces and security apparatuses to prevent all resistance activity in the Golan. This was because any response by Israel would have reached the internal Syrian arena...

"Thus, in 1982, when the decision was made, we began to encourage the Lebanese parties to carry out resistance activities [in Lebanon]..."

Top Syrian Officials' Explanations for Syria's Non-Intervention in August 2006 War are All Excuses

"[Syrian President] Bashar Al-Assad is fearful and apprehensive about war developing and reaching Syrian territory... As far as he is concerned, the war can be conducted in Lebanon without Syria being forced to bear any military burden. If you ask me about the value of the Syrian-Lebanese military agreement, which is part of the [military] contract between them, [I will say] that it has been proven to be [just] a piece of paper.

"[They claim to have] an excuse. Some of the senior officials close to Bashar Al-Assad have said it: 'What prevents us from intervening [in the war] is the Separation of Forces Agreement [between Syria and Israel] in the Golan [Heights]'... [Yet] Israel violated this agreement when it attacked at 'Ayn Al-Saheb. They said, 'If the Israeli forces approach Syria's borders, we will intervene.' [Yet] Israeli forces are on Syrian lands in the Golan. Bashar Al-Assad said in his [August 15, 2006] speech that Israel was defeated in the first days. If indeed it was defeated in the first days, why was this defeat not exploited in order to intervene in the Golan and to liberate it?"

There Can Be No Resistance in Syria While the Syrian People Itself is Held Prisoner

"How can there be resistance in Syria when the Syrian people sees itself as a prisoner, when a [Syrian] intellectual says three words and is [immediately] arrested, and when the Syrian people is stripped of its freedom, oppressed, and plundered by the ruling family?..." [1]

There Must Be Relations of Equals Between Syria and Lebanon; Today There is No Place for Syrian-Lebanese Unity

"What is the difference between Lebanon and any other Arab state? This is absolutely not the time to establish unity between Syria and Lebanon. [The idea of] such unity has never [even] crossed our minds. Syrian-Mauritanian unity [will come] before [Syrian]-Lebanese unity... In my experience with the intricacies of the Lebanese situation, I say that there must be relations of equals between Syria and Lebanon, and this will serve the interests of both countries. Why shouldn't there be diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon?"

Syrian Objections to Marking the Border at Shab'a Farms is an Excuse in Order to Continue the Resistance

"Marking the Syria-Lebanon border requires [nothing more than] diplomatic will... Even the borders between Saudi Arabia and Yemen are marked, despite the disputes that have continued for over a century. Why shouldn't the Syria-Lebanon [border] be marked? The occupation has nothing to do with this... They can be marked on the map within an hour...

"Actually, [Syria's objections] to marking the border is a pretext aimed at justifying the continuation of the resistance movement in the South. [Liberating] the Shab'a Farms was not one of the aims of the resistance [i.e. Hizbullah]. No one spoke of the Shab'a Farms. [They started talking] about them [only] after the [May 2000] Israeli withdrawal [from Lebanon]. This was an order that came from Syria."

Assad Aims to Drag Lebanon Into Civil War so as to Close the Investigation of the Al-Hariri Assassination and to Return to Lebanon

"It is clear that the Syrian regime has two aims: The first is to drag Lebanon into civil war, so as to close the investigation of the assassination of [former Lebanese] prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri... The second aim of the Syrian regime is to bring about a situation in which matters in Lebanon will blow up, and then [Syria's] allies [i.e. Hizbullah] will manage to take over Lebanon - which will enable the Syrian regime to return to Lebanon..."

The Decision to Assassinate Al-Hariri was Made by Bashar Al-Assad

On the assassination of Rafiq Al-Hariri, Khaddam said: "Bashar Al-Assad knows what he's doing. [He knows] how the decision [to assassinate Al-Hariri] was made, how the crime was carried out, and who took part in it... No security operation could be executed in Syria without the decision of the president. Could Rustum Ghazale have taken a ton of explosives from the army's warehouse [without Assad's knowledge]? Could Rustum Ghazale have brought in the group that laid the explosives, tailed [the victim], and carried out [the assassination] without [Al-Assad's] knowledge? My answer is that this is a decision that came from the president...

"I reiterate and say to Bashar Al-Assad that I am convinced that the investigation will reach him, and he knows this... The Syrian regime will fall... The life expectancy of this regime is short, and Bashar Al-Assad's last speech [on August 15, 2006] will be his farewell [speech]."[2]

-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Recently, the Syrian government press has been threatening that there will be resistance in the Golan that will fight Israel "as the Lebanese resistance fought it." See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1264, "Syrian Government Press Threatens War in the Golan: 'Those Who... Call for Peace Must Always Support the Resistance,'" August 25, 2006,
[2] Al-Mustaqbal (Syria), August 28, 2006.

2006-09-04T15:08:00.000-07:00

Sunni-Shia schism revives after Hezbollah's "victory"

After basking in the euphoria of Hezbollah's perceived "victory", it seems that a number of Sunni leaders are starting to feel rather a little bit uncomfortable with the status the Shiite militia currently enjoys across the Sunni Arab world. This feeling could be the result of fear that Sunnis will start experimenting with Shiism, the religion of those who sent rockets to Haifa and Afula, or it could be the result of plain jealousy.

One of those Sunni leaders who recently warned people against Shiism is the Sunni heavyweight Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi. I was very surprised at what Qaradawi said regarding Shiites, Hezbollah, and Hasan Nasrallah especially after he provided his unwavering support for Hezbollah during the war. Here is a translation of what he said during his annual meeting (Arabic link) with journalists here in Cairo.

"I call for Muslim denominations to meet each other. I support Hezbollah in its resistance. However, I don't accept them penetrating our nations. I warn against massacres between Sunnis and Shittes like the ones occurring Iraq if there was a large penetration of Shiism in Egypt. We must be awake for this." he said. "Hassan Nasrallah is no different from the other extremist Shiites. He is upholding his Shiism and values, we cannot deny that. But he is better than those who sit and do nothing (vis a vie Israel)" He added that Shiites are using Sufi Islam (Islamic mysticism) as a cover to penetrate and expand throughout Egypt.

Now, what Qaradawi is trying to say is as follows: Hassan Nasrallah's "victory" is nice and dandy but stay away from his religion. Imagine for example Protestants in the certain country managed to achieve some sort of victory. Catholics will welcome this victory achieved by "fellow Christians" yet at the same time might feel rather uncomfortable that it was the Protestants and not the Catholics who achieved it, plus they would be afraid lest average Catholics start looking into Protestantism.

Qaradawi is not the only one concerned. I just finished reading an interview with a senior Lebanese Sunni cleric in which he literally lambasted both Hezbollah and Nasrallah. The Sunnis vs. Shiite issue was very evident in what he said.

Now allow me to play the evil devil's advocate here. We should be pleased that Hezbollah is Shiite. Imagine the boost that Sunni Islamist militancy would have enjoyed if this "victory" was achieved by Sunnis instead? And as far as I'm concerned, I'm more concerned about Sunni extremism because Sunnism is the majority and radical extreme Sunnis are the ones running the terror show these days.

2006-09-03T21:55:00.000-07:00

"Right Man, Right Place, Right Time": King Abdullah's First Year
A Conversation with Robert Jordan

SUSRIS: What are your thoughts as you consider King Abdullah's first year?

Ambassador Robert Jordan: As Regent for ten years under King Fahd he was able to advocate reforms, but sometimes the implementation fell short of the aspirations. Now that he has the full power of the monarchy he is better able to insist that these reforms go forward. The fact that Saudi Arabia completed the process to join the WTO is significant. It allows the Kingdom, under the impetus of the WTO accession, to move forward with economic reforms, which in turn will spur social and political reforms.
King Abdullah is an excellent politician who pays careful attention to his people. His piety and his integrity are so well respected by the people that he enjoys tremendous personal popularity. That personal popularity will allow him to move forward in ways that someone less popular simply couldn't.
We are seeing the use of Saudi Arabia's petro-dollars to expand infrastructure at a time when it is much needed. They are building railroads. They are building a new economic city on the west coast. They are encouraging foreign investment. They have announced about $600 billion in foreign investment opportunities.
That all suggests Saudi Arabia really does intend to be the center of the Gulf, and one of the major economic forces in the world. It is a credit to King Abdullah who has surrounded himself with wise advisors. Although there are still those who don't always agree with him, he operates to the best he can by consensus, but when a decision has to be made he seems willing to make it and move forward.

SUSRIS: What are the effects of changes at the top on US-Saudi relations?

Jordan: I don't think it will change very much. King Abdullah, as Crown Prince, developed a very close personal relationship with President Bush. They have met in Crawford twice. They have met in Sharm el Sheik. They occasionally speak on the phone. When I was Ambassador I carried messages back and forth between them with some regularity and I am sure that is continuing.
When President Bush's term is up his successor will certainly have the need to develop a similar relationship to the extent that is possible. The Foreign Minister, Prince Saud has been a very steady hand for decades in maintaining and managing the relationship as well. He worked closely with Secretaries of State in past Administrations, with Secretary Powell and now with Secretary Rice in generally a positive way. Those personal relationships are important.
Much of the relationship comes down to policy. I think the Saudis will never abandon their feeling for the Palestinian people, and now their feeling for the Lebanese people as well. There will continue to be areas of disagreement and friction along those lines.
Our joint efforts in countering terrorism have been increasingly effective. At the sub cabinet level there are a number of officials on both sides that have developed very close working relationships that have really helped on the war on terrorism.

SUSRIS: What are the issues King Abdullah faces?

Jordan: Education and the bulging youth population are obviously major issues. It will be critically important to the stability of Saudi society to training the youngsters of Saudi Arabia for productive lives in which they can acquire jobs, get married, raise a family, and have a house. Finding areas to provide employment is not all that easy in an economy that is so heavily based on the oil and gas industry. It does not typically employ large numbers of people, so they need to broaden their economy. Saudi Arabia also needs to develop trading opportunities, retailing, distribution - I believe they intend to do that.
An ongoing challenge is for Saudi Arabia to deal with the ideologically extreme fringe elements. I know they have been taking on this problem, firing or retraining a number of imams in the mosques and certain teachers in the schools, as well as rewriting textbooks. Saudi officials realize they have quite a way to go in those areas. In that regard we should remember it is not always easy for a King to simply snap his fingers and turn everything on a dime. When you are trying to move a society it's like turning an aircraft carrier. It doesn't happen overnight.

SUSRIS: What should Americans draw from King Abdullah's ground breaking visits to places like China, India and, most recently, Turkey?

Jordan: They should first conclude that he is a very savvy guy. He understands the national interests of Saudi Arabia and realizes that Saudi Arabia cannot simply be a one trick pony - it cannot simply be tied to one international relationship. They have, to some degree, more leverage than they have had in the past due to their natural resources. Saudi Arabia needs technology from a number of sources, and King Abdullah has been innovative in reaching out to countries that have not had much of a relationship with Saudi Arabia in the past.
This doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia is turning away from the United States but simply broadening its circle of relationships. It does give them an added degree of independence. However, as I said earlier I think if there were a major national security threat to Saudi Arabia the United States is really the only country that can step in and save them. That is going to count for a lot down the line.

SUSRIS: The transition from King Fahd to King Abdullah also leads to speculation about the succession question for the future. There is often discussion about generational changes in the monarchy that has seen the sons of Saudi Arabia's founding ruler, Ibn Saud, on the throne for over 50 years. What are your thoughts on the succession process in the future?

Jordan: That's a favorite parlor game in Saudi Arabia among both Saudis and expats. I would say that the smoothness of this transition is to some degree also to the credit of Crown Prince Sultan. He has really acquitted himself well in his allegiance to the King and his agreement to pursue some of the policies of reform that perhaps people weren't so sure of in the past.
My guess is that King Abdullah will have created so much momentum by the end of his reign - we all hope it is a long reign - that it would be very difficult for anyone immediately succeeding him to undo any of that. I doubt that Crown Prince Sultan, if he becomes king, would want to do so in any event. Beyond that it is difficult to say what might happen. One thing that is clear is there is no shortage of strong leadership talent in the Royal Family, whether its continues to be some of the other sons of Ibn Saud or some of his grandsons.
My personal contact and association with so many of them has led me to believe they will find the wisest, and most deserving to serve down the line. I do hope that they will find ways for some of the members who might be considered, to participate in government if they are not already in there, in ways where they can gain experience.
All of the top members of the Royal Family right now have had a great deal of experience in government because they started when they were in their twenties or thirties. That has not always been the case with some of the next generation. Someday they will be called upon and it will be helpful for them to get some indoctrination into positions of leadership and responsibility before then.

SUSRIS: Can you share any personal insights into King Abdullah?

Jordan: I spent about an hour with him when I paid my farewell call on him as Ambassador. We had a very warm conversation. We left holding hands as you often do with good friends in the Arab world. He hugged and kissed me and asked me to promise I would come back to see him at least three times each year. I am a bit behind on that commitment and I hope to make it up both to him and to myself because I really enjoy spending time with him.
A second anecdote would be about a visit to see Crown Prince Abdullah with Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns at his farm. It's a beautiful place. We walked to the entrance of a very large tent, and out shot this little round ball. It turned out it was a bocce ball, and Crown Prince Abdullah was engaged in a very intense bocce ball game with his nephews.
He is an avid player and carries his own bocce balls in a green felt case. That's something I imagine a lot of people don't know about him but he's got a very lively interest in bocce ball. He watches many things on television. He is fully engaged and lives life in a very interesting and committed way. That's one of the things I'll always remember about him. He had such a great smile on his face when he was able to knock the bocce ball of his opponent away and win the match.

SUSRIS: One can only imagine how he acquired that pastime.

Jordan: But he's the right man, in the right place at the right time, is the way I would sum it up.

SUSRIS: Thank you, Ambassador Jordan, for sharing your insight into King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

About Ambassador Jordan:
Robert Jordan was selected by President George W. Bush to serve as the United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the most critical point in the history of the relationship between our two countries. After Senate confirmation, he served as ambassador from October 2001 through October 2003.
[For more Click here]

2006-09-02T21:50:00.000-07:00

Muslims must come forward
By M. Osman Siddique

My proudest day as an American Muslim came in 1999 when I was sworn in at the State Department to be this nation's ambassador to Fiji and its Pacific island neighbors Tonga, Tuvalu and Nauru.
Almost 30 years earlier I had come to the United States as a student from my native Bangladesh. Now, I was the first Muslim U.S. ambassador to serve as chief of mission. I swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution with my hand on a copy of the Koran.
My pride in faith and country remain rock solid. But my real life American dream often feels more like a nightmare these days. Renegade members of my faith are committing horrendous acts of global terrorism, and I am left embarrassed and angry.
I am embarrassed when I read the names of the terrorists in the newspaper. What must non-Muslims think when some criminal claiming to act in the name of Islam and bearing the same name as the Prophet Muhammad is arrested?
I am also embarrassed that not all American Muslims do all they can to expose those in our community who would commit mayhem or would give succor in any way to those who would cause harm. Too many American Muslims hold back from publicly speaking out against extremist ideologies that threaten us all because they fear being stigmatized by their coreligionists for cooperating with security agencies.
Why is this? In part it is because some Muslim immigrants are relatively recent arrivals from nations in which security forces were corrupt and could not be trusted. Some shy from cooperation because of their immigration status or the status of those around them. Still others hold back because they disagree strongly with American foreign policy. They truly believe that the current administration is fighting a war against Islam under the guise of fighting terrorism. Regrettably, this sentiment is widespread among Muslims, more so abroad but to a substantial degree in America as well.
Our government may act incompetently and unwisely. But I'm confident that it holds no animosity toward Muslims simply because they are Muslims. Sadly, it is Muslims who perpetrate most of the worst terrorist attacks today. As we approach the fifth anniversary of September 11, this reality must be acknowledged by all Muslims.
American officials are beside themselves trying to prevent a reoccurrence of September 11. Profiling of Muslims at airports, however, is not the way to go about this. I am a middle-aged man who travels with all the credentials of a former American ambassador. Yet because I possess dark skin and have a Muslim name even I am sometimes singled out for special attention by airport security.
I understand why this happens, so I put up with it. But imagine how such treatment feels to Muslims less sophisticated than I am in the needs of government? Is it any wonder that law-abiding Muslims are offended and recoil from cooperating in any manner?
Instead of profiling, airport security officials should concentrate on behavioral patterns. Does a passenger seem unduly tense? Is their body language awkward? Do they sweat in an air conditioned airport? Intelligence combined with technology would be more efficient.
Yes, American officials sometimes act as if they are going out of their way to upset ordinary Muslims just going about their business. However, that is no excuse for not fully cooperating with the authorities.
If Muslims are to gain the full confidence of non-Muslim Americans they must come forward whenever they sense an extremist presence in their midst. If anything, we must go the extra mile in these suspicious times.

2006-09-01T06:47:00.000-07:00

Where Date Palms Grow

Pure Evil

Zarqawi is DEAD. That's it! If you ever have a chance to read his letters and his communications you will find that he reached a state that he believed that he is God himself; judging people on silly matters, killing whoever he liked, tortured his fellow Muslims, the Monster is a unique example of pure Evil, even Satan is Ashamed of (its) doings it's a part of history that never before was and hopefully we will never see such an example in the future, when you say such and such is a terrorist all I think of, is the Zarqawi (its) eyes are full of hate.

And guess what?!

He was imprisoned for life in a Jordan jail, but the kind King pardoned him in 2000.

Yesterday "Al Arabiya" Satellite channel gave some interviews of Jordanian members of parliament the so called "Islamic Brotherhood" declared that the Zarqawi was a Martyr of Islam and furthermore they declared that the dozens of people who died in the Amman Hotel in Jordan by Zarqawi's Suicide bombers are NOT Martyrs.

The Jordanian, Saudi, Qataris all have one thing in common, they hate the Shia Muslims and the descendants of Mohammed the Prophet of Islam, it's a 1400 year old war.

I am not saying that all Sunnis hate Shias; on the contrary, in Iraq we never used to have this problem, we are all brothers here: Sunnis, Shias, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Armenian, Shabak, Yazidies, whatever Jews are left, Christians from all faiths, Sabiees.

Another thing, Al Jazeera set up the following poll:

"How did you receive the news of the killing of Zarqawi?"

The RED line shows you how many are "Happy" (its) Dead.
The BLACK line show you how many are "Sad" (its) Dead.
The Green line show how many "Don't care much" about the subject...

2006-08-31T00:55:00.000-07:00

Thank You Nasrallah!
By Tariq Alhomayed

Throughout the war in Lebanon, I wrote out of conviction. Today, with the same confidence I say, Thank you Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah! Why am I showing my gratitude when I disagree with him on several issues? Simply because the Hezbollah leader has practiced self-criticism, in the aftermath of the destructive conflict.

Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanon's New TV station "did not think, even 1% that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not".

His statement wasn't merely one of atonement but represented a step in the right direction, for Lebanon's sake, away from Assad's speech and from Iranian proclamations. Crucially, the words were not uttered by the hero of sound bites in Damascus or by the Emir of Qatar, the post-war leader and strategic victory choir member.

Nasrallah spoke after the war ended and he himself had seen the destruction wrought on Lebanon, despite the presence of data one should be aware of or, at least, be able to discern.

Events in Gaza, after the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the death of two others, were an indicator. We all know that Lebanon was expecting some one million tourists this summer. This should also have served as a national indicator!

All eyes were firmly set on the Iranian nuclear program as it snowballed, and accusations are being leveled against Hezbollah for being Iran's military wing, while the world sees Damascus dance a dance of death with Tehran. Of course, the centers of decision-making were on the alert for a culprit! This too was an indicator!

Everyone knows that Syria wants to avoid the results of the investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, and also wants to re-impose its influence on Beirut, even at a price. Many see Hezbollah as a continuation of Damascus. This is reason to avoid kidnapping the two soldiers and an indicator!

Today, we all see only to well the destruction brought about by 33 days of fighting, which put an end to fifteen years' reconstruction and whose victims are a million Lebanese.

Sayyid Nasrallah's latest statement is a clear indication that the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of eight others is an uncalculated adventure! This is what the wise said at the beginning of the conflict. But, God help wise men in our Arab world!

How will the hero of sound bites and the post-ceasefire leader react? How will those who accused us of defending Israel and America react? Truly, one can only say, God help me from the evil of my friends, as for my opponents, I can vouch for them.

2006-08-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

If I had known...
Says Hassan Nesrallah giving us in the Middle East a topic for a new debate.

Reactions and evaluations to this statement and its timing vary a lot; supporters of Nesrallah consider it a move of courage to admit one's mistake and this is another "virtue" to add to the qualities of the Sayyed's persona as if he isn't yet satisfied with the number of titles he already "won" during the latest war and earlier wars.

On the other hand those who disagree with Nesrallah and his party consider the statement an admission of defeat and an evidence of the confused policy of Hizbollah and an opening for future defeats.

But I here would like to see what lies beyond "if I had known" and what's beyond what lies beyond "if I had known" to identify the dangers within that statement...

First of all I see neither the virtue of admitting mistake nor the transparency of a leader toward his followers in Nesrallah's words and I also do not see an evidence of accepting defeat.

What I see is evidence for a dangerous new type of arrogant despotism.

Nesrallah, by admitting he was wrong or "pleading guilty" in this manner is smugly defying law and taking light the Lebanese state and I'm positive he wouldn't have said that if he knew there was an institution to hold him accountable for what he did and said...

Simply this statement is a declaration that he does not expect prosecution for what he did.

Putting an end to the mess in Lebanon that was caused by an outlaw group can only be done from inside Lebanon and I see that the Lebanese government should use Nesrallah's words as evidence to file criminal charges against him and hold him accountable for every drop of blood that was shed and every building that was destroyed because of him "not knowing".

This is most necessary to save Lebanon from destruction at the hands of other Hassans who think that being unaware of the consequences is enough apology.

What I want is to someday in the near future watch Nesrallah saying "I didn't know Lebanon had changed so much since the cedar revolution and if I had known I wouldn't have made that statement."

2006-08-29T05:36:00.000-07:00

Qadhafi calls for self-reliance

Muammar al-Qadhafi, Libya's leader, has given a series of speeches over recent months that are increasingly supportive of free-market capitalism and critical of traditional Arab social attitudes.

The speeches, made this month and last, have caused growing speculation that al-Qadhafi will use September 1, the anniversary of his coup in 1969, to announce a new direction for the country.

"The new phase which starts today requires that nothing be built by foreigners, and whatever is built in Libya will be by Libyans," al-Qadhafi said in one speech, according to the Libyan news agency.

But he also attacked Libyans - and by implication other Arab governments - for relying almost exclusively on their country's oil wealth, and urged them to invest abroad, innovate and create a more diverse economy.

"We don't produce anything," he said in a separate speech. "We sell only oil and consume everything. The kind of trade in which you produce nothing and import goods in exchange for oil - it's a catastrophe.

"To explore for oil, to export it and earn money which you use to pay for imports, and to then sell those imports locally: This isn't prosperity. It doesn't lead to the nation's progress."

Closer relations with the West

Since trade embargos imposed against Libya after the Lockerbie airline bombing in 1988 were progressively lifted from 2003, the country has built closer relations with the West.

In recent months Libya has worked closely with the European Union over illegal immigration and with the US by offering close co-operation against Islamic militants.

Since then al-Qadhafi has increasingly held up Western economies and societies as role models that Libya should copy.

Libya could become an economic power like Japan were it not "socially backward" and reliant on foreign workers to do skilled jobs, he said.

"We take no significant credit for what's been achieved, because foreigners were the ones who did everything from the simplest to the biggest thing. Even to install a loudspeaker here, for instance, we used to bring a Korean or a Chinese to do it," he said.

Al-Qadhafi is renowned for his outspoken style and innovative ideas, but Libyans say it is unusual for such speeches to be made so frequently and to such a wide variety of audiences - from professional groups and state planners to teachers and religious students.

Al-Qadhafi's son steps up

Al-Qadhafi's outspokenness is also being matched by his son, Saif al-Islam, whose public statements had previously focused mainly on social policy and foreign affairs.

But in August Saif al-Islam told youth groups that Libya had no free press and that its political system should be more democratic.

"We say Libya is paradise on earth, it's heaven. What kind of paradise? We have no infrastructure. There are cities with no water," Islam told the meeting.

His father meanwhile has also criticised the country's stagnant and corrupt economic and political environment - both of which are founded on al-Qadhafi's own political 1975 manifesto, The Green Book, which is the basis of Libya's constitution.

"You are being deceived by the salaries, petrol salaries," al-Qadhafi said. "Yesterday I went to Sebha [town]. Oh, the shops, markets, cafes, restaurants and photo shops, it was glamorous!

"All the world's output that you could ever need was in Sebha. But who is buying these goods? ... No one but people with salaries coming from the central bank, the treasury, or from petrol."

Looming water shortages

Al-Qadhafi also said that - as in many Arab countries - Libya's fast-expanding population is rapidly using up its water resources.

"The oases deep in the south of the country will soon become a wasteland because the water will dry up and the palm trees will die, whereas the population will grow," al-Qadhafi said. "What will we do by then? Will we cry?"

"Now, we have to plan for this, because we have limited water, including the Great Man-Made River Project, which is expected to run out in several dozen years."

Libya's $25 billion Great Man-Made River Project pipes fresh water from ancient aquifers beneath the Sahara to the Mediterranean coast.

"The Arabian peninsula is living on [desalinating] sea water because there is oil, there is money. But once oil is over there will be no money, no desalination, and people would die."

Islamic leaders are 'medieval'

Al-Qadhafi, leader of one of the Arab world's most secular governments, has also criticised Islamic leaders.

"These days there are a lot of a dubious speeches and propaganda ... which some naive people believe in ... but we can counter them with the Holy Koran and with science.

"These speeches will soon be prominent in Ramadan ... When I switch on the TV and see a bearded man, and naive people calling him to ask for religious advice, I feel pity for him ... Now this is like Europe in the Middle Ages, selling indulgences."

2006-08-28T06:01:00.000-07:00

"Islam is the Solution"
[Abu Shreek]

Snapshots from the Islamic Empire through "The History of the Arabs" by P.K. Hitti, and a few other sources.

In the last few decades, a popular school of thought emerged in the Arab world claiming: "The only time in the history that we were significant as a people was when we rallied around religion. Religion is what worked for us, and hence we ought to 'return' to its roots to elevate and recapture our glory". As a result of the continuous and steep deterioration of the general Arabic situation, this concept has supporters that surprisingly spread over a wide range of religious devotion.

On the other hand, there are the skeptics who constantly doubt the accomplishments of the Islamic empire and wonder: "Has the State of Islam died with the death of the prophet Mohammad?!"

The best way to investigate a truth that will probably fall between the two extreme statements is to dive into what we call the "mothers of books": The collection of references written by the Arab/Muslim historians and travelers that document for the rise and fall of the empire. A shyer, yet more feasible, attempt is to seek a brief, accurate and unbiased review of the above references. "The Arabs in History" by Bernard Lewis (a Jewish orientalist, heavily criticized for his bias and inaccuracy) offered NONE of the above; ( it was the only book available on a long road trip). "The History of the Arabs" by Philip Khuri Hitti, accidentally recommended by my dear pen-pal, lived up to its reputation as "by far the best modern, one-volume English book on the subject" (Edward Said), and offered a charming recollection of the familiar events of our history in a chronological order, without shying away from those less-familiar facts that are considered "taboo" in our school textbooks and Arabic publications.

Obviously the state of Islam expanded dramatically (in size and in challenges) after the death of the prophet, but that expansion was not necessarily always done under the principles that the prophet had set (i.e. religion). The state of Islam took the path of any (former or latter) superpower or empire, starting from under the banner and nucleus of Islam (under the prophet's leadership), and eventually, politically evolving regardless of the commitment to the prophet's early teachings.

Before accusations of (walking the thin line of) blasphemy start flying around, let us track the following events that will help in reaching a conclusion:

-The minute the prophet died (632), the natural power struggle for his successor began among his righteous (saint-like!) companions. If we consider that the brief dispute between Ali and Abu Baker and "The wars of apostasy (Riddah)", are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the "shock" of the death of the leader of the young state, we cannot ignore the fact that three of the first four State leaders (The Rashid caliphs: supposedly the best of the best) were assassinated! The Umar era (634-644) could be considered an apex in the Islamic state history, since it combined the expansive military dominance with a quasi-utopian virtuous leadership and a commitment to the prophet's guidelines, not to be reached again. (However that did not prevent his assassination by a Persian slave, whom the system obviously failed to incorporate. From this Persian slave's perspective, Muslims are occupiers who enslaved him, assumed his family as property, and caused the destruction of "his" Persian empire; an issue that will continue to shape the politics of the State of Islam, and even the religion itself, for years to come. On a separate note, the son of Umar "Abdullah" allegedly went on a revenge-fueled killing rampage against every slave who he suspected to may have conspired in killing his father, including the killer's little daughter, and Abdullah was spared any punishment).

-The "killing" of Uthman is a bigger indication of the deterioration of the situation, since it was an internal affair. (According to Saad ibn Abi Waqas: "Uthman was killed by a sword drawn by Aisha, sharpened by Talha and poisoned by Ali". The group that killed him inside his house, after a forty day house-arrest during which he was denied water, is not exactly known, but it included Abdullah Ibn Abi Bakr. The companion's body who was responsible for collecting the Quran in one book, and hence shielded it against multiple versions, had to wait three days to get buried, and his funeral was attended by 5 people. The assassination of Ali, with a poisoned sword to the forehead, was carried out by a group, (Alkhawarejj: who was opposed to the arbitration deal between Ali and Muawiyah after their battle in Siffin), who considered themselves more righteous and committed to Mohammad's religion than the man who was among the first three to accept Islam and who was the prophet's best friend!

-Along the way, we find a war between the mother of believers and their leader (Aisha vs. Ali). "Al-Jamal" battle assumed the lives of 20,000 first generation, direct prophet followers, Muslim Arab believers. The bloodshed for the "chair" would not stop (obviously it still has not). The grandchildren of the prophet themselves were not fortunate enough to survive the power struggle. AlHasan was first bribed out of office and later poisoned, while his brother AlHussein "fell dead with many wounds and his head was sent to the Damascus" (680) by Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, who headed 4000 troops and trapped AlHussein on his way to Karbala with 200 of his followers. A deep split at the base of Islam was born.

-In his quest for sole control of Islam land Yazid ibn Muawiyah sent troops against Abdullah ibn al Zubair who assumed control of Makkah and renounced the caliph in Damascus. In the second civil war of Islam (Muawiyah vs. Ali as the first) the scene in the city of the prophet was described as "apocryphal". The Haram was "catapulted" by stones, the Kabah itself caught fire and was burnt to the ground and the black stone was split to three pieces (Tabari vol ii p.427). Ibn il Zubair survived and rebuilt the Kabah, but Makkah was under siege again (692), and this time Ibn il Zubair head was sent to Damascus while the companion's body was sent to his aging mother (a prophet favorite), Asma bint Abi Baker. AND that was less than SIXTY years, hardly one generation, after the death of the prophet.

Again, that is not a point to be taken against Islam as a religion. It is a proof that the basic pre-Islam brutal tribal mentality continued to rule the day, despite the greatness of the Islam teachings and the effect that it should have carried on its followers. All the above conflicts were established and fueled by regional and tribal feuds, that once again took place ahead of the unity under the word of Allah.

-The reason that the Umayyad dynasty succeeded in building an empire that covered half of the earth was that they operated according to a plan and following a system. A strong army (inspired in part by martyrdom and in majority by pay and booty), a navy, and a government that featured the four geniuses of the Arabs ruling over its provinces. Accomplishments on all aspects of the civilized society were apparent: Architecture, poetry, the invention of correspondence, science, alchemy, and various intellects. Nevertheless, all of the glory was done under a system that not only violated the "spirit" of Islam, but also its direct orders.

-The Umayyads appointed their successors by inheritance, a plague that the Arab world still suffers from until this day. The caliphates modeled their thrones after those of the Romans and Persians, and presided over a socially unjust system that featured excessive spending and luxury at its top. Regular alcohol consumption was a common practice among all the caliphs, optimized by Walid II (743-744) "who habitually swam in a pool of wine of which he would gulp enough to lower the surface appreciably". "The Holy cities developed into centers of worldly pleasure and gaiety and a home of secular music and song"... "Houses of ill repute flourished in al Madinah...as the female slaves sang and played soft melodies for the entertainment of their wealthy masters and guests". And that was less than 100 years after the death of the prophet!!!

Of course, the ancient and typical weakness of Arabian social life, with its over emphasis on individualism, tribal spirit, and feuds was gain reasserting itself. The down fall of the Umayyad dynasty began with the polarization of the Muslim world over the dualism of Qays and Yaman. "The district of Damascus itself was once the scene of relentless warfare for two years because a lady from Ma'ad took a watermelon from Yemenite's garden."(Abu il Fida' vol ii p.14). Not good times.

-The move to the next Islamic dynasty was furnished with more bloodshed in the name of the religion that emphasizes the value of peace and human life. The Abbasid claiming close ties to the prophet house was taking advantage of the widespread discontent and posing as defendants of Islam and "embarked on exterminating the Ummayad house". The living descendants were brutally slaughtered and the corpses of the caliphs were dug out and burnt. "That of hisham bin Abdel Malek was dug out, embalmed (preserved in some way), (whipped) eighty times and burned to ashes". The only one to escape violation was Umar ibn Abdel Azziz (maybe since he was the one who put an end to the custom of cussing Ali at Jumaa prayers, but it is worth mentioning that the era of Umar II (717-720) (often given the title the Fifth Rashid Caliph) was a spike in the declining curve of pious caliphs and an ascend to the values and basics of Islam itself).

-In the Abbasid empire the Arabs will be playing second fiddle to the Neo-Muslims. In addition, "for the first time in its history the caliphate was not (an extent) of Islam". Various parts of the Islamic world would not recognize the new caliph. At a certain point the empire of Islam was split between three main dynasties, and a few scattered petty (secondary).
(I think we are done here, or as they say in Arabic "3ayydatt?"!!).

-An Abbasid dynasty that took over to revive orthodox Islam was soon following the luxury life of the preceding Umayyads, and submerging in alcohol drinking and "orgies". Some of the caliphs are the sons of foreigner slaves (which by definition makes them children born out of wedlock (see the more things change, the more they stay the same). In the meantime, as Harun il Rahid was playing among the Harem (women) and Gholman (little boys), his power reached the topmost point of the Abbasid. When the new Byzantine Ruler Nicephorus decided to stop paying tribute to the caliph and asked for the return of already paid tribute, Harun al Rasheed replied with the famous letter headed by "From Harun, the commander of believers to Nicephorus the dog of a Roman...", and immediately started a series of campaigns that resulted in reinstatement of the tribute in addition to another tax on the emperor himself and on each member of his family. (Think about it in the same terms as if Saudia Arabia decides to cut-off the oil supply to the United States, of course the U.S. here is Harun).

-As the "ill-defined heredity principle of successive" took its toll on the weaker caliphs, the office of "Imamah" tried to assume more religious character to sustain legitimacy. They began to assume honorific titles compounded with Allah, (even reached to the point of using the title the "shadow of Allah on earth"). Of course the titles did not help those caliphs when they were ruling for one day (Al Murtada (Dec 17, 908)) or when they were being deposed, blinded (a brilliant punishment that definitely need to be restored), and left begging in the streets. The ex-caliphs (Al Qahir, Al Muttaqi, and Al Mustakfi) shared powerful names, darkness and the streets of Baghdad by the mid 940s.

-However, "the most momentous intellectual awakening in the history of Islam and one of the most significant in the whole history of thought and culture" started in the days of Al Rashid and continued beyond it. Although the Arab Muslims were short on culture compared to the other civilizations they conquered "they had a keen sense of intellectual curiosity and became the heir of the older cultures".

The most disturbing aspect of the intellectual awakening was that regarding the religion. "The school of thought, developed then, has persisted in some forms to the present day". That meant the death of the "simple" Islam and the emergence of "Islamic Sects" and cults that adopted the most ridiculous (would have preferred "extreme", if it weren't overused and tired lately) concepts and ideas. These awful claims and interpretations of religion were "carried so carefully" as if it was divine and a part of the prophet's teachings, despite the fact that they were introduced, more than 200 years after his death, to promote personal, tribal, anti-Arab and other agendas.

From the creation of the science of Hadith (the collection of the prophets utterances and deeds that later assumed a Quranic status, despite being documented hundreds of years after his death, depending on nothing more than oral transmission!), to the emergence of the four orthodox schools, and not ending with the infiltration of Hellenic philosophy to Islam, that lead to futile yet deadly debates over trivial issues like "the dogma of creation of the Quran" (827). All these tools, limited the free-thought, and laid the death penalty by crucifixion on those who disagreed with the caliph, or with the current ruling sect, under the accusations of "Zandaqah".

-In the meantime, in other parts of the Muslim world, the only surviving descendant of the Umayyads established his independent kingdom in Spain (756). It had its share of bloodshed and was built depending on tribal feuds carried over from Damascus and Hijjaz. We learn the third generation ruler Al Hakam (796-822) was "gay and addicted to the chase and alcohol". Al Hakam staged mass executions for those theologicals (faqeehs) who opposed him and crucified 300 insurgents with their heads down and leveled their living quarters.
Despite the huge intellectual contribution and the Arab civilization influence in Spain the Muslim's reign in Spain was in constant turmoil, and the territories they controlled were expanding and shrinking constantly, depending on the strength and character of the leader. Conspiracies that featured caliphs instigating one of their sons to kill the other (Abdullah (912)) and ending with a son (Abu Abdullah) deposing his fathers, and conspiring with the Spaniards against his uncle (Al Zaghall), helped end the control of the remaining petty states in Spain.

-The Fatimids who started in Tunisia (909) was the only Shiite dynasty in Islam and eventually reached its zenith under Al Azeez (975-996), "where the name of the caliph (centered now in Egypt) was cited in the Friday prayers from the Atlantic to Red Sea and in al Yaman, Makkah, Damascus and once even in al Mawsil". His successor al Hakim was eleven when he came to the throne and his reign was marked with atrocities, "and finally following the extreme development of the Ismailite doctrine, declared himself the incarnation of the Deity (God) and was so accepted by a newly organized sect, called Druze". That did not stop the country from enjoying a high degree of tranquility and prosperity through a few more generations, neither did it limit the intellectual contributions of the dynasty, even when its richest caliph Al Muntasirr (1035) erected in his palace a Kabah like pavilion where he used to drink accompanied by music and beautiful singers, where he declared "this indeed is more pleasant than staring at a black stone, listing to muezzin's drone and drinking impure water".

Now as mentioned above, the reason the above brief, selected incidents were presented is to try to back up the following conclusion: The devout commitment to the teaching's of Islam and the mechanical performance of its worship practices on one side, versus the advancement, prosperity and strength of the state on the other, are Independent Variables. At times it may have appeared that they were rising together (ex: from the prophet until Omar), or falling together (the end of every dynasty). At other times they are clearly inversely proportional (the late Abbasid era and the early Fatimid). But the overall picture throughout the first 400 years of the Islamic Empire shows fluctuations in both aspects (life and religion) that over the whole course will appear independent of each other.

The status of the Arabs in the empire is a third independent variable. After assuming the first-class citizen status as the clear and sole leaders of the empire during the Umayyad era, the Arabs constantly regressed to the back seat (politically and culturally) and conceded the leadership role to Persians, Berbers, Saljuks, Mamluks and finally Ottoman Turks whose era eventually took the shape (from the Arabs standpoint at least) of a foreign occupation.

Yet, Islam could be the solution, just like Communism and just like Arab nationalism could be the solution. The solution is a concept that the population collectively agrees on, rallies around, and set a plan accordingly. Islam could be the front runner candidate, due to its familiarity and the utopian set of morals and ethics it carries. An Islam that uses worship as a mean not an end, utilizing practice as a tool to refine genuine behavior could be a solution. An Islam that adheres to medieval (hocus-pocus) beliefs, empowers the forbidden clergy, and deceives the masses is a problem. Any system that gets over retarded tribal and regional affiliations and weeds out the cycle of selfishness and individualism will get the vote, as long as it does not involve chopping heads for a few more Dirhams.

2006-08-27T06:42:00.002-07:00

Ending the Cycle of Violence in Middle East
Dr. Khaled Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Tragedies in history are repeated, because we don't learn from our mistakes. The world has witnessed so many holocausts since the dawn of time. Empires grow, weaken and die for the same reasons. They decline when they reach a certain level of arrogance and ignorance. That is when they look down on smaller and weaker nations, and stop listening to their opinions, complaints and criticism. This has been the case from the ancient civilizations of China, Iraq and Egypt, to colonial era of European powers, to the new age of Soviet Union and USA.

We have already repeated our mistakes in the Greater Middle East from Afghanistan to Iraq, Palestine to Lebanon, and now Iran. So, before going further on the repetition course, let's take a timeout for reflection on the latest crisis - the Lebanon war.

It is tough to be evenhanded and balanced when your own family is being slaughtered to pieces. Still, I learned a couple of valuable lessons from some Israeli writers and journalists, who, in the midst of a maddening war, were sane, fair and courageous enough to expose the fallacies and wrongs of their government. Against popular emotional stands, they strived to get their criticism across. Time proved them right, and more Israelis are now having doubts and questions about long-held beliefs and strategies, as we all should.

Israel has a natural right to live in peace. Arabs must show their unsure neighbor that there is light at the end of the tunnel. No nation in a strong position will ever part with war-gained spoils unless they get something solid in return. For even the most pacifist Israelis, it is not reasonable to give concessions without rewards. We must guarantee them peaceful and friendlier neighborhood.

I agreed with many of my Israeli counterparts that King Abdullah's peace initiative, sponsored by the Arab League in 2002, should be the blueprint for comprehensive peace project. It is based on UN Resolution 242 and accommodates Israeli demands for border adjustments and some concerns regarding return of refugees.

Unfortunately, the last Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon responded to this historical grand Arab gesture by bombing late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's headquarters, destroying Jenin and pressuring the US administration to change its initial support of the initiative. He and his like won the day. We all, Arabs, Israelis and peace seekers all over the world, lost.

They say Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but so are Israelis, especially the rightists. There were times, with the last Labor government, when we were on the verge of real victory for all - peace. The Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations brought all players - Palestinians, Israelis and neighbors to the negotiation table. It worked, till Arafat made a historical mistake of refusing an admittedly inadequate deal instead of negotiating changes. The Israeli opposition refused it, too, and vowed to defeat it. To kill the project in its infancy, Sharon provoked the second intifada by booting the grounds of Islam's third holiest shrine - Al-Aqsa. After winning the elections, he made sure the project was buried forever.

For long, Lebanon has been the playground of many recurring mistakes. The Lebanese, Syrians, Arabs, Americans and French committed terrible mistakes. Israel was the worst. The invasion of 1982 and the occupation of parts of Lebanon for eighteen years destroyed the capability of the Lebanese Army, justified the interference of other players, like Syria, Iraq and Iran, and gave birth to the resistance movement of Hezbollah.

The latest Israeli invasion and bombardment of its northern neighbor doesn't look like the last mistake. Instead of eradicating the Hezbollah, Israel weakened the very government which was supposed to disarm the group, and the very people it tried to turn against it, not to mention the radicalization of the whole region. Iran and its protege only dreamt of the status they now enjoy in the Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia. By violating the terms of the cease-fire, Israel is on course to repeat history once more.

The Arabs and Israelis should, instead, use the lesson of this tragic event to restart the project of peace, cooperation and prosperity for this long-troubled part of the world. The terrible loss of lives and economic potentials should make us aware of the downhill journey we are taking.

Only via the road to peace can we turn around the Lebanon corner. If leaders are not yet ready to make the move, then it is our responsibility, the peoples of the region, to make them be. After all, it is our children's future we are talking about.

2006-08-25T04:36:00.000-07:00

Kill the infidels!

It's really strange that a single, normally vociferous party, is quite silent when it comes to the war in Lebanon and the wholesale murder of civilians under whichever guise and metric one chooses to use. That party of course is our beloved Al-Qa'idah and their cohorts.

What? Cat got their collective tongues? Or are they just thrilled to bits that their real enemies are 'getting what they deserve'? Of course they are, and - as far as they're concerned - the only good Shi'a is a dead Shi'a!

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, I find them boring and would rather pick up a Wilbur Smith if I want some fictional entertainment, but billmon's article about the subject really set the cogs turning in the grey matter...

As far as I'm concerned however, I don't give a tuppence about any of the three axes of evil in this situation, they all need their heads examined, and smartly;

Israel: it needs to calm down and rethink its position, the Lebanese infrastructure is all but destroyed now after 6 days of unopposed destruction, and its response is far too disproportionate.

Hizballah: I maintain that they are morons, and no, I'm not opposing them "because I hate the Shi'a", I am one for God's sake (and self criticism show strength, doesn't it?) but I really believe that their "operation" was the last thing the world generally, and Lebanon specifically, needed especially considering the turmoil and confusion it is already in since Hariri's murder, as well as the complete absence of its military capability and infrastructure to oppose, however marginally, what Israel can dish out. This should also demonstrate to Lebanon that defence cannot be outsourced, even to a "solid" and "stable" country like Syria (which begs the question: would Israel have dared to mount an operation such as this while the Syrians were stationed in Lebanon?)

Al-Qa'idah and its sympathisers: they're (to borrow a "Steve ExpressionTM") dancing in the streets! Their sworn enemies are being slaughtered, break out the festivities and dole out the sweets. Shi'as are being eliminated by their very "friends," the Zionists! What more does a "true" jihadi want? Dance! Carry on Dancing! Dancing and merriment are fully condoned by Allah in this particular regard.

Where does that leave us then? Deeper into the mire, with no ladder to use to climb out of as our judgements continue to be clouded in such heinous thoughts based on hatred, religions, sects, and prejudices.

While all of this is happening, Palestine, Iraq and virtually the whole Arab world continues to descend into the abyss and tyrants and governments all over are using this period to continue to strangle their own populace while the world news organisations and media are concentrating on hapless Lebanon.

What would it take to stop this madness? Is there no sane leader left to guide these disparate protagonists through to civility and safety?

2006-08-24T03:59:00.000-07:00

Dr. Al Aswany...

...whose recent novel The Yacoubian Building has made him a literary superstar, is often thronged by admirers as he walks the streets of his native Cairo.

An interview from National Geographic:

Just who is the Arab world listening to? Not only radical sheikhs and militant politicians. The man whose voice has captivated the Arab public is a Cairo dentist by day and a novelist by dawn. Alaa Al Aswany's novel The Yacoubian Building is a phenomenon - the best-selling novel in the Middle East for two years and the inspiration for the biggest budget movie ever produced in Egypt. The novel paints a poignant and uncompromising picture of life in modern Cairo, as seen through the eyes of a carnival of characters - from the richest and most powerful to the poorest. An outspoken critic of the Mubarak regime and a friendly, self-effacing man, Dr. Al Aswany studied dentistry, and the American way of life, in the U.S. He has a humanist's love of pondering what makes people do what they do.

Interview by Karen Kostyal

There is much talk now of a "clash" of civilizations between the Muslim world and the West. How do you see this clash?
I don't think it's a question of civilizations. Civilizations are the best part of human creation. They don't cause any kind of clash—they are a means to communicate. The clash comes from the aggressive interpretation of some religions. Religions have been used throughout history as a cause to wage war and kill people, but it's my opinion that religions are the same everywhere. They are a way to find God, a way to have positive values, to prove oneself as a good human being. I was born Muslim, so I am Muslim. If I had been born Christian, I would have been Christian.

Where do you think the current fanaticism is coming from?
Poor areas, because the poor are desperate. The current regime here is dealing with them in an inhuman way, arresting and torturing them. Religion is being used as a cover for social unrest, a way to empower these people who are not empowered. In Egypt, there is an Islam for the rich and an Islam for the poor. And these two Islams have their own mosques, their own sheikhs. The rich use religion to ensure the status quo. They don't want any change. But poor people do want change, because they are now deprived of so much.

So God is not the true impetus behind extremist behavior?
You feel God in your heart, you feel God when you love others. Killing is not done because of God, but because people are marginalized and oppressed, without any future and any kind of human dignity. I tried to explain that in my novel. It is very easy to get such people to turn to fanaticism. The Western notion that Muslims are killing themselves so they will go to paradise and sleep with a woman is wrong-I myself think sleeping with a woman is much more enjoyable than killing oneself. This life is closed to these marginalized people, but they believe that they will have justice in the afterlife.

Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood can moderate itself?
They claim they are now better educated and more moderate, but they have bad records about the roles of women and other issues. They have a chance now to prove themselves by what they do in parliament. They must pass the test. They must act in moderate ways. I am for the right of everybody to form a religious political party, but they must do so according to secular means.

Some people believe there can never be a true democracy in Egypt. Do you agree?
I disagree. We must begin with democracy. But the Arab regimes play games with this word. They say there has to be an interpretation of democracy that fits the Arab world. I don't believe that. We need Western-style democracy, with a free press and the rule of law, where all people can choose their elected officials. People do not need to be educated to vote. You may be poor, but making the choice for democracy is not complicated. A person makes choices every day.

There is a lot of discussion about the role of women in society. What do you think it should be?
I don't see women as women, I see them as human beings. So I don't believe that you must encourage women particularly. Introducing the issue is like dealing with women as handicapped members of society.

How do you think the Arab world sees 9/11?
The question is rather, how has 9/11 been introduced to the Arab world? I saw 9/11 as a crime, and I have written against it. But I believe that events are always manipulated by regimes for their own purposes. Just as the American government has used Osama bin Laden to deflect attention away from its own problems, many of the Arab governments used 9/11 to play on anti-American emotions. They were hoping to convert the negative emotions people harbored against their regimes and channel those emotions onto a foreign entity. They also need the problem of Israel for the same reason. I do not agree with Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, but Arab regimes use anti-Israel sentiment to postpone moving toward democracy.

You've talked about the importation of Saudi values to Egypt, would you elaborate on that?
Over the past 25 years, about a quarter of the Egyptian population has gone to Saudi Arabia at some point to work. Those workers were often uneducated Egyptians, and the Saudis were rich. The Egyptians were influenced by the Saudi interpretation of Islam and brought it back with them when they returned to Egypt. That interpretation-Wahhabism-is very strict and concerned mostly with form, from wearing the veil to enforced prayer five times a day. It is an aggressive, intolerant approach that institutionalizes Islam as a state religion rather than allowing people to interpret it in their own individual ways. The Saudis have spent millions to export Sunni Wahhabism throughout the Middle East, in part because many Arabs in the Gulf States are Shiite. The Saudi princes fear the spread of the Iranian Shiite brand of Islam, which is more revolutionary and allows for more individual rights. Throughout much of Islamic history, Sunni governance has been in the hands of sheikhs who were in league with governments. The Shiites were usually shut out of power, so they had time to think and come up with a new, more humanist interpretation. I'm not comparing Iranian human rights to those in England, but in relation to Saudi Arabia, Iran has more respect for individual political rights and the people's right to know what's happening. And I must remind you that the American administration has been the most powerful supporter of the medieval Saudi regime because of Saudi oil. To support them is like having a tiger in your house.

You studied dentistry at the University of Illinois in the 1980s. How did you feel about your time in the U.S.?
It was very positive, first because I was in Chicago. Before I went, I had heard about Chicago only in relation to Al Capone and shooting and all this kind of thing. And my impression of Americans was based on American foreign policy. America has supported bad regimes for years, and many Egyptians don't make the distinction between the American government and American people. But I had the chance to see that Americans are very helpful, tolerant people. They have a great ability to tolerate many cultures. I often tell a story about an experience I had one windy Chicago day. I was walking across the campus at the University of Illinois, holding my thesis, when the wind blew it out of my hands. All the people walking past stopped to help me gather the pages. This is the real American character.

What do you think of America now?
I believe America has made a big shift to the right. The whole world has shifted to the right, in a way. From the 1950s to the 1980s, people were more liberal. We don't respect free choice anymore. The globe has one superpower, and that superpower has to choose to be either a moral superpower or a capitalist superpower. This choice will influence history. America should say, "I am very strong, but I am fair." This isn't happening now.

How would you compare Europeans to Americans?
Europeans have many more traditions, because they come from very old cultures. It's like comparing a young person to an old one. The old person doesn't accept change. But the American experience is based on change.

Using that analogy, where would you put the Egyptian character, since you have a history thousands of years old?
We have been influenced by many cultures over the past 8,000 years. This has enriched the Egyptian personality. You can still even feel the pharaonic filament in our character. It makes us more peaceful and open than other people of the Arab world. It's almost impossible for Egypt to become fanatic. There will always be Egyptians who say no to this. We will never be like Iran.

When you talk about the Egyptian character and the American character, you seem to say some of the same things. Do you think there's a similarity?
Yes, yes. That is exactly what inspired me to write my latest novel, which is set in Chicago. I believe human beings have many things in common-a son is a son, a daughter is a daughter, a lover is a lover everywhere. But there is a lot of misunderstanding between people, particularly in certain situations. In Chicago, I saw poor people whose desperation led them to violence, in the same way that desperate Arabs become violent. And I was working in a department at the University of Illinois where all kinds of nationalities were present. Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Egyptian. I saw the kind of cultural shock that uneducated Egyptians coming to Chicago had. I was very inspired by the rich mixing of cultures I saw there.

Did you have any idea when you were writing The Yacoubian Building that you would become a superstar?
No, I never had any idea of this. I had had success before in literary circles with my other books, but what has happened with The Yacoubian Building is very rare for a novel in Egypt or the Arab world. Gabriel García Márquez said if you want to make a political point, write a good book. But writing a political novel was not my first intention. When I want to write about politics, I write essays. My intention when I write novels is always to discover characters. All human beings have inside themselves many political and social issues. If you think about your life, you'll find that your life has been influenced by political and social change.

How do you feel about the movie that has been made from your book?
I didn't write it, so I'm really not responsible for it, but I'm optimistic. It has a very big budget and some of the biggest actors in the Arab world. Movies and literature are different artistic languages. The novel writer has total freedom to write what he wants, a movie is teamwork. But I love seeing my characters enacted on screen.

How does your life as a dentist impact your life as a writer?
Very positively. You cannot make a living from writing, unless you write for the cinema. Even Naguib Mahfouz [the renowned Egyptian novelist and Nobel laureate] kept working for the government until the age of retirement. I can write independently-whatever I want-since I don't write for money. And the characters I meet through dentistry help me understand how people feel. I write about people, and I treat people. When I go from one to the next, I don't feel that I've made a very big trip. I don't see writing and the clinic as different worlds.

What is your daily routine?
I have a very firm schedule. I must wake up at six a.m. or I feel very guilty. I write from 6:30 to 10:30 six days a week, like a soldier-no interruptions. Then I read the newspapers and have a shower. I go to my clinic just beside my house from noon to three, then I have a nap because it's very hot during the afternoon here. From six to nine in the evening, I return to my clinic to work, and from nine to midnight, I read. For five or six days a week, I don't go out. My life is confined to my work, my family, my books, my writing.

Your fellow Cairene writer Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed by a fanatic one evening in 1994. Do you worry about your own safety?
No, I don't think about my safety. Probably because I'm not wise, but I don't. If I did, I would worry about the government much more than extremists. If I get scared, I cannot write, and if I write, I am not scared.

So you choose not to think about it?
No, I don't. But last winter my son was involved in a serious accident. He had just graduated from college, and a car hit him here in Cairo. I had been writing many articles, speaking out strongly against the regime, and some of my friends said, "You see, the regime did this to your son." But I don't want to think this way. Because what is going to happen is going to happen. In a way I'm protected by the fact that many people know me. So before doing something to me, the regime must calculate the repercussions. Rather than harming me, the regime would probably entice me to play for its team by offering money, a comfortable life, many things. The other thing they might do is exclude me from any kind of cultural activity. But I am beyond this. I don't need them-and they do need me.

Muslim missionary activity

2006-03-25T00:54:00.000-08:00

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Islam, the second largest religion next to Christianity, spread rapidly from the Arabian Peninsula with invasions, explorers, traders and caravans after the death of the prophet Muhammad. Spreading towards southern Asia was done by explorers and later Arab generals, resulting in small conflicts and battles. Islam spread to southeast Asia with sailors and traders. From the start political leaders (originally the Caliphs, meant to head both religion and universal Islamic community, later competing, mainly secular princes) actively, and often aggressively, spread their religion (and their rule), repeatedly using holy war (a military application of jihad, a much wider and more complex, often peaceful concept) to establish a new Muslim social order, on the one hand in principle requiring state authority to be held by Muslims, wrested from 'giaur' hands, on the other hand remarkably accommodating for non-Muslim subjects as long as they accept Islamic rule and pay a special tax. Just like Christianity, Islam would often find its expansion and defense gravely hindered by internal divisions, both religous schisms (the main split, the emergence of Shiism, came early) and political fragmentation, often causing strife amongst each-other and even alliances with Christian and other non-Muslims.
Once the political expansion 'planting the green banner of faith' had met its limits, the focus had to shift from the 'integral' model of Islamizing whole communities to more individualist voluntary conversion drives, which had been important much longer. Since the 20th century, funding by Muslim governments was used to open Islamic schools and mosques. Generous donations from Gulf States, largely for development, enabled many significant advances, especially in black Africa.

Historically, the Human Race has been embroiled in conflict. This has been true throughout all of recorded time, and undoubtedly was going on before anyone thought to write it down. So it continues to this very day.

The mission of this blog is an attempt to show that there is a better way, also that enlightenment and reason exist worldwide.

Hope springs eternal, someone once wrote, so it is with great hope that this forum will present examples of those concepts.