If President Bush’s goal on his last trip to the Middle East was to enrage the entire Arab world - not to mention U.S. Democrats - he could not have done better than the speech he delivered to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday.
“In front of Israeli deputies, the president of the United States indulged in exaltation about ‘the chosen people,’ while expressing his loathing for those Arabs who resist his diktat. The speech exuded pure hatred coupled with the fabrication of prophecy.”
“It’s a shame that since 1948, history only designates the other war maker [the Arabs] rather than the Zionist entity and its ally. Read the rest of this entry »
I want to draw TMV readers’ attention to the article earlier this week in the NYT about Debbie Almontaser. An Arab-American woman, she started a school in Brooklyn last fall known as the Khalil Gibran International Academy. The goal was to bring young people of Arab descent together with those of other ethnicities in order to create a cadre of students who would become “ambassadors of peace and hope.”
But Almontaser was forced out, as a result of a chorus of concerned voices who think she is bent on the imposition of Islamic law, the spread of radicalism, or the promotion of terrorism. As the article notes, “despite Ms. Almontaser’s longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate, her critics quickly succeeded in recasting her image.” At the front of this campaign is the radical conservative Daniel Pipes, who has worked to paint Almontaser’s school as a danger to this country’s very foundation. The NYT article provides the following context:
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, critics of radical Islam focused largely on terrorism, scrutinizing Muslim-American charities or asserting links between Muslim organizations and violent groups like Hamas. But as the authorities have stepped up the war on terror, those critics have shifted their gaze to a new frontier, what they describe as law-abiding Muslim-Americans who are imposing their religious values in the public domain.
Mr. Pipes and others reel off a list of examples: Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis who have refused to take passengers carrying liquor; municipal pools and a gym at Harvard that have adopted female-only hours to accommodate Muslim women; candidates for office who are suspected of supporting political Islam; and banks that are offering financial products compliant with sharia, the Islamic code of law. The danger, Mr. Pipes says, is that the United States stands to become another England or France, a place where Muslims are balkanized and ultimately threaten to impose sharia.
Heh, those female-only pool times are making you nervous, aren’t they? Not to mention those Muslim-catering banks. Islamic law here we come! Matt Eckel, writing at his excellent blog Rational International (definitely worth bookmarking), argues that such fearmongering is is badly misplaced and that it misses the broader point.
…to act as though minor accommodations to a few Islamic cultural practices represent the first step toward imposing sharia law in the United States is simply absurd… A good rule of thumb to keep in mind when talking about American politics - one that goes all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts - is that whenever someone starts talking about vague, underground, conspiratorial movements to radically alter the face of American society, it’s probably bull$@#!. The fact that a few cabbies won’t give you a ride because you’re carrying booze, or that a few colleges have put foot sinks in their bathrooms so that Muslim students can wash their feet before prayer without breaking their necks, or that for a few hours a week some pools are restricted to women, isn’t a sign of some nefarious plot to islamicize American society. It’s a sign that institutions are making some reasonable accommodations to the cultural practices of the people around them. It’s the very definition of an appropriate, balanced, liberal response to cultural difference. Last time I checked, after all, Christmas was still a Federal holiday. I doubt we’ll hear Mr. Pipes complaining about that any time soon.
April 15th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
With its perpetually (and historically) rocky relationship, the Arab and European worlds have seldom met in a peaceful manner (or without suspicion) during the past half a millenium ever since the downfall of the Moorish civilization in Spain. In this context the on-going London Book Fair, with the “Arab World” as guest of honour and Arab writers present in force, provides yet another opportunity to build a bridge between the two worlds.
The Independent writes: “Imperial bureaucrats, soldiers and scholars on one side; radical nationalists, pious militants and oil-rich oligarchs on the other – all have had their various axes to grind, and to wield. Now, perhaps, the writers of the Arab world can begin to find a voice in the West again. It’s always easier to love distant stars when they can shine, plainly and legibly, on the page in front of us.
“The (London) fair will be the culmination of a long-term plan, steered by the British Council, to forge firmer cultural bonds. And, although he comes from far beyond the Arab world (and writes in English), the Afghan author Khaled Hosseini’s double coup in topping the UK charts both with The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns has helped to put a spring in the step of everyone who wants to widen the readership for literature from the Middle East and North Africa.
(The Kite Runner novel was the third best-seller for 2005 in the United States, according to Nielsen BookScan. It’s been published in 38 countries, translated into 42 languages, turned into an Oscar-nominated movie – and sold more than 10 million copies — one of the publishing industry’s greatest success stories. Now the search is on for the next big thing to come from the East. The Kite Runner is a 2007 Academy Award-nominated film directed by Marc Forster based on the novel of the same name by Khaled Hosseini (click here for more…)
“In the Gulf, lavishly funded new competitions such as the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (the ‘Arab Booker’) and the Sheikh Zayed Awards have signalled the intention of the emirate of Abu Dhabi to build up its name as a global centre of culture. Not to be outdone, and fretting perhaps at its current reputation as the world capital of bling, neighbouring Dubai begins a new literary festival next year. Also in Abu Dhabi, the Kalima translation project has launched an ambitious, state-financed programme to bring, at the rate of 100 per year, classic and contemporary books from around the world into Arabic for the first time and to distribute them across the region. ” More here…
I lived in London during the mid-1970s. I extensively covered there a major “World of Islam Festival” for The Statesman newspaper in India. The festival was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. “As far as anyone can remember, such an attempt had never been made before—and probably could not have been. It is only recently that one civilization has been capable of looking at another civilization objectively, rather than as a potential rival or convert. Read the rest of this entry »
Is Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza an attempt to put an end to the firing of rockets from Gaza into Southern Israel, or is it something much more? According to this analysis from Algeria’s French language Le Quotidien, what people in Gaza and Lebanon are now witnessing is the build-up to a joint U.S.-Israeli ’settling of accounts’ to ‘reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.’ Kharroubi Habib writes, ‘Everything suggests that Israel and the United States are creating the conditions for a new war in the region, at the end of which they will finally establish ‘peace’ on their terms. And although they don’t openly say it, even Arab forces in the region are pushing for this Israeli-American plan. That includes the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, who is counting on regaining control of the Gaza strip.’
By Kharroubi Habib
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
March 2, 2008
Algeria - Le Quotidian - Original Article (French)
Since Wednesday, the Israeli air force has been conducting raid after raid over the Gaza strip. These are no longer “targeted” strikes, but are operations meant to claim the largest possible number of victims in a population that has been declared a “hostile entity,” and to which the principle of “collective Punishment” applies.
In just a few days, hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children have perished, having been engulfed in fire. But the worst is unfortunately still to come for the people of Gaza, as the Israeli government prepares for a major operation against their territory. It is this that the air raids are preparing, with the aim of “breaking” the morale and capabilities of the popular resistance in Gaza.
One should not view the ongoing aggression against Gaza as a response to rockets being fired on the Israeli village of Sderot. It is rather, in our view, the prelude to a much larger operation, planned jointly by Israel and the United States, to reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.
It is by no means fortuitous that just as Israel launched its raids over Gaza and warned of plans to begin ground operations, the United States announced the presence along the Lebanese coast of one of its warships, the USS Cole.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign-language coverage of events in the Middle East that relate to the United States.
Do Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq? It’s a question that people around the world have been asking for years and by and large the answer has been yes. But now that the prospect of a U.S. pullout has become somewhat more tangible, it seems that some Iraqis are emphatically asking Americans to stay. In this ode to the Americans and Iraq’s Christians from Iraq’s Kitibat newspaper, Khadir Taahar writes, ‘Iraq’s political, economic, scientific and industrial future all depend on the strategic relationship with the United States of America, which liberated Iraq, and whose presence on its land is a divine and priceless gift which no intelligent man keen on securing Iraqi interests can afford to lose.’
By Khadir Taahar
Translated By James Jacobson
February 9, 2008
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
I write this article to thank my Iraqi Christian friends … who have provided so much humanitarian assistance to me, a son of their Muslim homeland. I send a message to the sons of the Iraqi people at home and abroad … reminding them that the souls and hearts of the Christians are with the sons of their country, whether they remained in or emigrated from the land of Iraq.
In complete isolation from Arabs and Muslims, I lived in the Diaspora because of my writings and opinions, which differed from those of almost everyone … When I felt the need for help I could without hesitation take recourse to my Iraqi Christian brethren. I have always found in them the utmost magnanimity and brotherhood.
I write to my friend Anan BeDaweed … who has kindly remained in touch with me and has incurred great difficulty defending my right to freedom of expression, despite his strong opposition to my writings which are critical of the Kurdish parties … Anan is a secular Kurd, which works to my advantage since he objects to those who wish to silence my views.
As for my friend Adil Baqal … in his generosity and morality he carries the spirit of a clan chief from deep in southern Iraq … Adil, despite his personal religious faith, has critical views about the true purpose of religion … he cannot accept the religious preoccupation with ideology … The dominance of the clergy and the way they manipulate the feelings and minds of the people … He believes that religion is a private issue between the Creator and his creatures, and that no intermediary is needed … Adil Baqal is only the most recent person to reproach me for my writings which are so critical of the Kurdish parties.
February 11th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
There is one Pakistani politician to watch in the coming months. He hails from the so-called tribal badlands of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area, and could play an important role at the national level…that is, if he survives…
Asfandyar Wali Khan, an MBA, who hails from a distinguished family of politicians and is the leader of Pakistan’s Awami National Party (ANP), said on Sunday the blast that killed 29 of his party workers at an election rally in Charsadda in the North-West Frontier Province was a “targeted bombing” that was meant to eliminate the entire party leadership.
The Jamestown Foundation in its Global Terrorism Analysis provides interesting insight into Asfandyar Wali Khan’s, and his party’s, role. “The potency of Pashtun nationalist forces should not be underestimated. Given their checkered history and traditional support base, they are potentially an effective and viable political force to challenge the religious extremists in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the adjacent Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). This analysis profiles Asfandyar Wali and his party, which has shown determination in reversing the radical Islamist political trends in the Pashtun-dominated areas of Pakistan.
“…He argued that a Pashtun peace jirga involving Pashtun nationalists, civil society actors and religious players from both sides is the last hope for the region. He interpreted the recent ANP victory in the Bajaur elections as a bright spot in the overall troubling scenario and made a case for allowing liberal political parties to operate and function in the tribal areas. This can only happen, he emphasized, if the Political Parties Act of Pakistan is extended to FATA.
“In reference to the causes of conflict in the tribal areas, he lamented the fact that only pro-government maliks (tribal elders who are on the government payroll) are engaged and mushiraan (”people’s” maliks who are financially independent) were completely ignored. This led to a failure in resolving the crisis in FATA. Furthermore, he thinks that Pakistan should have distinguished between the pre-9/11 foreigners who are by now well settled in the area and the post-9/11 foreigners that came in to find a sanctuary. Read the rest of this entry »
January 29th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Challenges to return of democracy in Pakistan have multiplied after the assassination of Mrs Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. For an independent woman, especially if she has a mind of her own, it still remains a herculean task to be heard in many countries of the world. In some countries it can become a matter of life and death.
However, there are brave-hearts who never give up. My attention has been drawn to a recent interview with Dr (Mrs) Ayesha Siddiqa Agha in a Pakistani blog. Mrs Agha, a former senior civil servant, is described as ‘Pride of Pakistan’. An author and a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, she does not mince words when it comes to addressing the ticklish questions relating to her country.
Sample this from her interview —-
Question:When President Musharraf says that Pakistan cannot have a democracy and human rights like West, do you agree with him?
Mrs Siddiqa Agha’s Answer: This is absolute nonsense. The ordinary people of Pakistan can decide as intelligently about their political future as an average American or people from developed countries. Our problem lies at the top. Our elite is highly predatory and suicidal. They have evolved a system of patronage and are holding ordinary people hostage to it. General Musharraf is part of that elite. It is ridiculous to hear people say that illiterate Pakistanis cannot chose their leaders. We are not less intelligent than the Indians. It is our tragedy that governments have always been voted in but booted out. Once that changes, we will also become a strong democracy.
Question:What Pakistan should do with its nuclear arsenal? Should we freeze it, or it roll-back, or improve it, or just hand it over to IAEA?
Answer: This is a political decision. Any answers must be sought by looking at how a certain technology serves the ordinary people. We have millions who do not have access to clean drinking water, basic health, education and dignity. I wouldn’t have a problem with nuclear weapons as long as the other needs are being met. But if any new technology is used to hold people hostage and make fools out of them, then whats the use.
Mrs Siddiqa Agha, who did her doctorate from King’s College London, is a scholar of Pakistan’s military and security affairs. She has worked on issues varying from military technology, defense decision-making, nuclear deterrence, arms procurement, arms production to civil-military relations in South Asia.
Are the Israelis intentionally trying to derail progress on President Bush’s trip to the Palestinian territories and Israel - his first visit to the country? According to this op-ed article from the largest newspaper on Palestinian territory, Alhayat Aljadeeda, the Israelis are introducing issues of dispute and causing turmoil that have never been part of the peace talks, so that President Bush will be too busy putting out fires to make any real progress.
“Israel is preparing for President Bush’s visit by reshuffling the cards and by demonstrating that there are problems that were not included in any discussions before, such as the verbal escalation over political and security relations with Egypt!!!”
By Yehia Rbah, Translated By Jenny Oliver, Palestine - Alhayat Aljadeeda - Original Article (Arabic)
It appears that the Israeli ruling coalition led by Ehud Olmert isn’t satisfied with the bloody military escalation in the Gaza Strip that amounted to eight air-raids in one day. The air-raids target civilians, such as the Fayyad family [photo, right], as well as resistance fighters and homes. Additionally, dozens have been injured and abducted and the vicious encroachment of Jewish settlements continues. Meanwhile, statements by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have roiled relations with Egypt, which shows the real trend of Israeli policy.
[Editor’s Note: Israel has complained to Egypt that it isn’t doing enough to stop weapons smuggling into the Hamas-cntrolled Gaza strip. Foreign Minister Livni said on Monday, “What they [the Egyptians] are doing at Philadelphi is deplorable and problematic.” Egypt has promised to end the smuggling and says it is doing all it can].
This all shows quite clearly that the Israeli government is intent on putting huge obstacles in the path of George W. Bush’s visit to the region on the 9th of this month. His visit will not be confined to Israel and Palestine, as he will also tour the region in general. But the focus for this visit is to promote the opportunities for peace opened up after Annapolis conference and the donor’s conference held in Paris. However, Read the rest of this entry »
Have the people of Iraq defeated al-Qaeda - and didn’t Americans have anything to do with it? According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Al-Zawraa newspaper, ‘After four years of resistance, courage and sacrifice by our Iraqi people in the fight against al-Qaeda and its offshoots, success has been achieved … With gold letters, Iraqis have marked their place in the annals of history.’
By Salman Daud Alhafezi
Translated By Jenny Oliver
December 28, 2007
Iraq - Al-Zawraa - Original Article (Arabic)
The Takfiri gangs (Sunni Extremists ) who came across the border like a swarm of locusts after the regime toppled, have tried to turn Iraq into a place controlled by titans and tyrants and a headquarters for the dissemination of their ideology and myths - myths which came not from Allah.
With coercion, murder, displacement and bombings, they sought to bring the Iraqi people to their knees. In their sick fantasies, they imagined that they could claim Iraq as their own Islamic nation. After four years of resistance, courage and sacrifice by our Iraqi people in the fight against al-Qaeda and its offshoots, success has been achieved in reducing hostilities. With gold letters, Iraqis have marked their place in the annals of history. Read the rest of this entry »
Should the case of George W. Bush - a ‘rural boy from Texas,’ give hope to the marginalized of Kuwaiti society? According to this article from Kuwait’s Al Seyassah, the fact that President Bush reached the White House despite his rural upbringing provides a lesson for Kuwait, as it tries to instill greater cohesion and acceptance of diversity amongst the Kuwaiti people.
“We offer the example of the American President from Texas within the context of our discussion of Kuwait’s national unity … The fact that Bush possesses the cultural legacy of the ‘countryside’ hasn’t hindered him from reaching the White House’s threshold.”
By Dr. Khaled al-Jenfawi
Translated By James Jacobson
December 17, 2007
Kuwait - Al-Seyassah - Original Article (Arabic)
We have discussed more than once the issue of “national unity” in Kuwait, and have stressed the importance of preserving and strengthening the “sense of patriotism” of the ordinary Kuwaiti citizen by providing a cultural mold, “in which citizens share common social and intellectual inclinations.” And in this endeavor, we have called on intellectuals to debate not only traditional models of “national unity,” but to focus on the social and cultural diversity within our own society. While the average Kuwaiti possesses a general cultural and doctrinal heritage, these aren’t necessarily identical to those of their fellow citizens.”
In other words, our “public assumptions” about national unity should allow for the following: Any normal human society must contain diversity and disparity in relationships, in its social and cultural past, in the way members of society exercise these relations, and in the way they address differences - because what is today found in Kuwait’s towns and cities is not a unitary, all-inclusive, formulaic Kuwaiti culture, but rather a “cultural and social mosaic” which could occupy a comprehensive wall chart.
Take for example our friend, American society, and how it contains so many especially active ethnicities and cultures, all of which act within and generally accept America’s social environment. And they manage to do so with all of its racial differences, diversity and disparities between cultures, social orientations and religious and sectarian groups.
American President George Bush, for example, is a “country boy” from Texas, or as one might say in Kuwaiti terms, “Bush is a Texas Bedouin.” However, we have yet to hear any member of Congress criticize his performance or his policies based solely on the fact that he comes from rural America, which is what one would expect in human societies that endeavor to become sophisticated, civilized and cultured, and which reject stereotypes in favor of inclusiveness.
[Editor’s Note: While it’s true that George W. Bush has carefully cultivated his Texas image, it’s also true that he has had more than a little exposure to northeastern high society, having been born in New Haven, Connecticut and graduated from Yale ].
We offer the example of the American President from Texas within the context of our discussion of Kuwait’s national unity, in order to deliver the following idea: In any normal human society, social and cultural differences between members of that society are considered a “virtue,” not a “sin” that must be eradicated. The fact that Bush possesses the cultural legacy of the “countryside” hasn’t hindered him from reaching the White House’s threshold. The American President is still a U.S. citizen that cherishes his local Texan culture even as he continues to adhere to the wider American culture.
How serious is al-Qaeda’s threat to Iraq’s children? According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Sotal Iraq, ‘the competent Iraqi authorities are unable to protect them from the brainwashing that al-Qaeda subjects them to, and which transforms them into terrorists who find it easy to commit murder.’
By Mohammad Abdul Jabar Al Shubut
Translated By Julian Jacob and Nicolas Dagher
December 4, 2007
Iraq - Sotal Iraq - Original Article (Arabic)
Al-Qaeda has corrupted hundreds of Iraqi children ranging in age from 15 to 17-years-old. That means that the competent Iraqi authorities are unable to protect them from the brainwashing that al-Qaeda subjects them to, and which transforms them into terrorists who find it easy to commit murder.
Socialization is the most serious process in any human society, as it reflects a country’s capacity to pass on its cultural identity from one generation to another and prepare the young to leave the home of their parents and start out on their own.
There are two structures that contribute most to socializing future generations: The family and the state. Both of these help shape the entire composition of the person.
The state (or its equivalent) undertakes the process of nurturing people through education, which is conducted by schools at all of the various academic levels. So it is that the State - even under more mature democratic systems, has a particularly important role in overseeing schools - even private schools - in the raising of children and teaching them the basics of healthy nutrition and good behavior, so as to help them become good and effective citizens.
By virtue of its size and huge budget, the Ministry of Education must be considered one of the most important institutions of the Iraqi state, but the major political blocs have attached little political importance to the Ministry. They have begun to restrict the Ministry’s responsibilities without considering the importance of its role. One assumes that the Ministry is aware of the importance of bringing up the next generation of children to protect them from groups that spread extremist and terrorist thinking and adapt themselves to the changes in Iraq.
But newly-released studies on al-Qaeda show that the group is still able to recruit large numbers of children and young people into its ranks by feeding them terrorist ideas. This shows that either the Ministry of Education has failed to carry out its primary mission of protecting Iraq’s national and cultural identity by properly cultivating the next generation and/or that there are huge openings through which al-Qaeda has been able to insinuate itself into the work of the Ministry.
Just making progress on the security and military fronts won’t solve the larger problem of securing the nation unless real progress is made on the cultural and educational tracks, as well as the political and economic tracks. The integration of these four tracks by developing a comprehensive vision of the issue of security is the only guarantor of consolidating the country’s safety.
December 9th, 2007 by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an incredible woman. But she is flatly wrong when she alleges that “moderate Muslims” have not been outspoken in their criticism of human rights violations by their peers. Indeed, the example she choices, the “Qatif” case in Saudi Arabia, is a textbook example of an atrocity that came to Western ears due to the tremendous outrage it sparked amongst Arab Muslims both here and in that country.
Robert Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute:
Rather than expend effort on winning Muslim friendship for America, our engagement with Muslim publics — what we call “public diplomacy” — should focus on identifying, nurturing and supporting anti-Islamist Muslims, from secular liberals to pious believers, who fear the encroachment of radical Islamists and are willing to make a stand. This strategy would involve overt and covert ways to assist anti-Islamist political parties, nongovernmental organizations, trade unions, media outlets, women’s groups, educational institutions and youth movements as they compete with the radicals. It calls for marshaling government resources — our embassies, aid bureaucracies, international broadcasting units and intelligence agencies, as well as our commercial, educational and civic relationships — to give anti-Islamists the moral, political, financial, technological and material support they need.
Satloff’s article, which appeared in The Washington Post recently, is part of a large and growing literature that calls for the United States to directly support liberal Muslims against their radical counterparts. The RAND Corporation, for example, published a very long and interesting report on this same subject arguing that “the creation of moderate Muslim networks would provide moderates with a platform to amplify their message, as well as some protection from extremists.” Sounds good, right? The devil, unfortunately, is in the details.
WHO ARE OUR ALLIES?
There are a couple of problems with the popular discourse about supporting liberal Islam. First, although strengthening moderate elements within the Islamic world sounds good on paper, it becomes messy when we have to actually identify those pockets of moderation. This is easier said than done, since few Muslim networks fit the Western image of “enlightened” Islam. Many groups may support some progressive principles, but few fully fit the label of what Western governments would feel comfortably calling a moderate organization. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, supports democracy but is also hostile to Israel. Are they moderates that we’d be comfortable supporting?
Or take the large population of secular Turks. Although Muslim, secular Turks have fought hard to ensure that their state does not become a religious one, often going as far as to to back undemocratic coups by the military (1961, 1970, 1980, 1997) in order to maintain the nation’s “secular nature.” Given that their commitment to democracy is shaky at best, are they moderates? The point should be clear: it’s hard to define and identify “moderate Muslims,” few are likely to fit the Western ideal of what we would like to see Islam evolve into, and backing one or another of these groups would often result in indirect support for a range of principles with which we wouldn’t agree.
TAINTING THEIR IMAGE The second problem (assuming, for a moment, that we are actually able to identify moderate Muslim networks) is how we can directly support these groups without discrediting them. Given America’s standing internationally, any public support or financial assistance is more likely to undermine such movements than strengthen them. Read the rest of this entry »
What kind of a mess does Washington have on its hands in northern Iraq? According to this article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, if Iraq’s Kurds turn their backs on Baghdad and instead help their terrorist brethren in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party battle the Turks, the six-years of war in Iraq will likely be only a prelude to a series of invasions and wars between and amongst neighboring states and the United States …
“The entry of Turkish troops on the pretext of attacking extremist Turkish-Kurdish parties would give justification to many other countries to intervene for the same reasons. … Just as the Americans use Iraq as an arena to settle its accounts with al-Qaeda.”
By Jamaa Alatwani
Translated By James Jacobson
October 23, 2007
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
Our brothers in the Kurdistan region are having a difficult time with their political status, being forced to choose between options one could call standing between Scylla and Charybdis.
[Editor’s Note: Scylla and Charybdis are two sea monsters in Greek mythology situated on opposite sides of a narrow channel of water, so close that sailors avoiding Charybdis will pass too close to Scylla and vice versa - thus being unable to escape with their lives .
Iraqi Kurdish officials believe that the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] is justified in preventing their rights from being trampled on by the Turkish government, and wish to see their efforts culminate in their acquiring the same rights that Iraq’s Kurds have already obtained.
Moreover, Iraqi Kurdistan officials feel sympathy with and want to support the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK], even feeling it necessary to openly stand with them - in particular because of the PKK’s support for Iraqi Kurds during their struggle against the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.
The Kurdish right to belong to a nation; their right to self-determination; their strategic goal of building a Kurdish state which was wrecked by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the logistical cooperation between the two Kurdish sides (Iraqi and Turkish), all these cause Iraqi Kurds to reject The entrance of Turkish forces onto Iraqi territory, since this is regarded as a “violation of Iraqi sovereignty†on the one hand, and the right of Kurds to self-determination on the other.
But this nationalistic and social cohesion between the two Kurdish sides conflicts with the Iraqi Constitution and Iraqi government opinion.
The Constitution stresses intolerance toward any armed group using Iraqi territory as a springboard for violent operations against a neighboring country or any other country, nor has any neighboring state the right to make its territory a platform for armed terrorist groups attacking the state of Iraq.
It should also be noted that the U.S. administration and European Union have put the “Kurdish Workers Party†on their lists of terrorist organizations.
At this juncture there is confusion and ambivalence on the part of Iraqi Kurdish officials and even several Kurdish deputies in the Iraqi Parliament, some of whom are demanding that the government intervene to prevent the Turkish government from striking the PKK, arguing that it is Baghdad which is responsible for securing Iraqi territory and that the Kurdistan region is an inseparable part of Iraq.
It makes me cringe when I hear references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. An ex-Muslim, a former Dutch parliamentarian, and a feminist, Hirsi Ali is often trotted out as some sort of spokeswoman for moderate Islam. A few years back, she wrote a book (”Infidel”) and produced a movie (”Submission”) that condemn harsh treatment associated with Islam; since then, she’s been a celebrity. As blogger Shadi Hamid notes, “people seem intent on treating her as some kind of anointed spokeswoman for oppressed Muslim women, a reformer from within the faith or, worse, a kind of pseudo-Muslim Martin Luther.”
But Hirsi Ali is no Martin Luther. She’s condescending, elitist, and inspires no respect amongst Muslims. Hamid points out that he has “yet to meet even one Muslim on the planet, secular or conservative, liberal or illiberal, who actually thinks that Hirsi Ali is helping the cause of internal Muslim reform.” Maybe, just maybe, Muslims don’t take to her because of comments like this one: the Koran, she has said, is “brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war.” Or perhaps Muslims don’t like her because of interviews, like the recent one conducted by Reason Magazine, in which she argues that Islam must be “defeated”:
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam�
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.†There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Go back and read that last line again. Is it not laughable to suggest that someone who believes that Islam must be ‘crushed’ can somehow be a spokeswoman for liberal Islam? Hirsi Ali then goes on, when asked for more clarification, to argue that there is no room for co-existence with her former religion:
Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,†he’s wrong?
Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong.
While I have much regard for those who call for moderation in Islam, push for greater Muslim women’s rights, or who question violent or radical interpretations of the Koran, it’s hard to respect those who condemn the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims as backwards and their holy book as retarded. Eerie, over at theAqoul blog, finds Hirsi Ali’s blanket condemnations of Islam equally obnoxious. Quoting a part in the Reason Magazine interview in which Hirsi Ali calls the Muslim god “fire-breathing” and suggests that he “inspires jihadism and totalitarianism,” Eerie sarcastically responds with a smack-down:
Right, because when my dear old grannie whispers bismi-llahi ar-rahmani ar-rahimi to herself, she is in fact wishing death upon all those dirty infidel crusaders. That line, which opens almost every sura in the Quran, means “Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful” not “Allah, the Most Badass, the Biggest Asskicker.”
Sure, there are radical Muslims whose religious views condone violence. However, my grandmother and over a billion other Muslims don’t spend their days plotting the downfall of Christians and Jews.
That there is a broad diversity of interpretation and opinion in Islam is something that Hirsi Ali blatantly misses. Instead, she takes the actions of a few thugs and conflates their beliefs with an entire religion. No wonder she doesn’t get any respect in the Muslim world. Hirsi Ali is not a spokeswoman for moderates; she’s a spokeswoman for all those who despise Islam.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has recently released a draft of its first party platform. Citing several controversial clauses, some analysts are arguing that the draft proposal hints at the Brotherhood’s true authoritarian nature. Is this an accurate analysis? If not, what exactly does the document say about the organization and its goals?
The words ‘feminism’ and ‘Middle East’ are not often used in the same sentence. But, increasingly, women in the Arab world are beginning to demand greater authority for themselves in their societies. Interestingly, it’s not secular or liberal groups that are effectively leading the way in pushing forward on women’s rights issues; instead, it is Muslim women, involved in conservative Islamist organizations like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are starting to raise their voices and question their status in society.
The failure of secular groups to take the lead in pushing for women’s rights has to do, in large part, with the popular perception that they espouse elitist and condescending views. Wafa Sultan, for instance, one of the most prominent Arab secularists, is a darling of West, but is poorly received in the Arab world. A liberal and an atheist, Sultan blames Islam — and not just isolated extremists — for terrorism, a view that undoubtedly doesn’t sit well with her largely-Muslim audience. It’s no surprise, therefore, that calls by Sultan and other secular activists for greater women’s rights have been received with skepticism.
Indeed, rather than being propelled by secular and liberal groups, this new interest in feminism is actually occurring within more conservative circles; namely, Islamist groups. There’s a reason for this: as Islamist organizations like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood have been given a greater role in democratic politics over the past few decades, they’ve had to pitch to a broader constituency. The result has been that more women have been given leadership roles in these organizations in order that they might reach out to other female voters, provide input on political strategy, and even run for office themselves. Imbued with newfound authority, many Muslim women have begun to raise broader questions about their role in society. (For more on this, check out my earlier post or, for a much more in-depth look at this phenomenon, take a look at this Carnegie report.)
I’ve written about this subject before, so I wasn’t planning on just re-writing my earlier post, but a recent Al Ahram article caught my attention. Omayma Abdel-Latif, the author, discusses an interesting case of Muslim female empowerment: that of Ghazwa Farahat, a Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese woman who won a position in the Al-Ghobeiry municipality in southern Beirut.
She was the first female candidate the Islamic resistance movement nominated on its electoral list. Indeed, the party fought hard to convince Farahat’s family of her nomination. “My family was divided,” said Farahat at her office in Al-Ghobeiry. “They asked Hizbullah officials why they wanted to nominate a woman when there were men in the family,” she explained.
If anything, Farahat’s story reflects how the Islamic movement has frequently proven more progressive in its stand on the role of women in society than the society it operates within. That Hizbullah stood by its nomination and overcame social and cultural pressures suggests that the movement has been paying serious attention to the role women can play in expanding its social and political base.
Farahat’s case and that of others also sheds light on one of the most striking features in Islamist politics today. Farahat along with hundreds of women activists represent the core of Hizbullah’s women’s organisations, or Al-Hayat Al-Nisaaya, the framework through which women activists advance their social and political agenda within the party. As more and more educated women joined the ranks of Islamist movements during the past two decades, they also found in those movements a space where they could press to better the status of women without risking being stigmatised as Western stooges or rendered social outcasts.
Farahat’s situation is not an anomaly. As the Al Ahram article notes, women are playing a greater role in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as well.
In 2000, the movement nominated its first female candidate for its electoral list in Alexandria. By the time of the 2005 parliamentary elections, women were at the heart of the movement’s electoral machine, participating through all stages of the elections, from nomination to campaigning, vote counting and monitoring.
Abdel-Latif goes on to point out that examples such as these confound “the long-held view that the rise of Islamist movements across the Middle East is responsible both for socially restrictive climates for women and a rolling back of past gains made by women.”
According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, the content on Iraqi television is proof enough that broadcasters are caught up in Iran’s, ‘anti-American scheme, which seeks to oppose America in Iraq by means of Shiite parties, al-Qaeda and remnants of the Baath Party.
“Even on a popular game show, a team from a Shiite area is matched with one from a Sunni area, which is intended to sow sedition and help dismember Iraq. And who is the primary beneficiary of all this devastation? Iran.”
By Khadir Taahar
Translated By James Jacobson
September 31, 2007
Iraq - Kitabat - Original - Original Article (Arabic)
Although there has been a shortage of evidence linking Iraqi government institutions to Iran, Iran has wide influence over the width and breath of Iraqi affairs … However, today we can cite material evidence linking Iraqi satellite channels to Iran!
We all heard and saw the report of Commander of American Forces, General David Petraeus - when he testified before U.S. Congressional committees and emphasized Iranian interference in Iraq, resulting in the destabilization of security and stability due to criminal bombings and murder.
Considering the fact that Iraq’s satellite channels are meant to reflect the nation’s professional media, one would imagine that they would shed some light on such reports about Iranian interference. Simply by virtue of the seriousness of the subject, one would expect special programming featuring military and political analysts as a natural element of their work.
But as we expected, Iraq’s satellite channels are silent, having completely ignored the issue of Iranian interference. Instead, they continue to provide programs of utter inadequacy!
Moreover, Iraqi satellite news continued on course by deliberately failing to mention the arrest of a member of Iranian intelligence by the American army in Northern Iraq last week, despite the importance of this story to the mass-media everywhere else!
Instead, we see Iraqi channels mounting a sustained campaign of incitement against the American army and security companies, exploiting an incident sparked by one of these firms [Blackwater]. Of course, we know that this campaign is part of Iran’s anti-American scheme that seeks to oppose America in Iraq by means of Shiite parties, al-Qaeda and remnants of the Baath Party.
This is all part of Iran’s cunning plan to disseminate the poisonous fumes of sectarianism in Iraq, since the Iraqi satellite channels broadcast the Shiite call to prayer, but not the Sunni, host Shiite clerics but very few Sunni; and even on a popular game show, a team from a Shiite area is matched with one from a Sunni area, which is intended to sow sedition and help dismember Iraq. And who is the primary beneficiary of all this devastation? Iran.
Is Iran’s ’shadow occupation’ the threat that Iraqis should really be worried about, as opposed to the ‘clear and obvious’ American occupation? According to this op-ed article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, Iraqis had better confront - and quickly - the dangers from ‘further Iranian penetration and influence into our beloved Iraq.’
“Recognize the danger posed by further Iranian penetration and influence into our beloved Iraq – for it is accumulating and threatens to destroy all that Iraq is as a nation.”
By Daya Al-Shakraji
Translated By James Jacobson
October 12, 2007
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
This appeal is not at all exaggerated, and I didn’t start off with an unjustified mental complex toward Iran. Iraq today - or at least a large part of it - truly lies under Iranian occupation, and the tools of this occupation are religious parties, the Turbans (religious leaders), militias and informers. Some people wonder why I’m neglecting the dangers of the clear and obvious American occupation and colonization, and instead warn of Iran’s shadow occupation. I say: Herein lies the danger, since the U.S. occupation is clearly doomed. The consequences of the open occupation, if they aren’t over, soon will be. But Iran’s hidden occupation, by virtue of its being a neighbor and its influence in neighborhoods and through social and religious relationships, is the most dangerous and most capable of surviving America’s more obvious occupation.
Therefore, I ask all loyal Sunnis, loyal Shiites and loyal Iraqis of all religions, and likewise I ask our Arab rescuers, loyal Kurds and loyal Iraqis of all other nationalities to recognize the danger posed by further Iranian penetration and influence into our beloved Iraq – for it is accumulating and threatens to destroy all that Iraq is as a nation.
Despite my negative comments on the job performance of brother Mowaffak Al-Rubaie [Iraq’s national security adviser ], I want to thank him for the fairness and courage he has shown in diagnosing the danger, saying in a statement on October 6 that, “Iran plays an extremely negative role in Iraq, and its interference threatens the process of national reconciliation. … They and other neighboring countries like Syria are interfering in our domestic affairs and play an extremely negative role. This interference must stop or the Iraq’s ongoing political process will completely collapse; this interference is inhibiting Iraqi national reconciliation … This requires that we adopt a carrot-and-stick approach toward them by fingering them for the damage that they cause while at the same time making concessions to them … But first, the United States and Iraq must hold serious talks to unify and coordinate their positions in regard to Iran.”
When even a Shiite politician loyal to the current government issues such a call, people should take notice. But it’s not just Al-Rubaie’s declaration that prompts my warning – since behind his words was a desire to please the Americans and not necessarily a resurgence in his sense of patriotism. I issue this warning to alert people to the seriousness of Iran’s role and to alert all political forces that enjoy Iranian support or coordinate with Iran. For whatever their positions, the patriotism of anyone who is aware of Iran’s destructive role and continues to cooperate with it must have their patriotism called into question.
Being aware of the dangers of cooperating with Iraq is the bare minimum required for any politician with a national consciousness. If one is aware of the danger of the Iranians and nevertheless cooperates with them, it isn’t that they love doing so. Their purpose is to derive power from it to overwhelm their opponents, their critics or their political rivals. This reflects their adherence to selfish partisan interests at the expense of the country and could seal Iraq’s strategic fate.
A great read at Radio Netherlands: an interview with progressive Malaysian Muslim thinker Farish Noor. Noor believes that “the moral principles of the Koran are valid for eternity, but that verses such as those calling for the discrimination of women and corporal punishment are no longer valid and have to be understood in their historical context.”
When he came back to Europe / the Netherlands (after five years), he was shocked by what he saw. He explained: “this country has changed so much that I hardly recognize it. There is no communication any more. Everybody is obsessed with his own pain and does not see the pain of the other anymore. I think it is because of the killing of Theo van Gogh [the filmmaker who was stabbed to death by a Muslim fundamentalist in 2004]. I think that has shocked the Dutch people very much.”
The main subject he talked about in the interview was the role of the Labor Party. Noor rightfully points out that the Labor Party finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they dare not criticize Muslims - not even ‘conservative’ Muslims - for fear of being called “anti-Muslim,” and on the other hand they dare no longer defend the fundamentalists based on the idea of multiculturalism either. He went on to say that Labor has, by doing so, allowed the conservative parties and right-wingers like Wilders to take monopolize the debate.
Noor explained:
I hope that what I have said will contribute to curing the Labour party of the idea that any criticism of Islam immediately puts them on the side of the secular right. Muslims are not a homogeneous group. There are progressive, conservative, fundamentalist and even fascist currents in Islam. The Labour party should ally itself with the progressive currents. And it should stop being afraid of criticizing conservative Islam. The Dutch Labour party is a progressive party and it is only natural if it allies itself with the progressive forces within the religious traditions of its followers.
Right-wing politicians and Islam critics imply that Muslims have to choose between fundamentalist Islam on the one hand and democracy and human rights on the other. Progressive Muslims like myself offer an alternative: We try to show Muslims and the rest of the world that you can be a Muslim and a democrat at the same time. By supporting us the Labour party can break down the right-wing monopoly in the Islam debate and create space for young Muslims to participate in modern life while maintaining their Muslim identity. Are you Muslim and gay? Then the Labour party should support your right to be both at the same time.
This does not mean that the party should turn its back on traditional Muslims. The party should protect the right of traditional Muslims to be themselves as long as they abide by the ground rules of secular democracy. Religious schools are not a problem but we cannot tolerate imams who tell their audience to beat up gays. Hate speech should be the limit.
When asked about Ehsan Jami - a former-Muslim and member of the Labor Party who, after leaving Islam founded an organization for apostates (and who was beat up as a result) - Noor said:
If someone decides to leave his religion, then this is his fundamental freedom of choice and the Labour party should support it of course. But the party has to be careful not to give the impression that it only supports apostates.
I wanted to meet Ehsan Jami, but unfortunately he could not make it. If there is one thing I would like to tell him it is that he should be very careful not to be used by the right wing by implying that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim. He should not forget that progressive Muslims like myself and many others have been fighting since a long time for the freedom of Muslims to leave Islam. And we paid the price for it. A friend of mine had his house bombed. I have lived with death threats for 10 years. People have come to my house to kill me. When people like Jami start to distort the debate in this manner, it may put back our effort 30 years.
This sounds all quite right to me. An interesting read. I’ve said many times that in the West we need to work with progressive Muslims, or reformers. Noor is one of those progressive Muslims, as is Ali Eteraz. We must criticize forces within Islam that want to implement, for instance, Sharia and who believe that it is perfectly fine to kill your daughter when she has an affair with a non-Muslim, but we must at the same time embrace Muslims who agree with us. Let us not ignore the fact that there are many Muslims out there who oppose the fundamentalists just as much as we oppose them. By forgetting about them we are, in fact, saying that the ‘real’ Islam is the Islam propagated by fundamentalists. Lets not make that mistake. In the end, the progressives have to convince the Muslim world that they represent true Islam.
I also liked Noor’s point that we should not act as if the only good Muslim is a former-Muslim. We’ve got to support apostates, but we also have to support those who are still Muslims and who adhere to a different interpretation of the Koran.
