http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1009/p01s04-wome.html
Reconciliation in Iraq must start at the tribal level.
Lucky for Iraq that these local structures already exist to aid in the peace process. They can be like the "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions' of Rwanda and South Africa.
Tribes have already proved their worthiness in turning the tides in Iraq; they (the 'Sons of Iraq', or 'The Awakening'), not the surge as many politicians would like us to believe (see post on Bing West's great new book "The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq"), are responsible for the recent drawdown of violence.
Tribal incorporation into a state system will be required to maintain security in Iraq and therefore legitimize the state.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
They hate us!!
Wait, I thought they hated us. They hate our freedom, our culture, our democracy. But they love Friends in Gaza and Oprah in Saudi? HOW can I reconcile these conflicting viewpoints. Wait, I know, they don't hate us.
People in the ME love our culture and our way of life but they don't want it shoved down their throats with tanks and guns. Also they hate our ineffctive uneven policies in the region. (See my post "Foreign Hypocrisy" for starters and this great brief article by John Esposito, "It's the Policy Stupid: Political Islam and the US Foreign Policy")
I'M BACK!
After spending a summer in Syria, where this site is actually banned, I am back in the saddle.
I must admit, it wasn't just Syria that prevented me form writing, I was being lazy. I neglected my region, my people. I don't feel like I really neglected my readers, because I don't think I really have any. I'm actually pretty sure of it because I've actually only told my mom and possibly two other people about this blog, one of whom lives in Syria.
I must admit, it wasn't just Syria that prevented me form writing, I was being lazy. I neglected my region, my people. I don't feel like I really neglected my readers, because I don't think I really have any. I'm actually pretty sure of it because I've actually only told my mom and possibly two other people about this blog, one of whom lives in Syria.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Detainees
The situation at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, as well as the countless other prisons which are holding Iraqis, Afghans, and citizens of other Middle Eastern, European, etc countries is the most important issue out there today.
In one of my first posts, I mentioned that all people want in the Middle East is justice (along with a great Robert Fisk interview in which he states this) and when they see such a grave perversion of the justice, it is devastating to the US reputation.
It is shameful how these men have been treated in Guantanamo for example. Locked in an 8 x 12 room for 22 hours a day will drive anyone crazy. If driving someone crazy is not the most brutal form of torture I don't know what is. Forget waterboarding - torture by drowning.
A psychologist once did a study on removing all sensory from individuals. Sensory deprivivation he discovered, was the best way to drive one crazy. Notice what the Guantanamo prisoners are wearing? Goggles to contort vision, earmuffs to restrict hearing.
While I, of course, am not glad these men have lost their minds, I am glad it is coming back to bite Bush in his ass and these guys have been drive SO insane, that they can't testify for his joke of a court.
I encourage everyone to watch Taxi Cab to the Darkside (about Bagram and torture policies) as well as Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.
Articles come out on this everyday, most recently:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/541704.html
In one of my first posts, I mentioned that all people want in the Middle East is justice (along with a great Robert Fisk interview in which he states this) and when they see such a grave perversion of the justice, it is devastating to the US reputation.
It is shameful how these men have been treated in Guantanamo for example. Locked in an 8 x 12 room for 22 hours a day will drive anyone crazy. If driving someone crazy is not the most brutal form of torture I don't know what is. Forget waterboarding - torture by drowning.
A psychologist once did a study on removing all sensory from individuals. Sensory deprivivation he discovered, was the best way to drive one crazy. Notice what the Guantanamo prisoners are wearing? Goggles to contort vision, earmuffs to restrict hearing.
While I, of course, am not glad these men have lost their minds, I am glad it is coming back to bite Bush in his ass and these guys have been drive SO insane, that they can't testify for his joke of a court.
I encourage everyone to watch Taxi Cab to the Darkside (about Bagram and torture policies) as well as Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.
Articles come out on this everyday, most recently:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/541704.html
Monday, May 19, 2008
Foreign Hypocrisy
I just can't believe that Bush and his administration do not see the glaring hypocrisies in their foreign policies.
First he's in Israel, pouring buckets of happy birthday praise on the state. (Fine, I will let this slide, typical, predictable, happy bday BS) But then directly after, and I cannot imagine a more inappropriate juxtaposition, Bush flies on over to Egypt with equally full buckets of criticism for Arab leaders, not even realizing that #1, absolute, blind US support for Israel supports the policies for which he criticizes Arab leaders, (see a great op-ed "Israel's America Problem" by Jeffrey Goldberg in the NYTimes Week in Review section Sunday 18 May in which he states: "But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left...The leadership of the organized American Jewish community has allowed the partisans of settlement to conflate support for the colonization of the West Bank with support for Israel itself. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel..." Brill, as my friend Andrea would say. The other claim the article makes is the most vociferous voices pushin for settlements are American Jews, not dealing with the daily realities of life in the West Bank and in Israel.)
OK back to what I was saying....and #2 that US foreign policy directly supports the dictators he criticizes.
On point #1, the creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent defeats Arab states suffered at the hands of this state, are factors which contributed to the rise of militarism and dictatorships in the Middle East. They currently use the persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an excuse not to reform their own governments. By the way, I am not blaming Israel or Israelis for the problems of Arab governments, I am simply stating that we must realize that the creation of the state of Israel without a Palestinian state and the subsequent Arab losses in two wars to Israel made Arab states feel weak, demoralized, and embarrassed and led to an focus on military build up as well as consolidation of power at the top to prevent such losses in the future. I am not an Arab apologist - blame Arab states for this militaristic reaction. I understand that it is really up to Arabs to make up for their own decline but the U.S. government must realize that the Israeli issue is the thorn in the side of many Arabs and it must be resolved alongside indigenous Arab reform.
On the point #2, the US government supports - with millions and millions of dollars - the same dictators which Bush criticized in his speech. Unbelievable. He criticizes Arabs governments for having dictators and jailing opposition, and still fails to realize that his policies prop up these dictators, directly and indirectly.
In terms of direct support, Mubarak's government in Egypt is a great example. Before each election opposition party members and supporters are rounded up and sent to jail where they are tortured. (The best tool for radicalization, by the way, as the Egyptian government knows all too well (look for my background story on torture Egyptian prisons in the 1960s and 70s...coming soon). See HRW's (Human Rights Watch) reports. The largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Middle East's best chance for democracy in my opinion, was banned by the state and its members are routinely imprisoned, beaten, and tortured by Egyptian police and military officials. The US government has given Egyptian military $1.3 billion a year in aid since 1979. (Why 1979? What's you guess? The year Egypt say became a democracy? Nope. The year Egypt had elections? No again. The year Egypt allowed civil and political liberties to its population? Wrong again. This was the year Egypt singed a peace treaty with Israel.)
Another example, Pakistan. We give Pakistan millions of dollars ($150 million a month in military aid) and when the Supreme Court judges informed Musharraf that we could not run again for President and maintain his post as the military chief he fired all of them and threw them and their supporters - Pakistani lawyers (Pakistan's best chance for a democracy) in jail.
In terms of indirect support, which at times (like the following example) is even more severe, the largest and most obvious policy decision that contradicts Bush's speech is the decision to invade Iraq. Can someone please give this man a history lesson? Another reason dictators arose in the Middle East in the 70s is that leaders wanted to maintain a tight grip on their countries due to past Western colonization (cloaked as the mandate system) and 50s, 60s and 70s Cold War meddling. They remember being governed by the British and French after WWI and remember the coups the CIA orchestrated during the Cold War in Iraq, Iran, and Syria to name a few. What the heck do you think the war in Iraq is going to do to Middle Eastern governments?
I honestly believe that this war has set back the Middle East decades if not more in terms of open, civil societies and democratic governance. When regions, countries, governments (and even people - this is basic psychology folks) feel threatened they tend to tighten the reigns out of insecurity. (Example: The fear mongering that went on post 9/11 and is going on right now in this country - wiretapping, opposition to government labeled 'unpatriotic,' etc.) Since the invasion of Iraq we have seen many governments tighten the reigns of power - Pakistan, Iran, Egypt.
Bush also mentioned that women must be allowed equal rights, failing to understand that oppressive and demeaning Western foreign policies entrench many women in the Middle East in the position of second class citizens. Throughout history and in today's world, when a country is threatened by outside powers we see women more oppressed. Men, unable to assert their 'manliness' in terms of maintaining control over their countries look to instead exert more control over women.
Here we see not only a total misunderstanding of the region but also of male female dynamics. New misunderstandings going on everyday in the Bush administration. Really keeping' me on my toes.
First he's in Israel, pouring buckets of happy birthday praise on the state. (Fine, I will let this slide, typical, predictable, happy bday BS) But then directly after, and I cannot imagine a more inappropriate juxtaposition, Bush flies on over to Egypt with equally full buckets of criticism for Arab leaders, not even realizing that #1, absolute, blind US support for Israel supports the policies for which he criticizes Arab leaders, (see a great op-ed "Israel's America Problem" by Jeffrey Goldberg in the NYTimes Week in Review section Sunday 18 May in which he states: "But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left...The leadership of the organized American Jewish community has allowed the partisans of settlement to conflate support for the colonization of the West Bank with support for Israel itself. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, in their polemical work “The Israel Lobby,” have it wrong: They argue, unpersuasively, that American support for Israel hurts America. It doesn’t. But unthinking American support does hurt Israel..." Brill, as my friend Andrea would say. The other claim the article makes is the most vociferous voices pushin for settlements are American Jews, not dealing with the daily realities of life in the West Bank and in Israel.)
OK back to what I was saying....and #2 that US foreign policy directly supports the dictators he criticizes.
On point #1, the creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent defeats Arab states suffered at the hands of this state, are factors which contributed to the rise of militarism and dictatorships in the Middle East. They currently use the persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an excuse not to reform their own governments. By the way, I am not blaming Israel or Israelis for the problems of Arab governments, I am simply stating that we must realize that the creation of the state of Israel without a Palestinian state and the subsequent Arab losses in two wars to Israel made Arab states feel weak, demoralized, and embarrassed and led to an focus on military build up as well as consolidation of power at the top to prevent such losses in the future. I am not an Arab apologist - blame Arab states for this militaristic reaction. I understand that it is really up to Arabs to make up for their own decline but the U.S. government must realize that the Israeli issue is the thorn in the side of many Arabs and it must be resolved alongside indigenous Arab reform.
On the point #2, the US government supports - with millions and millions of dollars - the same dictators which Bush criticized in his speech. Unbelievable. He criticizes Arabs governments for having dictators and jailing opposition, and still fails to realize that his policies prop up these dictators, directly and indirectly.
In terms of direct support, Mubarak's government in Egypt is a great example. Before each election opposition party members and supporters are rounded up and sent to jail where they are tortured. (The best tool for radicalization, by the way, as the Egyptian government knows all too well (look for my background story on torture Egyptian prisons in the 1960s and 70s...coming soon). See HRW's (Human Rights Watch) reports. The largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Middle East's best chance for democracy in my opinion, was banned by the state and its members are routinely imprisoned, beaten, and tortured by Egyptian police and military officials. The US government has given Egyptian military $1.3 billion a year in aid since 1979. (Why 1979? What's you guess? The year Egypt say became a democracy? Nope. The year Egypt had elections? No again. The year Egypt allowed civil and political liberties to its population? Wrong again. This was the year Egypt singed a peace treaty with Israel.)
Another example, Pakistan. We give Pakistan millions of dollars ($150 million a month in military aid) and when the Supreme Court judges informed Musharraf that we could not run again for President and maintain his post as the military chief he fired all of them and threw them and their supporters - Pakistani lawyers (Pakistan's best chance for a democracy) in jail.
In terms of indirect support, which at times (like the following example) is even more severe, the largest and most obvious policy decision that contradicts Bush's speech is the decision to invade Iraq. Can someone please give this man a history lesson? Another reason dictators arose in the Middle East in the 70s is that leaders wanted to maintain a tight grip on their countries due to past Western colonization (cloaked as the mandate system) and 50s, 60s and 70s Cold War meddling. They remember being governed by the British and French after WWI and remember the coups the CIA orchestrated during the Cold War in Iraq, Iran, and Syria to name a few. What the heck do you think the war in Iraq is going to do to Middle Eastern governments?
I honestly believe that this war has set back the Middle East decades if not more in terms of open, civil societies and democratic governance. When regions, countries, governments (and even people - this is basic psychology folks) feel threatened they tend to tighten the reigns out of insecurity. (Example: The fear mongering that went on post 9/11 and is going on right now in this country - wiretapping, opposition to government labeled 'unpatriotic,' etc.) Since the invasion of Iraq we have seen many governments tighten the reigns of power - Pakistan, Iran, Egypt.
Bush also mentioned that women must be allowed equal rights, failing to understand that oppressive and demeaning Western foreign policies entrench many women in the Middle East in the position of second class citizens. Throughout history and in today's world, when a country is threatened by outside powers we see women more oppressed. Men, unable to assert their 'manliness' in terms of maintaining control over their countries look to instead exert more control over women.
Here we see not only a total misunderstanding of the region but also of male female dynamics. New misunderstandings going on everyday in the Bush administration. Really keeping' me on my toes.
Center for Public Integrity
Ties the Institute of Expertology for best organizations out there.
It could also be called the "Center for Calling People Out." I wonder people walk around there giving high fives for who they called out that day? If I worked there, I would introduce that as a way to increase employee morale. When I hopefuly get a job there someday, I will definitely suggest this in the interview.
All of their investigations are great, but I read about this one today in the Peace Corps Magazine, Worldview. (The head of the Center for Public Integrity is a ex Peace Corps volunteer, not surprising, consider Peace Corps volunteers tend to be the coolest, smartest people around.)
Here is the report on the Center's website. It is called "Baghdad Bonanza" and is party of their Windfalls of War series which investigates all that has gone wrong - behind the scenes - of the Iraq War. Through thousands of FOIA requests they have tried to uncover all the money wasted by PSCs and PMCs. (Private Security Companies and Private Military Companies.)
It's a pretty depressing read, especially when read immediately before or after the below article on bringing doughnuts to the Green Zone.)
It could also be called the "Center for Calling People Out." I wonder people walk around there giving high fives for who they called out that day? If I worked there, I would introduce that as a way to increase employee morale. When I hopefuly get a job there someday, I will definitely suggest this in the interview.
All of their investigations are great, but I read about this one today in the Peace Corps Magazine, Worldview. (The head of the Center for Public Integrity is a ex Peace Corps volunteer, not surprising, consider Peace Corps volunteers tend to be the coolest, smartest people around.)
Here is the report on the Center's website. It is called "Baghdad Bonanza" and is party of their Windfalls of War series which investigates all that has gone wrong - behind the scenes - of the Iraq War. Through thousands of FOIA requests they have tried to uncover all the money wasted by PSCs and PMCs. (Private Security Companies and Private Military Companies.)
It's a pretty depressing read, especially when read immediately before or after the below article on bringing doughnuts to the Green Zone.)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
What a Billion Muslims Really Think
Everyone should read this:
http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/WorldPollMuslimTriFoldBrochure5-2006.pdf
The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies conducted the most extensive poll ever done in the Muslim World entitled "What a Billion Muslims Really Think."
It asks question such as "Is Islam compatible with Democracy?" "What do Muslims think about women's rights?"
Hopefully this would pass the Institute of Expertology's (see below) test!
http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/WorldPollMuslimTriFoldBrochure5-2006.pdf
The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies conducted the most extensive poll ever done in the Muslim World entitled "What a Billion Muslims Really Think."
It asks question such as "Is Islam compatible with Democracy?" "What do Muslims think about women's rights?"
Hopefully this would pass the Institute of Expertology's (see below) test!
Doughnut Advocacy
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/37418.html
I think this is revolting for so many reasons. But most of all, I am revolted by the time and energy these private contractors apparently to bringing doughnuts to the Green Zone. And I quote: "For the next two weeks, the pair, in Iraq doing construction management, scoured the Internet, called a pastry chef in the United States and flooded friends and family with phone calls in search of the perfect doughnut recipe. With a hot glazed doughnut, they knew they could bring a piece of home here."
As someone who cares about the Middle East, but also values a good break from work, I am still pretty sickened by this. I just can't imagine sitting in the Green Zone, knowing what was going on only a short distance from me, advocating for doughnuts. Craving I can see, for example, there were a lot of things I missed while in the Peace Corps in Morocco, but I did not take time to acutally have them all sent to me.
More than anything, I feel like this shows how out of touch people in the Green Zone are from life in Iraq.
Why not spend this time thinking a pla to bring water or electricity to Iraqis? Health services?
Is there really not enough to keep them busy in Iraq? I guess it's easy to forget about when you live in the Green Zone.
I mean jeez, is Bush gave up golf for the troops, can't you guys sacrifice your favorite morning snack.
Also ALL of our tax dollars are definitely going to pay these guys for the time they spent on their doughnut advocacy program. And let me tell you it's a WHOLE lot more than people making doughnuts here are pulling in.
I think this is revolting for so many reasons. But most of all, I am revolted by the time and energy these private contractors apparently to bringing doughnuts to the Green Zone. And I quote: "For the next two weeks, the pair, in Iraq doing construction management, scoured the Internet, called a pastry chef in the United States and flooded friends and family with phone calls in search of the perfect doughnut recipe. With a hot glazed doughnut, they knew they could bring a piece of home here."
As someone who cares about the Middle East, but also values a good break from work, I am still pretty sickened by this. I just can't imagine sitting in the Green Zone, knowing what was going on only a short distance from me, advocating for doughnuts. Craving I can see, for example, there were a lot of things I missed while in the Peace Corps in Morocco, but I did not take time to acutally have them all sent to me.
More than anything, I feel like this shows how out of touch people in the Green Zone are from life in Iraq.
Why not spend this time thinking a pla to bring water or electricity to Iraqis? Health services?
Is there really not enough to keep them busy in Iraq? I guess it's easy to forget about when you live in the Green Zone.
I mean jeez, is Bush gave up golf for the troops, can't you guys sacrifice your favorite morning snack.
Also ALL of our tax dollars are definitely going to pay these guys for the time they spent on their doughnut advocacy program. And let me tell you it's a WHOLE lot more than people making doughnuts here are pulling in.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Calling Bush Out, J. Biden is the man!
Why beat around the Bush? (hahahahaha)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/
Friday, May 16, 2008
Also on calling out 'experts'
About a month ago, Ambassador & Professor Akbar Ahmad, American University Chair of Islamic Studies, called out the US media for not including experts on TV shows in discussions about Islam and the Middle East.
He pointed out, at a forum on "The Media and Islam" given by AU's School of Communication http://www.soc.american.edu/content.cfm?id=1185, that whenever Fox or CNBC or CNN or MSNBC, pick a channel, speak about and analyze Islam and the Middle East they NEVER have actual experts on or actual Muslims or Arabs on their shows. Yes of course you want to have diversity of opinion and background, and not ONLY have Muslims or Arabs or Middle East sympathizers as others might call us, but you want to have someone who maybe I don't know might be able to give you a firsthand account? Is a Middle Eastern historian? Sociologist? Anthropologist? An expert in Islam? Sharia? Someone who knows what Sharia is even please?
This also relates to an extremely important phenomenon: Americans and their leaders don't really WANT to understand the Middle East. It's just too much. Too complex. Too difficult. It would cause too much self reflection and uh oh, self deprecation. It's so easy to blame the violence on 'centuries of religious ethnic sectarian violence.' I mean as is, we don't have to look for the real problems, which are going to be thing we don't want to hear or see or face. That the legacy of colonization and the Cold War dynamic still have implications on how residents of the Middle East (and around the world) perceive of the US and Western powers. That the US acted arrogantly and we the public were duped. All the Bush administration and Cheney cared about were contracts for their oil buddies.
Americans don't want to hear that they can't have their oil and have it on the cheap too.
We don't want to hear that we might have to start thinking about a foreign policy that doesn't JUST consider ourselves, our economy.
We don't want to understand that we can only achieve security by taking into account the security of others and that this security is not achieved through simplistic military might but by a much more engaged, egalitarian, soft diplomacy that considers social justice and economic development.
He pointed out, at a forum on "The Media and Islam" given by AU's School of Communication http://www.soc.american.edu/content.cfm?id=1185, that whenever Fox or CNBC or CNN or MSNBC, pick a channel, speak about and analyze Islam and the Middle East they NEVER have actual experts on or actual Muslims or Arabs on their shows. Yes of course you want to have diversity of opinion and background, and not ONLY have Muslims or Arabs or Middle East sympathizers as others might call us, but you want to have someone who maybe I don't know might be able to give you a firsthand account? Is a Middle Eastern historian? Sociologist? Anthropologist? An expert in Islam? Sharia? Someone who knows what Sharia is even please?
This also relates to an extremely important phenomenon: Americans and their leaders don't really WANT to understand the Middle East. It's just too much. Too complex. Too difficult. It would cause too much self reflection and uh oh, self deprecation. It's so easy to blame the violence on 'centuries of religious ethnic sectarian violence.' I mean as is, we don't have to look for the real problems, which are going to be thing we don't want to hear or see or face. That the legacy of colonization and the Cold War dynamic still have implications on how residents of the Middle East (and around the world) perceive of the US and Western powers. That the US acted arrogantly and we the public were duped. All the Bush administration and Cheney cared about were contracts for their oil buddies.
Americans don't want to hear that they can't have their oil and have it on the cheap too.
We don't want to hear that we might have to start thinking about a foreign policy that doesn't JUST consider ourselves, our economy.
We don't want to understand that we can only achieve security by taking into account the security of others and that this security is not achieved through simplistic military might but by a much more engaged, egalitarian, soft diplomacy that considers social justice and economic development.
Institute of Expertology
This guys are the cat's meow for sure. I have not been able to stop thinking about them or their Institute since last Friday. Literally, I have thought about it everyday, multiple times.
n May 2 Christopher Cerf and Victor Namasky appeared on the Bill Moyers show discussing their Institute of Expertology.http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/profile3.html
Cerf and Namasky aim to show how hollow media and administration officials' statements are when they speak about matters such as the Iraq invasion. Newscasters like Bill O'Reilly making constant statements like "The war will be over in a week. No questions." Where the hell does he get off saying that? What is his evidence? What does he know about Iraq? War? The Middle East? Oh wait, he has an ex generals turned private security contractor that will make millions on the war and that the Defense Dept hired to sell the war to the media? Perfect. Bush saying "I don't think there will be any casualties." Cerf and Namasky don't just call out out only Republicans and conservatives though, that call out everyone, and that is why they are the most important men alive in my opinion.
(My greatest friend ever Andrea, who knows more about the Middle East than anyone alive and actually is an expert (and therefore would not be in Cerf and Namasky's book) said that our blog should be all about 'calling people out.' That is my goal - to debunk stereotypes and call people out for saying ignorant unresearched comments about Middle East, Arabs, and Islam when they know nothing. Therefore I feel a special bond with Cerf and Namaksy, I wish they felt that bond with me but I doubt it. (But don't worry, I am going to write to them, and then hopefully through my constant pestering they will realize we share the same vision. That sounds a little stalker, I didn't mean it like that. )
Cerf and Namasky call people about about the most important and worst decision the US ever made: Invading Iraq. Their books, Mission Accomplished: How We Won the War in Iraq as well as The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium on Authoritative Misinformation http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mission+accomplished+cerf, for one show that we went to war based on fake experts' opinions. They are books of endless quotations from Government officials, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and media analysts who frequently threw on their expert costumes leading up to the war.
This is their Institute: http://instituteofexpertology.wordpress.com/.
I am sending an application in IMMEDIATELY.
Also, the name cracks me up. I mean I know the whole idea is not a total joke, but it just does such a good job of playing the experts' game. I mean I can actually see Bill O'Reilly thinking it real and wanting to be a member.
n May 2 Christopher Cerf and Victor Namasky appeared on the Bill Moyers show discussing their Institute of Expertology.http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/profile3.html
Cerf and Namasky aim to show how hollow media and administration officials' statements are when they speak about matters such as the Iraq invasion. Newscasters like Bill O'Reilly making constant statements like "The war will be over in a week. No questions." Where the hell does he get off saying that? What is his evidence? What does he know about Iraq? War? The Middle East? Oh wait, he has an ex generals turned private security contractor that will make millions on the war and that the Defense Dept hired to sell the war to the media? Perfect. Bush saying "I don't think there will be any casualties." Cerf and Namasky don't just call out out only Republicans and conservatives though, that call out everyone, and that is why they are the most important men alive in my opinion.
(My greatest friend ever Andrea, who knows more about the Middle East than anyone alive and actually is an expert (and therefore would not be in Cerf and Namasky's book) said that our blog should be all about 'calling people out.' That is my goal - to debunk stereotypes and call people out for saying ignorant unresearched comments about Middle East, Arabs, and Islam when they know nothing. Therefore I feel a special bond with Cerf and Namaksy, I wish they felt that bond with me but I doubt it. (But don't worry, I am going to write to them, and then hopefully through my constant pestering they will realize we share the same vision. That sounds a little stalker, I didn't mean it like that. )
Cerf and Namasky call people about about the most important and worst decision the US ever made: Invading Iraq. Their books, Mission Accomplished: How We Won the War in Iraq as well as The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium on Authoritative Misinformation http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mission+accomplished+cerf, for one show that we went to war based on fake experts' opinions. They are books of endless quotations from Government officials, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and media analysts who frequently threw on their expert costumes leading up to the war.
This is their Institute: http://instituteofexpertology.wordpress.com/.
I am sending an application in IMMEDIATELY.
Also, the name cracks me up. I mean I know the whole idea is not a total joke, but it just does such a good job of playing the experts' game. I mean I can actually see Bill O'Reilly thinking it real and wanting to be a member.
I think I saw a pig in the sky.
And it looked like Obama. Color me crazy, is this a politician who understands, or surrounds himself with people who understand, the Middle East?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
David Brooks' interview with Obama reveals that the democractic presidential candidate truly understands the roots of problems in the Middle East and the true nature of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Again, like I have stated in other posts, if leaders do not seek understand the real cuases of violence and conflict in the ME, they will not understand how to solve problems there. This goes for Hezbollah: If leaders continue to erroneously dismiss them as a 'terrorist group (like David Brooks so arrogantly and idiotically does in the first line of this article, the US is doomed. I am just irate at him for dong this, a well informed journalist offering such a simplistic and inflammatory description. Hezbollah is a multifaceted group with an extremist militant wing that also provide social services to a large part of Lebanon's population.)
Obama states in this article, “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.” Wait you're telling me that bombing the shit out of Hezbollah in the south is not the way to fix Lebanon? This is just too much to take in.
Brooks then, like Bush, confuses Obama’s diplomatic intelligent comments, which show understanding of Lebanon and the Middle East, with appeasement. This silly dismissal falls in line with Brooks' ignorant, simplistic line opener for this article which I mentioned earlier.
A multifaceted group like Hezbollah cannot be confronted with purely military means, bc it is not a purely military group. It provides healthcare, education, financing, homes, security, among other services to the population of Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah also shows a desire to play a role in Lebanese political system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
David Brooks' interview with Obama reveals that the democractic presidential candidate truly understands the roots of problems in the Middle East and the true nature of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Again, like I have stated in other posts, if leaders do not seek understand the real cuases of violence and conflict in the ME, they will not understand how to solve problems there. This goes for Hezbollah: If leaders continue to erroneously dismiss them as a 'terrorist group (like David Brooks so arrogantly and idiotically does in the first line of this article, the US is doomed. I am just irate at him for dong this, a well informed journalist offering such a simplistic and inflammatory description. Hezbollah is a multifaceted group with an extremist militant wing that also provide social services to a large part of Lebanon's population.)
Obama states in this article, “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.” Wait you're telling me that bombing the shit out of Hezbollah in the south is not the way to fix Lebanon? This is just too much to take in.
Brooks then, like Bush, confuses Obama’s diplomatic intelligent comments, which show understanding of Lebanon and the Middle East, with appeasement. This silly dismissal falls in line with Brooks' ignorant, simplistic line opener for this article which I mentioned earlier.
A multifaceted group like Hezbollah cannot be confronted with purely military means, bc it is not a purely military group. It provides healthcare, education, financing, homes, security, among other services to the population of Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah also shows a desire to play a role in Lebanese political system.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Ignorance is NOT bliss when it comes to the Middle East
How do people with such access to information and with such magnanimous agendas in the region have such a profound misunderstanding of the Middle East? This region dictates our economy (oil) and therefore our foreign policy. The most important misunderstanding is about the causes of the problems in the Middle East, McCain and many others (liberal adn conservative) say sectarianism and religion, which is just plain ahistorical and wrong. This is important because if we do not know the root causes of the problem we will not be able to solve them.
There are constant, consistent examples of this lack of understanding in this administration (as well as previous ones) - again, liberal and conservative alike. Anyone who voted for the war, for example, must not have lifted a finger to look into what experts - historians, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists - thought bc they predicted this exact situation.
The most recent example of this ignorance came tonight when I unfortunately heard a snibbit from a McCain speech which really made my stomach turn, leading to one of my own personal battles with the TV. I say unfortunately bc one, this threw off my whole night which was filled with artichokes and Italian Sausage and work work not blog work. I also say unfortunately bc statements like this drive me crazy. Absolutely crazy, and now I feel a little crazy. I know people say stuff like this all the time (read below), but I just can't even bear to hear it anymore. It's just so plain wrong!
McCain was explaining why there is still vioence in Iraq and why the occupation has lasted so long and credited "centuries of sectarian hatred..." AHHHHHHHHH. He might have said tension, but either way his point was that the reason democracy is taking so long to develop in Iraq is because of these ethnic, religious, sectarian hatreds.
(Equally revolting and delusional about his speech was when he said arrogantly and in a condescending manner, "Iraq is a democracy." (Then he went on about the centuries of sectarian hatred.) Read: Arabs BAD, sectarian hatred violent. America GOOD, democracy.)
What a load of #2. My 9th grade students would call McCain out on this totally ahistorical garbage.
Read my post below "There is no Sunni Shii Divide."
The reason this misunderstanding matters so much is that it totally misplaces the root of the conflict and violence in the Middle East. Without understanding the root of the problem we will never be able to solve it. And if we can’t solve it, the US is going to be stuck in the ME forever. (Violence and conflict in the Middle East and Iraq is not bc of sectarianism it is because of matters such as of internal power struggles and the distaste for present and past foreign occupations and western foreign policies for starters...)
For me, I care because I care about the future of the Middle East and places like Iraq. Why should the average American care? Trust me, no matter where you live, the Middle East matters to your life. Our involvement there is probably affecting you in some negative way. (Unless of course you are a millionaire, untouchable by economic fluctuations and a 60$ trip to the beach bc of gas prices. Or, of course you are a billionaire private security contractor or oilman who is actually making money on the war.)
For example, If you care about the economy think about oil prices. Think about the BILLIONS of dollars we are spending in Iraq when health care and public schools stink here. If you care about social justice and helping the poor and oppressed, think about it on a global level. The oppressed in your community are the same as the oppressed in the Middle East. People that die in your neighborhood from random violence are the same as those that die everyday in Iraq.
I plan on writing more on this shortly - the lack of sectarian tension in Iraq and the Middle East and why YOU should care - tomorrow.
There are constant, consistent examples of this lack of understanding in this administration (as well as previous ones) - again, liberal and conservative alike. Anyone who voted for the war, for example, must not have lifted a finger to look into what experts - historians, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists - thought bc they predicted this exact situation.
The most recent example of this ignorance came tonight when I unfortunately heard a snibbit from a McCain speech which really made my stomach turn, leading to one of my own personal battles with the TV. I say unfortunately bc one, this threw off my whole night which was filled with artichokes and Italian Sausage and work work not blog work. I also say unfortunately bc statements like this drive me crazy. Absolutely crazy, and now I feel a little crazy. I know people say stuff like this all the time (read below), but I just can't even bear to hear it anymore. It's just so plain wrong!
McCain was explaining why there is still vioence in Iraq and why the occupation has lasted so long and credited "centuries of sectarian hatred..." AHHHHHHHHH. He might have said tension, but either way his point was that the reason democracy is taking so long to develop in Iraq is because of these ethnic, religious, sectarian hatreds.
(Equally revolting and delusional about his speech was when he said arrogantly and in a condescending manner, "Iraq is a democracy." (Then he went on about the centuries of sectarian hatred.) Read: Arabs BAD, sectarian hatred violent. America GOOD, democracy.)
What a load of #2. My 9th grade students would call McCain out on this totally ahistorical garbage.
Read my post below "There is no Sunni Shii Divide."
The reason this misunderstanding matters so much is that it totally misplaces the root of the conflict and violence in the Middle East. Without understanding the root of the problem we will never be able to solve it. And if we can’t solve it, the US is going to be stuck in the ME forever. (Violence and conflict in the Middle East and Iraq is not bc of sectarianism it is because of matters such as of internal power struggles and the distaste for present and past foreign occupations and western foreign policies for starters...)
For me, I care because I care about the future of the Middle East and places like Iraq. Why should the average American care? Trust me, no matter where you live, the Middle East matters to your life. Our involvement there is probably affecting you in some negative way. (Unless of course you are a millionaire, untouchable by economic fluctuations and a 60$ trip to the beach bc of gas prices. Or, of course you are a billionaire private security contractor or oilman who is actually making money on the war.)
For example, If you care about the economy think about oil prices. Think about the BILLIONS of dollars we are spending in Iraq when health care and public schools stink here. If you care about social justice and helping the poor and oppressed, think about it on a global level. The oppressed in your community are the same as the oppressed in the Middle East. People that die in your neighborhood from random violence are the same as those that die everyday in Iraq.
I plan on writing more on this shortly - the lack of sectarian tension in Iraq and the Middle East and why YOU should care - tomorrow.
A Disgusting Disservice (Yep, you guessed it, this is about Bush)
I am so disgusted by Bush, as perusual. I mean, not surprised, but disgusted.
Despite my seething disgust, I will try to respond to his totally ahistorical, irrational statement in a rational way.
Bush drew a parallel today in a speech to the Israeli Parliament between Nazi appeasers and his political opponents who support diplomatic talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
How someone have such a DEEP misundertanding of the world, the Middle East, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria is beyond me. How someone can say such a profoundly mistaken statement is also beyond me.
More than anything this is an extreme disservice to the world, the Middle East, and most of all Israel.
This reminds me of the even more profoundly disturbing and mistaken phrase 'Islamofascism' which when I heard I though I might be listening to an Onion special.
More on why this parallel is so inaccurate later.
Th
Despite my seething disgust, I will try to respond to his totally ahistorical, irrational statement in a rational way.
Bush drew a parallel today in a speech to the Israeli Parliament between Nazi appeasers and his political opponents who support diplomatic talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
How someone have such a DEEP misundertanding of the world, the Middle East, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria is beyond me. How someone can say such a profoundly mistaken statement is also beyond me.
More than anything this is an extreme disservice to the world, the Middle East, and most of all Israel.
This reminds me of the even more profoundly disturbing and mistaken phrase 'Islamofascism' which when I heard I though I might be listening to an Onion special.
More on why this parallel is so inaccurate later.
Th
Friday, May 9, 2008
I think the Green Zone is headed toward sovereignty, soon it's not going to want to be held back by Iraqis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/06/iraq
I mean really, I am starting a campaign to save the Green Zone. This haven, this oasis, of freedom (and McDonalds freedom fries) and democracy is threatened daily by the terror and violence ridden country that envelops it!
OK, but one a more serious note, does the US government realize it is doing exactly what Saddam did when he took over Iraq? Spend millions to build a bunch of palaces among the impoverished?
I know this may sounds radical to some, but the parallels between the US occupation of Iraq to colonialism and to the dictatorships that arose in the 1960s and 70s in some countries in the Middle East, like Iraq, are many.
Western governments and populations love to criticize African kleptocracts, dictatorial strongmen who drive fleets of Mercedes while their populations live in shacks, hungry and unemployed. The picture is inconceivable to most; how can a leader amass billion dollar fortunes, Charles Taylor, Mobutu Sese Seko, Saudi kings, while their populations are among the most impoverished of the world.
(See my background story on the rise of these dictatorships in the Middle East and Africa after Decolonization and Independence. If you are someone who thinks that these opressive systems arose '...because Africans and Arabs and Muslims and whomever just couldn't get their s--t together...' please read this background piece and open your mind to recomsideration. The reasons for the rise of these kleptocrats and dictators is so much more dynamic. Also please remember, explanations are not excuses, I seek to explain these events not by excusing them or apologizing for them, but by trying to understand why they happen so we might be able to contribute to preventing them in the future. It is not enough to say that there is something inherently prone to dictators and violence in the Arab culture, in Islamic culture, or in Middle Eastern or African cultures.)
Does this picture not apply in Iraq? A 740 million dollar building erected in the middle of the largest humanitarian disaster in the world caused by the builders of said structure. Erected in the middle of a country where few have running water, few have electricity, few have the ability to walk down the streets without fearing for their lives in a variety of ways. Erected in a country of such violence, pain, and sadness.
Maybe it would make Iraqis feel better to know that the embassy is having problems of its own?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29070.html
I guess by putting the Embassy in the Green Zone they did the least they could by keeping it out of the direct line of sight from the average Iraq.
For details of life in the Green Zone, Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book Imperial Life in the Emerald City is a must. The lives of American soldiers and contractors inside the Green Zone is full of pools and McDonalds. Reading this book left one picture in my mind: That of Saddam and his sons on their (well one of their many probably) speedboats water skiing in Saddam's heyday. I remember seeing hat picture and not being able to imagine how a man could gas a few hundred thousand Kurds one day and water ski the next. I look at these Americans wondering how they live inside the Green Zone knowing what is going on just outside of it.
Just as disturbing was the testimony of former subcontrator Rory Mayberry, from the firm First Kuwaiti that built the embassy, in front of the House Oversight Committee (watch testimony here http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/26/slave-labor-used-to-contruct-us-embassy-in-baghdad/) that the embassy was built by modern day slave labor. Asian workers were bused in by air (and not told they were going to Iraq) and forced to work long hours, without shoes in some cases, paid close to nothing, and housed in quarters like back in the day. Here is the report of another contractor who quit out of disgust. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919
This post could go on and on, but will stop here for now.
I mean really, I am starting a campaign to save the Green Zone. This haven, this oasis, of freedom (and McDonalds freedom fries) and democracy is threatened daily by the terror and violence ridden country that envelops it!
OK, but one a more serious note, does the US government realize it is doing exactly what Saddam did when he took over Iraq? Spend millions to build a bunch of palaces among the impoverished?
I know this may sounds radical to some, but the parallels between the US occupation of Iraq to colonialism and to the dictatorships that arose in the 1960s and 70s in some countries in the Middle East, like Iraq, are many.
Western governments and populations love to criticize African kleptocracts, dictatorial strongmen who drive fleets of Mercedes while their populations live in shacks, hungry and unemployed. The picture is inconceivable to most; how can a leader amass billion dollar fortunes, Charles Taylor, Mobutu Sese Seko, Saudi kings, while their populations are among the most impoverished of the world.
(See my background story on the rise of these dictatorships in the Middle East and Africa after Decolonization and Independence. If you are someone who thinks that these opressive systems arose '...because Africans and Arabs and Muslims and whomever just couldn't get their s--t together...' please read this background piece and open your mind to recomsideration. The reasons for the rise of these kleptocrats and dictators is so much more dynamic. Also please remember, explanations are not excuses, I seek to explain these events not by excusing them or apologizing for them, but by trying to understand why they happen so we might be able to contribute to preventing them in the future. It is not enough to say that there is something inherently prone to dictators and violence in the Arab culture, in Islamic culture, or in Middle Eastern or African cultures.)
Does this picture not apply in Iraq? A 740 million dollar building erected in the middle of the largest humanitarian disaster in the world caused by the builders of said structure. Erected in the middle of a country where few have running water, few have electricity, few have the ability to walk down the streets without fearing for their lives in a variety of ways. Erected in a country of such violence, pain, and sadness.
Maybe it would make Iraqis feel better to know that the embassy is having problems of its own?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29070.html
I guess by putting the Embassy in the Green Zone they did the least they could by keeping it out of the direct line of sight from the average Iraq.
For details of life in the Green Zone, Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book Imperial Life in the Emerald City is a must. The lives of American soldiers and contractors inside the Green Zone is full of pools and McDonalds. Reading this book left one picture in my mind: That of Saddam and his sons on their (well one of their many probably) speedboats water skiing in Saddam's heyday. I remember seeing hat picture and not being able to imagine how a man could gas a few hundred thousand Kurds one day and water ski the next. I look at these Americans wondering how they live inside the Green Zone knowing what is going on just outside of it.
Just as disturbing was the testimony of former subcontrator Rory Mayberry, from the firm First Kuwaiti that built the embassy, in front of the House Oversight Committee (watch testimony here http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/26/slave-labor-used-to-contruct-us-embassy-in-baghdad/) that the embassy was built by modern day slave labor. Asian workers were bused in by air (and not told they were going to Iraq) and forced to work long hours, without shoes in some cases, paid close to nothing, and housed in quarters like back in the day. Here is the report of another contractor who quit out of disgust. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/phinney.php?articleid=9919
This post could go on and on, but will stop here for now.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Turkey to the Rescue
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04islam.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
The article on the front page of the NYTimes today, Sunday May 4, "Turkish Schools Offer an Gentler Islam" is one that all should read.
A group of Turkish teachers and educators have opened schools in the NW province of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan credited for being a breeding ground for militants. The schools' aim to counteract the radical fundamentalist Islamic schools in the area by providing a balanced alternative: A well rounded curriculum that includes (but is not limited to) Islamic studies and prayer. The Turkish run schools teach Science, English, Math, History in addition to a course on Islam. They encourgae Islamic ways of life in dormitories.The article focuses on Mesut Kacmaz, a Turk teaching in Pakistan; he is quoted throughout the story, "Whatever the West has of science, let our kids have it, but let our kids have religion as well." This quote is important because Muslims must realize that science and Islam are not in opposition to one another as many corrupt fake Islamic scholars have taught. (See below paragraph for a brief background on this.)
(Bkgrnd: There was a backlash against subjects such as science and math that went along with the backlash against things western after years of imperialism, colonialism, oppression and discrimination against the Muslim world and Middle East by Europe and the West. However crazy you might think this is, it happened, and it is crucial that these subjects are reintroduced. There is precendence for this argument: A long history of Islamic scholars have attempted to show that science and math are not 'Western' but universal subjects. In fact, they originated in the East; Cairo and Baghdad were historical centers of learning before Western scholars began thinking about matters such as math: Al-Gebra for example. Two great examples 19th Century Islamic scholars Muhammad Abdo and Jamal al Din al Afghani who are considered 'Islamic Modernists' for their writings advocating higher learning - science, literature, math - within the framework of Islam.)
Back to the article. Also mentioned is Turkish Islamic scholar Fetullah Gulen, who sounds like a modern day Afghani, "without science religion turns to radicalism' he is quoted as saying. He advocates again, moderate Islam taught alongside Literature, Math, Science, and History.
The article also touches on how these fundamentalist schools contribute to the perversion of Islam: Power hungry men use these schools as venues for selling their militant agenda, misinterpreting the Quran and hadiths to recruit young followers. The article quotes Matiullah Aail, a religious scholar in Quetta who graduated from Medina University in Saudi which clearly gives him some street cred in the Muslim world. He compares these radical mullahs to lawyers and doctors, "Doctors and lawyers have to their degrees. But when it comes to mullahs, no one asks them for their qualifications. They don't have knowledge, but they are influential." Knowledgeable educators, like those coming from Turkey, will teach students to see through these fake radical Islamic scholars.
Using a balanced curriculum to teach the Pakistani youth how to think broadly and critically, not militarizing the region, arming tribesmen, and dropping bombs a la US foreign policy, will defeat radicalism and militants.
The article dubs these Turkish teachers the Muslim Peace Corps which I thought was fitting as an ex Peace Corps volunteer.
The article on the front page of the NYTimes today, Sunday May 4, "Turkish Schools Offer an Gentler Islam" is one that all should read.
A group of Turkish teachers and educators have opened schools in the NW province of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan credited for being a breeding ground for militants. The schools' aim to counteract the radical fundamentalist Islamic schools in the area by providing a balanced alternative: A well rounded curriculum that includes (but is not limited to) Islamic studies and prayer. The Turkish run schools teach Science, English, Math, History in addition to a course on Islam. They encourgae Islamic ways of life in dormitories.The article focuses on Mesut Kacmaz, a Turk teaching in Pakistan; he is quoted throughout the story, "Whatever the West has of science, let our kids have it, but let our kids have religion as well." This quote is important because Muslims must realize that science and Islam are not in opposition to one another as many corrupt fake Islamic scholars have taught. (See below paragraph for a brief background on this.)
(Bkgrnd: There was a backlash against subjects such as science and math that went along with the backlash against things western after years of imperialism, colonialism, oppression and discrimination against the Muslim world and Middle East by Europe and the West. However crazy you might think this is, it happened, and it is crucial that these subjects are reintroduced. There is precendence for this argument: A long history of Islamic scholars have attempted to show that science and math are not 'Western' but universal subjects. In fact, they originated in the East; Cairo and Baghdad were historical centers of learning before Western scholars began thinking about matters such as math: Al-Gebra for example. Two great examples 19th Century Islamic scholars Muhammad Abdo and Jamal al Din al Afghani who are considered 'Islamic Modernists' for their writings advocating higher learning - science, literature, math - within the framework of Islam.)
Back to the article. Also mentioned is Turkish Islamic scholar Fetullah Gulen, who sounds like a modern day Afghani, "without science religion turns to radicalism' he is quoted as saying. He advocates again, moderate Islam taught alongside Literature, Math, Science, and History.
The article also touches on how these fundamentalist schools contribute to the perversion of Islam: Power hungry men use these schools as venues for selling their militant agenda, misinterpreting the Quran and hadiths to recruit young followers. The article quotes Matiullah Aail, a religious scholar in Quetta who graduated from Medina University in Saudi which clearly gives him some street cred in the Muslim world. He compares these radical mullahs to lawyers and doctors, "Doctors and lawyers have to their degrees. But when it comes to mullahs, no one asks them for their qualifications. They don't have knowledge, but they are influential." Knowledgeable educators, like those coming from Turkey, will teach students to see through these fake radical Islamic scholars.
Using a balanced curriculum to teach the Pakistani youth how to think broadly and critically, not militarizing the region, arming tribesmen, and dropping bombs a la US foreign policy, will defeat radicalism and militants.
The article dubs these Turkish teachers the Muslim Peace Corps which I thought was fitting as an ex Peace Corps volunteer.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Fatima Mernissi is the Woman
Fatima Mernissi might be one of the most important figures in the world today. I wish she got more credit and recognition outside academic circles. She is one of a large group of scholars who work for reform in the Muslim world within the boundaries of Islam - what better way is there for reform than from within.
In her writings, particularly Beyond the Veil: Male Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society, she interprets the Quran and Hadiths (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), to reveal the true meaning behind them. For example, Islam and the Prophet Muhammad counted justice above all, especially for the poor and underprivileged. The Prophet treated women as his equals, taking advice from his wife on political decisions.
One of my favorite misinterpretations of the Hadiths is that the Prophet Muhammad took many wives because women were not equal to men; that he forced these women to live with him and that they had no say. The Prophet Muhammad took women (voluntarily) into his household that had been widowed due to war and conflict of the times to care for them and provide for them.
Many might read this and say 'apologist' but this is the truth. This model the Prophet set up has been corrupted and misinterpreted by oppressed males and power hungry leaders. They have perversed the real Islam for their own benefit.
It is up to Muslims to retake their religion through work such as that of Fatima Mernissi.
In her writings, particularly Beyond the Veil: Male Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society, she interprets the Quran and Hadiths (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), to reveal the true meaning behind them. For example, Islam and the Prophet Muhammad counted justice above all, especially for the poor and underprivileged. The Prophet treated women as his equals, taking advice from his wife on political decisions.
One of my favorite misinterpretations of the Hadiths is that the Prophet Muhammad took many wives because women were not equal to men; that he forced these women to live with him and that they had no say. The Prophet Muhammad took women (voluntarily) into his household that had been widowed due to war and conflict of the times to care for them and provide for them.
Many might read this and say 'apologist' but this is the truth. This model the Prophet set up has been corrupted and misinterpreted by oppressed males and power hungry leaders. They have perversed the real Islam for their own benefit.
It is up to Muslims to retake their religion through work such as that of Fatima Mernissi.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Turkey is Getting it Done for Islam
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/34851.html
Every Muslim should be out there doing this - taking their religion back through reinterpreting the Quran and Hadiths to reveal their true, just nature.
See the below post also "Turkey Honors Islam" from February 26, 2008.
Every Muslim should be out there doing this - taking their religion back through reinterpreting the Quran and Hadiths to reveal their true, just nature.
See the below post also "Turkey Honors Islam" from February 26, 2008.
Noah Feldman is the Man
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15491/
I just listened to an interview with Noah Feldman (Constitutional Law Professor at NYU) on his new book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State on Diane Rehm Show on April 16, 2008. (I actually listened to it twice.) You can find it on the NPR website http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ or as a Podcast.
Here is a review of his book: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15491/
Everyone should listen to this interview; Mr. Feldman is a scholar of Jewish law, Christian law, and Islamic Law - Sharia. (And obviously from his position, Constitutional Law.) I think you could give him the label 'accomplished'.
Anyway, this interview made him No. 1 on my 'People I Not Only Want To Have Dinner With But Also People I Want To Rule the World' list.
Why? He is rational and reasoned in his impeccable explanation of the Sharia - which was a fair, just, balanced, fluid law which gave more rights to women for example when it was put in place, reversing many oppressive tribal laws.
This is the best point Mr. Feldman drives home, when we hear about stonings and honor killings, this is NOT Sharia. These are unfortunate, archaic, tribal laws that have been in place in Muslim and non Muslim villages for centuries. Why they remain is another story for another time. But it is CRUCIAL to remember the following:
1 - These acts are not written in Islamic law, even though some corrupt militant might say they are to justify his own deplorable acts.
2 - Islamic law actually reversed these standards and customs in Arabia and in other regions as Islam spread.
3 - Sharia law is fluid, adaptable, and just.
3 - Most importantly these stonings and honor killings rarely occur. We just think of them often because of their extreme nature and because they are drilled into our minds by the media so we think of them as typical in the Middle East, or Asia, or Africa. They are not.
I just listened to an interview with Noah Feldman (Constitutional Law Professor at NYU) on his new book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State on Diane Rehm Show on April 16, 2008. (I actually listened to it twice.) You can find it on the NPR website http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ or as a Podcast.
Here is a review of his book: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15491/
Everyone should listen to this interview; Mr. Feldman is a scholar of Jewish law, Christian law, and Islamic Law - Sharia. (And obviously from his position, Constitutional Law.) I think you could give him the label 'accomplished'.
Anyway, this interview made him No. 1 on my 'People I Not Only Want To Have Dinner With But Also People I Want To Rule the World' list.
Why? He is rational and reasoned in his impeccable explanation of the Sharia - which was a fair, just, balanced, fluid law which gave more rights to women for example when it was put in place, reversing many oppressive tribal laws.
This is the best point Mr. Feldman drives home, when we hear about stonings and honor killings, this is NOT Sharia. These are unfortunate, archaic, tribal laws that have been in place in Muslim and non Muslim villages for centuries. Why they remain is another story for another time. But it is CRUCIAL to remember the following:
1 - These acts are not written in Islamic law, even though some corrupt militant might say they are to justify his own deplorable acts.
2 - Islamic law actually reversed these standards and customs in Arabia and in other regions as Islam spread.
3 - Sharia law is fluid, adaptable, and just.
3 - Most importantly these stonings and honor killings rarely occur. We just think of them often because of their extreme nature and because they are drilled into our minds by the media so we think of them as typical in the Middle East, or Asia, or Africa. They are not.
There is no Sunni Shii Divide
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p01s03-wome.html?page=1
The Christian Science Monitor published an article about a recent debate in Qatar on the 'Sunni Shii Divide,' or lack thereof. It will be broadcast on BBC on May 3rd and 4th.
I love that this argument is getting press. It is important to understand that Sunni and Shii have lived side by side in the Middle East for centuries. Meaning in the Safavid and Ottoman Empire, in Iran and Iraq, and in neighborhoods, marrying one another. 1 in every 3 marriages in Iraq is mixed. What does that tell you? While yes, there have been conflicts and skirmishes, it was never because of religious quarrels or differences, it was about power and politics, land and water, expanding empires with competeting interests in Baghdad, and the Shatt al Arab; there has been much more sharing and intermingling between these groups than conflict. I guarantee, very few people were talking about who was a Sunni and who was a Shii in the time of the Ottoman Empire. They were just all MUSLIMS. I also doubt many people, except Saddam Hussein, talked about it in Iraq before the invasion.
What people absolutely FAIL to understand, is that even though Saddam persecuted and massacred Shii, that does NOT mean that the average 'Sunni' Iraq disliked Shii. Saddam was a secular man who used a Sunni identity to oppress the majority 'Shii' population to keep himself in power. Iraqis under Saddam were so far removed from their government - they did not participate in politics and in society. They could not have been more distant from Saddam's policies. It is similar to the idea that just because someone was a Baathist did not mean they subscribed to Saddam's policies. They joined because if they did not, they would be jailed. Teachers, for example, joined to keep their jobs and receive salary increases.
Sunni and Shii lived side by side in Iraq before the invasion. They married one another. They lived in the same neighborhoods. In the same homes. Many probably did not even know their own neighbors' religious affiliation byond being Muslim or Christian.
My least favorite argument in the entire world about Iraq is: The calm before the invasion existed bc Saddam kept a tight lid on sectarianism. Sorry but BS. BSx500. This calm was not maintained because of the 'tight lid' Saddam kept on the population. There was nothing to keep a lid on.
The violence in Iraq today is due to the disbanding of the army and the US divide and rule political strategy after the invasion: Sunii, Shii, and Kurds will divide power, each in one main office. Why couldn't Iraqis have shared it?
While that division of power sounded so great to so many, it reminded me of the British strategy during the mandate system. (Whether US intentions were to divide and rule or not, that is what the US did.) After receiving the mandate to govern Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the British included a portion of Kurdish population in the newly drawn Iraqi nation to prevent a strong united Iraqi government supported by a united Arab population. The British then encouraged feelings of Arab nationalism, which clearly would not settle well with Kurds. (This rise of ethnonationalism was new to the region; throughout the Ottoman Empire Kurds and Arabs lived side by side, both Muslims, both citizens of the Empire.) The British sought the divide the population by fomenting Arab and Kurds identities as antagonistic, just as they fomented hatred between the Muslim and Hindu population in India, between Jews and Palestinians in Palestine.
While US intentions may not have been to foment hatred between Sunni, Shii, and Kurds, their division of the population on ethnic and religious lines in a power and security vaccum they created did just that.
The Christian Science Monitor published an article about a recent debate in Qatar on the 'Sunni Shii Divide,' or lack thereof. It will be broadcast on BBC on May 3rd and 4th.
I love that this argument is getting press. It is important to understand that Sunni and Shii have lived side by side in the Middle East for centuries. Meaning in the Safavid and Ottoman Empire, in Iran and Iraq, and in neighborhoods, marrying one another. 1 in every 3 marriages in Iraq is mixed. What does that tell you? While yes, there have been conflicts and skirmishes, it was never because of religious quarrels or differences, it was about power and politics, land and water, expanding empires with competeting interests in Baghdad, and the Shatt al Arab; there has been much more sharing and intermingling between these groups than conflict. I guarantee, very few people were talking about who was a Sunni and who was a Shii in the time of the Ottoman Empire. They were just all MUSLIMS. I also doubt many people, except Saddam Hussein, talked about it in Iraq before the invasion.
What people absolutely FAIL to understand, is that even though Saddam persecuted and massacred Shii, that does NOT mean that the average 'Sunni' Iraq disliked Shii. Saddam was a secular man who used a Sunni identity to oppress the majority 'Shii' population to keep himself in power. Iraqis under Saddam were so far removed from their government - they did not participate in politics and in society. They could not have been more distant from Saddam's policies. It is similar to the idea that just because someone was a Baathist did not mean they subscribed to Saddam's policies. They joined because if they did not, they would be jailed. Teachers, for example, joined to keep their jobs and receive salary increases.
Sunni and Shii lived side by side in Iraq before the invasion. They married one another. They lived in the same neighborhoods. In the same homes. Many probably did not even know their own neighbors' religious affiliation byond being Muslim or Christian.
My least favorite argument in the entire world about Iraq is: The calm before the invasion existed bc Saddam kept a tight lid on sectarianism. Sorry but BS. BSx500. This calm was not maintained because of the 'tight lid' Saddam kept on the population. There was nothing to keep a lid on.
The violence in Iraq today is due to the disbanding of the army and the US divide and rule political strategy after the invasion: Sunii, Shii, and Kurds will divide power, each in one main office. Why couldn't Iraqis have shared it?
While that division of power sounded so great to so many, it reminded me of the British strategy during the mandate system. (Whether US intentions were to divide and rule or not, that is what the US did.) After receiving the mandate to govern Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the British included a portion of Kurdish population in the newly drawn Iraqi nation to prevent a strong united Iraqi government supported by a united Arab population. The British then encouraged feelings of Arab nationalism, which clearly would not settle well with Kurds. (This rise of ethnonationalism was new to the region; throughout the Ottoman Empire Kurds and Arabs lived side by side, both Muslims, both citizens of the Empire.) The British sought the divide the population by fomenting Arab and Kurds identities as antagonistic, just as they fomented hatred between the Muslim and Hindu population in India, between Jews and Palestinians in Palestine.
While US intentions may not have been to foment hatred between Sunni, Shii, and Kurds, their division of the population on ethnic and religious lines in a power and security vaccum they created did just that.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Turkey Honors Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
The hadiths, the ways and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad recorded by his companions, have frequently been twisted to serve the interests of politicians and leaders in Muslim countries and communities.
On many occasions, hadiths are taken out of context: Many were written in a time of war in the 7th Century when, for example, it was not safe for women to travel for long distances alone or even leave the house. The aforementioned leaders reinperpret passages as such to support the idea that Islam and the Prophet teach that women are second class citizens or inferior to men.
The commission hired by the Department of Religious Affairs in Turkey to debunk these perversions is an important step in realizing that Islam is not only compatible with, but advocates for, women's rights, human rights, equality, democracy, and justice.
The hadiths, the ways and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad recorded by his companions, have frequently been twisted to serve the interests of politicians and leaders in Muslim countries and communities.
On many occasions, hadiths are taken out of context: Many were written in a time of war in the 7th Century when, for example, it was not safe for women to travel for long distances alone or even leave the house. The aforementioned leaders reinperpret passages as such to support the idea that Islam and the Prophet teach that women are second class citizens or inferior to men.
The commission hired by the Department of Religious Affairs in Turkey to debunk these perversions is an important step in realizing that Islam is not only compatible with, but advocates for, women's rights, human rights, equality, democracy, and justice.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
I think the U.S. needs a tutor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/world/middleeast/16justice.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=iraqi+tutor&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Just like the Big Four at Versailles and Don Rumsfeld have articulated in the past, The New York Times apparently also thinks America must advise the Iraqis on how to govern themselves.
Whereas Wilson said the ex Ottoman Empire territories needed 'tutelage', and Rumsfeld equated the occupation to teaching a child to 'a ride a bike',' now the New York Times credits the U.S. with 'tutoring' Iraqis in the 'Rule of Law.' Hamdullah li Amerika. I mean if anyone knows a thing about justice, it's surely America, especially with regard to the Middle East. Our just wars, followed by just occupations, just imprisonments of over 26,000 Sunni men without charges, and just torture at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.
Check out Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League...
The Treaty of Versailles used the work 'tutelage' to justify the mandate system it created to govern territories in the Ottoman Empire, based on the idea that inhabitants of these lands were just not ready to rule themselves in the 'modern world'. Most consider this system one of hypocrisy, discrimination, imperialism, and Orientalism.
I am curious what makes one modern? The violent oppression and occupation of other peoples and territories? Guess some things don't change.
I might be growing overly protective of the Middle East and its abilities; this post might be a long shot. But I have a problem with the claim that Iraqis need someone to explain the logistics of a legal system and the idea of justice to them. Even though it is something they have lived without for years - nationally and internationally - if allowed security and time, Iraqis can form their own system of justice. Last time I checked there weren't a lot of court hearings going on in war zones.
Just like the Big Four at Versailles and Don Rumsfeld have articulated in the past, The New York Times apparently also thinks America must advise the Iraqis on how to govern themselves.
Whereas Wilson said the ex Ottoman Empire territories needed 'tutelage', and Rumsfeld equated the occupation to teaching a child to 'a ride a bike',' now the New York Times credits the U.S. with 'tutoring' Iraqis in the 'Rule of Law.' Hamdullah li Amerika. I mean if anyone knows a thing about justice, it's surely America, especially with regard to the Middle East. Our just wars, followed by just occupations, just imprisonments of over 26,000 Sunni men without charges, and just torture at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.
Check out Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League...
The Treaty of Versailles used the work 'tutelage' to justify the mandate system it created to govern territories in the Ottoman Empire, based on the idea that inhabitants of these lands were just not ready to rule themselves in the 'modern world'. Most consider this system one of hypocrisy, discrimination, imperialism, and Orientalism.
I am curious what makes one modern? The violent oppression and occupation of other peoples and territories? Guess some things don't change.
I might be growing overly protective of the Middle East and its abilities; this post might be a long shot. But I have a problem with the claim that Iraqis need someone to explain the logistics of a legal system and the idea of justice to them. Even though it is something they have lived without for years - nationally and internationally - if allowed security and time, Iraqis can form their own system of justice. Last time I checked there weren't a lot of court hearings going on in war zones.
Robert Fisk Tells It Like It Is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDxezvEhHP0
In this video, Robert Fisk tells us what individuals in the Middle East really want: Justice.
In this video, Robert Fisk tells us what individuals in the Middle East really want: Justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
