By TMO Staff

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) listens to a Palestinian man during his visit to the destroyed American International School in the northern Gaza Strip February 19, 2009. Senator Kerry and two other lawmakers made a rare visit to the Gaza Strip on Thursday but insisted a boycott of its Hamas rulers remained intact. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for president in 2004, and two members of the House of Representatives, Brian Baird and Keith Ellison, entered the Gaza Strip separately.       REUTERS/Suhaib Salem

Senator John Kerry is holding a hearing Thursday (tomorrow as of this writing) to discuss “Engaging with Muslim Communities Around the World,” which is expected to be a series of hearings intended to build relations with Muslims.

Based on the people invited to speak at the hearings, it is very unclear that the hearings are based on a sincere move towards rapprochement with the world’s Muslims.

Two panels are scheduled.  At the first, Non-Muslim witnesses will speak, namely former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Admiral William Fallon (ret.).
At the second panel, Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies will speak, as will Eboo Patel, the executive director of Interfaith Youth Core, and Zeyno Baran, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC.

The Congressional Muslim Staffers Association claims to have advised Senator Kerry’s committee staff in identifying Muslim Americans to testify in the hearings.  The hearings are open to the public.

The two choices for the early panel are interesting largely because they are not people Muslims would think of as being especially knowledgeable about Islam.
A former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright had professional dealings with Muslims and might be considered moderate relative to the Bush administration’s bizarre attacks against the entire Muslim world. 

Admiral Fallon was commander of the US Central Command for one year, from March 2007 to March 2008.  He resigned apparently as a result of an Esquire magazine article which claimed he was the only thing standing between the Bush administration and war with Iran one year ago.  If Fallon prevented a war with Iran, then that is something which speaks more to his knowledge of logic and strategic wisdom rather than knowledge of Islam, although it is a good indicator of common sense.

There are non-Muslims seemingly more knowledgeable about Islam than Fallon or Albright.  John Esposito in at Georgetown University, close enough to invite to the congress.  Karen Armstrong is more of an authority on Islam than Fallon or Albright.  Bernard Lewis knows more about Islam than either of the two invitees.  Granted those are not policy-makers.  But knowledgeable policy-makers are available also.

There are many non-Muslim journalists who know more about Islam than Fallon or Albright.  Kerry could invite any number of journalists who have reported extensively on the Muslim world.

And that is listing only the non-Muslims.  Muslims who know about Islam and could suggest policy changes are plentiful and, in fact, hard to avoid.  The reality is that Sen. Kerry may be trying to avoid some of the people who are officially in charge of the American Muslim community for fear of hearing spin-doctored data or too-radical policy suggestions.

Senator Kerry invited Eboo Patel, who is an impressive man:  the founder of Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago based international nonprofit.  He has a doctorate in sociology of religion from Oxford, where he studied on a Rhodes scholarship.  Interestingly, Patel served with the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Committee of the Aga Khan Foundation USA.

Dalia Mogahed, another speaker, is a Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim studies.  With John Esposito she wrote Who Speaks for Islam?”  What a Billion Muslims Really Think.  She is even well-connected, having spoken with many world leaders or former world leaders and many leaders of different religious or philosophical groups or movements.

Finally, Zeyno Baran.  Yes that is right.  Who is she? Baran is “a prominent Turkish American scholar on issues ranging from US-Turkey relations to Islamist ideology to energy security in Europe and Asia,” according to wikipedia, which also states that “One of Baran’s key areas of specialization is countering the spread of radical Turkish Islamist ideology in Europe and Eurasia.”  She works against the build-up in a society of parallel cultures (Muslim and non-Muslim).

Zeyno Baran is a Turkish woman married to Matthew Bryza, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. 

A Muslim might feel misgivings that someone rather secular, from Turkey, is addressing our government on government relations with Islam.  In her native Turkey, wearing hijab is illegal in many circumstances because of the hijab ban.  Turkey, in fact, has espoused a very radical secularism that has been the bane of Muslims there for 80 years.  In her country a woman wearing hijab cannot go to university or get a government job.  Men with beards are in fact breaking the law. 

So given her background and her experience, a Muslim could be pardoned for having deep misgivings about this particular choice.  However, her work has focused primarily on relatively radical Muslim organizations so in fact perhaps she has to receive the benefit of the doubt regarding her true intentions toward the practice of Islam–and we hope at least that she feels open to the quiet practice of Islam that does not entail “Islamism.”

Kerry could have chosen so many other Muslims. Rep. Keith Ellison is his co-worker and is certainly available.  Rep. Andre Carson would certainly make himself available to Sen. Kerry.

If Kerry wishes to speak to social activists who are more concerned with building communities rather than lobbying on large policy issues, those people are certainly available as well. 

In fact, there are many people other than those who were chosen, which raises the question whether Senator Kerry’s attempt to engage with Muslim communities around the world is really more of the window dressing, from the senate branch, that we saw before from Bush’s executive branch.

Senator Kerry recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Gaza.  Coincidentally, two other lawmakers also visited the war-torn area.  Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN-5) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA-3).  Apparently the congressmen made a point of visiting Gaza separately.  Still it was a significant step for Kerry to actually witness the devastation first-hand.

Reuters news photos of Kerry’s visit were plentiful, and did include some shots of the senator speaking with Palestinians–but the vast majority of such photos showed Tzipi Livni chumming with him during helicopter rides over the area of which her government had sanctioned the devastation. 

After the trip, Rep. Baird called for unspecified “changes to US policy” on his official House of Representatives website, and showed there pictures from his trip: the destroyed American International School in Gaza, as well as destroyed hospitals, and meeting with relief workers.

Rep. Ellison does not appear to have made any public statements about his visit to Gaza, although from his official website he praised President Obama for releasing $21.3 million from US Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) to be used to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza.  Since then President Obama has made it clear that more money will go to rebuild Gaza.

So, if you hope that Senator Kerry’s conducting hearings on relations with Islam signals a real effort that will amount to anything good for the future, don’t hold your breath.

It is unclear whether Dalia Mogahed is an exceptionally gifted and articulate woman.  Probably she is, but even so it will be an uphill battle for her when more than equal time will be given to people who are either brilliant but uninspiring, or worse, in Baran’s case, likely hostile.

Still less heartening is the fact that the motivating force behind this effort has chosen mostly the wrong people to ask for advice.  And anyway, in visiting Gaza why did Kerry avoid the famously Muslim Ellison? Why did he pal around with… Tzipi Livni?

What is he up to?

11-10

Courtesy Ramzy Baroud

But it is unlikely that Holbrooke will absorb the magnitude of that historic lesson. Both he and the new US President Barack Obama are convinced that the missing component for winning the war in Afghanistan is a greater commitment, as in doubling the troops, increasing military spending, and, by way of winning hearts and minds, investing more in developing the country. That combination, the US administration believes, will eventually sway Afghans from supporting the Taliban, tribal militias, Pashtun nationalists and other groups. The latter is waging a guerilla struggle in various parts of the country, mostly in the south, to oust Karzai’s government and foreign occupation forces. While Kabul was considered an “oasis of calm” – by Jonathan Steele’s account – during the Soviet rule, it’s nowhere close to that depiction under the rule of the US and its NATO allies, who had plenty of time, eight long years, to assert their control, but failed.

In fact, just as Holbrooke sat within Karzai’s heavily guarded presidential palace, roadside bombs were detonating across the country, in Khost, in Kandahar and elsewhere. Several police officers were killed, the latest addition to the hundreds of soldiers and officers who die each year as they desperately defend the few symbols of the central government’s authority. Aside from its shaky control over Kabul, and a few provincial capitals, the central government struggles to maintain the little relevance it still holds.

This deems most of the country a battleground between Afghani militias, seen by a growing number of Afghans as a legitimate resistance force against an illegitimate occupation; that being US and NATO forces.

Unlike the unpopular war in Iraq, Afghanistan was widely viewed in the US as a moral war, based on the logic that since al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, and since the group is hosted by an equally militant Taliban government, both groups must pay. So far, the people of Afghanistan have paid many times over the price expected. Thousands were killed, and an entire generation was scarred by a new civil war, and yet a new foreign military occupation.

While mainstream news consumers are inundated with official commentary and occasional news reports on the challenges awaiting the US in Afghanistan, to secure democracy, freedom and ‘national interests,’ media reports continue to reduce the battle over Afghanistan as one that is concerned with fighting local corruption, instilling human rights and ensuring gender equality.

Little is said of the pertinent reasons behind the war, as such seemingly tedious rhetoric of great games to control the Eurasian landmass – which dates back to the 19th century’s rivalry between British and Russian empires – is more suited for academic discussions that are by no means newsworthy.

But it is perhaps relevant to note that desperate attempts at controlling Afghanistan have failed miserably in the past. If Holbrooke wishes to dig deeper into history, he should learn that the British Empire, which controlled India at the time, was also defeated in Afghanistan in 1842, and again in 1878. Soviet leaders looked for a quick victory as they occupied Kabul in December 1979, only to find themselves engaged in a most bloody war that cost them 15,000 deaths (it goes without saying that the hundreds of thousands of Afghani deaths often go unreported) and an unmitigated defeat.

But, then again, Holbrooke must’ve known of the details of the latter period, for after all, it was his country that armed and financially sustained the mujahideen forces in Afghanistan fearing that the Soviets’ ultimate objective, during the Cold War was challenging US dominance in the region, and eventually the Middle East. Considering the strategically disastrous toppling of the Shah of Iran to the US, the world-leading superpower could take no chances.

But since then, Afghanistan has grown in significance from a politically strategic landmass, due to its proximity to warm-waters and regional powers, to an energy strategic landmass, inevitable to the exploitation of Caspian oil.

“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian,” said former vice-president Dick Cheney in a speech to oil moguls in 1998. In the same year, John Maresca, vice president of international relations of Unocal Corporation commented before a House committee in February 2008 on ways to transfer Caspian basin oil (estimated between 110 to 243bn barrels of crude, worth up to $4 trillion): “(One) option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan.”

Military success in Afghanistan is simply not possible, for numerous logistical, historical and practical reasons. But failure will also come at a price, at least for those who will directly benefit from subduing the rebellious nation.

Former president Bush and his entourage of allies failed to turn Afghanistan into a US-styled democracy, easily exploitable for strategic and economic use. By pressing a military solution in Afghanistan, Obama is not only summoning another failed US imperial experiment – as that in Iraq – but insists on adding his country’s name to those of Britain and Russia, who had better chances of success, but were squarely defeated.

“It’s like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans,” Oleg Kubanov, a former Russian officer in Afghanistan told Reuters. “It’s their holy land; it doesn’t matter to them if you’re Russian, American. We’re all soldiers to them.”

It would be timely if Holbrooke takes a few hours from his hectic schedule in the region to brush up on Afghanistan’s history, for he surely needs it.

– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, “The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London).

11-10

By Mahvish Akhtar, MMNS Pakistan Correspondent

Every government that comes to Pakistan makes some changes in order to please the public or maybe just to make a mark and be known and make a place in the pages of history for themselves.

Dr. Qadeer has been a household name since he came on to the scene. We all know the story. He has been a threat for all the government that have come by and he has mainly has been that because our allies thought of him as such. Many of us have been confused about who he really is and what his importance has been. However, this confusion is only for the ones who don’t live in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan are very sure about who he is and what his value is for Pakistan as a whole.

People were very distraught when he was captured and treated like a criminal. Now that he is free again he is a legend and people have mixed feelings about him. Well these mixed feelings are not about his release but they are about what it really means.

Saima, a housewife and a mother of a new born says, “I feel immense happiness …but still I m not sure that government of Pakistan really released him. If it is a reality that he is completely free now then it is a big step towards right direction…but I don’t think he is actually released. Now may be Pakistan’s actual hero will get his genuine position in his country if he does this would be a great accomplishment He saved Pakistan by making us a nuclear power and gave hope to other Muslims countries for achieving something great.

He is a true patriotic person he really shows how much he loves his country, and he has paid a lot for it. I think if he gets full freedom he has the ability to make Pakistan a super power. But this is my dream and I know it won’t happen because our government and the US will never free him enough to do this kind of work
Dr. Shahid Mustafa has pretty much the same feelings about the issue. He says he was very happy that Dr. Qadeer was released because he is a national hero and his real place is as an important member of the society. “He says that it was a step in the right direction”, he also added that, “justice is the ultimate accomplishment at any time”.

Dr. Mustafa says that Dr. Qadeer provided security to Pakistan and it also provided a psychological uplifting to the Muslims of the world which is much needed. When asked if he feels that the doctor can play some positive role in the society now he commented, “He certainly can play a role in the field of science and education by establishing institutions due to his leadership and ‘getting the job done’ skills.

Syed Qutub says he was very relieved to hear of Dr. Qadeer’s release. He says this will provide some relief to the masses of Pakistan and will give them some hope about the direction we are going in as a nation. He feels that Dr. Qadeer is important because he has given Pakistan a good image and has made Pakistan secure.
Ayesha Iftikhar a young IBA teacher believes that, “Dr. Qadeer has given the best years of his career to Pakistan. I think he is the reason India is not at war with us.” She also thinks that he can be a very useful commodity for the Higher Education Commission and help the upcoming scientists of Pakistan.

Mahrukh Akhtar who is a mother of two and also working as Psychologists while she studies for her masters shares the same feelings. She feels that now Dr. Qadeer should devote his time on training young scientists and they should try to learn from him as much as they can to ensure a brighter future for our country.
The views about Dr. Qadeer are the same across the board. After speaking to professionals I spoke to students at different ages and they all had the exact same emotions. Hafsa who is a 16 year old said that she is happy that he is released but she doesn’t feel that he can do much now because she doesn’t believe he would have access to anything any more and that he won’t even be allowed to teach and be a part of the society in a full way.

Bushra Zia, a University student says that she happy he has been released but is more skeptical. She doesn’t feel that this is a real release. She says that this is just the civil government’s way of getting back at the military government. “The news was pleasant but the hidden reasons behind his release were ambiguously upsetting.” When asked what those hidden reasons might be she wasn’t sure all she could say was that she refuses to believe that the government did this because they thought he was an asset to the country.

There are mixed emotions about many things but the one thing everyone agrees on is that Dr. Qadeer is a national hero and he has a very special place in the hearts of the public of Pakistan.

11-10

Courtesy Atul Aneja

DUBAI: Iran has not converted the low-grade uranium that it has produced into weapon-grade uranium, inspectors belonging to the International Atomic Energy Agency have said.

The Austrian Press Agency quoted an IAEA expert as saying that the uranium substances that Iran has produced at its Natanz enrichment facility have been carefully recorded and remote cameras have been installed to supervise part of the stockpile.

“If the Iranians intend to transport these uranium substances to a secret location for further processing, agency’s inspectors will find out,” he said.

The expert added that “so far, Iran has carried out good cooperation with us in relevant verifications”.

IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei has said that Iran has slowed down its uranium enrichment programme. He made this observation while submitting a report to the U.N. Security Council on Thursday. Iran has reportedly added only 164 centrifuges (which are used for enrichment) since December last, a comparatively slower rate than in the past.

The IAEA report said that Iran had so far produced around 1,000 kg. of low-enriched uranium.

Iran has denied accusations by the United States and its allies that it has been engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Iran has continued with its uranium enrichment activities which it stresses only have a peaceful orientation.

The report notes that Iran has not stopped uranium enrichment activity despite imposition of sanctions by U.N. Security Council.

The Security Council has demanded that Iran must suspend all uranium enrichment as a first step to allow negotiations to commence.

11-10

By John Pilger, Z Net

When I returned from the war in Vietnam, I wrote a film script as an antidote to the myth that the war had been an ill-fated noble cause. The producer David Puttnam took the draft to Hollywood and offered it to the major studios, whose responses were favourable – well, almost. Each issued a report card in which the final category, “politics”, included comments such as: “This is real, but are the American people ready for it? Maybe they’ll never be.”

By the late 1970s, Hollywood judged Americans ready for a different kind of Vietnam movie. The first was The Deer Hunter which, according to Time, “articulates the new patriotism”. The film celebrated immigrant America, with Robert de Niro as a working class hero (“liberal by instinct”) and the Vietnamese as sub-human Oriental barbarians and idiots, or “gooks”. The dramatic peak was reached during recurring orgiastic scenes in which GIs were forced to play Russian roulette by their Vietnamese captors. This was made up by the director Michael Cimino, who also made up a story that he had served in Vietnam. “I have this insane feeling that I was there,” he said. “Somehow… the line between reality and fiction has become blurred.”

The Deer Hunter was regarded virtually as documentary by ecstatic critics. “The film that could purge a nation’s guilt!” said the Daily Mail. President Jimmy Carter was reportedly moved by its “genuine American message”. Catharsis was at hand. The Vietnam movies became a revisionist popular history of the great crime in Indo-China. That more than four million people had died terribly and unnecessarily and their homeland poisoned to a wasteland was not the concern of these films. Rather, Vietnam was an “American tragedy”, in which the invader was to be pitied in a blend of false bravado-and-angst: sometimes crude (the Rambo films) and sometimes subtle (Oliver Stone’s Platoon). What mattered was the strength of the purgative.

None of this, of course, was new; it was how Hollywood created the myth of the Wild West, which was harmless enough unless you happened to be a native-American; and how the Second World War has been relentlessly glorified, which may be harmless enough unless you happen to be one of countless innocent human beings, from Serbia to Iraq, whose deaths or dispossession are justified by moralizing references to 1939-45. Hollywood’s gooks, its  Untermenschen, are essential to this crusade – the dispatched Somalis in Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down and the sinister Arabs in movies like Rendition, in which the torturing CIA is absolved by Jake Gyllenhal’s good egg. As Robbie Graham and Mark Alford pointed out in their New Statesman enquiry into corporate control of the cinema (2 February), in 167 minutes of Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the Palestinian cause is restricted to just two and a half minutes. “Far from being an ‘even-handed cry for peace’, as one critic claimed,” they wrote, “Munich is more easily interpreted as a corporate-backed endorsement of Israeli policy.”

With honorable exceptions, film critics rarely question this and identify the true power behind the screen. Obsessed with celebrity actors and vacuous narratives, they are the cinema’s lobby correspondents, its dutiful press corps. Emitting safe snipes and sneers, they promote a deeply political system that dominates most of what we pay to see, knowing not what we are denied. Brian de Palma’s 2007 film Redacted shows an Iraq the media does not report. He depicts the homicides and gang-rapes that are never prosecuted and are the essence of any colonial conquest. In the New York Village Voice, the critic Anthony Kaufman, in abusing the “divisive” De Palma for his “perverse tales of voyeurism and violence”, did his best to taint the film as a kind of heresy and to bury it.

In this way, the “war on terror” – the conquest and subversion of resource rich regions of the world, whose ramifications and oppressions touch all our lives – is almost excluded from the popular cinema. Michael Moore’s outstanding Fahrenheit 911 was a freak; the notoriety of its distribution ban by the Walt Disney Company helped to force its way into cinemas. My own 2007 film The War on Democracy, which inverted the “war on terror” in Latin America, was distributed in Britain, Australia and other countries but not in the United States. “You will need to make structural and political changes,” said a major New York distributor. “Maybe get a star like Sean Penn to host it – he likes liberal causes – and tame those anti-Bush sequences.”

During the cold war, Hollywood’s state propaganda was unabashed. The classic 1957 dance movie, Silk Stockings, was an anti-Soviet diatribe interrupted by the fabulous footwork of Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire. These days, there are two types of censorship. The first is censorship by introspective dross. Betraying its long tradition of producing gems, escapist Hollywood is consumed by the corporate formula: just make ‘em long and asinine and hope the hype will pay off. Ricky Gervais is his clever comic self in Ghost Town, while around him stale, formulaic characters sentimentalize the humor to death.

These are extraordinary times. Vicious colonial wars and political, economic and environmental corruption cry out for a place on the big screen. Yet, try to name one recent film that has dealt with these, honestly and powerfully, let alone satirically.. Censorship by omission is virulent. We need another Wall Street, another Last Hurrah, another Dr. Strangelove. The partisans who tunnel out of their prison in Gaza, bringing in food, clothes, medicines and weapons with which to defend themselves, are no less heroic than the celluloid-honored POWs and partisans of the 1940s. They and the rest of us deserve the respect of the greatest popular medium.    

www.johnpilger.com

By Patrick J. Buchanan, Antiwar.com

“The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating,” said President Obama, as he announced deployment of 17,000 more U.S. troops.

“I’m absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region, solely through military means.”

“(T)here is no military solution in Afghanistan,” says Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Said U.S. Commander Gen. David McKiernan yesterday, U.S. and NATO forces are “stalemated.”

Such admissions by our military and political leadership in a time of war call to mind other words heard back in 1951, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur delivered his farewell address to the Congress:

“(O)nce war is forced upon us,” said MacArthur, “there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

“In war, there is no substitute for victory.”

But if victory over the Taliban has been ruled out by the United States, have the Taliban ruled out a victory over the American Empire to rival the one their fathers won over the Soviet Empire?

What price are we prepared to pay, in “prolonged indecision,” to avert such an end to a war now in its eighth year?

America had best brace herself for difficult days ahead.

For stepping back from the dreary prognosis for Afghanistan, a new reality becomes clear. The long retreat has begun.

Whether it is in the 23 months Gen. Petraeus favors, or the 16 months Obama promised, the United States is coming home from Iraq.

The retreat from Central Asia is already underway. Expelled from the K-2 air base in Uzbekistan in 2005, the United States has now been ordered out of the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ripped away from Georgia by Russia last August, are never going to be returned. And we all know it.

Georgia and Ukraine, most realists now realize, are not going to be admitted to NATO. We’re not going to fight Russia over the Crimea. And the U.S. anti-missile missiles and radars George Bush intended to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic will not now be deployed.

For Washington has fish to fry with Russia, and the price of her cooperation is withdrawal of U.S. military forces from her backyard and front porch. And the warm words flowing between Moscow and Washington suggest the deal is done.

With tensions rising in Korea, too, it is hard to believe President Obama will bolster ground forces on the peninsula, when even Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over a drawdown and a shifting of U.S. troops away from the DMZ.

In Latin America, the United States seems reconciled to the rise of an anti-American radical-socialist coalition, led by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and embracing Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Partisans of President Bush may blame Obama for presiding over a strategic retreat, but it is the Bush administration that assured and accelerated such a retreat.
As Robert Pape of the University of Chicago writes in The National Interest: “America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today’s world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell of American hegemony.”

Pape’s harsh verdict is rooted in his reading of history, that the “size of an economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics.”

In other words, when a great nation’s share of world product shrinks, the nation’s strategic position follows. Between 2000 and 2008, the U.S. share of world product plunged from 31 percent to 23 percent, and is expected to fall to 21 percent by 2013 — a decline of 32 percent in 13 years. China’s share of world product over the same period will more than double to 9 percent.

Pape went back to the 19th century to correlate the rise of the great powers like Britain and the commensurate growth in their share of world product. He found the Bush decline had no precedent.

“America’s relative decline since 2000 of some 30 percent represents a far greater loss of relative power in a shorter time than any power shift among European great powers roughly from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to World War II. It is one of the largest relative declines in modern history. Indeed, in size, it is clearly surpassed by only one other great-power decline, the unprecedented internal collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.”

With an economy still three times that of China, America continues to be the world’s most powerful nation, fully capable of defending all of its vital interests. We can no longer, however, defend every ally to whom we made a commitment over the six decades since NATO was formed.

Obama’s assignment: Rebuild U.S. productive power, and execute a strategic withdrawal from non-vital commitments.

11-10

By Dr. Aslam Abdullah, TMO Editor-in-chief

In the June 2006 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Robert S. Thompson, MD concluded that domestic violence impacts 44% of American women at some point during their adult lives. Some 34% experience physical abuse such as hitting, shoving, and 34% face non-physical abuse, such as angry threats.

A UN study on violence recently reported that some 1.5 million people are killed in violence annually with at least 10 percent in domestic violence.

Domestic abuse is a major issue in our world–no country is immune from it. It is prevalent in all sectors of human society. 

There is no country in the world where women are safe from violence or abuse… In Cambodia, 16% of women are physically abused by their husbands; in the UK, 30% are physically hurt by partners or ex-partners; this figure is 52% in the West Bank; 21% in Nicaragua, 29% in Canada, and 44% in the US. 45% of Indian women are abused by their husbands.

India also had the highest rate of violence during pregnancy. Of the women reporting violence, 50 percent are abused while pregnant. About 74.8 % of the women who reported violence have attempted to commit suicide. Based on 48 surveys around the world, half of the women who die from homicides are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. In Sao Paulo, 13% of deaths of women of reproductive age were homicides; of these, 60% were committed by their partners.

However, the so called experts never blame faith or religious traditions for these acts of violence.

We never hear that Hinduism, Christianity or Judaism is responsible for violence against women, even though one can easily find excuses for abuse in each faith’s books. Yet when a Muslim is involved in such an incident, not only his faith, that he might have nothing to do with, but his religious traditions are also blamed.

Rather than looking at the issue from a sociological perspective and developing a realistic understanding of the causes rooted in social conditions promoting domination, humiliation, isolation, intimidation, and condemnation, and even lack of faith analysts often find a scapegoat in religious scriptures.

The recent case involving Muzammil Hassan and his wife Aasiya Hassan is being viewed by many intellectual midgets as a faith-directed murder; they overlook the real issues involved.

It is not the faith that dictated the action of the accused. Rather, a lack of faith. Faith is often used to hide one’s crimes and to justify one’s animalistic tendencies.

People are not born violent. They have the inbuilt capacity to learn violent or non violent means to express their disapproval of things. The faith demands a life style based on love, compassion and mercy even in the worst adverse conditions. Hassan’s alleged action had nothing to do with this moral framework of relationship. Rather it showed those animalistic tendencies that our unbridled material culture has promoted in the form of revenge, greed and domination.

What is sad is Hassan’s case is that the people who promoted him in his greed to misuse Islam for his personal business, did not pay attention to warning signals. There was ample data to suggest that he was a chronic domestic abuser. His two previous wives filed for divorce because of his alleged abusive nature. At least someone should have looked into his record before presenting him as a champion of the future of Islam in the United States. The reason, perhaps, is apathy towards issues of domestic violence in Muslim families.

Few are willing to recognize that no one deserves to be abused. The responsibility for the violence belongs to the abuser. It is not the victim’s fault! Financial dependence on a spouse does not mean that the provider has a right to abuse the dependent. Indeed, abuse is a pattern of coercive control over another.

Abuse is a behavior that physically harms, arouses fear, prevents a partner from doing what they wish or forces them to behave in ways they do not want. Many also fail to understand that domestic violence can happen to anyone of any race, age, sexual orientation, sect, religion or gender. Professing a faith does not make a person immune from that behavior.

Abusers are very good at making excuses for the inexcusable. They blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, and even on the victims of their abuse.

This pattern need to be challenged from faith based groups, Muslims included.

It is important that Islamic centers and masajid have family counseling support groups to tackle the issue heads on.  Some of the symptoms of domestic abuse can be identified by looking at the following issues:

* Does a partner feel afraid of the other much of the time?

* Does a partner avoid certain topics out of fear of angering the other?

* Does one feel that one can’t do anything right for the other?

* Or does one feel emotionally numb or helpless?

* Do any of the spouses feel humiliated, criticized, or yelled at?

* Is one of the spouses treated so badly that one is embarrassed to see the family?

*  Does a spouse blame the other for his/her own abusive behavior?

* Does a spouse see the other as a chattel rather than as a person?

Once these patterns are found, they should be brought up to counselors qualified to provide in relationship.

If the situation does not improve, the authorities should be alerted to tackle the issue at a legal level.

There is no shame in reporting incidents of violence to law enforcement officials if the counseling fails.

The faith-based community has to take a strong stand against abuser and stand for the rights of victims to lead a decent life.

Peace in the family is the goal of Islam. Without love and compassion peace cannot be established.

Domestic violence destroys this foundation of faith. A relationship with God cannot be established by following one’s own egotistic ideals. There is no place for violence in any shape or form in a healthy Muslim society. There is no room for abuse. Those who do that are the ones who deny the signs of God and who use faith as a badge rather than as a responsibility to ensure that transgression from the Divine path are not allowed.

11-10

By Adil James, MMNS

Bloomfield Hills–February 20–Let’s just agree to disagree about the ethics of disagreement in Islam.  Imam Ali Leyla of IAGD gave a guest lecture at the BMUC, a description of the ethics of disagreement in Islam this past Friday at the Bloomfield Muslim Unity Center.

Imam Ali Leyla focused on showing that disagreement always exists in Islam.  He showed that there was disagreement in various circumstances among the angels, among the prophets, among the holy Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s); the theme of his talk was that disagreement is unavoidable, but said that out of that disagreement Muslims should “remain brothers.”

The imam showed a very detailed knowledge of Islamic history, discussing various specific instances where Sahaba both during the time of the Prophet (s) and after he passed away differed as to what should be done in different circumstances.  He tried to introduce principles of Islamic law as well, trying to show a difference between Shari’ah, which is Divine and holy, as opposed to fiqh, which he said was not holy but manmade and therefore at times possibly faulty.

“Even the Companions had disagreement, but they didn’t become enemies,” he said.

He discussed also the many schools of Islam, saying that there had been once a large schism between the Madrasal Athar and the Madrasal Ra` which had been healed by Imam Shafi’i who bridged the gap between them.

According to his understanding, there are varying levels of the strength of fiqh, descending from the Qur`an down to the logic of those who studied the Islamic sciences and derived solutions to other problems, including some that were not issues at the time of the Companions, and were not directly broached by the Shari’ah of Prophet (s); such issues, he argued, include organ donation, cloning, commercial insurance, and international law.

He also showed that even in the case of Qur`an, there are sometimes multiple possible interpretations of words that are in Qur`an, therefore multiple honest interpretations.

Imam Leyla even gave examples of the closest Companions intentionally applying the Shari’ah in a manner inconsistent with the clear reading of Qur`an–the imam did not castigate the Holy Companions for doing this, rather he explained that according to the exigencies of a time, for example, it might be wrong to cut off a person’s hand who stole when he was starving, to feed his family and not in order to pursue greed.

He gave a wonderful story of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who was approached by students of Abu Kurayb, who used to attack ibn Hanbal all the time.  ibn Hanbal advised those students to follow their teacher well, and when they reminded him that Abu Kurayb always spoke ill of him he said he was aware of this, but “what can I do–he is greatly troubled by me.”  He still advised them to follow their teacher, and said that Abu Kurayb was very knowledgeable.

Imam Leyla gave several bullet points to follow, saying Muslims should uphold justice at all times, avoid judging people with whom there is disagreement (or certainly not call them names), purify intention, be objective and don’t personalize disagreements, avoid poisonous language, win people even if one loses the situations, and give people the benefit of the doubt.

Prophet (s), he explained, said a person would be granted a house in Paradise if he ends an argument even though he is right.

He said to “avoid arrogance,” which he said meant a person should not reject the truth when he/she hears it.  “Accept the truth when it is clear,” he said.  “Admit your mistakes,” he said.

Jealousy and hatred, he explained, quoting a hadith, are “the  shaver”–they do not shave hair but they shave belief.  Therefore, quoting the hadith, Imam Leyla cautioned that we should spread salaams often in order to counter the shaver that shaved the communities before Prophet Muhammad’s (s) community and that will and do afflict it now.

11-10

By Ilyas Choudry, MMNS Houston Correspondent

Dr. Akbar Ahmed spoke about his American Journey at the Turquoise Center

Many people ask him, if it is possible that Muslims can fit in a democratic society: He tells them that for this, they need to study the struggle to achieve independence of Pakistan from the colonial British rule during the 1930s and 1940s (only 60 years ago) and people will find that the whole struggle under the dynamic leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was based on following a democratic and legal statutes (while many other countries needed bloody struggle against colonial powers to achieve independence, starting 1700s all the way to 1900s).

These were sentiments of Dr. Akbar Ahmed, as he explained his “Journey into America: The Muslim Community” travel project, at the Interfaith Dialogue Center (called the Turquoise Center) and arranged by the Gulen Institute of Social Work Program at the University of Houston. As he was making this presentation at the beautiful Turquoise Center, some of his Interns’ were at the nearby Masjid AL-Mauminoun (basically frequented by the Nigerian Community) to get feedback and more information on this very significant research work., that will define various parameters of the Muslims living in the American society, especially after 9/11.

Talking to our representative, Dr. Ahmed said: “Inter-Faith Dialogue is very important and has to continue, but then it is quite restrictive and does not reach to many people at one-time. Mass Media is the way forward and just in your community Choudry Sahab, there is APPNA, an organization of Pakistani Doctors: There are about 12,000 Pakistani Doctors, most resourceful and very influential in their own right: But do they have any collective say and place in the policy making of this country: They are the people, if they endeavor and carve a long-term vision working together with other people of experience, can create the kind of Mass-Media outlets, which would encourage Inter-Faith Dialogue, which will reach to many at one-time and it will have a real impact. Convince them: They have the best chance to do it.”

“What does it mean to be Muslim in America today?” In order to find out, Professor Akbar Ahmed of American University said he took sabbatical leave and has set off to travel the country and till February 22, 2009, had been to more than 100 Masajids in 70 cities and had interviewed thousands of Muslims (Sunni, Shia, Bohra and others) and Non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus and others).

“A journalist in Honolulu told me that there are no Muslims’ here: I told him there are 4,000 with a nice mosque in Honolulu and he was surprised: This is the extent of Muslims outreach to the society around them,” said Dr. Akbar Ahmed.

Dr. Ahmed said that after interviewing hundreds of Muslims and Non-Muslims, he feels that God Forbidding in another terrorist attack happens in USA and some Muslims are considered involved in that, his interviews suggest that not the majority, but quite a few of the Non-Muslims do not trust Muslims and they can be severe repercussions faced by the Muslim Community: Much work needs to be done by Muslims and since they are in minority, they need to help themselves by bridging the gaps within the society while staying within the bounds of Islam and that is possible to do.

Dr. Akbar Ahmed has been on a one-year sabbatical; has been on the journey for more than 6 months and for another two to three months, he will continue crossing the US with a team of graduate students, interviewing Muslim-Americans and their non-Muslim neighbors. This ethnographic study has a research component, of course — Dr. Ahmed intends to put together a book of their findings — but also produce a TV Documentary for visual appreciation of his work.

Idea is to give voice to a minority community Muslims (which is the main focus of the American Society (that according to Dr. Akbar, President Obama mentioned the Muslims and the Muslim World in his inaugural address); find its voice in the American dissonance. No one else should define Muslims: Study will give the definition of Muslims of USA in the voice of Muslims themselves.

When Dr. Akber Ahmed and his team were planning the trip; they thought it would be ideal for TV Stations to take-up. But none of the major networks have taken shown interest and PBS was not forthcoming. To see a glimpse of his work up till now, one can go to http://www.youtube.com/user/journeyintoamerica
Dr. Akbar Ahmed (akbar@american.edu) is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at the American University. According to BBC, he is considered “the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam.” He is former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, and has advised Prince Charles and met with President George W. Bush to talk about Islam. His numerous books, films (including Jinnah) and documentaries have won prestigious awards and his books have been translated into several languages including Chinese and Indonesian. Ahmed is regularly interviewed on CNN, CBC, the BBC, ARY TV and has appeared several times on the Oprah Winfrey Show and Night Line. Ahmed’s most recent book, “Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization”, is published by the Brookings Institution Press. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution in addition to his tenure appointment at American University. He was nominated as the “Most Inspiring Person of the Year 2005”.

For more information, one can call 202-885-1961 or visit www.journeyintoamerica.wordpress.com

11-10