Washington, DC - Last week, the Texas Board of Education adopted a resolution with a 7-6 vote that "accuses textbook publishers of favoring Islam over Christianity and tells them to stop it."
Although the resolution is non-binding on future board members or textbook publishers, it attempts to set a precedent and represents acceptance of an allegation that although unproven, may be raised in other states. The resolution did not in fact concern textbooks currently in use in Texas.
The allegation that textbooks favour Islam over Christianity is spurious, and the Texas Board of Education has been misled.
A look at common U.S. textbooks refutes the charge, which distorts the role of teaching about religion in US public schools. State social studies content standards require the beliefs, practices and history of major world religions be taught within constitutional guidelines for the academic study of religion. As such, textbooks are scrutinised prior to adoption in every state.
The resolution is based on sections on Islam and Christianity in textbooks. What about the other faiths? As a textbook reviewer for two decades, I assert that most textbooks are similar enough to allow generalisations about the coverage of religions. A world history textbook index might contain more entries under Islam than Christianity, but adding keywords like Church, clergy, monastery, cathedral, pope, Reformation, Protestant and Bible tips the scales the other way. Textbooks cover the roots of Christianity in the history of Judaism, and Old Testament figures like Abraham and Moses. Content about early Christianity is only a fraction of overall content on this faith.
Christian history is actually treated in an exemplary manner in most history textbooks. Why? Because Christianity is thoroughly intertwined with the history of European civilisation. Textbooks describe its rise in the late Roman Empire and its spread into Asia, Africa and Europe. They narrate the Roman Catholic Church's influence in medieval Europe and its split from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Textbooks cite cultural contributions of Christianity in learning, arts and social life.
They trace changes in the Christian tradition – intellectual movements, interactions with political and social systems – through the centuries. The books cover the role of Christianity in the Crusades, Renaissance and Reformation, Age of Exploration, Scientific Revolution and American history.
By comparison with Christianity, coverage of other world faiths is static and limited. Judaism is emphasised in the context of ancient times, but fades from the story with the rise of Christianity. References to the 13th century rabbi and philosopher Maimonides or pogroms during the Crusades do not make up for the absence of Jewish intellectuals and contributions to European culture, or Jewish merchant communities from the Mediterranean to China.
Textbooks describe Hinduism and Buddhism in ancient India. Buddhism's spread along the Silk Road extends the story, but readers find little about change over time. Textbooks show people practicing these faiths today, but the gap between ancient origins and contemporary faiths is wide.
Students may conclude from this imbalance that only Christianity possessed a rich, multi-faceted tradition. The charge that Christianity is shortchanged in textbooks is based on a distorted reading of the books, meant to foster a sense of victimisation among Christians.
Coverage of Islam in textbooks is similar to Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism in its focus on early origins rather than change over time. Many book's indexes are affected by the overuse of religious terms like "Islamic Empire" instead of geographic terms. This usage stems from Western academics, not textbook publishers. Terms like jihad (struggle) and sharia (Islamic principles) present another problem. Critics want to see such complex terms defined as "good" or "bad", while scholars recognise their complexity over time.
Historical thinking skills require differentiated views. Textbooks should not project concepts broadcast by today's extremists onto centuries of history.
Content on world religions is not new to textbooks, but texts on "non-Western" faiths were often inaccurate and inadequate. Hindu Americans have recently challenged textbook coverage on these grounds, just as historians and Muslim educators have worked to improve accuracy of content on Islam.
As a result, textbook coverage of Islam and other religions has improved in recent years. Textbooks today reflect attention to balance in page counts, topics, images and quotes from scripture. Editors enlist reviewers and take account of First Amendment guidelines for teaching about religion.
Backlash against improvement in the coverage of religions – not only Islam – has resulted in claims that coverage is too positive. Some want to project fear of Islam onto centuries of history, reducing the Muslim world’s relations with the West to a clash of civilisations. Efforts to improve accuracy are confused with proselytising or whitewashing, which is neither the intent nor the outcome of teaching about religions in public school.
The First Amendment Center – an advocacy group in the United States that works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education – has promoted understanding among Americans of diverse beliefs for decades, using a framework that offers other countries struggling with religious pluralism a model to emulate. State standards reflect national consensus that citizens should be literate about the world's religions. Political opportunism should not prevent students from learning within this American civic framework.
Source # http://islamonline.com/
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Ecology and the Prophet of Islam
Awareness that the Universe is in fact a Revelation that must be respected, read, understood, and protected should reform our minds and our attitudes toward nature, animals, and therefore also to an economy focused on economic production and the mad logic of economic growth at all costs to society.
We are still very far from that and reflection about the outcomes of human activity, of levels of consumption, and of development is either absent or else remains very superficial or oversimplified: little communication has been established with the non-Muslim agents and organizations who specialized in such issues and gave us more concrete and less structural or formalistic answers.
Muslim women and men, wishing to be faithful to the deepest essential teachings of Islam, should be primarily interested in the studies-and real-life experiences-which raise questions about our development and consumption models, our utilitarian relationship to nature, and our ecological carelessness. Instead of that, consciences are stifled by heaps of legal rulings, of fatawa which address formal or secondary issues (such as, for instance, the strictly lawful character of ritual slaughter techniques in the production of meat), without considering far deeper issues such as reflection over ways of life and modes of behavior and consumption.
And yet, what should we remember of those Quranic verses that speak so beautifully of the signs in the Creation? What should we understand, when reading those verses that drew tears from the Prophet, such as that over which he pondered until dawn: "In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for all those endowed with insight."4
The Messenger's spiritual initiation began by transforming his outlook on the world, causing him to perceive signs that spoke to him and called on him to ponder, understand, and get closer to the One. He never forgot it, and when looking into his Prophetic experience we cannot but become convinced that there can be no spiritual path without the heart and mind relating more deeply to time, space, nature, and animals. The One appealed to hearts, starting by transforming believers' outlooks on the elements, then on themselves, to turn again to the Universe. This is the meaning of the verse: "We will show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this [Revelation] is the truth."5
The Prophet of Islam continuously reminded his Companions of the importance of the signs in Nature and of respecting it totally.6 One day, as he was passing by Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, who was performing ritual ablution, the Prophet scolded him: "What is this waste, o Sa'd?" "Is there waste, even in ablution?" Sa'd asked. And the Prophet answered: "Yes, even when using the running water of a stream."7 Water is a central element in all teachings and ritual practices since it represents the purification of body and heart, in both the physical ("real") and spiritual worlds. But the Prophet taught Sa'd and his Companions that neither water nor any element in nature should ever be considered merely as a "means" toward their spiritual edification; on the contrary, respecting them and using them moderately was already in itself a form of spiritual exercise and elevation, a "goal" in their quest for the Creator.
The Prophet's insisting on refusing to waste even "the running water of a stream" shows that he places respect for nature on the level of a primary principle, of a higher objective that must regulate behavior whatever the situation and the consequences of human action may be. This is not an ecology stemming from the foreboding of catastrophes (set off by human actions) but a source of an "ecology at the source" in which humankind's relation to nature rests on an ethical bedrock linked to understanding the deepest spiritual teachings.8 A believer's relationship to nature can only be based on contemplation and respect. This is what led the Prophet to say: "If one of you holds a [palm] shoot in his hand when Judgment Day arrives, let him quickly plant it."9 The believing conscience should therefore feed on this intimate relationship with nature to the very end, so that even one's last gesture should be associated with the renewal of life and its cycles.
The same teaching runs through the Prophet's life: he kept drawing his Companions' attention to the necessity of respecting all animal species. He once told them the following story: "A man was walking along a road, in very hot weather. He saw a well and went down to quench his thirst. When he climbed up again, he saw a dog panting with thirst and said to himself: 'This dog is as thirsty as I was: He then went down the well again, filled his shoe with water and climbed up, holding it between his teeth. He gave the dog to drink and God rewarded him and forgave his sins' The Prophet was then asked: "0 Prophet, are we rewarded for treating animals well?" And the Prophet answered: "Any good towards a living creature gets its reward."10 Through such traditions and his own example, the Messenger pointed out that respecting animals was part of the most essential Islamic teaching. He used all opportunities to stress this dimension.
Numerous verses and Prophetic traditions express this: they clearly set forth the terms of an Islamic ethics that should be spelled out according to the higher goals of the message as a whole. We are far from the often superficial, chaotic, if not contradictory, reflections proposed today by Muslim societies and communities, their scholars, their thinkers and their institutions, to the notable exception of a few individuals or organizations that spend a large amount of their energy swimming against the tide.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
We are still very far from that and reflection about the outcomes of human activity, of levels of consumption, and of development is either absent or else remains very superficial or oversimplified: little communication has been established with the non-Muslim agents and organizations who specialized in such issues and gave us more concrete and less structural or formalistic answers.
Muslim women and men, wishing to be faithful to the deepest essential teachings of Islam, should be primarily interested in the studies-and real-life experiences-which raise questions about our development and consumption models, our utilitarian relationship to nature, and our ecological carelessness. Instead of that, consciences are stifled by heaps of legal rulings, of fatawa which address formal or secondary issues (such as, for instance, the strictly lawful character of ritual slaughter techniques in the production of meat), without considering far deeper issues such as reflection over ways of life and modes of behavior and consumption.
And yet, what should we remember of those Quranic verses that speak so beautifully of the signs in the Creation? What should we understand, when reading those verses that drew tears from the Prophet, such as that over which he pondered until dawn: "In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for all those endowed with insight."4
The Messenger's spiritual initiation began by transforming his outlook on the world, causing him to perceive signs that spoke to him and called on him to ponder, understand, and get closer to the One. He never forgot it, and when looking into his Prophetic experience we cannot but become convinced that there can be no spiritual path without the heart and mind relating more deeply to time, space, nature, and animals. The One appealed to hearts, starting by transforming believers' outlooks on the elements, then on themselves, to turn again to the Universe. This is the meaning of the verse: "We will show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this [Revelation] is the truth."5
The Prophet of Islam continuously reminded his Companions of the importance of the signs in Nature and of respecting it totally.6 One day, as he was passing by Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, who was performing ritual ablution, the Prophet scolded him: "What is this waste, o Sa'd?" "Is there waste, even in ablution?" Sa'd asked. And the Prophet answered: "Yes, even when using the running water of a stream."7 Water is a central element in all teachings and ritual practices since it represents the purification of body and heart, in both the physical ("real") and spiritual worlds. But the Prophet taught Sa'd and his Companions that neither water nor any element in nature should ever be considered merely as a "means" toward their spiritual edification; on the contrary, respecting them and using them moderately was already in itself a form of spiritual exercise and elevation, a "goal" in their quest for the Creator.
The Prophet's insisting on refusing to waste even "the running water of a stream" shows that he places respect for nature on the level of a primary principle, of a higher objective that must regulate behavior whatever the situation and the consequences of human action may be. This is not an ecology stemming from the foreboding of catastrophes (set off by human actions) but a source of an "ecology at the source" in which humankind's relation to nature rests on an ethical bedrock linked to understanding the deepest spiritual teachings.8 A believer's relationship to nature can only be based on contemplation and respect. This is what led the Prophet to say: "If one of you holds a [palm] shoot in his hand when Judgment Day arrives, let him quickly plant it."9 The believing conscience should therefore feed on this intimate relationship with nature to the very end, so that even one's last gesture should be associated with the renewal of life and its cycles.
The same teaching runs through the Prophet's life: he kept drawing his Companions' attention to the necessity of respecting all animal species. He once told them the following story: "A man was walking along a road, in very hot weather. He saw a well and went down to quench his thirst. When he climbed up again, he saw a dog panting with thirst and said to himself: 'This dog is as thirsty as I was: He then went down the well again, filled his shoe with water and climbed up, holding it between his teeth. He gave the dog to drink and God rewarded him and forgave his sins' The Prophet was then asked: "0 Prophet, are we rewarded for treating animals well?" And the Prophet answered: "Any good towards a living creature gets its reward."10 Through such traditions and his own example, the Messenger pointed out that respecting animals was part of the most essential Islamic teaching. He used all opportunities to stress this dimension.
Numerous verses and Prophetic traditions express this: they clearly set forth the terms of an Islamic ethics that should be spelled out according to the higher goals of the message as a whole. We are far from the often superficial, chaotic, if not contradictory, reflections proposed today by Muslim societies and communities, their scholars, their thinkers and their institutions, to the notable exception of a few individuals or organizations that spend a large amount of their energy swimming against the tide.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
Israeli extremists set mosque ablaze
A group of radical Israeli settlers have attacked a mosque near the West Bank city of Bethelem, ransacking the holy site and burning copies of the holy Qur'an, residents say.
A group of Israeli extremists stormed a mosque in the town of Beit Fajjar overnight, burned copies of the Muslim holy book and set fire to carpets in the building, Ma'an news agency quoted locals as saying on Monday.
Palestinian residents reportedly arrived at the scene and clashed with the assailants.
The witnesses blamed the attack on a group of Israeli settlers from the nearby Kfar Etsyon settlement.
The settlers also desecrated the holy site by spraying graffiti and hate messages on the walls inside the mosque in Hebrew..
Source: http://islamonline.com
A group of Israeli extremists stormed a mosque in the town of Beit Fajjar overnight, burned copies of the Muslim holy book and set fire to carpets in the building, Ma'an news agency quoted locals as saying on Monday.
Palestinian residents reportedly arrived at the scene and clashed with the assailants.
The witnesses blamed the attack on a group of Israeli settlers from the nearby Kfar Etsyon settlement.
The settlers also desecrated the holy site by spraying graffiti and hate messages on the walls inside the mosque in Hebrew..
Source: http://islamonline.com
Monday, October 4, 2010
Hajj: Linking Muslims with the Abrahamic heritage
I have been on the pilgrimage to Mecca three times in my life: once during the annual hajj season and twice during the off-season. This has left me savvy as I try to negotiate the physical hurdles, including massive crowds and the heat, while performing the pilgrimage rituals.
With the pilgrimage I hope to refill my always empty spiritual cup by praying and reflecting in peace. The best time to visit the Kaaba and do this, I have come to realize, is after midnight.
The Kaaba is the imperfect cube structure that is the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and is at the epicenter of the pilgrimage rites. After midnight, the crowds thin out, the heat is less oppressive and I can have a little space to sit quietly on the steps of the courtyard surrounding the Kaaba and reflect.
The Kaaba, draped in black silk cloth embroidered with Koranic calligraphy, is brilliantly lit at night. Even late, scores of pilgrims are circling the structure. The sounds of the Koranic verses they are reciting wash over me like ocean waves. There is the faint odor of a detergent that was used to wash down the marble floor of the courtyard. The place is clean indeed.
I focus on the Kaaba, imagining the scene when it was being built. I try to see Prophet Abraham, by then an old man, and his son Ishmael, as they stood side by side building the structure, which the Koran describes as "The First House (of worship) appointed for mankind."
Hajj, an annual pilgrimage Muslims must perform once in their lifetime if they can afford it, is a journey to what Muslims believe is this first house of worship. The spot where Abraham stood to build the Kaaba is marked by a small structure called the "Station of Abraham." As they built the walls of the Kaaba, the Koran states, the prophet and his son prayed: "My Lord, make this a City of Peace."
Most people familiar with Islam may recognize hajj as one of its five pillars, but they may not know its primary association with Abraham. Several of the hajj rituals--such as running between the hills of Safa and Marwa, which are a few hundred yards from the Kaaba, and the stoning of the three pillars that represent the devil--are also linked to Abraham.
I thought about my fellow pilgrims running between the two hills in what was once a desert, re-enacting the desperate search for water by Ishmael's mother, Hagar.
I thought about us stoning the pillars, symbolically warding off evil, and emulating Abraham's stoning of the devil each of the three times the devil tried to stop him from fulfilling his duty to God.
And I thought about the celebration of Eid al-Adha, "the festival of the sacrifice," on the last day of hajj. The holiday commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his dearest possession, his son, at God's command.
Abraham's willingness to sacrifice all for God is admired by all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the theme of connecting the three religions as part of the Abrahamic tradition runs all through the Koran.
Jews and Christians are referred to as "People of the book." On more than one occasion the following verse appears in the Koran: "Verily they who believe and they who are Jews, Christians . . . whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and do that, which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord. Fear shall not come upon them and neither shall they grieve."
Prophet Muhammad wanted Muslims to remind themselves constantly of this link to Abraham. His companions asked him how they should invoke the blessings of God upon him. He replied, "(First) Say; May the blessings of God be upon Muhammad and his progeny" and then say "May the blessings of God be upon Abraham and his progeny." This invocation is part of Muslims' daily prayers.
The time I spent reflecting at the footsteps of Kaaba has reinforced my belief that it is essential for the "progeny of Abraham" to be conscious of their common heritage. Appreciation of this Abrahamic tradition can unite Jews, Christians and Muslims in attaining a dream of peaceful coexistence. Muslims are reminded of it during hajj and in their daily prayers. Sitting on the steps of the Kaaba, I found myself echoing Abraham with my prayer: Lord, bring peace to this world.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
With the pilgrimage I hope to refill my always empty spiritual cup by praying and reflecting in peace. The best time to visit the Kaaba and do this, I have come to realize, is after midnight.
The Kaaba is the imperfect cube structure that is the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and is at the epicenter of the pilgrimage rites. After midnight, the crowds thin out, the heat is less oppressive and I can have a little space to sit quietly on the steps of the courtyard surrounding the Kaaba and reflect.
The Kaaba, draped in black silk cloth embroidered with Koranic calligraphy, is brilliantly lit at night. Even late, scores of pilgrims are circling the structure. The sounds of the Koranic verses they are reciting wash over me like ocean waves. There is the faint odor of a detergent that was used to wash down the marble floor of the courtyard. The place is clean indeed.
I focus on the Kaaba, imagining the scene when it was being built. I try to see Prophet Abraham, by then an old man, and his son Ishmael, as they stood side by side building the structure, which the Koran describes as "The First House (of worship) appointed for mankind."
Hajj, an annual pilgrimage Muslims must perform once in their lifetime if they can afford it, is a journey to what Muslims believe is this first house of worship. The spot where Abraham stood to build the Kaaba is marked by a small structure called the "Station of Abraham." As they built the walls of the Kaaba, the Koran states, the prophet and his son prayed: "My Lord, make this a City of Peace."
Most people familiar with Islam may recognize hajj as one of its five pillars, but they may not know its primary association with Abraham. Several of the hajj rituals--such as running between the hills of Safa and Marwa, which are a few hundred yards from the Kaaba, and the stoning of the three pillars that represent the devil--are also linked to Abraham.
I thought about my fellow pilgrims running between the two hills in what was once a desert, re-enacting the desperate search for water by Ishmael's mother, Hagar.
I thought about us stoning the pillars, symbolically warding off evil, and emulating Abraham's stoning of the devil each of the three times the devil tried to stop him from fulfilling his duty to God.
And I thought about the celebration of Eid al-Adha, "the festival of the sacrifice," on the last day of hajj. The holiday commemorates Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his dearest possession, his son, at God's command.
Abraham's willingness to sacrifice all for God is admired by all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the theme of connecting the three religions as part of the Abrahamic tradition runs all through the Koran.
Jews and Christians are referred to as "People of the book." On more than one occasion the following verse appears in the Koran: "Verily they who believe and they who are Jews, Christians . . . whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and do that, which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord. Fear shall not come upon them and neither shall they grieve."
Prophet Muhammad wanted Muslims to remind themselves constantly of this link to Abraham. His companions asked him how they should invoke the blessings of God upon him. He replied, "(First) Say; May the blessings of God be upon Muhammad and his progeny" and then say "May the blessings of God be upon Abraham and his progeny." This invocation is part of Muslims' daily prayers.
The time I spent reflecting at the footsteps of Kaaba has reinforced my belief that it is essential for the "progeny of Abraham" to be conscious of their common heritage. Appreciation of this Abrahamic tradition can unite Jews, Christians and Muslims in attaining a dream of peaceful coexistence. Muslims are reminded of it during hajj and in their daily prayers. Sitting on the steps of the Kaaba, I found myself echoing Abraham with my prayer: Lord, bring peace to this world.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
CAIR: Muslims Condemn Hate Vandalism of Md. Synagogue
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/28/10) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today condemned the vandalism of a synagogue in Olney, Md., and expressed sympathy and solidarity with the congregants.
Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook
Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List
Congregants of B’Nai Shalom Synagogue discovered anti-Semitic graffiti on the outside of the building earlier this week. Vandals spray-painted Nazi swastikas and the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" meaning "work will set you free," which was the slogan over the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
SEE: Maryland Synagogue Vandalized
“Such a hateful attack on the Jewish community and on a house of worship is intolerable and must be condemned by Americans of all faiths,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “We offer our support to the congregants of B’Nai Shalom Synagogue. Americans must stand together against bigotry and all forms of religious or ethnic intimidation, which run contrary to the values of our faiths and our nation.”
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Source: http://islamonline.com
Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook
Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List
Congregants of B’Nai Shalom Synagogue discovered anti-Semitic graffiti on the outside of the building earlier this week. Vandals spray-painted Nazi swastikas and the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" meaning "work will set you free," which was the slogan over the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
SEE: Maryland Synagogue Vandalized
“Such a hateful attack on the Jewish community and on a house of worship is intolerable and must be condemned by Americans of all faiths,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “We offer our support to the congregants of B’Nai Shalom Synagogue. Americans must stand together against bigotry and all forms of religious or ethnic intimidation, which run contrary to the values of our faiths and our nation.”
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Source: http://islamonline.com
Indian court rules in favor of mythology
First they created a dispute about the origin of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, India, then they installed idols of Hindu mythological gods and then they demolished the Mosque and finally they decided to partition the Mosque into three units, with one part offered to Muslims and the other two to Brahmans. In this process that spans over a few centuries, the Brahman politicians, religious leaders, fanatics and law enforcement agencies as well as judges acted within a framework that can easily be seen as prejudiced and biased.
Yet, the verdict on the Babri Masjid given by India's Allahabad High Court has not settled the issue. With the exception of Brahman led fanatic and extremist groups, every group including several prominent Brahman intellectuals and lawyers in India feel that justice was not served on on September 30, 2010 when the Court decided to divide the Mosque into three portions with the main one going to Hindus.
With this judgment, a Judicial court for the first time in Indian history has given legitimacy to a myth that is based on fiction rather than facts.
Rama is a mythological king of Ayodhya in ancient Hindu religious texts. No respectable Brahman scholar accepts the story as true that was narrated by Valmiki, the poet harbinger in Sanskrit literature. Particularly the story that deals with the killing of a so called untouchable by Rama is widely accepted as mythology. Valmiki writes in the Ramayana that a Brahmin's son died in a young age. In a Vedic (of Hindu religion) ruled country it was believed that everyone had a 100 year life. The Brahman went and complained to Ram about why his son died early. Ram thought that some un-Vedic things must have happened to cause this disruption in life span. He found out that Sambuk, a dalit (untouchable) was chanting Vedas. A person of the untouchable class was considered unclean and had thus defiled the Vedas, the Hindu religious text. So he killed Sambuk and the Brahman child became alive.
The writer of Ramayana, Valmiki according to Brahmin sources was a highway robber, robbing the people after killing them. After chopping their fingers he used to create and wear the Maala (necklace) of fingers of the victims, because of this his name was Angolimaal. Once, the robber tried to rob the divine sage Narada for the benefit of his family. Narada asked him if his family would share the sin he was incurring due to the robbery. The robber replied positively, but Narada told him to confirm this with his family. The robber asked his family, but none agreed to bear the burden of sin. Dejected, the robber finally understood the truth of life and asked for Narada's forgiveness. Narada taught the robber to worship god. The robber meditated for many years, so much so that ant-hills grew around his body. Finally, a divine voice declared his penance successful, bestowing him with the name "Valmiki": "one born out of ant-hills". The Ramayana, originally written by Valmiki, consists of 24,000 verses in six cantos (some say seven i.e. including the Uttara Ramayana). The Valmiki Ramayana is dated variously from 500 BC to 100 BC. As with many traditional epics, it has gone through a long process of interpolations and redactions, making it impossible to date accurately.
It is this version of history that a judicial court has upheld, raising questions about the impartiality of the judiciary in India. Yet, a final verdict on India's judiciary system is yet to be given. The Supreme Court will give the final verdict on the case that Muslims have appealed.
Doubtlessly, India's youth deserve to be applauded for not falling into the propaganda of fanatics and zealots as they responded to the verdict in a civil manner unprecedented in India in similar situations.
The Allahbad High Court Judgment is biased. It is more like a religious and political statement than a judicial verdict. It ignores the rules of justice and defies the facts even the court upheld to be facts.
While it accepts the fact that no temple was demolished in the 16th century by Muslims to build the mosque, it describes the Babri Mosque a disputed land between two parties Hindus and Muslims. Paradoxically, it divides the mosque land into three parties Hindu, Muslims and Hindu Nirmohi Akhara.
While the court fails to identify the actual place of the birth of Rama, described as god, it gives the main portion of the Mosque to Hindus on the basis of the claim the Hindus made first in 1949 when they placed the idols of Rama inside the Mosque under the central dome. Ironically, the court acknowledges the conspiracy of placing the idols by a groups of Brahmans inside the Mosque without using the word conspiracy.
The court fails to record the fact that one of the parties was in contempt of the country by demolishing the Mosque and pitching its tent there while the case was being discussed in the country.
Based on a verbal narration of events in 1848 when parts of the premises were used by a section of Hindus as a place for Ram Alkhara and Sita Rasoi, the court allocates one third of the inside Mosque premises to Nirmohi Akhara while acknowledging the fact that the mosque was present since 16th century denies the mosque the actual location to rebuild itself. In fact, it echoes the Vishwa Hindu Parishad position that the mosque should be build in the adjoining land.
The Court verdict is not a unanimous verdict. Thus it is understood that honorable judges did not agree unanimously on the verdict. The minority of judges had doubts and questions about the validity and authenticity of the premises on which the verdict was based.
Obviously, justice has not been served in the case. The court by and large upheld the position of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bhartiya Janta Party and many other Brahman led organizations ignoring the historical facts that were established centuries ago. The court verdict sets a dangerous precedence because based on it, every historical Muslim monument and Mosque in India can be challenged and divided between parties who dispute their ownership.
The court decision is a set back to Indian judiciary and an alarming sign for minorities.
Under the circumstance, the Muslim community should defer the matter to the Supreme Court and if the judgment is upheld there, it should respect the decision believing the that ultimate justice will be served by the Judge of all judges. There is no need to defy the law and order and violate the sanctity of human life as was done by those who demolished the Mosque in 1992.
What is at stake in India is not a piece of land but the whole concept of justice. The court, unfortunately upheld historical fabrications, distortion and lies as the basis of its verdict and ignored the facts while acknowledging their existence.
The judgment is a sad precedence in the history of Indian judiciary. Perhaps Indian Muslims will learn a lesson from this by empowering themselves through education and economic self sufficiency.
Sources: http://www.islamicity.com/
Yet, the verdict on the Babri Masjid given by India's Allahabad High Court has not settled the issue. With the exception of Brahman led fanatic and extremist groups, every group including several prominent Brahman intellectuals and lawyers in India feel that justice was not served on on September 30, 2010 when the Court decided to divide the Mosque into three portions with the main one going to Hindus.
With this judgment, a Judicial court for the first time in Indian history has given legitimacy to a myth that is based on fiction rather than facts.
Rama is a mythological king of Ayodhya in ancient Hindu religious texts. No respectable Brahman scholar accepts the story as true that was narrated by Valmiki, the poet harbinger in Sanskrit literature. Particularly the story that deals with the killing of a so called untouchable by Rama is widely accepted as mythology. Valmiki writes in the Ramayana that a Brahmin's son died in a young age. In a Vedic (of Hindu religion) ruled country it was believed that everyone had a 100 year life. The Brahman went and complained to Ram about why his son died early. Ram thought that some un-Vedic things must have happened to cause this disruption in life span. He found out that Sambuk, a dalit (untouchable) was chanting Vedas. A person of the untouchable class was considered unclean and had thus defiled the Vedas, the Hindu religious text. So he killed Sambuk and the Brahman child became alive.
The writer of Ramayana, Valmiki according to Brahmin sources was a highway robber, robbing the people after killing them. After chopping their fingers he used to create and wear the Maala (necklace) of fingers of the victims, because of this his name was Angolimaal. Once, the robber tried to rob the divine sage Narada for the benefit of his family. Narada asked him if his family would share the sin he was incurring due to the robbery. The robber replied positively, but Narada told him to confirm this with his family. The robber asked his family, but none agreed to bear the burden of sin. Dejected, the robber finally understood the truth of life and asked for Narada's forgiveness. Narada taught the robber to worship god. The robber meditated for many years, so much so that ant-hills grew around his body. Finally, a divine voice declared his penance successful, bestowing him with the name "Valmiki": "one born out of ant-hills". The Ramayana, originally written by Valmiki, consists of 24,000 verses in six cantos (some say seven i.e. including the Uttara Ramayana). The Valmiki Ramayana is dated variously from 500 BC to 100 BC. As with many traditional epics, it has gone through a long process of interpolations and redactions, making it impossible to date accurately.
It is this version of history that a judicial court has upheld, raising questions about the impartiality of the judiciary in India. Yet, a final verdict on India's judiciary system is yet to be given. The Supreme Court will give the final verdict on the case that Muslims have appealed.
Doubtlessly, India's youth deserve to be applauded for not falling into the propaganda of fanatics and zealots as they responded to the verdict in a civil manner unprecedented in India in similar situations.
The Allahbad High Court Judgment is biased. It is more like a religious and political statement than a judicial verdict. It ignores the rules of justice and defies the facts even the court upheld to be facts.
While it accepts the fact that no temple was demolished in the 16th century by Muslims to build the mosque, it describes the Babri Mosque a disputed land between two parties Hindus and Muslims. Paradoxically, it divides the mosque land into three parties Hindu, Muslims and Hindu Nirmohi Akhara.
While the court fails to identify the actual place of the birth of Rama, described as god, it gives the main portion of the Mosque to Hindus on the basis of the claim the Hindus made first in 1949 when they placed the idols of Rama inside the Mosque under the central dome. Ironically, the court acknowledges the conspiracy of placing the idols by a groups of Brahmans inside the Mosque without using the word conspiracy.
The court fails to record the fact that one of the parties was in contempt of the country by demolishing the Mosque and pitching its tent there while the case was being discussed in the country.
Based on a verbal narration of events in 1848 when parts of the premises were used by a section of Hindus as a place for Ram Alkhara and Sita Rasoi, the court allocates one third of the inside Mosque premises to Nirmohi Akhara while acknowledging the fact that the mosque was present since 16th century denies the mosque the actual location to rebuild itself. In fact, it echoes the Vishwa Hindu Parishad position that the mosque should be build in the adjoining land.
The Court verdict is not a unanimous verdict. Thus it is understood that honorable judges did not agree unanimously on the verdict. The minority of judges had doubts and questions about the validity and authenticity of the premises on which the verdict was based.
Obviously, justice has not been served in the case. The court by and large upheld the position of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bhartiya Janta Party and many other Brahman led organizations ignoring the historical facts that were established centuries ago. The court verdict sets a dangerous precedence because based on it, every historical Muslim monument and Mosque in India can be challenged and divided between parties who dispute their ownership.
The court decision is a set back to Indian judiciary and an alarming sign for minorities.
Under the circumstance, the Muslim community should defer the matter to the Supreme Court and if the judgment is upheld there, it should respect the decision believing the that ultimate justice will be served by the Judge of all judges. There is no need to defy the law and order and violate the sanctity of human life as was done by those who demolished the Mosque in 1992.
What is at stake in India is not a piece of land but the whole concept of justice. The court, unfortunately upheld historical fabrications, distortion and lies as the basis of its verdict and ignored the facts while acknowledging their existence.
The judgment is a sad precedence in the history of Indian judiciary. Perhaps Indian Muslims will learn a lesson from this by empowering themselves through education and economic self sufficiency.
Sources: http://www.islamicity.com/
Thursday, September 30, 2010
CAIR: San Diego Muslims to Hold Youth Conference
Day-long event to focus on spirituality, education, activism, social concerns
(SAN DIEGO, CA, 7/23/10) -- On Saturday, July 24, the San Diego Muslim community will hold a day-long conference for American Muslim youth at the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD). The theme of the conference is “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path.”
WHAT: “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path” Conference
WHEN: Saturday, July 24th, 10 a.m. – 11 p.m.; A Press Conference for the event will be held at 1 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Library, Islamic Center of San Diego.
WHERE: Multipurpose Room (1st Floor) Islamic Center of San Diego, 7050 Eckstrom Avenue, San Diego, CA 92111
CONTACT: CAIR San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida, 619-913-0719 or 858-278-4547, E-mail: ehopida@cair.com
The conference will feature dialogue-oriented sessions on the development of a good Muslim spiritual character and the importance of obtaining both religious and secular education. Other discussions will focus on “Radicalization of American Muslim Youth: Myth or Reality” and on social problems that are experienced by Muslim youth.
“The purpose of this conference is to provide Muslim youth a constructive environment in which to discuss issues of spirituality, education, activism, and social problems in order to help them pursue a path that will positively impact the broader society,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida.
The conference is sponsored by the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD), Masjidul Taqwa, the Council on American Islamic Relations - San Diego Chapter (CAIR-San Diego), Logan Islamic Community Center (LICC), and Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth San Diego.
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Source: http://islamonline.com
(SAN DIEGO, CA, 7/23/10) -- On Saturday, July 24, the San Diego Muslim community will hold a day-long conference for American Muslim youth at the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD). The theme of the conference is “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path.”
WHAT: “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path” Conference
WHEN: Saturday, July 24th, 10 a.m. – 11 p.m.; A Press Conference for the event will be held at 1 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Library, Islamic Center of San Diego.
WHERE: Multipurpose Room (1st Floor) Islamic Center of San Diego, 7050 Eckstrom Avenue, San Diego, CA 92111
CONTACT: CAIR San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida, 619-913-0719 or 858-278-4547, E-mail: ehopida@cair.com
The conference will feature dialogue-oriented sessions on the development of a good Muslim spiritual character and the importance of obtaining both religious and secular education. Other discussions will focus on “Radicalization of American Muslim Youth: Myth or Reality” and on social problems that are experienced by Muslim youth.
“The purpose of this conference is to provide Muslim youth a constructive environment in which to discuss issues of spirituality, education, activism, and social problems in order to help them pursue a path that will positively impact the broader society,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida.
The conference is sponsored by the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD), Masjidul Taqwa, the Council on American Islamic Relations - San Diego Chapter (CAIR-San Diego), Logan Islamic Community Center (LICC), and Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth San Diego.
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Source: http://islamonline.com
My Leap of Faith for You - Love and Faith Redefined
Albert Einstein not often cited for ideas outside the realm of science. But I recently came across an insightful statement formulated by him (the quotation above) that sparked a synapse some where in my mind about the relationship between religion and love.
If the laws of gravity do not apply to love, that is, if human beings are not attracted by mere earthbound love, then I am left with two questions: First, if it's not love that brings two people together, than what does? Second, if love alone, or at least the popular conception of it, does not attract two individuals, than what does love pair-up with to bring human beings into each other's intimate spheres? So the questions can be distilled to a single inquiry: How do people fall in love? Contrary to popular belief and Hollywood, falling in love does not happen spontaneously like a raging forest fire or something. How do I speak with such certainty when trashing the notion of romanticized love you say? Well, isn't it apparent? Look around you! When walking down the road, do you see people randomly bursting into passionate paroxysms? I mean, it's not like your taking the subway one day and you engage the person next to you just like that. It takes time to develop real love.
So what does taking time mean anyway? Well, it means that usually your feeling of deep love will not present itself the moment you first meet someone. No. Love needs to be given a chance to be cultivated and grown by an extended relationship, which is where marriage comes in as an active mechanism that allows such a seedling to germinate and eventually grow tall.
The truth of the matter is that something else is required to get love going. Like an engine or a chemical reaction, some kind of catalyst is needed to jumpstart the lifelong development that love requires. What is this enigmatic catalyst? Well, let's turn to the seventh verse of the forty-ninth surah of the Qur'an, Al-Hujurat (look at the first excerpt above).
From this verse and many similar ayahs in the Qur'an, we learn that Allah has integrated faith into our very hearts. Many people would interpret the idea of faith being "adorned" in our hearts as a kind of symbolic statement, but the fact of the matter is that our hearts are physically tuned to reverberate to the sounds of faith, the feeling of pure wholesomeness that belief brings with it. Establishing a loving relationship not only requires visceral attraction (an earthly desire), but also a huge input of faith, which answers our opening questions.
Perhaps this is too simplistic of an answer for you? Let's get a bit empirical, shall we? From my observation, as well as many other Muslims, it seems as though there is a huge contrast in marriage patterns between modern-day Muslims (you and I) and the early Muslims (570 CE / 632 H). I often find myself thinking, perhaps a little optimistically, of how relatively easy marriage was accomplished in early Muslim communities (think Madinah and afterwards Makkah). Men and women were often wedded at relatively young ages and decisions of whether to marry or not were likewise relatively brief and punctual.
For example, it wasn't really that long after Ah proposed to marry Fatimah that marital requirements were met and arrangements were finalized. And mind you, these weren't cold, hard arrangements met with corporate speed, nor were they swooning over one another in a fashion akin to Romeo and Juliet. No, this man and this woman made a mutual decision to love each other and that is a fact. They decided to put hands and hearts together in this earth and plant a seed there and nurture it to something large and beautiful, and that something bloomed into a blossom of love and tenderness into eternity.
And so from our more empirical discourse, we can start to make connections. We can begin to understand Einstein's statement about love not being contained by worldly constriction or law (gravity). No. Love is a heavenly attribute, a gift that God has saturated our hearts with. And mingling with love in the core of our hearts is faith. So what is faith but love, and what is love but faith. They both originate from the same pulsing locus, that miraculous muscle, for lack of a more transcending word, that sets into motion our bodies and our senses. They are one expression, even as their Originator is One.
And so we must ask ourselves the crucial question: How do we fall into real love? How do you find that true inamorato, if you are a Muslimah, or inamorata if you are a Muslim, in the modern, urban, and lonely landscape that you live in? Well, keep on looking sugar 'cause you aint gonna find nobody if you keep looking for the rest of your allotted time in life.
You cannot float through life with a belief that one day your one true love will come waltzing through your bedroom door. No. On the contrary, if you want to love someone, then you have to make that decision to defy mere dunya-related gravity. You have to grasp the fact that because faith and love are, so to say, a package deal, when you make an authentic decision to love someone, you are making a leap of faith.
There will be a point in your life's path that will tumble down into a deep ravine, and until you decide to put your faith in an individual human being and take that scary leap of faith, you will not continue to move in a positive direction. So think about fighting gravity, think about taking love and faith seriously.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
If the laws of gravity do not apply to love, that is, if human beings are not attracted by mere earthbound love, then I am left with two questions: First, if it's not love that brings two people together, than what does? Second, if love alone, or at least the popular conception of it, does not attract two individuals, than what does love pair-up with to bring human beings into each other's intimate spheres? So the questions can be distilled to a single inquiry: How do people fall in love? Contrary to popular belief and Hollywood, falling in love does not happen spontaneously like a raging forest fire or something. How do I speak with such certainty when trashing the notion of romanticized love you say? Well, isn't it apparent? Look around you! When walking down the road, do you see people randomly bursting into passionate paroxysms? I mean, it's not like your taking the subway one day and you engage the person next to you just like that. It takes time to develop real love.
So what does taking time mean anyway? Well, it means that usually your feeling of deep love will not present itself the moment you first meet someone. No. Love needs to be given a chance to be cultivated and grown by an extended relationship, which is where marriage comes in as an active mechanism that allows such a seedling to germinate and eventually grow tall.
The truth of the matter is that something else is required to get love going. Like an engine or a chemical reaction, some kind of catalyst is needed to jumpstart the lifelong development that love requires. What is this enigmatic catalyst? Well, let's turn to the seventh verse of the forty-ninth surah of the Qur'an, Al-Hujurat (look at the first excerpt above).
From this verse and many similar ayahs in the Qur'an, we learn that Allah has integrated faith into our very hearts. Many people would interpret the idea of faith being "adorned" in our hearts as a kind of symbolic statement, but the fact of the matter is that our hearts are physically tuned to reverberate to the sounds of faith, the feeling of pure wholesomeness that belief brings with it. Establishing a loving relationship not only requires visceral attraction (an earthly desire), but also a huge input of faith, which answers our opening questions.
Perhaps this is too simplistic of an answer for you? Let's get a bit empirical, shall we? From my observation, as well as many other Muslims, it seems as though there is a huge contrast in marriage patterns between modern-day Muslims (you and I) and the early Muslims (570 CE / 632 H). I often find myself thinking, perhaps a little optimistically, of how relatively easy marriage was accomplished in early Muslim communities (think Madinah and afterwards Makkah). Men and women were often wedded at relatively young ages and decisions of whether to marry or not were likewise relatively brief and punctual.
For example, it wasn't really that long after Ah proposed to marry Fatimah that marital requirements were met and arrangements were finalized. And mind you, these weren't cold, hard arrangements met with corporate speed, nor were they swooning over one another in a fashion akin to Romeo and Juliet. No, this man and this woman made a mutual decision to love each other and that is a fact. They decided to put hands and hearts together in this earth and plant a seed there and nurture it to something large and beautiful, and that something bloomed into a blossom of love and tenderness into eternity.
And so from our more empirical discourse, we can start to make connections. We can begin to understand Einstein's statement about love not being contained by worldly constriction or law (gravity). No. Love is a heavenly attribute, a gift that God has saturated our hearts with. And mingling with love in the core of our hearts is faith. So what is faith but love, and what is love but faith. They both originate from the same pulsing locus, that miraculous muscle, for lack of a more transcending word, that sets into motion our bodies and our senses. They are one expression, even as their Originator is One.
And so we must ask ourselves the crucial question: How do we fall into real love? How do you find that true inamorato, if you are a Muslimah, or inamorata if you are a Muslim, in the modern, urban, and lonely landscape that you live in? Well, keep on looking sugar 'cause you aint gonna find nobody if you keep looking for the rest of your allotted time in life.
You cannot float through life with a belief that one day your one true love will come waltzing through your bedroom door. No. On the contrary, if you want to love someone, then you have to make that decision to defy mere dunya-related gravity. You have to grasp the fact that because faith and love are, so to say, a package deal, when you make an authentic decision to love someone, you are making a leap of faith.
There will be a point in your life's path that will tumble down into a deep ravine, and until you decide to put your faith in an individual human being and take that scary leap of faith, you will not continue to move in a positive direction. So think about fighting gravity, think about taking love and faith seriously.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com
Monday, September 27, 2010
Take seriously Iran's global ambitions
By Jamsheed K. Choksy
The firing up of Iran’s Bushehr reactor has provoked anxiety among Americans and Israelis. Yet a poll this summer by the University of Maryland and the Carnegie Corporation indicated that 77 percent of Arabs in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco believe Iran has a right to its nuclear program and 57 percent see a positive outcome to Iran’s developing nuclear weapons. Another poll by the Pew Research Center, while not as favorable for Iran, also found growing support. This shift in Middle Eastern perception is one result of the Islamic Republic’s drive to expand its global influence.
In his own words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to return Iran to “its proud and great heritage” of global prominence. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claims that Western nations “lack political maturity.” They are referring to Iran’s 2500-year history during which the Achaemenid Persian Empire ruled from the Indus River to the Aegean Sea, the Sasanian kingdom divvied up the Near East with Byzantium and the Safavids split the Middle East with the Ottomans. Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei has bragged: “What Westerners are most concerned about is Iran leading the world.”
Words are cheap yet what Iran is doing warrants attention.
Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei schedule numerous annual meetings with African heads of state to consolidate Iran’s growing role in Africa. Iranian officials extend development aid to poor nations there as a means of gaining support. So doing reduces hard currency reserves available to an Iranian regime under great economic pressure at home after years of international sanctions. Yet pinching its own citizens to expand global influence is working. Sub-Saharan countries like Senegal increasingly regard Iran as a “reliable partner.”
Iran has reinforced its links with Shiite militias and politicians in Iraq, so that successful nation building there requires Tehran’s cooperation. Providing material support for Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza gives Iran clout among the Arab public. These actions have added to calls among Americans and Israelis for a military strike against Iran – a confrontation Tehran’s leaders cannot possibly win. Yet Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) notes that Tehran’s gamble is making “Iran a great power in the Middle East.” Not surprisingly, and unlike their citizens, leaders of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are wary of Iran dominating the region.
In Asia, Iran has focused attention on Tajikistan and Afghanistan – challenging Russian and American influence there. Tehran initiated negotiations to lay a natural gas pipeline via Pakistan to India to become a major supplier of energy to South Asia, a scheme, however, unlikely to materialize for decades. Meanwhile, Iran, one of the world’s largest exporters of crude oil, ironically has inadequate refined gasoline for its domestic consumption due to economic sanctions brought on by belligerence toward the West. Attempting to break American and European Union attempts to isolate it, Tehran actively courted China into becoming Iran’s largest trading partner. South Korea too has begun to feel a need to position itself in more neutrally toward Iran due to lucrative bilateral trade. Much coaxing by Washington was necessary to convince Seoul to go along with sanctions. Ahmadinejad’s government reckons that easing the West’s economic stranglehold will alleviate the Iranian public’s growing malcontent with domestic progress.
Ensuring robust diplomatic, economic and military ties with Latin American nations is yet one more aspect of the Islamic Republic’s globalizing its influence. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba are forming alliances with Iran aimed at replacing US visions of democracy and security. As part of Iran’s adventurism in the western hemisphere, the IRGC engages in arms sales via its ally Syria to Venezuela and Bolivia. It now expands that activity by sharing weapons knowhow and the finished products with many other developing nations.
Such hard and soft power expansions fit well into Iran’s long-term scheme for reshaping global actions and shifting international priorities away from those championed by the US and its allies. Tehran plays upon a popular Third World theme that the dispossessed should unite, irrespective of religion and ethnicity, against the world’s superpowers.
Iran has actively nurtured its influence within the Group of Fifteen, now actually numbering 17 member states from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The group’s 14th summit was held at Tehran last May with Ahmadinejad presiding. He used the occasion to build bridges of cooperation while championing opposition to the US, the EU and Israel.
The Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM, with its 118 member states occupies Iran’s attention, too. When NAM’s foreign ministers met in July 2008, Tehran took center stage as the host city. A public statement by the attendees lent support to Iran’s nuclear program. In June 2010, NAM even praised “Iran for its cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency].” NAM’s next summit will be held at Kish Island in 2012, where Ahmadinejad will assume its secretary-generalship, giving the Islamic Republic another global platform.
Despite having only a nascent space program, Iran chairs the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Its stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons notwithstanding, Iran holds the vice chairmanship of the UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Iran also has steadily acquired seats on the boards of other UN agencies. Those organizations include the Office of Drugs and Crime, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Development Program, the World Food Program, the Environment Program, the Children’s Fund, the Commission on the Status of Women and the Office of High Commissioner for Refugees. Iran seems to be wagering that leadership roles in these international agencies will eventually translate into perceptible power.
In dealings with the UN Security Council, Iran often does gain tangible victories by dividing Russia and China from the three other permanent members, namely, the US, the United Kingdom and France. Russia’s loading of fuel into the Bushehr reactor is a stark example of Iran exploiting superpower rivalry to produce nuclear energy despite Western objections. Through negotiations, Iran also has gained cooperation from the Security Council’s non-permanent members like Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon during nuclear and sanctions deliberations.
Within the context of its overall global expansion, atomic energy provides Iran greater visibility as a limited number of nations possess that capability. Ali Akbar Salehi, director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, now claims his country is attempting nuclear fusion. Having not yet achieved fission, Iran is far from assembling a hydrogen bomb. Yet Iranian leaders’ willingness “to share nuclear knowledge and technology” with other developing nations will further undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty while enhancing their own influence, if other recalcitrant regimes like those in Syria and Myanmar accept the offer. Indeed, Syria is suspected of having collaborated with Iran on such an endeavor at the Al-Kibar facility which Israel bombed.
Not surprisingly, and despite growing internal unrest, Iranian leaders feel confident in challenging the world’s great powers. Through words and deeds, Iran’s pursuit of global influence is multifaceted, targeted and well under way. It should be taken seriously.
Read more: http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=119709#ixzz10jx0n6DO
The firing up of Iran’s Bushehr reactor has provoked anxiety among Americans and Israelis. Yet a poll this summer by the University of Maryland and the Carnegie Corporation indicated that 77 percent of Arabs in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco believe Iran has a right to its nuclear program and 57 percent see a positive outcome to Iran’s developing nuclear weapons. Another poll by the Pew Research Center, while not as favorable for Iran, also found growing support. This shift in Middle Eastern perception is one result of the Islamic Republic’s drive to expand its global influence.
In his own words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to return Iran to “its proud and great heritage” of global prominence. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claims that Western nations “lack political maturity.” They are referring to Iran’s 2500-year history during which the Achaemenid Persian Empire ruled from the Indus River to the Aegean Sea, the Sasanian kingdom divvied up the Near East with Byzantium and the Safavids split the Middle East with the Ottomans. Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei has bragged: “What Westerners are most concerned about is Iran leading the world.”
Words are cheap yet what Iran is doing warrants attention.
Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei schedule numerous annual meetings with African heads of state to consolidate Iran’s growing role in Africa. Iranian officials extend development aid to poor nations there as a means of gaining support. So doing reduces hard currency reserves available to an Iranian regime under great economic pressure at home after years of international sanctions. Yet pinching its own citizens to expand global influence is working. Sub-Saharan countries like Senegal increasingly regard Iran as a “reliable partner.”
Iran has reinforced its links with Shiite militias and politicians in Iraq, so that successful nation building there requires Tehran’s cooperation. Providing material support for Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza gives Iran clout among the Arab public. These actions have added to calls among Americans and Israelis for a military strike against Iran – a confrontation Tehran’s leaders cannot possibly win. Yet Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) notes that Tehran’s gamble is making “Iran a great power in the Middle East.” Not surprisingly, and unlike their citizens, leaders of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are wary of Iran dominating the region.
In Asia, Iran has focused attention on Tajikistan and Afghanistan – challenging Russian and American influence there. Tehran initiated negotiations to lay a natural gas pipeline via Pakistan to India to become a major supplier of energy to South Asia, a scheme, however, unlikely to materialize for decades. Meanwhile, Iran, one of the world’s largest exporters of crude oil, ironically has inadequate refined gasoline for its domestic consumption due to economic sanctions brought on by belligerence toward the West. Attempting to break American and European Union attempts to isolate it, Tehran actively courted China into becoming Iran’s largest trading partner. South Korea too has begun to feel a need to position itself in more neutrally toward Iran due to lucrative bilateral trade. Much coaxing by Washington was necessary to convince Seoul to go along with sanctions. Ahmadinejad’s government reckons that easing the West’s economic stranglehold will alleviate the Iranian public’s growing malcontent with domestic progress.
Ensuring robust diplomatic, economic and military ties with Latin American nations is yet one more aspect of the Islamic Republic’s globalizing its influence. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba are forming alliances with Iran aimed at replacing US visions of democracy and security. As part of Iran’s adventurism in the western hemisphere, the IRGC engages in arms sales via its ally Syria to Venezuela and Bolivia. It now expands that activity by sharing weapons knowhow and the finished products with many other developing nations.
Such hard and soft power expansions fit well into Iran’s long-term scheme for reshaping global actions and shifting international priorities away from those championed by the US and its allies. Tehran plays upon a popular Third World theme that the dispossessed should unite, irrespective of religion and ethnicity, against the world’s superpowers.
Iran has actively nurtured its influence within the Group of Fifteen, now actually numbering 17 member states from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The group’s 14th summit was held at Tehran last May with Ahmadinejad presiding. He used the occasion to build bridges of cooperation while championing opposition to the US, the EU and Israel.
The Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM, with its 118 member states occupies Iran’s attention, too. When NAM’s foreign ministers met in July 2008, Tehran took center stage as the host city. A public statement by the attendees lent support to Iran’s nuclear program. In June 2010, NAM even praised “Iran for its cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency].” NAM’s next summit will be held at Kish Island in 2012, where Ahmadinejad will assume its secretary-generalship, giving the Islamic Republic another global platform.
Despite having only a nascent space program, Iran chairs the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Its stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons notwithstanding, Iran holds the vice chairmanship of the UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Iran also has steadily acquired seats on the boards of other UN agencies. Those organizations include the Office of Drugs and Crime, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Development Program, the World Food Program, the Environment Program, the Children’s Fund, the Commission on the Status of Women and the Office of High Commissioner for Refugees. Iran seems to be wagering that leadership roles in these international agencies will eventually translate into perceptible power.
In dealings with the UN Security Council, Iran often does gain tangible victories by dividing Russia and China from the three other permanent members, namely, the US, the United Kingdom and France. Russia’s loading of fuel into the Bushehr reactor is a stark example of Iran exploiting superpower rivalry to produce nuclear energy despite Western objections. Through negotiations, Iran also has gained cooperation from the Security Council’s non-permanent members like Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon during nuclear and sanctions deliberations.
Within the context of its overall global expansion, atomic energy provides Iran greater visibility as a limited number of nations possess that capability. Ali Akbar Salehi, director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, now claims his country is attempting nuclear fusion. Having not yet achieved fission, Iran is far from assembling a hydrogen bomb. Yet Iranian leaders’ willingness “to share nuclear knowledge and technology” with other developing nations will further undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty while enhancing their own influence, if other recalcitrant regimes like those in Syria and Myanmar accept the offer. Indeed, Syria is suspected of having collaborated with Iran on such an endeavor at the Al-Kibar facility which Israel bombed.
Not surprisingly, and despite growing internal unrest, Iranian leaders feel confident in challenging the world’s great powers. Through words and deeds, Iran’s pursuit of global influence is multifaceted, targeted and well under way. It should be taken seriously.
Read more: http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=119709#ixzz10jx0n6DO
Iraq Waits for a Government on a Long Vacation
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and YASIR GHAZI
BAGHDAD — More than six months ago, millions of Iraqis cast aside fears about bombs and bullets to vote. In households without a reliable supply of water, the indelible purple ink on the voters’ index fingers did not wear off for more than a week.
The voters have since watched winter turn to spring, and now summer become fall — and the people they elected still have no leader. They are waiting for their parties to come to an agreement so they can start work. And while the summer months were marked by a surge in violence and by riots over the lack of electricity, drinking water and other basic services, in Baghdad, members of Parliament have lived out a workers’ fantasy: a vacation of more than 200 days (and counting), with full pay and benefits, each free to do his heart’s desire.
Since the March 7 election, they have met just once, and that was for less than 19 minutes.
In the interim, some have sought out less chaotic places with better weather and less bloodshed, staying in nice hotels or private homes with chlorinated swimming pools in Jordan, Syria, Iran or Dubai.
A few have sat home and stewed.
Others have reconnected with family, undergone medical procedures in countries with better-equipped hospitals, or gone to weddings and funerals they would otherwise have missed.
More than a dozen members interviewed say they have been assiduously following news on television and in the papers on sporadic talks among parties to form a coalition government. There has been much news, they agree, but little progress.
The energy and optimism with which these would-be reformers rode into Baghdad after the March 7 election have all but vanished. They have been replaced by feelings of embarrassment, frustration and anger.
“I’m representing the Iraqi people, but it doesn’t feel like it,” said Kadhim Jwad, a Sadrist elected to represent Babil Province in the country’s south. “I’m at the boiling point. I’m tired and annoyed all the time. There’s lots of pressure on me. This is more than I can take.”
Ayad Samarrai, the speaker of Iraq’s last functioning Parliament — a body whose trademark lassitude led the public to vote good members out of office in March (though Mr. Samarrai was re-elected) — said feelings of melancholy were not uncommon among his colleagues.
“Not having a session has created a state of psychological emptiness” among those elected, he said. “They feel useless. They were ready to participate. They were ambitious, ready to make change. And of course, that motivation has now been stopped entirely.”
A salve for their ennui, however, has been their compensation: salaries of about $11,050 a month each, which include a housing allowance; a fleet of three brand-new armored sport utility vehicles and a 30-member security detail for their use; freshly issued diplomatic passports, which allow for worry-free international travel; and government payments into pension plans that will yield 80 percent of their salaries.
A bank was recently set up inside the Parliament building so that checks can be cashed without fuss.
In the meantime, one in four Iraqis are estimated to live below the poverty line. Leila Hassan, a newly elected member, said, “I get embarrassed when people ask me ‘What’s going on?’ and when I go out, I feel shy because I’m worried people will blame me.”
Ms. Hassan, from the Kurdish Alliance party, said she had tried to stay engaged, but now often gives in to an all-enveloping boredom.
“In my spare time, well, I’m not married and my mother takes care of me,” the 30-year-old said. “She cooks and cleans the house, so I have nothing to do. I have spent a lot of time reading books.”
Ms. Hassan said she had also taken courses on democracy with other women elected to Parliament, which has taken them to the United States and Lebanon.
“We have agreed to serve as a lobby on women’s issues inside Parliament,” she said. “We expected that we would meet each other during a session, so it’s funny it happened outside Iraq.”
Mahmoud Othman, also a member of the Kurdish Alliance, said he had been fighting the doldrums by showing up at Parliament in spite of himself. He has found himself feeling even more isolated.
“I keep coming to the building, but I am all alone,” he said. “I find no one. Sometimes, there are journalists so I do an interview with them, and sometimes I see friends here, but nothing very useful.”
He said he had spent all but one month of the break in Baghdad, a city he says compares poorly to Erbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region.
“Baghdad? What’s there in Baghdad?” he said. “There’s nothing to do in Baghdad. I’m sitting at home most of the time with my wife, chatting, bonding. This has been a great opportunity for me to spend more time with her.”
Fatah al-Ashikh, a member of the Iraqiya political slate, who represents Baghdad, said the hiatus had given him the chance to work on his doctorate in media studies.
“I am using this useless time to do something that will help me in the future,” he said.
He has also broken in his new official passport.
“During Ramadan, I went to Syria and spent most of the month there,” he said. “I was running from the heat of Iraq and all the electrical blackouts.”
Mr. Ashikh also organized a rally protesting a Florida pastor’s threat earlier this month to burn copies of the Koran, and said he had visited the sites of recent bombings around the country — of which there has been no shortage since the election.
“I’ve been able to attend many events,” he said, “including a lot of funerals for army officers who have been killed by terrorists.”
Unadim Kana, an independent who represents Christians in Nineveh Province in Iraq’s north, said he, too, had been “able to travel freely,” but said he would be happy to dispense with that new freedom if he were allowed to work.
“We have lost seven months of possibility,” he said.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
BAGHDAD — More than six months ago, millions of Iraqis cast aside fears about bombs and bullets to vote. In households without a reliable supply of water, the indelible purple ink on the voters’ index fingers did not wear off for more than a week.
The voters have since watched winter turn to spring, and now summer become fall — and the people they elected still have no leader. They are waiting for their parties to come to an agreement so they can start work. And while the summer months were marked by a surge in violence and by riots over the lack of electricity, drinking water and other basic services, in Baghdad, members of Parliament have lived out a workers’ fantasy: a vacation of more than 200 days (and counting), with full pay and benefits, each free to do his heart’s desire.
Since the March 7 election, they have met just once, and that was for less than 19 minutes.
In the interim, some have sought out less chaotic places with better weather and less bloodshed, staying in nice hotels or private homes with chlorinated swimming pools in Jordan, Syria, Iran or Dubai.
A few have sat home and stewed.
Others have reconnected with family, undergone medical procedures in countries with better-equipped hospitals, or gone to weddings and funerals they would otherwise have missed.
More than a dozen members interviewed say they have been assiduously following news on television and in the papers on sporadic talks among parties to form a coalition government. There has been much news, they agree, but little progress.
The energy and optimism with which these would-be reformers rode into Baghdad after the March 7 election have all but vanished. They have been replaced by feelings of embarrassment, frustration and anger.
“I’m representing the Iraqi people, but it doesn’t feel like it,” said Kadhim Jwad, a Sadrist elected to represent Babil Province in the country’s south. “I’m at the boiling point. I’m tired and annoyed all the time. There’s lots of pressure on me. This is more than I can take.”
Ayad Samarrai, the speaker of Iraq’s last functioning Parliament — a body whose trademark lassitude led the public to vote good members out of office in March (though Mr. Samarrai was re-elected) — said feelings of melancholy were not uncommon among his colleagues.
“Not having a session has created a state of psychological emptiness” among those elected, he said. “They feel useless. They were ready to participate. They were ambitious, ready to make change. And of course, that motivation has now been stopped entirely.”
A salve for their ennui, however, has been their compensation: salaries of about $11,050 a month each, which include a housing allowance; a fleet of three brand-new armored sport utility vehicles and a 30-member security detail for their use; freshly issued diplomatic passports, which allow for worry-free international travel; and government payments into pension plans that will yield 80 percent of their salaries.
A bank was recently set up inside the Parliament building so that checks can be cashed without fuss.
In the meantime, one in four Iraqis are estimated to live below the poverty line. Leila Hassan, a newly elected member, said, “I get embarrassed when people ask me ‘What’s going on?’ and when I go out, I feel shy because I’m worried people will blame me.”
Ms. Hassan, from the Kurdish Alliance party, said she had tried to stay engaged, but now often gives in to an all-enveloping boredom.
“In my spare time, well, I’m not married and my mother takes care of me,” the 30-year-old said. “She cooks and cleans the house, so I have nothing to do. I have spent a lot of time reading books.”
Ms. Hassan said she had also taken courses on democracy with other women elected to Parliament, which has taken them to the United States and Lebanon.
“We have agreed to serve as a lobby on women’s issues inside Parliament,” she said. “We expected that we would meet each other during a session, so it’s funny it happened outside Iraq.”
Mahmoud Othman, also a member of the Kurdish Alliance, said he had been fighting the doldrums by showing up at Parliament in spite of himself. He has found himself feeling even more isolated.
“I keep coming to the building, but I am all alone,” he said. “I find no one. Sometimes, there are journalists so I do an interview with them, and sometimes I see friends here, but nothing very useful.”
He said he had spent all but one month of the break in Baghdad, a city he says compares poorly to Erbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region.
“Baghdad? What’s there in Baghdad?” he said. “There’s nothing to do in Baghdad. I’m sitting at home most of the time with my wife, chatting, bonding. This has been a great opportunity for me to spend more time with her.”
Fatah al-Ashikh, a member of the Iraqiya political slate, who represents Baghdad, said the hiatus had given him the chance to work on his doctorate in media studies.
“I am using this useless time to do something that will help me in the future,” he said.
He has also broken in his new official passport.
“During Ramadan, I went to Syria and spent most of the month there,” he said. “I was running from the heat of Iraq and all the electrical blackouts.”
Mr. Ashikh also organized a rally protesting a Florida pastor’s threat earlier this month to burn copies of the Koran, and said he had visited the sites of recent bombings around the country — of which there has been no shortage since the election.
“I’ve been able to attend many events,” he said, “including a lot of funerals for army officers who have been killed by terrorists.”
Unadim Kana, an independent who represents Christians in Nineveh Province in Iraq’s north, said he, too, had been “able to travel freely,” but said he would be happy to dispense with that new freedom if he were allowed to work.
“We have lost seven months of possibility,” he said.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Holy words and the common good
By Hesham A. Hassaballa
Thankfully, the Florida pastor decided to cancel his plans to burn copies of the Quran on September 11. Not as well reported, though, were the stories of others in the United States who did the deed.
On September 11, a burned copy of the Quran was found at a mosque in Michigan.
Two Tennessee pastors also burned copies of the Quran on September 11, despite protest from members of their own families.
And last week, a partially burned Quran was also found outside a mosque in my home town, Chicago. Although sad, it is not entirely surprising there would be copycats.
As I read the reports of these sporadic burnings of the Quran, all I could do was lament that they very likely had little knowledge of the contents of this book, and the deep connections it has to their own faith. Had they taken a little time to read the book they wanted to burn, it is quite possible they would have changed their minds. And after all, if they had mustered enough effort to obtain a copy of the Quran, why not read it first?
I know if they would do so, they would find much with which they can relate. They would learn that both Moses and Jesus Christ are mentioned more by name in the Quran than the Prophet Muhammad himself.
They would read passages in the Quran saying Jesus was "strengthened with the Holy Spirit" (in at least three passages: 2:87, 2:253, and 5:110).
They would discover that the 19th chapter of the Quran is named for Jesus’ mother, Mary. And they would read that the Quran holds up the example of the Virgin Mary as the ideal believer: "And [we have propounded yet another parable of God-consciousness in the story of] Mary, the daughter of Imran..." (66:12)
If they would read the Quran, they would find that some 73 passages of the Quran speak of Moses and his epic. And they would find that the Quran records two miracles about Moses: Moses’ staff turning into a serpent and his hand glowing brightly after placing it under his arm. They would read that the Quran says that God bestowed His grace upon Moses and Aaron (37:114), that he was “specially chosen” by God (19:51) and that God bestowed on Moses “wisdom and knowledge” (28:14) as a reward for doing good. In addition, the Book of Moses in the Jewish Bible is described by the Quran as a “Light and Guide” (6:91).
If they would read the Quran, they would find this passage about the equality of humanity:
"O Mankind! Behold, we have created you from a male and female and have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily, the best of you in the sight of God is the one who is most conscious of Him. Behold, God is All-knowing, All-aware." (49:13)
They would read this passage about salvation:
"Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds -- shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have and neither shall they grieve. (2:62)
I can go on and on and on -- reciting verses from the Quran that touch the heart of the sacred beliefs of both Judaism and Christianity. And of course it does, because the Quran calls Muslims to be the spiritual siblings of Christians and Jews, as children of the God of Abraham.
Are there tough and belligerent verses in the Quran? Most definitely -- as there are in the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament. Yet, like the verses in the texts of the Jews and the Christians, the verses in the Quran have a context and explanation.
But what is most important to focus on is that which is common to all three faiths in our country, and to use those common beliefs to bring people together, and to support the common good.
This summer has seen so much fear and hate-mongering for cynical political gain, and it has ensnared many Americans who are, in reality, good people who are simply misinformed. Once we learn the truth, we will realize that we are really much more similar than we are different.
Source: http://islamonline.com
Thankfully, the Florida pastor decided to cancel his plans to burn copies of the Quran on September 11. Not as well reported, though, were the stories of others in the United States who did the deed.
On September 11, a burned copy of the Quran was found at a mosque in Michigan.
Two Tennessee pastors also burned copies of the Quran on September 11, despite protest from members of their own families.
And last week, a partially burned Quran was also found outside a mosque in my home town, Chicago. Although sad, it is not entirely surprising there would be copycats.
As I read the reports of these sporadic burnings of the Quran, all I could do was lament that they very likely had little knowledge of the contents of this book, and the deep connections it has to their own faith. Had they taken a little time to read the book they wanted to burn, it is quite possible they would have changed their minds. And after all, if they had mustered enough effort to obtain a copy of the Quran, why not read it first?
I know if they would do so, they would find much with which they can relate. They would learn that both Moses and Jesus Christ are mentioned more by name in the Quran than the Prophet Muhammad himself.
They would read passages in the Quran saying Jesus was "strengthened with the Holy Spirit" (in at least three passages: 2:87, 2:253, and 5:110).
They would discover that the 19th chapter of the Quran is named for Jesus’ mother, Mary. And they would read that the Quran holds up the example of the Virgin Mary as the ideal believer: "And [we have propounded yet another parable of God-consciousness in the story of] Mary, the daughter of Imran..." (66:12)
If they would read the Quran, they would find that some 73 passages of the Quran speak of Moses and his epic. And they would find that the Quran records two miracles about Moses: Moses’ staff turning into a serpent and his hand glowing brightly after placing it under his arm. They would read that the Quran says that God bestowed His grace upon Moses and Aaron (37:114), that he was “specially chosen” by God (19:51) and that God bestowed on Moses “wisdom and knowledge” (28:14) as a reward for doing good. In addition, the Book of Moses in the Jewish Bible is described by the Quran as a “Light and Guide” (6:91).
If they would read the Quran, they would find this passage about the equality of humanity:
"O Mankind! Behold, we have created you from a male and female and have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily, the best of you in the sight of God is the one who is most conscious of Him. Behold, God is All-knowing, All-aware." (49:13)
They would read this passage about salvation:
"Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds -- shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have and neither shall they grieve. (2:62)
I can go on and on and on -- reciting verses from the Quran that touch the heart of the sacred beliefs of both Judaism and Christianity. And of course it does, because the Quran calls Muslims to be the spiritual siblings of Christians and Jews, as children of the God of Abraham.
Are there tough and belligerent verses in the Quran? Most definitely -- as there are in the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament. Yet, like the verses in the texts of the Jews and the Christians, the verses in the Quran have a context and explanation.
But what is most important to focus on is that which is common to all three faiths in our country, and to use those common beliefs to bring people together, and to support the common good.
This summer has seen so much fear and hate-mongering for cynical political gain, and it has ensnared many Americans who are, in reality, good people who are simply misinformed. Once we learn the truth, we will realize that we are really much more similar than we are different.
Source: http://islamonline.com
Friday, September 24, 2010
Iraq, a Thorn Removed from Israel’s Side
After seven years of bloodshed and wanton destruction, President Obama "turned the page" and announced an end to the U.S. combat operations in Iraq on August 31. The end came only after the loss of lives of more than 4,400 U.S. soldiers and a war tab of a trillion dollar (according to one estimate it tops $3 trillion). It's hard to estimate the death and destruction that the war brought to Iraq - a country that never presented even a remote threat to the U.S. national security. The full cost of war to Iraqis in terms of human lives and material is immeasurable.
What were the motives of one of the longest running, costliest, and bloodiest wars in history?
The Bush administration kept changing its rationale for war against Iraq. First, Iraq's possession of the long-range weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the reason given for the U.S. drive to war. On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
However, the Bush administration's claim that Iraq's armament contains WMD was thoroughly debunked in October 2004 with the release of the report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. Duelfer admitted, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons. Later it was found that the charges were intentionally fabricated to justify the war against Iraq. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief weapons inspector Mohammed El-Baradei had testified before the UN Security Council that the allegations of WMD were based on documents determined to be forgeries.
After Duelfer's report sucked the air out of the WMD accusation, the reasons for war shifted from one assertion to another - link to 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaida, creating an environment in Iraq conducive to stable democracy, etc - all these assertions proved to be without merits. The attempts to link Saddam to 9/11 were disreputed to the point where President Bush was forced to disavow the claim himself.
The U.S. declaration of war against Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, 9/11 attacks, threat to the U.S. security, the war on terrorism, or a desire to create an open and democratic society in Iraq. Then why did the U.S. go to war with Iraq?
Though, some argued, Iraq was a destabilizing influence and posed unacceptable risk to the flow of Gulf oil to international market. The steady supply of oil to the U.S. and its western allies must not be jeopardized and must be defended "by any means necessary, including military force." However, the evidences negate the notion that seizing or controlling oil resources were the principle motivation for America to launch its invasion; it may be seen as peripheral benefit of the invasion, but not the raison d'tre. Neither the oil flow secured anymore, nor the domination of the region rich in energy sources enhanced in any significant way than what it was before the war. The huge human and economic drain of the war - trillion plus dollar and the loss and maiming of thousands of American soldiers - simply could not be justified as the price for mere securing the oil supplies when there were no serious threats of cutting off oil deliveries to the west.
When we put the pieces together, we find enhancing Israel's security and survival, controlling countries in Israel's neighborhood, and protecting Israel's WMD were the motives hidden behind the faade of lies and deceit for invading Iraq. Iraq war was not waged at the nudging of big oil concerns, but in the words of Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, the Iraq war was embarked upon by "secretive, little-known cabal". It was the secretive cabal of Zionist ideologues that was bent on creating a war with Iraq out of its concern for Israel's security and pave way for the "final solution to the Palestinian problem".
Columnist Tim Rutten in his review of Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell by Karen DeYoung (October 09, 2006, LA Times) says, "Powell's version of events confirms what others have reported that Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neoconservative aides arrived in Washington determined to find a reason to attack Saddam Hussein." In Powell biography, Rutten further writes, "readers are told that the neoconservatives in the Defense Department -- nearly all of them Jews -- supported war against Iraq as the first step to replacing Arab despots with democratic governments that would sever their ties to the Palestinians, thereby enhancing Israel's security." General Colin Powell later regretted his role in the Iraq war and called his famous speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out to be false, as "painful" and a "blot" on his record.
Stephen J. Sniegoski, a historian and writer, says in his paper, The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel, published more than a month before the American attack, says: "A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled 'A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm.' It was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. It presented a plan whereby Israel would 'shape its strategic environment,' beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran."
The peace treaty with Israel neutralized Egypt, Jordon, and PLO. Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries are having not so secret trade and cozy relations with the Jewish state. Turkey always maintained friendly relations with Israel, though the relations have recently become strained. Attempts are being made to fracture and defang nuclearized Pakistan and closing in on Iran. Iraq was the only country left in the Israel's neighborhood, and to some extent Syria and Lebanon, that remained a thorn at the side of Israel and somewhat threat to its security. The U.S. and the Great Britain, who jointly midwifed Israel, and since its birth played the role of protector and benefactor, with their own blood and treasure removed Iraq from Israel's security threat list.
Israel's long time wish for the destruction of Iraq, the most advanced Arab nation that ardently defended and supported the Palestinian resistance and exhorted other Arab regimes not to normalize relations with the apartheid state of Israel at the expense of Palestinian rights, came true without losing a single Israeli soldier or spending a dime.
Yesterday, besieged but independent Iraq rejected an offer to participate in a peace process with Israel in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions (Al Jazeera, 09 Nov 2009). Today, the occupied Iraqi government has dropped an article from the Baghdad International Fair charter which obliges participating companies to prove they do not have trade links with Israel. Iraq is surely being put on the path to join the Egypt and Jordan led club of Israel friendly Arab countries to reshape the Middle East into a neutered and Israel-friendly region - so the muffled protesting cry of Palestinians gather no volume.
Source: http://www.iviews.com
What were the motives of one of the longest running, costliest, and bloodiest wars in history?
The Bush administration kept changing its rationale for war against Iraq. First, Iraq's possession of the long-range weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the reason given for the U.S. drive to war. On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
However, the Bush administration's claim that Iraq's armament contains WMD was thoroughly debunked in October 2004 with the release of the report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. Duelfer admitted, "We were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons. Later it was found that the charges were intentionally fabricated to justify the war against Iraq. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief weapons inspector Mohammed El-Baradei had testified before the UN Security Council that the allegations of WMD were based on documents determined to be forgeries.
After Duelfer's report sucked the air out of the WMD accusation, the reasons for war shifted from one assertion to another - link to 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaida, creating an environment in Iraq conducive to stable democracy, etc - all these assertions proved to be without merits. The attempts to link Saddam to 9/11 were disreputed to the point where President Bush was forced to disavow the claim himself.
The U.S. declaration of war against Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, 9/11 attacks, threat to the U.S. security, the war on terrorism, or a desire to create an open and democratic society in Iraq. Then why did the U.S. go to war with Iraq?
Though, some argued, Iraq was a destabilizing influence and posed unacceptable risk to the flow of Gulf oil to international market. The steady supply of oil to the U.S. and its western allies must not be jeopardized and must be defended "by any means necessary, including military force." However, the evidences negate the notion that seizing or controlling oil resources were the principle motivation for America to launch its invasion; it may be seen as peripheral benefit of the invasion, but not the raison d'tre. Neither the oil flow secured anymore, nor the domination of the region rich in energy sources enhanced in any significant way than what it was before the war. The huge human and economic drain of the war - trillion plus dollar and the loss and maiming of thousands of American soldiers - simply could not be justified as the price for mere securing the oil supplies when there were no serious threats of cutting off oil deliveries to the west.
When we put the pieces together, we find enhancing Israel's security and survival, controlling countries in Israel's neighborhood, and protecting Israel's WMD were the motives hidden behind the faade of lies and deceit for invading Iraq. Iraq war was not waged at the nudging of big oil concerns, but in the words of Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, the Iraq war was embarked upon by "secretive, little-known cabal". It was the secretive cabal of Zionist ideologues that was bent on creating a war with Iraq out of its concern for Israel's security and pave way for the "final solution to the Palestinian problem".
Columnist Tim Rutten in his review of Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell by Karen DeYoung (October 09, 2006, LA Times) says, "Powell's version of events confirms what others have reported that Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neoconservative aides arrived in Washington determined to find a reason to attack Saddam Hussein." In Powell biography, Rutten further writes, "readers are told that the neoconservatives in the Defense Department -- nearly all of them Jews -- supported war against Iraq as the first step to replacing Arab despots with democratic governments that would sever their ties to the Palestinians, thereby enhancing Israel's security." General Colin Powell later regretted his role in the Iraq war and called his famous speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out to be false, as "painful" and a "blot" on his record.
Stephen J. Sniegoski, a historian and writer, says in his paper, The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel, published more than a month before the American attack, says: "A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled 'A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm.' It was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. It presented a plan whereby Israel would 'shape its strategic environment,' beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran."
The peace treaty with Israel neutralized Egypt, Jordon, and PLO. Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries are having not so secret trade and cozy relations with the Jewish state. Turkey always maintained friendly relations with Israel, though the relations have recently become strained. Attempts are being made to fracture and defang nuclearized Pakistan and closing in on Iran. Iraq was the only country left in the Israel's neighborhood, and to some extent Syria and Lebanon, that remained a thorn at the side of Israel and somewhat threat to its security. The U.S. and the Great Britain, who jointly midwifed Israel, and since its birth played the role of protector and benefactor, with their own blood and treasure removed Iraq from Israel's security threat list.
Israel's long time wish for the destruction of Iraq, the most advanced Arab nation that ardently defended and supported the Palestinian resistance and exhorted other Arab regimes not to normalize relations with the apartheid state of Israel at the expense of Palestinian rights, came true without losing a single Israeli soldier or spending a dime.
Yesterday, besieged but independent Iraq rejected an offer to participate in a peace process with Israel in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions (Al Jazeera, 09 Nov 2009). Today, the occupied Iraqi government has dropped an article from the Baghdad International Fair charter which obliges participating companies to prove they do not have trade links with Israel. Iraq is surely being put on the path to join the Egypt and Jordan led club of Israel friendly Arab countries to reshape the Middle East into a neutered and Israel-friendly region - so the muffled protesting cry of Palestinians gather no volume.
Source: http://www.iviews.com
US fanning the flames of Islamophobia
Far too much publicity has already been given to the threat made by a pastor of a tiny US cult church to burn copies of the Qur’an. The provocative act by an obscure individual was blown out of proportion by media frenzy.Virtually overnight, Rev Terry Jones, who left Germany under a cloud of accusations andhis 50 followers at the Dove World Outreach Center, became an international sensation.Book burning, including of sacred religious texts, is nothing new. But the question must be asked: why the contemptible episode was given headline-grabbing attention around the world, leading to rioting and even deaths.
The incitement of Jones is representative of the deep malaise of Islamophobia that has been orchestrated by the misguided and ill-conceived ‘war on terrorism’ and linking this to Islam, or what the politicians and the media would call “twisted form of Islam”, “extremist Islam” “the extreme form of Islam”, “the Islamic terrorist” or the more nuanced form, “Islamist terrorists”. The
consequence has been to demonise the religion of 20% of the world’s population, with the consequence that there is an increase in assaults on Muslims, attacks on mosques and the publication of outrageous cartoons. The second wave has targeted Islamic symbols,extending to ever encroaching bans on their dress and places of worship.
Muslims in the US are living in fear of the hatred that has been caused by the ‘war on terror’ and more so since the campaign against building of Muslim cultural centre
two blocks away from Ground Zero and the threat of burning of the Qur’an accompanied
by the Islamophobic tirades. We have therefore published a sample of the
increasing number of Islamophobic attacks across the US in this issue of the newspaper.
Jones has been seeking media attention sincebeing expelled from the German Evangelical Alliance for being a Christian Fundamentalist two years ago, resorting to even printing T-shirts for schoolchildren with ‘Islam is of the Devil’ on the back. Although he eventually dropped his threat timed to coincide with the 9th anniversary of 9/11,the publicity generated led to a series of copycat burnings and desecrations of the Qur’an across the US, including outside the White House.
The British media is already responsible for giving grossly disproportionate attention to unrepresentative and dubious Muslim characters and organizations. The tabloid press as well as some more up-market newspapers are also not unknown to indulge in sensationalist and often bizarre stories that dwell upon discrediting Muslims and Islam.But perhaps the chief culprits of fanning the flames of Islamophobia are politicians and government policies. Whichever way it is worded, the ‘war on terrorism’ has been perceived to be targeted against Islam and its more than one billion followers. Like during the medieval era, it is the religion of Islam that is being erroneously blamed as the cause of extremism and terrorism, whether or not it is presented and packaged as being just perverted form or extremist elements. The consequence has been to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush and demonise their religion, Islam.
Interestingly, every politician in the West and every journalist and media outlet, has been careful to emphasise that Pastor Jones does not represent the majority of the Christians or Americans and that he is a lunatic fringe. No one has uttered that he is following a twisted form of Christianity.However, when it comes to the lunatic fringe in the Muslim world everyone is tarnished with one brush by blaming the religion. One only needs to see counter terrorism policies in the UK and also in the rest of the Western world where the target has been Islam, imams,mosques, Muslim ‘chaplains’ in prisons,university campuses and hospitals. Even toddlers have not been spared. Counter terrorism measures in nurseries, schools and universities targeting ONLY Muslim pupils. No area of the life of Muslim has been spared not even sport, sport centres and gyms.
It was notable in the intervention of US President Barack Obama over the book burning that his appeal was directed at fears that the stunt could “greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan.” It was the act itself that should have been condemned and he should
have empathised with the hurt that 1.5 billion Muslims would feel if the Qur’an was burnt. Even Nato and US Commander, Gen David Petraeus, issued a statement a day after 500 demonstrated in Kabul against the proposed burning of the Qur’an, that the latter could provoke violent retaliation against US troops – with no concern about the 1.5 billion Muslims. In her denouncement that the planned Florida event was “plainly disrespectful – even abhorrent”, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was ironically in the same breath honouring the Islamophobic Danish cartoonist
Kurt Westergaard, who similarly provoked worldwide outrage in the Muslim world by his cartoon of the Prophet.
It is time to start to repair some of the damage done and prevent incidents like the Qur’an burning occurring again by changing our discourse about the threat of terrorism. The primary reason is about politics, our foreign and domestic policies against Muslims and not religion. The Pastor said the reason why he was burning the Qur’an was because it was the source of evil and terrorism; the reason why many in the US do not want the Muslim cultural centre or what they perceive it to be a mosque near Ground Zero, is because they believe the mosque (and therefore Islam) was responsible for the terrorist attacks in New York. If the Islamic cultural centre is not built in its current location two blocks away from Ground Zero, it
would be a vindication to those who believe that Islam is the source of terrorism and extremism and to those who believe that the‘war on terrorism’ is the war against Islam.
Source: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk
The incitement of Jones is representative of the deep malaise of Islamophobia that has been orchestrated by the misguided and ill-conceived ‘war on terrorism’ and linking this to Islam, or what the politicians and the media would call “twisted form of Islam”, “extremist Islam” “the extreme form of Islam”, “the Islamic terrorist” or the more nuanced form, “Islamist terrorists”. The
consequence has been to demonise the religion of 20% of the world’s population, with the consequence that there is an increase in assaults on Muslims, attacks on mosques and the publication of outrageous cartoons. The second wave has targeted Islamic symbols,extending to ever encroaching bans on their dress and places of worship.
Muslims in the US are living in fear of the hatred that has been caused by the ‘war on terror’ and more so since the campaign against building of Muslim cultural centre
two blocks away from Ground Zero and the threat of burning of the Qur’an accompanied
by the Islamophobic tirades. We have therefore published a sample of the
increasing number of Islamophobic attacks across the US in this issue of the newspaper.
Jones has been seeking media attention sincebeing expelled from the German Evangelical Alliance for being a Christian Fundamentalist two years ago, resorting to even printing T-shirts for schoolchildren with ‘Islam is of the Devil’ on the back. Although he eventually dropped his threat timed to coincide with the 9th anniversary of 9/11,the publicity generated led to a series of copycat burnings and desecrations of the Qur’an across the US, including outside the White House.
The British media is already responsible for giving grossly disproportionate attention to unrepresentative and dubious Muslim characters and organizations. The tabloid press as well as some more up-market newspapers are also not unknown to indulge in sensationalist and often bizarre stories that dwell upon discrediting Muslims and Islam.But perhaps the chief culprits of fanning the flames of Islamophobia are politicians and government policies. Whichever way it is worded, the ‘war on terrorism’ has been perceived to be targeted against Islam and its more than one billion followers. Like during the medieval era, it is the religion of Islam that is being erroneously blamed as the cause of extremism and terrorism, whether or not it is presented and packaged as being just perverted form or extremist elements. The consequence has been to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush and demonise their religion, Islam.
Interestingly, every politician in the West and every journalist and media outlet, has been careful to emphasise that Pastor Jones does not represent the majority of the Christians or Americans and that he is a lunatic fringe. No one has uttered that he is following a twisted form of Christianity.However, when it comes to the lunatic fringe in the Muslim world everyone is tarnished with one brush by blaming the religion. One only needs to see counter terrorism policies in the UK and also in the rest of the Western world where the target has been Islam, imams,mosques, Muslim ‘chaplains’ in prisons,university campuses and hospitals. Even toddlers have not been spared. Counter terrorism measures in nurseries, schools and universities targeting ONLY Muslim pupils. No area of the life of Muslim has been spared not even sport, sport centres and gyms.
It was notable in the intervention of US President Barack Obama over the book burning that his appeal was directed at fears that the stunt could “greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan.” It was the act itself that should have been condemned and he should
have empathised with the hurt that 1.5 billion Muslims would feel if the Qur’an was burnt. Even Nato and US Commander, Gen David Petraeus, issued a statement a day after 500 demonstrated in Kabul against the proposed burning of the Qur’an, that the latter could provoke violent retaliation against US troops – with no concern about the 1.5 billion Muslims. In her denouncement that the planned Florida event was “plainly disrespectful – even abhorrent”, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was ironically in the same breath honouring the Islamophobic Danish cartoonist
Kurt Westergaard, who similarly provoked worldwide outrage in the Muslim world by his cartoon of the Prophet.
It is time to start to repair some of the damage done and prevent incidents like the Qur’an burning occurring again by changing our discourse about the threat of terrorism. The primary reason is about politics, our foreign and domestic policies against Muslims and not religion. The Pastor said the reason why he was burning the Qur’an was because it was the source of evil and terrorism; the reason why many in the US do not want the Muslim cultural centre or what they perceive it to be a mosque near Ground Zero, is because they believe the mosque (and therefore Islam) was responsible for the terrorist attacks in New York. If the Islamic cultural centre is not built in its current location two blocks away from Ground Zero, it
would be a vindication to those who believe that Islam is the source of terrorism and extremism and to those who believe that the‘war on terrorism’ is the war against Islam.
Source: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk
CAIR: San Diego Muslims to Hold Youth Conference
Day-long event to focus on spirituality, education, activism, social concerns
(SAN DIEGO, CA, 7/23/10) -- On Saturday, July 24, the San Diego Muslim community will hold a day-long conference for American Muslim youth at the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD). The theme of the conference is “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path.”
WHAT: “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path” Conference
WHEN: Saturday, July 24th, 10 a.m. – 11 p.m.; A Press Conference for the event will be held at 1 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Library, Islamic Center of San Diego.
WHERE: Multipurpose Room (1st Floor) Islamic Center of San Diego, 7050 Eckstrom Avenue, San Diego, CA 92111
CONTACT: CAIR San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida, 619-913-0719 or 858-278-4547, E-mail: ehopida@cair.com
The conference will feature dialogue-oriented sessions on the development of a good Muslim spiritual character and the importance of obtaining both religious and secular education. Other discussions will focus on “Radicalization of American Muslim Youth: Myth or Reality” and on social problems that are experienced by Muslim youth.
“The purpose of this conference is to provide Muslim youth a constructive environment in which to discuss issues of spirituality, education, activism, and social problems in order to help them pursue a path that will positively impact the broader society,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida.
The conference is sponsored by the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD), Masjidul Taqwa, the Council on American Islamic Relations - San Diego Chapter (CAIR-San Diego), Logan Islamic Community Center (LICC), and Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth San Diego.
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Sources: http://islamonline.com
(SAN DIEGO, CA, 7/23/10) -- On Saturday, July 24, the San Diego Muslim community will hold a day-long conference for American Muslim youth at the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD). The theme of the conference is “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path.”
WHAT: “Muslim Youth in America: Seeking the Straight Path” Conference
WHEN: Saturday, July 24th, 10 a.m. – 11 p.m.; A Press Conference for the event will be held at 1 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Library, Islamic Center of San Diego.
WHERE: Multipurpose Room (1st Floor) Islamic Center of San Diego, 7050 Eckstrom Avenue, San Diego, CA 92111
CONTACT: CAIR San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida, 619-913-0719 or 858-278-4547, E-mail: ehopida@cair.com
The conference will feature dialogue-oriented sessions on the development of a good Muslim spiritual character and the importance of obtaining both religious and secular education. Other discussions will focus on “Radicalization of American Muslim Youth: Myth or Reality” and on social problems that are experienced by Muslim youth.
“The purpose of this conference is to provide Muslim youth a constructive environment in which to discuss issues of spirituality, education, activism, and social problems in order to help them pursue a path that will positively impact the broader society,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida.
The conference is sponsored by the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD), Masjidul Taqwa, the Council on American Islamic Relations - San Diego Chapter (CAIR-San Diego), Logan Islamic Community Center (LICC), and Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth San Diego.
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties group. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Sources: http://islamonline.com
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Islamic Center in Washington D.C.- A Place to Appreciate
The oldest Islamic house of worship in the city, the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. is a symbol of Islam in America. More than 6,000 people in the D.C. area from 75 different countries attend prayers there each Friday. When the Center was first opened in 1957, it was the largest Muslim place of worship in the Western Hemisphere. Since its beginnings, the Islamic Center has committed itself to promoting a better understanding of Islam in the United States. Serving as a source of guidance for Muslims, the Center offers Islamic literature and provides help to needy families. In addition, the Islamic Center offers: officiating marriage ceremonies, counseling those in need, providing a research center with an extensive library, and organizing language and religious classes for both children and adults.
Getting There
Located on Embassy Row, just east of the bridge over Rock Creek, the Islamic Center is in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, so if you're taking the Metro, you'll want the Dupont Circle Red Line. Its exact location is: 2551 Massachusetts Avenue. The Islamic Center is open Monday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Via CheapHotels.org, the leading hotel booking site for budget hotels, you can find cheap hotels in Washington D.C.
History of Islamic Center
The idea for the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. was initiated in November 1944 during a conversation between Mr. M. Abu Al Hawa, a Palestinian immigrant and businessman, and the former Ambassador of Egypt, Mr. Mahmood Hassan Pasha. Shortly after this important exchange of words, a few diplomats and American Muslims formed the Washington Mosque Foundation, which quickly grew to include membership from every Islamic nation in the world, as well as American citizens. The Foundation was able to raise enough money to buy the land where the Center currently resides and the cornerstone was laid on January 11, 1949. Like many other places of worship in Washington D.C., the building came to realization through gifts and monetary support-mostly from foreign governments. For example, Egypt sent the solid bronze chandelier; the Shah of Iran donated the Persian carpets; and the Turkish government gave the tiles which line the mosque walls. Not only did foreign governments offer monetary support, but they also sent workers to move the project along. Craftsmen from Egypt came to Washington D.C. to manifest the artwork of Quranic verses on the ceiling of the mosque. And, the Turkish government sent craftsmen to lay the tiles on the mosque walls. Designed by noted Italian architect Prof. Mario Rossi, the Center celebrated its opening on June 28, 1957.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower remarks of the Mosque and Islam
At the dedication ceremony, former United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower affirmed the Islamic world's "traditions of learning and rich culture" which have "for centuries contributed to the building of civilization." His closing remarks were: "As I stand beneath these graceful arches, surrounded on every side by friends from far and near, I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising. Faithful to the demands of justice and of brotherhood, each working according to the lights of his own conscience, our world must advance along the paths of peace.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com/
Getting There
Located on Embassy Row, just east of the bridge over Rock Creek, the Islamic Center is in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, so if you're taking the Metro, you'll want the Dupont Circle Red Line. Its exact location is: 2551 Massachusetts Avenue. The Islamic Center is open Monday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Via CheapHotels.org, the leading hotel booking site for budget hotels, you can find cheap hotels in Washington D.C.
History of Islamic Center
The idea for the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. was initiated in November 1944 during a conversation between Mr. M. Abu Al Hawa, a Palestinian immigrant and businessman, and the former Ambassador of Egypt, Mr. Mahmood Hassan Pasha. Shortly after this important exchange of words, a few diplomats and American Muslims formed the Washington Mosque Foundation, which quickly grew to include membership from every Islamic nation in the world, as well as American citizens. The Foundation was able to raise enough money to buy the land where the Center currently resides and the cornerstone was laid on January 11, 1949. Like many other places of worship in Washington D.C., the building came to realization through gifts and monetary support-mostly from foreign governments. For example, Egypt sent the solid bronze chandelier; the Shah of Iran donated the Persian carpets; and the Turkish government gave the tiles which line the mosque walls. Not only did foreign governments offer monetary support, but they also sent workers to move the project along. Craftsmen from Egypt came to Washington D.C. to manifest the artwork of Quranic verses on the ceiling of the mosque. And, the Turkish government sent craftsmen to lay the tiles on the mosque walls. Designed by noted Italian architect Prof. Mario Rossi, the Center celebrated its opening on June 28, 1957.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower remarks of the Mosque and Islam
At the dedication ceremony, former United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower affirmed the Islamic world's "traditions of learning and rich culture" which have "for centuries contributed to the building of civilization." His closing remarks were: "As I stand beneath these graceful arches, surrounded on every side by friends from far and near, I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising. Faithful to the demands of justice and of brotherhood, each working according to the lights of his own conscience, our world must advance along the paths of peace.
Source: http://www.islamicity.com/
Message to Muslims: I’m Sorry
That's reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I'm going to take it. (Throat clearing.) I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.
I'm inspired by another journalistic apology. The Portland Press Herald in Maine published an innocuous front-page article and photo a week ago about 3,000 local Muslims praying together to mark the end of Ramadan. Readers were upset, because publication coincided with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, and they deluged the paper with protests.
So the newspaper published a groveling front-page apology for being too respectful of Muslims. "We sincerely apologize," wrote the editor and publisher, Richard Connor, and he added: "we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page." As a blog by James Poniewozik of Time paraphrased it: "Sorry for Portraying Muslims as Human."
I called Mr. Connor, and he seems like a nice guy. Surely his front page isn't reserved for stories about Bad Muslims, with articles about Good Muslims going inside. Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be "balanced" by a discussion of Muslim terrorists?
Ah, balance - who can be against that? But should reporting of Pope Benedict's trip to Britain be "balanced" by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland? And what about journalism itself?
I interrupt this discussion of peaceful journalism in Maine to provide some "balance." Journalists can also be terrorists, murderers and rapists. For example, radio journalists in Rwanda promoted genocide.
I apologize to Muslims for another reason. This isn't about them, but about us. I want to defend Muslims from intolerance, but I also want to defend America against extremists engineering a spasm of religious hatred.
Granted, the reason for the nastiness isn't hard to understand. Extremist Muslims have led to fear and repugnance toward Islam as a whole. Threats by Muslim crazies just in the last few days forced a Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, to go into hiding after she drew a cartoon about Muhammad that went viral.
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
And then there's 9/11. When I recently compared today's prejudice toward Muslims to the historical bigotry toward Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Asian-Americans, many readers protested that it was a false parallel. As one, Carla, put it on my blog: "Catholics and Jews did not come here and kill thousands of people."
That's true, but Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did. Consumed by our fears, we lumped together anyone of Japanese ancestry and rounded them up in internment camps. The threat was real, but so were the hysteria and the overreaction.
Radicals tend to empower radicals, creating a gulf of mutual misunderstanding and anger. Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden is representative of Muslims, and many Afghans believe that the Rev. Terry Jones (who talked about burning Korans) is representative of Christians.
Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We've mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it's still O.K. to make sweeping statements about "Muslims" as an undifferentiated mass.
In my travels, I've seen some of the worst of Islam: theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God's bidding.
But I've also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.
I'm sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologize.
Source: http://www.iviews.com
I'm inspired by another journalistic apology. The Portland Press Herald in Maine published an innocuous front-page article and photo a week ago about 3,000 local Muslims praying together to mark the end of Ramadan. Readers were upset, because publication coincided with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, and they deluged the paper with protests.
So the newspaper published a groveling front-page apology for being too respectful of Muslims. "We sincerely apologize," wrote the editor and publisher, Richard Connor, and he added: "we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page." As a blog by James Poniewozik of Time paraphrased it: "Sorry for Portraying Muslims as Human."
I called Mr. Connor, and he seems like a nice guy. Surely his front page isn't reserved for stories about Bad Muslims, with articles about Good Muslims going inside. Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be "balanced" by a discussion of Muslim terrorists?
Ah, balance - who can be against that? But should reporting of Pope Benedict's trip to Britain be "balanced" by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland? And what about journalism itself?
I interrupt this discussion of peaceful journalism in Maine to provide some "balance." Journalists can also be terrorists, murderers and rapists. For example, radio journalists in Rwanda promoted genocide.
I apologize to Muslims for another reason. This isn't about them, but about us. I want to defend Muslims from intolerance, but I also want to defend America against extremists engineering a spasm of religious hatred.
Granted, the reason for the nastiness isn't hard to understand. Extremist Muslims have led to fear and repugnance toward Islam as a whole. Threats by Muslim crazies just in the last few days forced a Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, to go into hiding after she drew a cartoon about Muhammad that went viral.
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
And then there's 9/11. When I recently compared today's prejudice toward Muslims to the historical bigotry toward Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Asian-Americans, many readers protested that it was a false parallel. As one, Carla, put it on my blog: "Catholics and Jews did not come here and kill thousands of people."
That's true, but Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did. Consumed by our fears, we lumped together anyone of Japanese ancestry and rounded them up in internment camps. The threat was real, but so were the hysteria and the overreaction.
Radicals tend to empower radicals, creating a gulf of mutual misunderstanding and anger. Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden is representative of Muslims, and many Afghans believe that the Rev. Terry Jones (who talked about burning Korans) is representative of Christians.
Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We've mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it's still O.K. to make sweeping statements about "Muslims" as an undifferentiated mass.
In my travels, I've seen some of the worst of Islam: theocratic mullahs oppressing people in Iran; girls kept out of school in Afghanistan in the name of religion; girls subjected to genital mutilation in Africa in the name of Islam; warlords in Yemen and Sudan who wield AK-47s and claim to be doing God's bidding.
But I've also seen the exact opposite: Muslim aid workers in Afghanistan who risk their lives to educate girls; a Pakistani imam who shelters rape victims; Muslim leaders who campaign against female genital mutilation and note that it is not really an Islamic practice; Pakistani Muslims who stand up for oppressed Christians and Hindus; and above all, the innumerable Muslim aid workers in Congo, Darfur, Bangladesh and so many other parts of the world who are inspired by the Koran to risk their lives to help others. Those Muslims have helped keep me alive, and they set a standard of compassion, peacefulness and altruism that we should all emulate.
I'm sickened when I hear such gentle souls lumped in with Qaeda terrorists, and when I hear the faith they hold sacred excoriated and mocked. To them and to others smeared, I apologize.
Source: http://www.iviews.com
Eid ul-Fitr and 11 September
Maplewood, New Jersey - Every year Eid ul-Fitr, the celebration marking the end of Ramadan, happens on a different day, approximately 11 days earlier than the year before. This year, it arrived on Thursday in some parts of the world, but most of us celebrated on Friday, depending on which night the new moon was sighted by each particular community.
The uncertainty surrounding which day Eid will fall upon results from Islam’s lunar calendar. The months are dictated by the cycles of the moon and there are no extra days, no shortened months and no leap years, which in the Gregorian calendar ensure that April planting takes place in the spring, October harvest in the fall, and New Year’s Day falls on 1 January.
And strange as this calendar system may seem to some, and difficult as it is to fit into our linear American lifestyle, there are still spiritual qualities to appreciate. For example, one blessing Muslims share is: “May you see Ramadan in every season of the year.”
In the past dozen years, the Ramadan cycle has coincided with many major American events as well as civil and religious holidays: the Super Bowl, Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, New Year’s Day, Kwanzaa, Christmas, Hanukkah, Advent, Thanksgiving, All Saints’ Day, Halloween, the High Jewish holy days of Yom Kippur and – this year – Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.
Last year and the year before, Muslim and Jewish groups made the most of the concurrent fasting holidays – Ramadan and the 24-hour Yom Kippur fast – to show solidarity by fasting and breaking bread together through interfaith events at synagogues, mosques and community centres.
Yet at the state level, beyond an annual fast-breaking iftar at the White House since 1996, there is little national recognition of this holiday, which is as significant to Muslims as Easter and Passover are to Christians and Jews.
A handful of American cities close schools in observance of Eid, because of the growing number of Muslim students in their districts, but in New Jersey, like many American cities, fewer than two per cent of public schools close for Muslim holy days. It is only because Eid comes at the same time as the Jewish New Year this year that schools will be closed in many American cities.
The U.S. State Department notes that Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States. As it grows, it is becoming increasingly important to consider the need to respect Muslim holy days in public life.
As the moon moves the months of the Islamic calendar 11 days earlier each year and Ramadan shifts into the summer, the coincidence with big American holidays comes to a close for a while. But in 2016 Eid ul-Fitr will take place around the Fourth of July, and by 2020 it will be closer to Memorial Day in May.
This year there’s another American day of remembrance that coincided with Eid ul-Fitr – one of grief, reflection, anger and fear: the anniversary of the events of 11 September 2001.
This year’s Eid celebrations overlapped with memorial services for those who died. And Muslim Americans were conscious of that. As Americans they grieve. As Muslims, by and large, they feel the weight of perceived stereotypes and all too often find themselves defending Islam.
Out of consideration for the solemnity of 11 September, many Muslims decided not to hold big public Eid celebrations on the second day of the three-day feast as they typically have done in the past. The annual Muslim Family Day merriment, often scheduled the second day of Eid at amusement parks or children’s museums in some cities in the United States, was postponed until 12 September. Ironically, the founder of Muslim Family Day, Tariq Amanullah, died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Muslims have been part of the fabric of American society since the days of slavery; they are insiders, not outsiders. Given the accusations of Muslim insensitivity surrounding a proposed Islamic community centre in lower Manhattan, I hope this small, symbolic gesture in delaying the celebration of a major religious holiday, and Muslim Americans’ high standard for respect and patriotism, will be noted.
Source: http://islamonline.com
The uncertainty surrounding which day Eid will fall upon results from Islam’s lunar calendar. The months are dictated by the cycles of the moon and there are no extra days, no shortened months and no leap years, which in the Gregorian calendar ensure that April planting takes place in the spring, October harvest in the fall, and New Year’s Day falls on 1 January.
And strange as this calendar system may seem to some, and difficult as it is to fit into our linear American lifestyle, there are still spiritual qualities to appreciate. For example, one blessing Muslims share is: “May you see Ramadan in every season of the year.”
In the past dozen years, the Ramadan cycle has coincided with many major American events as well as civil and religious holidays: the Super Bowl, Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, New Year’s Day, Kwanzaa, Christmas, Hanukkah, Advent, Thanksgiving, All Saints’ Day, Halloween, the High Jewish holy days of Yom Kippur and – this year – Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.
Last year and the year before, Muslim and Jewish groups made the most of the concurrent fasting holidays – Ramadan and the 24-hour Yom Kippur fast – to show solidarity by fasting and breaking bread together through interfaith events at synagogues, mosques and community centres.
Yet at the state level, beyond an annual fast-breaking iftar at the White House since 1996, there is little national recognition of this holiday, which is as significant to Muslims as Easter and Passover are to Christians and Jews.
A handful of American cities close schools in observance of Eid, because of the growing number of Muslim students in their districts, but in New Jersey, like many American cities, fewer than two per cent of public schools close for Muslim holy days. It is only because Eid comes at the same time as the Jewish New Year this year that schools will be closed in many American cities.
The U.S. State Department notes that Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States. As it grows, it is becoming increasingly important to consider the need to respect Muslim holy days in public life.
As the moon moves the months of the Islamic calendar 11 days earlier each year and Ramadan shifts into the summer, the coincidence with big American holidays comes to a close for a while. But in 2016 Eid ul-Fitr will take place around the Fourth of July, and by 2020 it will be closer to Memorial Day in May.
This year there’s another American day of remembrance that coincided with Eid ul-Fitr – one of grief, reflection, anger and fear: the anniversary of the events of 11 September 2001.
This year’s Eid celebrations overlapped with memorial services for those who died. And Muslim Americans were conscious of that. As Americans they grieve. As Muslims, by and large, they feel the weight of perceived stereotypes and all too often find themselves defending Islam.
Out of consideration for the solemnity of 11 September, many Muslims decided not to hold big public Eid celebrations on the second day of the three-day feast as they typically have done in the past. The annual Muslim Family Day merriment, often scheduled the second day of Eid at amusement parks or children’s museums in some cities in the United States, was postponed until 12 September. Ironically, the founder of Muslim Family Day, Tariq Amanullah, died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Muslims have been part of the fabric of American society since the days of slavery; they are insiders, not outsiders. Given the accusations of Muslim insensitivity surrounding a proposed Islamic community centre in lower Manhattan, I hope this small, symbolic gesture in delaying the celebration of a major religious holiday, and Muslim Americans’ high standard for respect and patriotism, will be noted.
Source: http://islamonline.com
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Iran ‘halves jail terms’ for seven Bahai followers
PARIS (AFP) - Iran has cut jail terms imposed on seven leading members of the country's Bahai religious minority from 20 to 10 years, French members of the faith said on Saturday.
The seven, including two women, were arrested in May 2008 and put on trial in January this year on charges including spying for foreigners, spreading corruption, undermining Islam and cooperating with Israel.
They were sentenced on August 8 to 20 years imprisonment, but the French Bahai community said in a statement Saturday that their lawyers
had been told orally that the term had been halved.
"The Bahais of France, greatly concerned for their co-religionists, call on the authorities in Iran to take immediate steps to release them unconditionally," it added.
The defendants have been identified as two women, Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet, and five men: Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli and Vahid Tizfahm.
They "were all members of a national-level group that helped see to the minimum needs of Iran's 300,000-strong Bahai community, the country's largest non-Muslim religious minority," a statement by the French Bahais said in August.
"The trial of the seven consisted of six brief court appearances which began on 12 January this year after they had been incarcerated without charge for 20 months, during which time they were allowed barely one hour's access to their legal counsel. The trial ended on 14 June," it added.
The case brought condemnation from Washington, where US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the sentencing was "a violation of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
Clinton was referring to the 1966 UN treaty on fundamental freedoms, which Iran ratified before the 1979 Islamic revolution overthrew the pro-Western shah.
"The United States is deeply concerned with the Iranian government's continued persecution of Bahais and other religious minority communities in Iran," she added in August.
"The United States is committed to defending religious freedom around the world, and we have not forgotten the Bahai community in Iran," she said.
"We will continue to speak out against injustice and call on the Iranian government to respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens in accordance with its international obligations."
Followers of the Bahai faith, which was founded in Iran in 1863, are regarded in the Islamic republic as infidels and suffered persecution both before and after the Islamic revolution.
The Bahais consider Bahaullah, born in 1817, to be the latest prophet sent by God and believe in the spiritual unity of all religions and all mankind.
The group now has seven million followers, including 300,000 in Iran -- where its members are barred from higher education and government posts -- and has a large temple in Haifa, in northern Israel.
"For Muslims, there can't be another prophet or divine messenger after Mohammed," Bahai follower Foad Saberan told AFP, explaining why the group has been dubbed "non-protected infidels" in Iran.
"So they consider Bahaullah an impostor and his followers heretics, whereas the Bahai faith has nothing to do with Islam and is an independent religion.
"And if the headquarters of the religion is in Haifa, it's because that's where Bahaullah ended up settling in 1868 after he was exiled to Baghdad then to Constantinople, long before the creation of the state of Israel."
Bahai leaders believe a total of 47 members of their religion are imprisoned in Iran simply for their beliefs.
Source: http://www.islamtribune.com
The seven, including two women, were arrested in May 2008 and put on trial in January this year on charges including spying for foreigners, spreading corruption, undermining Islam and cooperating with Israel.
They were sentenced on August 8 to 20 years imprisonment, but the French Bahai community said in a statement Saturday that their lawyers
had been told orally that the term had been halved.
"The Bahais of France, greatly concerned for their co-religionists, call on the authorities in Iran to take immediate steps to release them unconditionally," it added.
The defendants have been identified as two women, Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet, and five men: Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli and Vahid Tizfahm.
They "were all members of a national-level group that helped see to the minimum needs of Iran's 300,000-strong Bahai community, the country's largest non-Muslim religious minority," a statement by the French Bahais said in August.
"The trial of the seven consisted of six brief court appearances which began on 12 January this year after they had been incarcerated without charge for 20 months, during which time they were allowed barely one hour's access to their legal counsel. The trial ended on 14 June," it added.
The case brought condemnation from Washington, where US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the sentencing was "a violation of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
Clinton was referring to the 1966 UN treaty on fundamental freedoms, which Iran ratified before the 1979 Islamic revolution overthrew the pro-Western shah.
"The United States is deeply concerned with the Iranian government's continued persecution of Bahais and other religious minority communities in Iran," she added in August.
"The United States is committed to defending religious freedom around the world, and we have not forgotten the Bahai community in Iran," she said.
"We will continue to speak out against injustice and call on the Iranian government to respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens in accordance with its international obligations."
Followers of the Bahai faith, which was founded in Iran in 1863, are regarded in the Islamic republic as infidels and suffered persecution both before and after the Islamic revolution.
The Bahais consider Bahaullah, born in 1817, to be the latest prophet sent by God and believe in the spiritual unity of all religions and all mankind.
The group now has seven million followers, including 300,000 in Iran -- where its members are barred from higher education and government posts -- and has a large temple in Haifa, in northern Israel.
"For Muslims, there can't be another prophet or divine messenger after Mohammed," Bahai follower Foad Saberan told AFP, explaining why the group has been dubbed "non-protected infidels" in Iran.
"So they consider Bahaullah an impostor and his followers heretics, whereas the Bahai faith has nothing to do with Islam and is an independent religion.
"And if the headquarters of the religion is in Haifa, it's because that's where Bahaullah ended up settling in 1868 after he was exiled to Baghdad then to Constantinople, long before the creation of the state of Israel."
Bahai leaders believe a total of 47 members of their religion are imprisoned in Iran simply for their beliefs.
Source: http://www.islamtribune.com
Monday, September 20, 2010
Muslims in Oz protest against proposal to ban burqa
Melbourne, September 20: Muslims, including women and children, in Australia have staged a march in Sydney to protest against a proposal to ban burqa in the country, condemning it as part of the West's "war on Islam".
Women with veils and placards rallied in hundreds showing "my burqa - conviction not coercion" and "leave my mum alone - we love niqab" yesterday in a park in Punchbowl, southwestern Sydney, according to media reports here.
The protest against calls to ban the full face covering was organised by a coalition of Muslim groups including Islamist political party Hizbut Tahrir, which favours the creation of an Islamic caliphate, and the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunna wal Jamaah Association.
Women with veils and placards rallied in hundreds showing "my burqa - conviction not coercion" and "leave my mum alone - we love niqab" yesterday in a park in Punchbowl, southwestern Sydney, according to media reports here.
The protest against calls to ban the full face covering was organised by a coalition of Muslim groups including Islamist political party Hizbut Tahrir, which favours the creation of an Islamic caliphate, and the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunna wal Jamaah Association.
AP Interview: Ahmadinejad says future is Iran's
NEW YORK – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that "the future belongs to Iran," and challenged the United States to accept that his country has a major role in the world.
The comments came in an hourlong interview with The Associated Press on the first day of his visit to the United States to attend the annual general assembly of the United Nations this week.
He insisted that his government does not want an atomic bomb — something he has said in the past — and that Iran is only seeking peace and a nuclear-weapons-free world. He repeatedly sidestepped questions on when Iran would resume talks on its disputed nuclear program, and he said anti-nuclear sanctions against his government would have no effect.
Appearing calm and self-assured on his seventh trip to the United States, the Iranian president showed every sign of being in command of himself and prepared to deflect questions about his government's harsh suppression of opposition forces after last year's disputed election that returned him to a second term.
"The United States' administrations ... must recognize that Iran is a big power," he said. "Having said that, we consider ourselves to be a human force and a cultural power and hence a friend of other nations. We have never sought to dominate others or to violate the rights of any other country.
"Those who insist on having hostilities with us, kill and destroy the option of friendship with us in the future, which is unfortunate because it is clear the future belongs to Iran and that enmities will be fruitless."
Over the years, Ahmadinejad has become more articulate and polished. He wore a gray pinstriped suit and a pinstriped white shirt, open with no tie, for the interview, conducted in an East Side hotel not far from the United Nations.
A few blocks away, dozens of protesters demonstrated with tape across their mouths to symbolize what they consider to be the oppressive nature of the Iranian government. The nonprofit Israeli education group, Stand With Us, organized the rally, one of many expected outside the United Nations and elsewhere in the city before Ahmadinejad leaves Friday.
In the interview in a room crowded with aides, bodyguards and Iranian journalists, the Iranian leader projected an air of innocence, saying his country's quest to process ever greater amounts of uranium is reasonable for its expanding civilian power program, omitting that the watchdog United Nations agency involved has found Iran keeping secrets from its investigators on several occasions, including secret research sites.
He also did not acknowledge that the leaders of the political opposition in Iran have been harassed and that government opponents risk violence and arrest if they try to assemble. He did allow that there have been some judicial "mistakes."
Ahmadinejad argued that the opposition Green Movement, which has largely been forced underground, continues to enjoys rights in Iran but said that in the end it must respect "majority rule." He also disavowed any knowledge of the fate of a retired FBI employee who vanished inside Iran in 2007, saying the trail will be followed up by a joint U.S.-Iranian committee.
Government opponents "have their activities that are ongoing and they also express their views publicly. They have several parties, as well as several newspapers, and many newspapers and publications. And so there are really no restrictions of such nature," the president said.
He did not mention that many newspapers have been closed down and that prominent opposition figures were put in prison and then tried after tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets claiming that the election that put him back in power in 2010 was fraudulent and stolen.
The public appearances of his rivals Mir Houssein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have been severely restricted and their offices recently were raided by police.
Ahmadinejad said Iran is more free than some other countries. "I believe that when we discuss the subject of freedoms and liberty it has to be done on a comparative basis and to keep in mind that democracy at the end of the day means the rule of the majority, so the minority cannot rule."
He added: "In Iran I think nobody loses their job because of making a statement that reflects their opinion. ... From this point of view, conditions in Iran are far better than in many other places in the world."
Ahmadinejad asserted that international nuclear regulators had never found proof that Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb.
"We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that. We are saying that the arsenal of nuclear bombs (worldwide) have to be destroyed as well," he said.
The U.S. accuses Iran of hiding plans to build a nuclear bomb; Iran denies that and says it's working only toward building nuclear power plants.
Ahmadinejad took no personal responsibility for the fate of the three American hikers who were taken prisoner along the border with Iraq more than a year ago — treating it as a strictly legal affair.
"We're very glad that that lady was released," he said about Sarah Shourd, who arrived in New York on Sunday and held a news conference while Ahmadinejad was being interviewed by the AP, denying she had done anything wrong.
"(Due) to the humanitarian perspective of the Islamic Republic chose to adopt on the subject, she was released on bail," Ahmadinejad said. "And we hope that the other two will soon be able to prove and provide evidence to the court that they had no ill intention in crossing the border, so that their release can also be secured."
Tying the case to Iran's assertion that eight of its citizens are being held unjustly in the United States, he said, "It certainly does not give us joy when we see people in prison, wherever in the world that may be, and even when we think of prisoners here."
His answers were translated from Farsi by an Iranian translator, but Ahmadinejad appeared to be following the questions in English and occasionally corrected his interpreter.
Asked about retired FBI employee Robert Levinson, who disappeared during a trip to Iran in 2007, Ahmadinejad hinted that his government considers that Levinson had been on some "mission" when he vanished.
"Of course if it becomes clear what his goal was, or if he was indeed on a mission, then perhaps specific assistance can be given," the Iranian leader said. "For example, if he had plans to visit with a group or an individual or go to another country, he would be easier to trace in that instance."
Levinson was last seen on Iran's Kish island in March 2007 where he had gone to seek information on cigarette smuggling for a client of his security firm. He had been an FBI agent in New York and Florida before retiring in 1998. He has not been seen since. Iran says it has no information on him.
Overall, Ahmadinejad said that Iran's course is set and the rest of the world needs to accept it.
Another round of international pressure in the form of sanctions would only be futile, he said. "If they were to be effective, I should not be sitting here right now."
Sourcue : Yahoo News
The comments came in an hourlong interview with The Associated Press on the first day of his visit to the United States to attend the annual general assembly of the United Nations this week.
He insisted that his government does not want an atomic bomb — something he has said in the past — and that Iran is only seeking peace and a nuclear-weapons-free world. He repeatedly sidestepped questions on when Iran would resume talks on its disputed nuclear program, and he said anti-nuclear sanctions against his government would have no effect.
Appearing calm and self-assured on his seventh trip to the United States, the Iranian president showed every sign of being in command of himself and prepared to deflect questions about his government's harsh suppression of opposition forces after last year's disputed election that returned him to a second term.
"The United States' administrations ... must recognize that Iran is a big power," he said. "Having said that, we consider ourselves to be a human force and a cultural power and hence a friend of other nations. We have never sought to dominate others or to violate the rights of any other country.
"Those who insist on having hostilities with us, kill and destroy the option of friendship with us in the future, which is unfortunate because it is clear the future belongs to Iran and that enmities will be fruitless."
Over the years, Ahmadinejad has become more articulate and polished. He wore a gray pinstriped suit and a pinstriped white shirt, open with no tie, for the interview, conducted in an East Side hotel not far from the United Nations.
A few blocks away, dozens of protesters demonstrated with tape across their mouths to symbolize what they consider to be the oppressive nature of the Iranian government. The nonprofit Israeli education group, Stand With Us, organized the rally, one of many expected outside the United Nations and elsewhere in the city before Ahmadinejad leaves Friday.
In the interview in a room crowded with aides, bodyguards and Iranian journalists, the Iranian leader projected an air of innocence, saying his country's quest to process ever greater amounts of uranium is reasonable for its expanding civilian power program, omitting that the watchdog United Nations agency involved has found Iran keeping secrets from its investigators on several occasions, including secret research sites.
He also did not acknowledge that the leaders of the political opposition in Iran have been harassed and that government opponents risk violence and arrest if they try to assemble. He did allow that there have been some judicial "mistakes."
Ahmadinejad argued that the opposition Green Movement, which has largely been forced underground, continues to enjoys rights in Iran but said that in the end it must respect "majority rule." He also disavowed any knowledge of the fate of a retired FBI employee who vanished inside Iran in 2007, saying the trail will be followed up by a joint U.S.-Iranian committee.
Government opponents "have their activities that are ongoing and they also express their views publicly. They have several parties, as well as several newspapers, and many newspapers and publications. And so there are really no restrictions of such nature," the president said.
He did not mention that many newspapers have been closed down and that prominent opposition figures were put in prison and then tried after tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets claiming that the election that put him back in power in 2010 was fraudulent and stolen.
The public appearances of his rivals Mir Houssein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have been severely restricted and their offices recently were raided by police.
Ahmadinejad said Iran is more free than some other countries. "I believe that when we discuss the subject of freedoms and liberty it has to be done on a comparative basis and to keep in mind that democracy at the end of the day means the rule of the majority, so the minority cannot rule."
He added: "In Iran I think nobody loses their job because of making a statement that reflects their opinion. ... From this point of view, conditions in Iran are far better than in many other places in the world."
Ahmadinejad asserted that international nuclear regulators had never found proof that Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb.
"We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that. We are saying that the arsenal of nuclear bombs (worldwide) have to be destroyed as well," he said.
The U.S. accuses Iran of hiding plans to build a nuclear bomb; Iran denies that and says it's working only toward building nuclear power plants.
Ahmadinejad took no personal responsibility for the fate of the three American hikers who were taken prisoner along the border with Iraq more than a year ago — treating it as a strictly legal affair.
"We're very glad that that lady was released," he said about Sarah Shourd, who arrived in New York on Sunday and held a news conference while Ahmadinejad was being interviewed by the AP, denying she had done anything wrong.
"(Due) to the humanitarian perspective of the Islamic Republic chose to adopt on the subject, she was released on bail," Ahmadinejad said. "And we hope that the other two will soon be able to prove and provide evidence to the court that they had no ill intention in crossing the border, so that their release can also be secured."
Tying the case to Iran's assertion that eight of its citizens are being held unjustly in the United States, he said, "It certainly does not give us joy when we see people in prison, wherever in the world that may be, and even when we think of prisoners here."
His answers were translated from Farsi by an Iranian translator, but Ahmadinejad appeared to be following the questions in English and occasionally corrected his interpreter.
Asked about retired FBI employee Robert Levinson, who disappeared during a trip to Iran in 2007, Ahmadinejad hinted that his government considers that Levinson had been on some "mission" when he vanished.
"Of course if it becomes clear what his goal was, or if he was indeed on a mission, then perhaps specific assistance can be given," the Iranian leader said. "For example, if he had plans to visit with a group or an individual or go to another country, he would be easier to trace in that instance."
Levinson was last seen on Iran's Kish island in March 2007 where he had gone to seek information on cigarette smuggling for a client of his security firm. He had been an FBI agent in New York and Florida before retiring in 1998. He has not been seen since. Iran says it has no information on him.
Overall, Ahmadinejad said that Iran's course is set and the rest of the world needs to accept it.
Another round of international pressure in the form of sanctions would only be futile, he said. "If they were to be effective, I should not be sitting here right now."
Sourcue : Yahoo News
Friday, September 17, 2010
Regarding U.S. Muslims: A misguided debate
Laurie Goodstein’s article, ‘American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?’ was intended as a sympathetic reading of the concerns of U.S. Muslim communities facing increasing levels of hostility and fear. While generally insightful and sensibly written, the article also highlights the very misconceptions that riddle the bizarre debate pitting American Muslims against much of the government, the mainstream media and most of the general public.
This is how Goodstein lays the ground for her discussion: “For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe.” (New York Times, September 5, 2010)
This argument is not Goodstein’s alone, but one repeated by many in the media, the general public, and even among American Muslims themselves. The insinuation of the above context is misleading, and the timeline is selective.
True, it largely depends on who you ask, but there seem is more than one timeline in this narrative. The mainstream interpretation envisages the conflict as beginning with the hideous bombings on September 11, 2001. All that has happened since becomes justified with the claim that ‘Muslims’ started it. These same ‘Muslims’, some argue, are now twisting the knife by wanting to build a mosque not too far from Ground Zero, and they must be stopped.
The media fan the flames of this fear, while unknown, attention-hungry zealots propose to burn the holy book of Islam. Scheming rightwing politicians jump on board, fiery media commentators go wild with speculations, and the public grow increasingly terrified of what the Muslims might do. Even the sensible among all of these groups advise Muslims to basically try to make themselves more likable, to assimilate and fit in better.
That timeline and logic may be omnipresent in mainstream society in the U.S., but many on the fringes dare to challenge it. More, throughout Muslim-majority countries, in fact most of the world, September 11, 2001 was one station, however bloody, among many equally bloody episodes that defined the relationship between Muslims and the United States. Again, it all depends on who you ask. An Iraqi might locate the origin of hostilities with the Iraq war of 1990-91, and the deadly sanctions that followed, taking millions of civilian lives over the next decade. Some Muslims might cite the U.S. military presence in holy Muslim lands, or their intervention in Muslim countries’ affairs. They may also point to the U.S. government’s support of vile and brutal regimes around the world.
But the vast majority, while acknowledging all of these, will refer to the genesis of all hostilities - before Saddam Hussein existed on the map of Arab politics, and before Osama bin Laden led Arab fighters in Afghanistan, with the direct support of the U.S., to defeat the Soviets. It is the tragedy in Palestine that has continued to pain Muslims everywhere, regardless of their background, politics or geographic location. They know that without U.S. help, Israel would have no other option but to extend its hand to whatever peace offer enjoys international consensus. With every Palestinian killed, an American flag is burned, since the relationship has been delineated with immense clarity for decades. When U.S. General David Petraeus argued last March that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment, he spoke as a military man stating a fact. He was right, although many continue to ignore his remarks at their own peril.
True, timelines can be selective, but empathy requires one to understand another’s perspective and not just one’s own.
The Florida Priest on a mission to burn the Koran needs to see past his own terrible prejudices. Media commentators need to stop pigeonholing Muslims, and realize that there is no such thing as a Muslim polity in America. There is no truth to the idea that all Muslims hold the same religious values and political aspirations which are at constant odds with ‘American values’, and which need to be amended in order to make peace with their ‘new’ surroundings.
Needless to say, talks of ‘assimilation’ are misguided. Muslims have lived in the United States for generations and have become an essential part of American life. Millions of U.S. Muslims are also African American. Do they too need to assimilate? And if not, should we divide American Muslims to groups based on ethnic background, skin color, or some other criterion?
One cannot offer simple recipes by calling on the general public to adopt this belief or ditch another. Public opinion is formulated through a complex process in which the media is a major player. However, it is essential that one remembers that history is much more encompassing and cannot be hostage to our diktats and priorities. Such selective understanding will surely result in a limited understanding of the world and its shared future, and thus a misguided course of action.
That said, Muslims must not fall into the trap of victimhood, and start dividing the world into good and evil, the West and Muslims, and so on. How could one make such generalized claims and still remain critical of the notion of a ‘clash of civilizations’? It remains that many Americans who have a negative perception of Muslims are not motivated by ideological convictions or religious zealotry. Most American clergy are not Koran-burning hateful priests, and not all media pundits are Bill O’Reilly.
There is no question that the conflict remains largely political. Misconceptions and misperceptions, manipulated by ill-intentioned politicians, media cohorts and substantiated by violence and war will not be resolved overnight. However, hundreds of interfaith dialogues and conferences will not change much as long as American armies continue to roam Muslim countries, support Israel and back corrupt leaders. Reducing the issue by signaling out a Muslim community in this country and then calling on frightened and fragmented communities to ‘make more effort’ is unfair and simply futile.
Source: http://islamonline.com
This is how Goodstein lays the ground for her discussion: “For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe.” (New York Times, September 5, 2010)
This argument is not Goodstein’s alone, but one repeated by many in the media, the general public, and even among American Muslims themselves. The insinuation of the above context is misleading, and the timeline is selective.
True, it largely depends on who you ask, but there seem is more than one timeline in this narrative. The mainstream interpretation envisages the conflict as beginning with the hideous bombings on September 11, 2001. All that has happened since becomes justified with the claim that ‘Muslims’ started it. These same ‘Muslims’, some argue, are now twisting the knife by wanting to build a mosque not too far from Ground Zero, and they must be stopped.
The media fan the flames of this fear, while unknown, attention-hungry zealots propose to burn the holy book of Islam. Scheming rightwing politicians jump on board, fiery media commentators go wild with speculations, and the public grow increasingly terrified of what the Muslims might do. Even the sensible among all of these groups advise Muslims to basically try to make themselves more likable, to assimilate and fit in better.
That timeline and logic may be omnipresent in mainstream society in the U.S., but many on the fringes dare to challenge it. More, throughout Muslim-majority countries, in fact most of the world, September 11, 2001 was one station, however bloody, among many equally bloody episodes that defined the relationship between Muslims and the United States. Again, it all depends on who you ask. An Iraqi might locate the origin of hostilities with the Iraq war of 1990-91, and the deadly sanctions that followed, taking millions of civilian lives over the next decade. Some Muslims might cite the U.S. military presence in holy Muslim lands, or their intervention in Muslim countries’ affairs. They may also point to the U.S. government’s support of vile and brutal regimes around the world.
But the vast majority, while acknowledging all of these, will refer to the genesis of all hostilities - before Saddam Hussein existed on the map of Arab politics, and before Osama bin Laden led Arab fighters in Afghanistan, with the direct support of the U.S., to defeat the Soviets. It is the tragedy in Palestine that has continued to pain Muslims everywhere, regardless of their background, politics or geographic location. They know that without U.S. help, Israel would have no other option but to extend its hand to whatever peace offer enjoys international consensus. With every Palestinian killed, an American flag is burned, since the relationship has been delineated with immense clarity for decades. When U.S. General David Petraeus argued last March that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment, he spoke as a military man stating a fact. He was right, although many continue to ignore his remarks at their own peril.
True, timelines can be selective, but empathy requires one to understand another’s perspective and not just one’s own.
The Florida Priest on a mission to burn the Koran needs to see past his own terrible prejudices. Media commentators need to stop pigeonholing Muslims, and realize that there is no such thing as a Muslim polity in America. There is no truth to the idea that all Muslims hold the same religious values and political aspirations which are at constant odds with ‘American values’, and which need to be amended in order to make peace with their ‘new’ surroundings.
Needless to say, talks of ‘assimilation’ are misguided. Muslims have lived in the United States for generations and have become an essential part of American life. Millions of U.S. Muslims are also African American. Do they too need to assimilate? And if not, should we divide American Muslims to groups based on ethnic background, skin color, or some other criterion?
One cannot offer simple recipes by calling on the general public to adopt this belief or ditch another. Public opinion is formulated through a complex process in which the media is a major player. However, it is essential that one remembers that history is much more encompassing and cannot be hostage to our diktats and priorities. Such selective understanding will surely result in a limited understanding of the world and its shared future, and thus a misguided course of action.
That said, Muslims must not fall into the trap of victimhood, and start dividing the world into good and evil, the West and Muslims, and so on. How could one make such generalized claims and still remain critical of the notion of a ‘clash of civilizations’? It remains that many Americans who have a negative perception of Muslims are not motivated by ideological convictions or religious zealotry. Most American clergy are not Koran-burning hateful priests, and not all media pundits are Bill O’Reilly.
There is no question that the conflict remains largely political. Misconceptions and misperceptions, manipulated by ill-intentioned politicians, media cohorts and substantiated by violence and war will not be resolved overnight. However, hundreds of interfaith dialogues and conferences will not change much as long as American armies continue to roam Muslim countries, support Israel and back corrupt leaders. Reducing the issue by signaling out a Muslim community in this country and then calling on frightened and fragmented communities to ‘make more effort’ is unfair and simply futile.
Source: http://islamonline.com
How to Live the Sunnah? (Tell Us)
In the commemoration of Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) birthday, a Muslim should think whether or not he or she leads his or her life according to the Prophet's Sunnah. Regular assessment of one's life on the scale of the Prophet's Sunnah would help him or her in remaining on the right track and in correcting his or her mistakes before it's too late.
For sure, adherence to the Sunnah is a sign of true love for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as actions speak louder than words. True love should have manifestations in one's actions.
Some people might imagine that it is difficult to live the Sunnah in the modern life. However, this imagination carries no weight on seeing successful Muslims following the Sunnah.
Now, let's exchange views on:
• Could a Muslim follow the Sunnah and be successful at the same time?
• How to translate the Sunnah into practices?
• What is the Sunnah in principle?
Share your views with your Muslim brothers and sisters in order to help each other revive and live the Sunnah.
Source: http://www.islamonline.net
For sure, adherence to the Sunnah is a sign of true love for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as actions speak louder than words. True love should have manifestations in one's actions.
Some people might imagine that it is difficult to live the Sunnah in the modern life. However, this imagination carries no weight on seeing successful Muslims following the Sunnah.
Now, let's exchange views on:
• Could a Muslim follow the Sunnah and be successful at the same time?
• How to translate the Sunnah into practices?
• What is the Sunnah in principle?
Share your views with your Muslim brothers and sisters in order to help each other revive and live the Sunnah.
Source: http://www.islamonline.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)