As full body scanners make their O’Hare Airport debut Monday, two groups (FCNA & CAIR) say the devices – which image a person’s body – are immodest, and therefore are inconsistent with Islam.
By Mark Guarino
Chicago–As full body scanners debut at O’Hare International Airport Monday, two American Muslim groups have suggested that the technology violates the teachings of Islam.
The comments are just the latest controversy surrounding full-body scanners, which some critics call a “virtual strip search†because the technology sees through clothing to show the contours of a passenger’s body in detail.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has deployed 150 scanners across 21 US airports this month, partly in response to the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound jetliner, where bombmaking materials were hidden in a passenger’s underwear – something full-body scanners would have seen.
The TSA expects to install an additional 300 scanners in nine additional airports by the end of this year. But security officials say they will be able to accommodate the wishes of passengers – Muslim or otherwise – who object to the full-body screener.
The technology is “completely optional for all passengers,†says Jim Fotenos, a TSA spokesman, and those who choose not to participate get “an equal level of screening,†which includes a walk through a metal detector and a physical pat-down by an officer of the same sex.
Islamic objections
The screening imagery is a violation of Islam, says The Fiqh Council of North America, a body of Islamic scholars located in Plainfield, Ind. Last month the council issued a statement that said the full body imagery “is against the teachings of Islam, natural law, and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty.â€
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,†the statement continued. “There must be a compelling case for the necessity and the exemption to this rule must be proportional to the demonstrated need.â€
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based civil rights advocacy group, agrees with the Fiqh Council and, according to National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, it plans to track Muslims concerns with the scanners before deciding what actions to take next.
“Modesty is a basic principal of the Islamic faith, it’s very important and always has been,†says Mr. Hooper. “People say, ‘I’ll do anything for safety,’ but that’s not the question. Everybody wants to be safe. Muslims fly like anybody else … you can be safe and secure and still maintain your privacy rights.â€
‘A fuzzy photo negative’
To stress the anonymity of the process, the TSA says officers review the images in a remote location and never see the actual passengers. What they do see via their monitors is automatically deleted from the system once the passenger passes review.
According to the TSA website, what officers see of a passenger’s body either resembles “a chalk drawing†or “a fuzzy photo negative,†depending on the machine, therefore suggesting passenger privacy is ensured.
The Fiqh Council, however, is urging followers to request pat-down searches as an alternative.
CAIR’s Mr. Hooper also advocates an increase in federal funding for alternate screening technologies that do not require visual screening, such as the “Puffer,†a machine that can identify chemical particles a person may have on their body and analyze whether or not they are harmful.
The TSA’s Fotenos says the current options “shouldn’t substantially impact operations at checkpoints,†saying TSA research at 19 US airports shows gate delays are primarily caused by carry-on baggage checks.
Hybrid revascularization is a combination of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention. Physicians at Emory University have been performing these procedures off-pump in a minimally invasive fashion, without breaking open the test. Their hybrid approach has been hailed as a best of both worlds strategy.
Among the physicians at Emory who have been developing and polishing this technique is Dr. Syed Tanveer Rab. He received his Medical degree in 1979 from the University of Karachi Pakistan. Between 1980 and 1983 he trained in the United Kingdom at Hammersmith Hospital, London, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle and the Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh. Between 1983 and 1986 he completed residency training in Internal Medicine at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. He trained at Emory University between 1986-1990 in Cardiology and Interventional Cardiology. Between 1991-1998 he developed an extensive system of satellite cardiology clinics in North Georgia and in 1998 joined the Emory faculty. He is Board Certified in Medicine, Cardiology and Interventional Cardiology and is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions.
DETROIT — It is a cold Sunday afternoon in February and asr prayer is being held at Masjid Al-Haqq. Children run outside, playing in the snow, rambunctious and full of life while their mothers serve the last of the stragglers who have come for a hot meal at the weekly soup kitchen. The neighborhood is typical Detroit, replete with boarded-up houses, the streets quiet and vacant – save for an unassuming two-story red brick house at the corner of Clairmount and Holmur.
Inside the makeshift mosque, a dozen middle-aged African-American men have gathered. As the prayer concludes, a voice calls out, “Read a hadith, that’s what the Imam used to do.†The prayer leader dutifully opens a book of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and starts reading.†(s) There will come forth a people on the Day of Judgment, their faces shining like the sun.†He pauses for effect. “The poor, the immigrants, the disheveled ones.â€
The man’s words resonate with the audience. They begin to look at one another, as if by taking in their appearance they are acknowledging the precarious state of their community. And slowly they begin to nod. “That could be any one of us,†says one man. He thinks for a moment, before adding, “That could be all of us.†Four months have passed since the death of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah. But among his community, his legacy lives on. The soup kitchen he initiated continues to serve the homeless and hungry by the dozens on a weekly basis. Among his followers, there is an odd sense of acceptance.
“Even after this tragedy,†says Abdul-Aleem, 55, “our doors are open to all.†“We know that Allah is in control and justice will prevail.†There is an uncertain gleam in his eye, and he quickly turns away as I meet his gaze – for justice has too often been an elusive concept in this part of the hood.
The Homicide
The passage of time has seen an evolution in the narrative of what happened in that Dearborn warehouse in which Luqman Abdullah met his end. Initially, the US Attorney’s office claimed that there had been an “exchange of gun fire†after Mr. Abdullah fired an initial shot – the term “exchange†presupposing that both sides were engaged in shooting.
Yet the Associated Press quoted an FBI spokesperson as saying that the Imam “fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents†– which indicates that Mr. Abdullah fired only one shot. Seizing on the confusion, the media offered widely divergent portrayals of the incident, the majority describing it as a “gun battle†or a “shootoutâ€, with a minority left wondering if he might have been gunned down in cold blood.
In addition to the shooting angle, there was another twist – the dog. The FBI was quick to announce a memorial service for Freddy, the Belgian Malinois who “lost his life in the line of duty,†the day after the incident. While according to the FBI, Freddy “gave his life for his team,†the US Attorney’s press release is more cautious in noting that “an FBI canine was also killed during the exchange.â€
The common perception – although never officially confirmed – was that Mr. Abdullah fired at the dog thereby prompting agents to return fire at him. Sympathetic observers asked if the life of a dog was equal to the life of a human being. Further complicating public perception was the fact that the dog was airlifted to a hospital for emergency medical care while Mr. Abdullah’s handcuffed corpse was transported by ambulance to the coroner’s office.
Today there remain more questions than answers in the death of Luqman Abdullah. The autopsy report, kept under seal for three months at the request of the Dearborn Police Department, was finally released on Feb. 1. The report documents that Mr. Abdullah was shot 21 times, including multiple times in the genitals and at least once in the back. Numerous abrasions and lacerations were also found on his face, hands, and arms; his jaw was found to be fractured.
The discovery of Mr. Abdullah’s additional injuries has sparked a new wave of criticism. In a recent interview, Omar Regan, a son of Mr. Abdullah, became emotional as he decried how his father has been inhumanely “mauled†by the dog. The Michigan Citizen quotes Wayne County Chief Medical Examiner Carl Schmidt as conceding that the injuries could have come from dog bites but he refuses to offer a conclusive determination.
Independent forensic pathologists whom we contacted were unable to comment on the matter without seeing pictures. Incidentally, Mr. Abdullah’s family as well as watchdog organizations have encountered numerous obstacles in obtaining the release of the autopsy photographs – a bureaucratic struggle which is ongoing at the moment.
Prior to the release of the autopsy, it had been assumed that Mr. Abdullah shot the dog as it was on its way to attack him. If, however, one accepts the premise that the dog actually attacked Mr. Abdullah, would that not imply that he had been successfully subdued? Did he then shoot the dog at point-blank range while being attacked? Did the FBI agents shoot him 21 times – not while he was pointing a gun at them – but while he was wrestling with the dog?
Some have even questioned if Mr. Abdullah was the one who shot the dog. Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality told the local NBC affiliate that the FBI’s irresponsible conduct was to blame for the death of the dog. Huel Perkins, news anchor at Fox 2 Detroit, went one step further. “With so many bullets flying,†he wondered, “they could have been ricocheting and FBI bullets might have killed that dog.â€
Immediately after the killing, the FBI dispatched a Shooting Incident Review Team to conduct an internal investigation into the incident (as is standard whenever agents are involved in a shooting.) Meanwhile, the Dearborn Police Department launched a criminal investigation into the homicide. Chief Ronald Haddad recently told the Dearborn Press and Guide that his office would submit a final report to the Michigan Attorney General within weeks.
Demands for an independent investigation had been growing since November, having been echoed by Detroit Mayor David Bing, the Detroit Free Press, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In January, Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, lent his support to the effort calling on the Justice Department to conduct a “rigorous†and “transparent†investigation.
In addition, he asked the Civil Rights Division to review the use of confidential informants in houses of worship – a practice that played a critical role in the FBI’s investigation of Mr. Abdullah. A spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said that, as of two weeks ago, no response had been received to the request. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights division has announced plans to conduct their own investigation into the shooting.
When the story first broke in late October, it was presented in the context of religiously motivated terrorism. As we have previously discussed, the bulk of the 45-page affidavit issued on Oct. 28 consists of a “background†section that implicates Mr. Abdullah and ten other defendants in a sensational plot to violently overthrow the government.
However, the actual crimes alleged are more commonplace: possession of firearms and body armor by a convicted felon, providing firearms to a convicted felon, tampering with motor vehicle identification numbers, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and conspiracy to sell or receive stolen goods. When we met last November, Omar Regan expressed frustration with the media’s coverage. “They just want to say Muslims are terrorists,†he said.
Indeed, many have used the tenuous “Islamic terrorism†connection to attack the character of the late Mr. Abdullah, with some going so far as to implicate aspects of the Islamic faith by extension. The FBI affidavit set the stage for such behavior by referring to a “nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group†and by going to great lengths to emphasize Mr. Abdullah’s religious beliefs. On Nov. 18, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -a controversial neoconservative think-tank – published an article comparing Mr. Abdullah’s followers to global “jihadi movements.†Other right-wing ideologues with dubious credentials have also used the case as evidence of the threat of “homegrown terrorism.â€
The grand jury indictment (included below) issued on Nov. 10 presents a striking contrast with the earlier criminal complaint. The complaint is what the FBI presented to a federal magistrate judge; after a finding of probable cause, arrest warrants were then issued. The indictment is what the grand jury, upon weighing the evidence, actually accuses the defendants of, and what they will be tried for in court. The 11-page document makes no mention of Islam, or religion in general, nor does it discuss terrorism or hint at anything remotely violent, save for possession of firearms. Needless to say, Luqman Abdullah has been dropped from the list of defendants.
The indictment provides further evidence of the banal and artificial nature of the investigation. The “stolen goods†the defendants are alleged to have conspired to sell or receive consist of fur coats, laptops, iPhones, Burberry purses, and 40†LCD televisions. The payments involved range in value from $300 to $1000. A plain reading of the document suggests that an FBI operative (an agent or a confidential informant) gave the defendants money that they then used to purchase goods (that they believed to be stolen) from another FBI operative which they then stored in an FBI-operated warehouse. On Oct. 28, as per the indictment, the defendants arrived at the FBI warehouse to take possession of FBI owned goods that the FBI had paid them to purchase, at which point the warehouse was raided by the FBI and they were arrested. One of them, Imam Luqman Abdullah, was killed.
Two days after the killing, Andrew Arena, special agent in charge of the Detroit division of the FBI, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the agents “did what they had to do to protect themselves.†In those early days, the headlines in the news were “Radical Islam leader killed†and “Feds stand behind deadly Michigan raid.â€
By February of this year, however, the headlines had changed to “Autopsy Shows Michigan Imam Shot 21 Times†and “Conyers Demands Rigorous Investigation of Imam Shooting.†The favorable turn in media coverage provides little consolation for Mr. Abdullah’s family, however. “The media is interested in hype,†complains Mr. Regan. “They’re using this to sell papers and for TV ratings.â€
The growing mainstream consensus demanding an independent investigation has clearly been an unexpected and significant development in the case. Whereas once there were only a handful of voices willing to question the FBI’s account, a veritable group has assembled to demand transparency and accountability – including the House Judiciary Committee, the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners, the Detroit Free Press, the Mayor of Detroit, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
When we met in November, Mr. Regan exclaimed at one point during our interview, “A man’s been killed, and he hasn’t been charged with a crime.†That statement stuck with me for many months. It conveys a certain raw emotion, eliciting an impassioned but entirely rational response of outrage at a fundamental injustice that seems to have been done. Luqman Abdullah is no longer here to defend himself against the charges that have been thrown at him by the government and the media – he never got his day in court. Is that not a miscarriage of justice?
Having some doubts about the legal and factual accuracy of the latter part of Mr. Regan’s statement, I contacted experts for clarification. Many were doubtful of the extent to which the question even mattered – whether or not Mr. Abdullah had in fact been charged with a crime when he was killed.
Constitutional scholar and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh argued that the relevant question instead was whether the killing was justified given the exigencies of that situation. The killing of an innocent man by the police might be justified in self-defense. On the other hand, even if someone had been indicted, the use of deadly force absent proper justification would be inappropriate.
The question thus returns to the actual homicide (the term the medical examiner has used to describe the manner of death in the autopsy.) Were the FBI agents acting in fear for their lives? Or was the use of deadly force excessive given the threat they faced? A conclusive determination is impossible without all of the facts – facts that one hopes the investigation will uncover. Given the information that has been released thus far and the manner in which it has been received however, it would seem that the weight of public perception is against the FBI’s account.
In all likelihood, the warehouse in which the shooting occurred was controlled by the FBI, as the text of the indictment strongly implies (paragraph 22, “Overt Actsâ€). If Mr. Abdullah was in fact attacked by the dog, as the abnormal injuries to his body seem to indicate, how could he have posed an imminent threat to the FBI agents – sufficient to justify 21 gunshots? Why were more than half of the shots below the waist–including two in the groin and one in the back? Why was no effort made to provide emergency medical attention to Mr. Abdullah?
The attempts to convict Mr. Abdullah in the court of public opinion have largely been based – not on his conduct in his final moments – but on the government’s allegations of prior criminal behavior. The unspoken justification is not that he presented an imminent threat to the agents but that he was a dangerous person who needed to be “brought to justice.â€
FBI Agent Andrew Arena, speaking with NBC affiliate WDIV-TV, concedes that “what transpired that day…was a tragic event.†He proceeds to affirm that they “wanted to make sure that no innocent people were harmed, that no agents were harmed, and no subjects were harmed.â€
His choice of words, however, unwittingly speaks to his presuppositions. Rather than use the term “bystandersâ€, he instead declares that Mr. Abdullah was not an innocent person whose harm should be avoided, but rather a threat to be neutralized.
“A man is dead and he hasn’t been charged with a crime,†said Mr. Regan. A subtle but profound distinction must be made between “charged†and “convicted.†Even if Mr. Abdullah had been convicted of – intent to receive stolen goods among other crimes – a justification for his killing can only be derived from exigencies of that situation in the warehouse. After all, a class C felony carries a maximum sentence of twenty-five years in prison – not death.
But the fact remains that he wasn’t convicted – of that crime or any other crimes. Save for a felony assault conviction in 1981 – when he would have been 24 years old – by all available accounts, Luqman Abdullah had lived as a “good neighborâ€, in the words of the lieutenant at the local police precinct. He was known for his devotion to social justice and serving the needs of the poor and needy community in which he lived. He earned his living as a cabdriver and led prayers at his local religious center. Far from the FBI’s portrayal of a violent thug, those who knew him point to his positive influence at eliminating crime and combating poverty in a neighborhood that government had all but forgotten.
The greatest injustice of Luqman Abdullah’s killing stems from the perception that in those final moments, it was a handful of FBI agents who acted as judge, jury, and executioner. Their actions determined that Mr. Abdullah would die as guilty, if for no other reason than his inability to furthermore proclaim his innocence. The vital public debate about government-sponsored espionage in religious institutions and the prevalence of entrapment as a law enforcement tool in poor and underprivileged communities will continue. But we have lost an invaluable informant whose perspective can only be guessed at and never apprehended in full.
The FBI complaint is the only documentation in the public record of the criminal activities that allegedly occurred at the direction of Luqman Abdullah over the past two years. It presents only one side of the story – a side that can no longer be challenged. Some media organizations have disturbingly accepted that one side as the definitive account, thereby corrupting the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.†If the presumption of innocence applies up until the point of conviction, how much more applicable should it be if the accused had yet to be charged with a crime?
Among the legal scholars we contacted, a few were of the opinion that the criminal complaint presented to the magistrate judge was the functional equivalent of a charging document. They asserted that the question was really more of semantics than of law – what do we really mean when we say “charged with a crimeâ€? Others offered a more definite assessment. “He was not charged with a crime,†said Yale Professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kate Stith. “So as not to mislead,†she continued, “I would say ‘He had not been formally charged with a crime, though a warrant had been issued for his arrest.’â€
Professor Eve Brensike Primus of the University of Michigan offered a constitutional rationale for a strict interpretation of “formal charges.†“The Fifth Amendment,†she argued, “ensures that a federal charge for a felony offense will not be brought without granting the accused the protection of the review and acceptance of the charge by the grand jury.â€
Harvard Professor Carol Steiker agreed. “An indictment is the required formal charging document in federal court for all non-petty crimes (felonies),†she said. “In such cases, it would be most accurate to say that an individual killed prior to indictment was killed before he was formally charged with a crime.â€
The Community
(Fatima, 3, Sumayya, 10, and Juma, 8 on a Sunday afternoon in February at the weekly Masjid Al-Haqq soup kitchen)
Twenty-one shots. Left to die while an FBI dog was transported by helicopter for medical treatment. Portrayed as a radical Muslim, a violent black man, a threat to the community. Killed before he could be charged with a crime.
Is this the face of justice in America, I ask myself. Not my America, I retort, not the America of Ann Arbor, Michigan with its ivory towers, nor the America of Brooklyn, New York where I grew up, the child of Pakistani immigrants, benefiting from the best public schools, taught to keep an open mind, to ask questions, to always think critically.
I look around at the deserted streets and the abandoned houses, my senses overwhelmed by the crushing poverty of inner-city Detroit – and I realize that I am no longer in my America. I keep walking, comfortable by now in this neighborhood, no longer anxious about my car being broken into. The death of Luqman Abdullah has given me a reason to leave my comforts and visit another world, to talk to its residents and to listen to their stories.
I see a young man, slightly younger than me, waiting for the bus on Dexter Ave. I ask him what has by now become my routine query. Yes, he answers, he knew Imam Luqman. “He used to give out food if someone was hungry,†he tells me. But Khari, 20, shocks me when he says, “I hope they lock them up in jail.†“They shot him 21 times.†I walk away in awe wondering if this, perhaps, is what they call the optimism of youth.
I walk back to Masjid Al-Haqq, enter from the backdoor, and climb the narrow, aging stairway that leads to the men’s prayer room. The sweet smell of incense reaches me as I behold the sight of half a dozen children running around, their fathers relaxing and catching up on gossip. I spot Omar Regan and his brother Mujahid Carswell in the corner and I head in their direction. I am intercepted by a bold and charming 8-year old, Khalid, who wants a rematch in rock-paper- scissors (in which I had soundly defeated him earlier that afternoon). I pause for a quick game, letting him win, and walk away leaving him content with his victory.
I have not seen the brothers since November, and they are as impassioned as ever regarding their father’s death. “It was worse than we thought,†says Mr. Regan, referring to the autopsy. “Nobody deserves this.†They are frustrated by the government’s secrecy and failure to release relevant documentation. Where is the ballistics report, he asks. “Where is the proof that my father even fired a gun?†He wants to see the autopsy report of the dog and wonders why EMTs were not on scene during the take-down. “What if an officer had gotten hurt? Isn’t that standard procedure?†Many of these same questions are increasingly being asked by other parties as well, most notably by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.
“People are rightly concerned when a religious leader becomes involved with an FBI informant and ends up dead in the street,†said Rep. Conyers in a press release. He went on to note that if the Department of Justice failed to investigate the incident in a “credible and transparent†manner, “it will be left to Congress to ensure that justice is done.†Such high-level involvement in a routine law enforcement operation indicates the killing of Imam Luqman Abdullah is anything but routine – it might even be exceptional.
Mr. Carswell is satisfied with the amount of national attention the case has received, but he is not surprised. “They thought no one would care. But they underestimated how much people loved this black man. He was a servant of the people.†‘They’ for Mr. Carswell is the FBI, and he is unrelenting in his criticism. “Nobody’s policing the FBI,†he complains. “Why did they call him armed and dangerous? Why did they call him a radical Sunni Muslim? If the charge is intent to receive stolen goods, why are you saying this?â€
“It’s a control thing,†he asserts. “They’re bullies, they rule by fear.†He cites the FBI’s attempts to influence media coverage of the case. Indeed, the Feb. 9 article “Metro security breach leaves many on edge†bizarrely notes that “The FBI’s Detroit office refused to discuss the case with the Free Press on Monday, citing its unhappiness over a recent newspaper editorial.†(Numerous attempts to contact the FBI for comment were unsuccessful.) “People are afraid to ask questions, even the media is intimidated,†he says.
Despite the obstacles, Mr. Carswell depicts a reality in which even the FBI has been left isolated. “They’re the only ones telling that story,†he says. “His family, people in the streets, strangers, even the police – they have nothing but good to say of him. The only ones with a different story are the FBI. It don’t take no genius to figure out that somebody’s lying.†Mr. Carswell looks me in the eye – “How is everybody telling the same lie?â€
For the family, much of the government’s case turns on the credibility of one informant, a topic on which the Detroit Free Press has reported extensively. Mr. Regan is skeptical. “Why is it his word against everyone else? Who is he? What are his credentials? What makes him reliable?†Mr. Regan even suggests that the informant might have “played†the FBI, selling them an exaggerated narrative of a dangerous conspiracy for his own personal gain. Such stories have become common in recent years; informants in similar cases have often been career criminals, at times drug addicts, seeking reduced prison sentences or financial compensation.
“It’s inhumane,†says Mr. Regan, returning to the manner of the killing. “You don’t have a reason to shoot someone 21 times. These are trained marksmen. Shooting below the waist. Twice in the private parts. By federal agents. Do they have families, children, and wives?â€
I ask the brothers why they think the FBI agents shot and killed their father. Could it have been fear? Mr. Regan briefly entertains the notion. “Perhaps,†he says, “the informant hyped up the FBI. All lies. They went in thinking they were fighting for their country. And then they found out he wasn’t it.†His eyes flare up. “Oops. 13 children. A wife. An entire community in mourning. Why can’t they just say they were wrong?â€
Mr. Carswell is less receptive to the suggestion that the agents were afraid for their lives and that’s why they shot him 21 times. “This is what they do for a living. How are they so afraid? Are you new? Are you a rookie? Just wait in the car.†More than “afraid federal agents,†he responds, “what we hear about most often are rogue cops abusing their power.â€
At the end of the day, Mr. Abdullah’s family is anxious for answers. “They say: your father was a bad guy, that’s why we killed him, that’s why we shot him 21 times.†Mr. Regan’s eyes glisten and his voice falters. “It’s not fair; it feels like they targeted him because he’s Muslim. Because he was Muslim, they can say he was a terrorist…But the most they could charge him with was receiving stolen goods.†“Tell the truth,†he says. “You’re acting like cold-blooded killers. How can I believe that you’re here to serve the community?â€
While the family waits for the investigation to conclude, they pray for justice. As I leave, Mr. Regan’s voice assumes a tone of certainty. “Eventually,†he tells me, “the truth will come out.†On my drive back to my America, I think of the man killed without having ever been charged with a crime and left for dead in a warehouse; of the house of worship infiltrated by federal agents funded by our tax dollars; of how little our government seems to be doing for the people of inner-city Detroit. I wonder what has become of my America – and I can only hope that Mr. Regan’s confidence will not prove to have been in vain.
Hamdan Azhar is a graduate student in biostatistics at the University of Michigan. An accomplished writer on international affairs, his works have been published in the Huffington Post, Counterpunch, and the Asia Times.
Hundreds of powerful US bunker-buster bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 Blu bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.
Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Irans controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.
Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.
The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.
Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.
Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders website by the US navy.
A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.
Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.
They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran, said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours, he added.
The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.
The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely, he added. The US … is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Irans actions.
According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran, he said.
For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was extremely worrying. He stated: It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.
The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.
About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.
The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
Israel’s leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, published a column this week about an academic war game exercise conducted at Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center Strategic Studies. In a paper published last September, Prof. Moshe Vered considered under what conditions the two nations might enter a war, how long it might last and how it might end. The results were alarming even to the Israeli intelligence community. Here is how Barnea summarizes the research (thanks to Didi Remez for translating the article):
Workers move a fuels rod at the Fuel Manufacturing plant at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility 440 Km (273 miles) south of Tehran April 9, 2009.
REUTERS/Caren Firouz
“The war could be long,†Vered warns, “its length could be measured in years.†The cost that the war will exact from Israel raises a question mark as to the decision to go to war.
The relatively light scenario speaks about an Israeli bombing, after which Iran will fire several volleys of surface-to-surface missiles at Israel. Due to the limited number of missiles and their high cost, the war will end within a short time. The missiles may run out, the study states, but the war will only be getting started. “The means that may be most effective for the Iranians is war by proxies—Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas,†Vered writes. “(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire (and in the Syrian case, also various types of Scud missiles), which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support, by money and weapons, will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah, Israel will have to occupy most of the territory of Lebanon, and hold the territory for a long time. But then the IDF will enter a guerrilla war, a war the end of which is hard to predict, unless we evacuate the territory, and then the rocket fire will return…â€
This is not all. “Another possibility,†Vered writes, “is the activation of Iranian expeditionary forces that will be located in Syria as part of a defense pact between the two countries, or sending large amounts of infantry forces to participate in the war alongside Hizbullah or Syria. Iran’s ability to do so will increase after the United States evacuates its troops from Iraq. If the current tension between Turkey and Israel rises, Turkey may also permit, or turn a blind eye to, arms shipments and Iranian volunteers that will pass to Syria through its territory and airspace. Israel will find it very difficult, politically and militarily, to intercept the passage of forces through Iraq or Turkey. The participation of Iranian forces will make it very difficult for the IDF to occupy areas from which rockets are being fired.
“Along with these steps, Iran may launch a massive terror campaign against Israeli targets within Israel and abroad (diplomatic missions, El Al planes and more) and against Jewish targets.â€
Iran will not attack immediately, Vered’s scenario states. First it will launch intensive diplomatic activity, which could lead to an American embargo on spare parts to Israel. Along with this, the Iranians will secretly move troops to Syria. Israel will not attack the troops, for fear of international pressure. The IDF will have to mobilize a large reserve force to defend the Golan Heights. After the Iranians complete the buildup of their force, Hizbullah and Hamas will launch massive rocket fire against all population centers. The IDF will try to occupy Lebanon and will engage in a guerrilla war with multiple casualties. Hamas will renew the suicide bombings and Iran will target Israel’s sea and air routes by terrorism. The Iranians will fire missiles at population centers in Israel, and will rebuild the nuclear facilities that were bombed, in such a way that will make it very difficult to bomb them again.
Vered bases his assessment mainly on the regime’s ideology and on the lessons of the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. He writes: “Half a million dead, a million wounded, two million refugees and displaced persons, economic damage estimated by the Iranian government at about $1-trillion—more than twice the value of all Iranian oil production in 70 years of pumping oil—none of this was sufficient to persuade Iran to stop the war. Only the fear of the regime’s fall led the leadership to accept the cease-fire.
“The ramifications are clear and harsh—like the war against Iraq, the war against Israel will also be perceived by the Iranians as a war intended to right a wrong and bring justice to the world by destroying the State of Israel. Only a threat to the regime will be able to make the Iranian leadership stop. It is difficult to see how Israel could create such a threat.â€
The United States would be able to shorten the war if it were to join it alongside Israel. Vered does not observe American willingness to do so. He predicts the possibility of pressure in the opposite direction, by the US on Israel….
The military card
…The game is now approaching the critical stage, the “money time.†Netanyahu and Barak are waving the military card. “All the options are on the table,†they say, accompanying the sentence with a meaningful look. There are Israelis, in uniform and civilian clothes, who take them seriously…
The following is perhaps the most important portion of this column since Barnea posits a startling theory to explain Bibi’s posturing and bellicosity concerning Iran. If he is right then I would feel a whole lot more confident that war is not in the offing. But if he is wrong…
I find it difficult to believe that Netanyahu will undertake such a weighty and dangerous decision. It is more reasonable to assume that he and Barak are playing “hold me back.†On the day they will be called upon to explain why Iran attained nuclear weapons, they will say, each on his own, what do you want from me, I prepared a daring, deadly, amazing operation, but they—the US administration, the top IDF brass, the forum of three, the forum of seven, the forum of ten—tripped me up. They are to blame.
Netanyahu and Barak know: there is no military operation more successful, more perfect, than an operation that did not take place.
Netanyahu has upgraded Ahmadinejad to the dimensions of a Hitler. Against Hitler, one fights to the last bunker. This is what Churchill did, and Netanyahu wants so badly to be like Churchill. His credibility—a sensitive issue—is on the table. If he retreats, the voters will turn their back on him. Where will he go? In his distress, he may run forward.
Below, Barnea continues with his entirely reasonable, pragmatic and even cynical theories that the Israeli public neither believes, nor wants Bibi to go to war. While he may be right, I’m afraid that many polls of Israeli opinion show a population resigned to confrontation and possible war. So who do you believe?
The fascinating side of this story is that very few Israelis would appear to believe their prime minister. If they believed him, they would not run in a frenzy to buy apartments in the towers sprouting like mushrooms around the Kirya. In the event that Iran should be bombed, the residents of the towers would be the first to get it. If they believed [Netanyahu], the real estate prices in Tel Aviv would drop to a quarter of their current value, and long lines of people applying for passports would extend outside the foreign embassies. What do the Israelis know about Netanyahu that Ahmadinejad does not know, what is it that they know. Of course, this eminently reasonable interpretation omits the fact that many other pragmatic Israeli leaders, equally cynical in their way, have been sucked into disastrous wars for far less reason. Most recently Ehud Olmert in Lebanon and Gaza. Menachem Begin in Lebanon. Do we really believe that even if he doesn’t mean to go to war that something could not suck him into it against his better judgment? History is full of examples of precisely such things, World War I being perhaps the foremost example.
Returning to Vered’s war game, there will be Iran haters in Israel who read this who pooh-pooh this scenario claiming it overstates the negatives and overlooks Israel’s prowess and past success in similar ventures like Osirak and the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. But I say if even 1/10 of the complications Vered outlines happen, that disaster may be in the offing for Israel. Israelis tend to have a “can do†attitude towards wars with their Arab neighbors. As such, they often overestimate themselves and underestimate their adversary. Iran, once provoked, will make a much more formidable adversary than most Israelis imagine. Israelis should remember, but won’t, that the IDF is no longer the vaunted invincible force it was after the 1967 War. It cannot work miracles. Think Lebanon, 2006. Think Gaza, 2008. To delude yourself that bombing Iranian nuclear plants will be a surgical operation with short-term consequences alone is beyond foolish. That is why Vered’s exercise, no matter how accurate it turns out to be, is salient.
By Sumayyah Meehan, MMNS Middle East Correspondent
The divorce date, in the Middle East, has spiked considerably over the past few years, which has sounded the alarm for many of the conservative Islamic governments. In Saudi Arabia, the rate of divorce has escalated by almost 15% from 2008 to 2009. And in Kuwait, the divorce rate has skyrocketed to a whopping 187% over the last 23 years making it the highest rate of divorce in the entire world according to recent statistics released by the government. Most countries in the Middle East take a backseat role when it comes to divorce, leaving couples to figure it out for themselves. However, one country seeking to nip the notion of divorce in the bud, even prior to the marriage, is Iran.
Statistics on the Iranian divorce rate are sparse given the cultural and language chasm between the West and Iran, however a 1992 study by Sanasarian indicated that about 10% of Iranian marriages end in divorce (family.jrank.org), while according to divorcemag.com, less than 1 out of every 100 Iranian marriages end in divorce.
Regardless, Iran’s government-backed National Youth Organization has recently inaugurated its very first online pre-matrimonial course. According to the group’s mission statement, the online course will seek to assist young Iranians in finding their perfect marital match while also maintaining strict Islamic values, which frowns upon premarital dating or relations of any kind. The organization also has high expectations, by educating Iranian youth prior to marriage, to cut Iran’s rate of divorce drastically.
The course is held, for free, in virtual classrooms online and lasts for 3 full months. Designed by top Iranian professionals and Islamic scholars, the course highlights the dangers of relationships out of wedlock and upholds arranged marriages as the best recipe for living happily ever after. Participants in the online course must also take a weekly test and, based on how well they do, will receive a diploma in the union of marriage.
However, since its inception, there is very little information known about the specifics of what the course teaches which has whipped critics into a frenzy. At the launch of the program a very general syllabus was released to the media, which provided more questions than answers. In a recent interview, well-known Iranian sociologist Shahla Ezazi said, “Awareness is fine but the question is what kind of a family they are seeking to promote.†In a blatant attempt to quell any controversy, the head of the National Youth Organization Mehrdad Bazrpash summated, “Marriage needs hundreds of hours of education.â€
Iranian officials have also used the launch of the program as a soapbox to discourage harmful and extravagant practices when it comes to Iranian weddings, such as exorbitant dowries and expensive weddings that most families cannot afford. And to seal the deal in cementing the union of marriage, President Ahmadinejad has recently promised to give priority to employing newlyweds and providing affordable homes for recently married couples. Quite notably, the age in which Iranians now get married has increased exponentially due to financial circumstances and familial problems. For centuries, most Iranians would get married in their early twenties and today most Iranians marry in their late twenties or even early thirties. More and more couples in Iran are delaying their marriages indefinitely until the time is right or until they can afford to get married.
On March 12th 2010 the people of Lahore paid a heavy price for the decisions made by the leaders of the country. It was a day unlike any other. People of Lahore will never forget the events of that day. One bomb blast or even two the city and even the country is used to, but 7 blasts in one day are unheard of.
The first blast took place in R.A Market just before Friday Prayers and just a few moments after that a bigger blast shook the city. Since it is a cantonment area, the market is near sensitive military offices and installations which most likely were the targets of the attacks. There is confusion about the exact time distance between the 2 blasts. The reports were that they were only 15 seconds apart but then eyewitnesses claimed they were close to 2 minutes apart.
The reason given for the 2 blasts back to back was that after the first blast people started to gather to look at the damage and help the wounded. Another blast at this point would ensure much more casualties and it did.
According to reports around 57 people died and close to 120 were injured. However unofficial sources claim that the number of dead is up to 70.
The public was still trying to make sense of what had happened and were still trying to understand their circumstances when in the evening back to back 5, small fire cracker like, explosions took place in moon market at different times in the evening.
There were no casualties there but the scare was enough to put the whole city in extreme fear, anger and frustration. The public of Lahore could not comprehend what had happened and locked themselves in their homes for that evening.
Cantonment SP Investigation Umer Saeed said the bombers apparently came from the Northern Areas or Afghanistan, he also said that the suicide bomber’s fair complexion suggested that he was probably from South Waziristan. He said fingerprints of bombers would be obtained to verify them with NADRA record.
In a connected effort to hunt down people attached to these bombings 40 people from the same areas were arrested for not having ID Cards.
Even though many people did not come out on the streets that night as Lahoris do on a Friday night the roads were still filled with cars and people.
Seeing that many of the people did not stay at home and were out and about the very next day the media claimed that the people of Pakistan are brave and are not letting terrorists win by canceling their plans.
However, the area around R.A bazaar was closed on Saturday and people were in fear and grief along with shock.
All of the leaders of Pakistan condemned these attacks and said that the people of Lahore and Pakistan were brave and were crushing the plans of the enemy by resuming normal life right after the fact.
However when we spoke to people of Lahore there was a different view point. Shahbaz a father of 2 who works in a government office said that he has no choice but to get out because of work. He fears for his life but at the same time he cannot lose his job by staying at home.
Samina who works at a maid 50 minutes away from her house says the same thing. She told us that she works in Model Town, which is the area that was hit with the previous blast. However she has no choice but to leave the house and go there every day. Her children worry about her she says while she is gone but what can she do. Wiping her tears with her shawl she says, “I hate leaving my children behind because I don’t know what catastrophe might befall them that I cannot save them fromâ€, but there are no other options for her.
So, it would be wrong to say that people of Lahore are coming out and ignoring these events because they are resilient. Of course the fact that the people of Pakistan have become immune to guns and bombs most are getting out of their homes because of necessity rather then courage.
Again I repeat that this is not to claim that people are not courageous in these parts of the worlds because to live here every day and to move on from events like these requires a lot of strength which the people of Pakistan have.
However, with that said it is important to keep in mind that this courage comes from the need to survive as well. If getting out in these situations where there are more than one bombs exploding all over town is dangerous, staying in and losing one’s job is even more dangerous for these people.
In short the people of Pakistan are stuck between bomb and striving to fill their stomachs.
1. The first question in this connection that bothers all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: Is it lawful for a group or organization to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people maintaining ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?
• Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all the innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies fundamental place in the Islamic law. Taking anyone’s life for nothing and killing him is an act forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity. These days, the terrorists, in a vain attempt to impose their own ideas and beliefs and eliminate their opponents from the surface of the earth, killing innocent people ruthlessly and indiscriminately everywhere in Mosques, Bazaars, governmental offices and other public places are in fact committing manifest infidelity. They are warned of humiliating torment in this world and in the hereafter. Terrorism, in its very essence, is an act that symbolizes infidelity and rejection of what Islam stands for. When the forbidden element of suicide is added to it, its severity and lethality becomes even graver. Scores of Quranic verses and Prophetic traditions have proved that massacre of Muslims and terrorism is unlawful in Islam; rather, they are blasphemous acts. That has always been the edict unanimously held by all the scholars that have passed in the 1400 year Islamic history, including all the eminent Imams of Tafseer and Hadith and authorities on logic and jurisprudence. Islam has kept the door of negotiation and discussion open to convince by reasoning, instead of taking up arms to declare the others’ standpoint wrong, and enforce one’s own opinion. Only the victims of ignorance, jealousy and malice go for militancy. Islam declares them rebels. They will abide in Hell.
2. The second question in this regard is: what are the rights of the non-Muslim citizens in a Muslim state?
• Islam not only guarantees the protection of life, honour and property of Muslim citizens of an Islamic state, but also assures the equal protection of life, honour and property of non-Muslim citizens and of those people too with whom it has entered into a peace treaty. The rights of non-Muslim citizens enjoy the same sanctity as those of Muslim citizens in an Islamic state. There is no difference between them as human beings. That is why Islamic law metes out equal treatment to both Muslims and non-Muslims in blood money and Qisas. Non-Muslims have complete personal and religious freedom in a Muslim society. Their properties and worship places also enjoy complete protection. Besides non-Muslim citizens, even the ambassadors of non-Muslim countries and others working on diplomatic assignments have also been guaranteed complete protection. Likewise, the protection of life and property of non-Muslim traders is the responsibility of Islamic state. Islam does not allow and recommend the use of violence against and killing of peaceful and non-combatant citizens under any circumstances. Those indulging in attacks on peaceful non-Muslim citizens, kidnapping them for ransom, and torturing them mentally and physically, keeping them under unlawful custody, are in fact committing serious violation of Islamic teachings.
3. The third question arises: does Islam offer manifest commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to kidnap and assassinate the foreign delegates and innocent and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the non-Muslim global powers’ wrongs and atrocities?
• The emphasis Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that Islam does not allow massacre even when Muslim armies are engaged in the event of war against enemy troops. The killing of children, women, the old, patients, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone be killed. The masses cannot be massacred. Likewise, worship places, buildings, crops and even trees cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people, children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion and identity. It is a pity that such barbaric people still refer their activities as Jihad. There can be no bigger discrepancy than that seen around on earth. This can no way be permissible to keep the foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation to their interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances. The one who does it has no relation to Islam and the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him).
4. The fourth and very significant question underlines rebellion: Is armed struggle permissible against the Muslim rulers to remove their governments because of their non-Islamic policies, or get accepted the demands, bring them on to the right path, giving up their impious activities? Is rebellion permissible against the constitutional government, its writ and governance? What should be the legitimate way to change the rulers or make them mend their ways?
• Islam is not merely a religion. It is a complete Din, a code of life. Providing a complete set of principles for every walk of life, it has also made arrangements for the protection of the collectivity of society. The rights and duties of state institutions have manifestly and clearly been spelled out. All citizens of Muslim state have been placed under obligation to abide by state laws, rules and regulations. One of these principles is that a Muslim state and society should be a paragon of peace, and mutual coexistence. That is why Islam strictly prohibits the taking up of arms against a Muslim state, challenging its authority and writ, and declaring war against it. Islamic law holds such an action as rebellion. God forbid if such conditions are created, then it is the principal responsibility of an Islamic state to take urgent measures to eliminate rebellion with iron hand and exterminate terrorism so that no individual or group can dare destroy the social harmony of society, ruin peace and shed innocent blood. Islam holds the peace and tranquility of a society, in general, and of a Muslim state, in particular, so dear that it does not allow people to raise the banner of revolt in the name of injustice, oppression and other vices of ruling elite. In the light of Prophetic traditions, the banner of rebellion against a Muslim state cannot be raised unless the rulers commit explicit, declared and absolute infidelity, and stop the performance of religious rituals like prayer through the use of force.
When Adam was created a very special being was created. ALLAH actually put more of Himself into human kind than any other part of creation. He told the Jinn, Angels, Devil, and everything else to submit to humankind. This puts us directly under ALLAH with nothing in between.
It also gives us a great amount of responsibility to live our lives as Muslim human beings. When you consciously accept to become a Muslim, thoughts and activities you did prior to accepting the highest station of creation (Conscious Muslim human being) should be suppressed with as much vigor as possible.
All ethnic groups and cultures of Muslim groups have their own cultural baggage that denigrates the religion as well as the individual. There are cultural practices that automatically place women in an inferior, sub-class from men. This is not from scripture. It is from misogynist, chauvinistic ideas of men. Nevertheless they are seen by non-Muslims, and some Muslims, as part of the religion. These types of negative portrayals create a mindset that stifles the positive forward progress of the community.
There are other groups, primarily reverts to the religion, that have cultural baggage they brought with them from another life.
I witnessed a terrible example of this when two brothers in a disagreement actually went to fisticuffs – at the masjid – instead of using their religious instruction to solve the problem. The altercation actually started over unproven accusations that they didn’t take time to discuss. They just let violent, uncivilized behavior take over their minds and a worst situation developed. Settling differences with brawn rather than brain is the result of a barbaric mentality that has no place in the life of a conscious Muslim.
When most reverts accept the religion it’s because they see a superior way of life dictated by the directives of the Almighty ALLAH through His human example, Prophet Muhammad (s). We look at where we came from and the negative effects backward lifestyles had on us and vow to live a new, fruitful, productive, moral and peaceful life. Some of us even make the journey to Mecca to perform the hajj to increase our spirituality and thus the tools to achieve this new life.
Human beings are animals. The same physiological characteristics that make up our bodies are present in most animals, especially mammals. We even use cats, dogs, and fetal pigs in laboratories to study our own human physiology. The only difference between our brain and the brain of a cat is our brain houses “mind,†which makes us human.
So even though we have this animal nature, our human mind is supposed to control it. This is true for ordinary human beings and is supposed to be especially prominent for those of us who have become Conscious Muslim Human Beings. So whatever your ethnic or cultural baggage, whether misogyny or brutal aggression, Islam is supposed to free you from that. And this freedom is yours regardless of your cultural or ethnic background. The Qur’an speaks to all people.
It is understandable that these things are difficult to overcome but every effort must be made to make the change. ALLAH made us (Muslim human animals) to be the cream of creation and endowed us with a piece of Him to take care of the creation.
Let us try to remember ALLAH the next time challenges confront us. Let us think before we do an action whether ALLAH would approve of what that action is and the manner we are doing that action. Remember Ihsan, “behave as though you see ALLAH, aware you can’t see Him, but also aware that He sees you.â€
The day our vice president talked of peace in Israel, the right wing religious fundamentalist government of Benjamin Netenyahoo slapped him by making the announcement that the Jewish state would construct 1600 new houses in the occupied territories. Of course, building of illegal settlements is nothing new. Israel has been indulging in illegal construction against the will of all the civilized world, but humiliating a friend the way Biden was treated is something new in Israel’s defiant diplomacy.
It is learned from reliable sources that the prime minister knew of the announcement well in advance and many US Jewish leaders also knew about before the start of the Biden visit.
It is believed that the act of making the announcement was deliberate and the purpose was to teach the Obama Administration a lesson in promoting a new Jewish lobbying group against AIPAC and conventional Zionist groups. The Muslim Observer has learned from close Washington sources including many congressional sources that Israel wanted to hurt the Obama Administration at a time when Washington is divided over health care reform and financial stimulus package. Israel had hoped that its supportive members in Congress from both the parties would ensure that the decisions to construct illegal settlement is accepted.
The Israeli prime minister knew about the announcement in advance as he was briefed by the interior ministry. It is obvious that the purpose was to punish Americans and hurt the Obama Administration. Israel however did not realize that the reaction of the Administration would be strong. It did not expect the State Department to reprimand the fundamentalist government.
Obviously, the AIPAC is doing all it can to intimidate and placate congressmen on both sides. With elections in November, many congressmen feel that they are in a corner. In tight races, they believe they cannot afford to anger AIPAC and Jewish voters. They are trying to influence the vice presidential office and the state department to tone down their condemnation.
The Muslim Observer has learned from sources close to several l congressmen that AIPAC supporters allegedly threatened to withdraw their support to them if they did not openly oppose the State Department.
Simultaneously, the religious right and pro-Zionist Christian groups are being approached by the pro-Israeli lobby to ensure that those who are take the side of Biden and Clinton on this issue are taught a lesson in November election.
It is apparent that Israeli lobby is making determined efforts to impact the Administration and the forthcoming congressional elections. Certainly, this is going to hurt the interests of the US as it s engaged in a war against terrorism. By opening a new front to humiliate the US and hurt its interests, the so called closest ally has tried to weaken American resolve to fight terrorism and defend its dignity.
Israel is telling 300 million Americans, we do not care about you and about the international community because we own the congress as our supportive organizations are in total control of the electoral manipulations.
March 15, 2010 “Information Clearing House†— SOME WEEKS the news is dominated by a single word. This week’s word was “timingâ€.
It’s all a matter of timing. The Government of Israel has insulted the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, one of the greatest “friends†of Israel (meaning: somebody totally subservient to AIPAC) and spat in the face of President Barack Obama. So what? It’s all a matter of timing.
If the government had announced the building of 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem a day earlier, it would have been OK. If it had announced it three days later, it would have been wonderful. But doing it exactly when Joe Biden was about to have dinner with Bibi and Sarah’le – that was really bad timing.
The matter itself is not important. Another thousand housing units in East Jerusalem, or 10 thousand, or 100 thousand – what different does it make? The only thing that matters is the timing.
As the Frenchman said: It’s worse than criminal, it’s stupid.
THE WORD “stupid†also figured prominently this week, second only to “timingâ€.
Stupidity is an accepted phenomenon in politics. I would almost say: to succeed in politics, one needs a measure of stupidity. Voters don’t like politicians who are too intelligent. They make them feel inferior. A foolish politician, on the other hand, appears to be “one of the folksâ€.
History is full of acts of folly by politicians. Many books have been written about this. To my mind, the epitome of foolishness was achieved by the events that led to World War I, with its millions of victims, which broke out because of the accumulated stupidity of (in ascending order) Austrian, Russian, German, French and British politicians.
But even stupidity in politics has its limits. I have pondered this question for decades, and who knows, one day, when I grow up, I might write a doctoral thesis about it.
My thesis goes like this: In politics (as in other fields) foolish things happen regularly. But some of them are stopped in time, before they can lead to disaster, while others are not. It this accidental, or is there a rule?
My answer is: there certainly is a rule. It works like this: when somebody sets in motion an act of folly that runs counter to the spirit of the regime, it is stopped in its tracks. While it moves from one bureaucrat to another, somebody starts to wonder. Just a moment, this cannot be right! It is referred to higher authority, and soon enough somebody decides that it is a mistake.
On the other hand, when the act of folly is in line with the spirit of the regime, there are no brakes. When it moves from one bureaucrat to the next, it looks quite natural to both. No red light. No alarm bell. And so the folly rolls on to the bitter end.
I remember how this rule came to my mind the first time. In 1965, Habib Bourguiba, the president of Tunisia, took a bold step: he made a speech in the biggest refugee camp in Jericho, then under Jordanian rule, and called upon the Arabs to recognize Israel. This caused a huge scandal all over the Arab world.
Some time later, the correspondent of an Israeli paper reported that in a press conference at the UN headquarters, Bourguiba had called for the destruction of Israel. This sounded strange to me. I made inquiries, checked the protocol and found out that the opposite was true: the reporter had mistakenly turned a no into a yes.
How did this happen? If the journalist had erred in the opposite direction and reported, for example, that Gamal Abd-el-Nasser had called for the acceptance of Israel into the Arab League, the news would have been stopped at once. Every red light would have lit up. Someone would have called out: Hey, something strange here! Check again! But in the Bourguiba case nobody noticed the mistake, for what is more natural than an Arab leader calling for the destruction of Israel? No verification needed.
That’s what happened this week in Jerusalem. Every government official knows that the nationalist Prime Minister is pushing for the Judaization of East Jerusalem, that the extreme nationalist Minister of the Interior is even more eager, and that the super-nationalist Mayor of Jerusalem practically salivates when he imagines a Jewish quarter on the Temple Mount. So why should a bureaucrat postpone the confirmation of a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem? Just because of the visit of some American windbag?
Therefore, the timing is not important. It’s the matter itself that’s important.
DURING HIS last days in office, President Bill Clinton published a peace plan, in which he tried to make up for eight years of failure in this region and kowtowing to successive Israeli governments. The plan was comparatively reasonable, but included a ticking bomb.
About East Jerusalem, Clinton proposed that what is Jewish should be joined to the State of Israel and what is Arab should be joined to the state of Palestine. He assumed (rightly, I believe) that Yasser Arafat was ready for such a compromise, which would have joined some new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to Israel. But Clinton was not wise enough to foresee the consequences of his proposal.
In practice, it was an open invitation to the Israeli government to speed up the establishment of new settlements in East Jerusalem, expecting them to become part of Israel. And indeed, since then successive Israeli governments have invested all available resources in this endeavor. Since money has no smell, every Jewish casino-owner in America and every Jewish brothel-keeper in Europe was invited to join the effort. The Biblical injunction – “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God, for any vow; for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God†(Deuteronomy 23:18) – was suspended for this holy cause.
Now the pace is speeded up even more. Because there is no more effective means of obstructing peace than building new settlements in East Jerusalem.
THAT IS clear to anyone who has dealings with this region. No peace without an independent Palestinian state, no Palestinian state without East Jerusalem. About this there is total unanimity among all Palestinians, from Fatah to Hamas, and between all Arabs, from Morocco to Iraq, and between all Muslims, from Nigeria to Iran.
There will be no peace without the Palestinian flag waving above the Haram al-Sharif, the holy shrines of Islam which we call the Temple Mount. That is an iron-clad rule. Arabs can compromise about the refugee problem, painful as it may be, and about the borders, also with much pain, and about security matters. But they cannot compromise about East Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine. All national and religious passions converge here.
Anyone who wants to wreck any chance for peace – it is here that he has to act. The settlers and their supporters, who know that any peace agreement would include the elimination of (at least) most settlements, have planned in the past (and probably are planning now) to blow up the mosques on the Temple Mount, hoping that this would cause a worldwide conflagration which would reduce to ashes the chances of peace once and for all. Less extreme people dream about the creeping ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem by administrative chicanery, demolition of houses, denying means of livelihood and just making life in general miserable for Arabs. Moderate rightists just want to cover every empty square inch in East Jerusalem with Jewish neighborhoods. The aim is always the same.
THIS REALITY is, of course, well known to Obama and his advisors. In the beginning they believed, in their innocence, that they could sweet talk Netanyahu and Co. into stopping the building activity to facilitate the start of negotiations for the two-state solution. Very soon they learned that this was impossible without exerting massive pressure – and they were not prepared to do that.
After putting up a short and pitiful struggle, Obama gave in. He agreed to the deception of a “settlement freeze†in the West Bank. Now building is going on there with great enthusiasm, and the settlers are satisfied. They have completely stopped their demonstrations.
In Jerusalem there was not even a farcical attempt – Netanyahu just told Obama that he would go on building there (“as in Tel Avivâ€), and Obama bowed his head. When Israeli officials announced a grandiose plan for building in “Ramat Shlomo†this week, they did not violate any undertaking. Only the matter of “timing†remained.
FOR JOE BIDEN, it was a matter of honor. For Mahmoud Abbas, it is a matter of survival.
Under intense pressure from the Americans and their agents, the rulers of the Arab countries, Abbas was obliged to agree to negotiations with the Netanyahu government – though only “proximity talksâ€, a euphemism for “distance talksâ€.
Clearly, nothing will come out of these talks except more humiliation for the Palestinians. Quite simply: anyone building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is announcing in advance that there is no chance for an agreement. After all, no sane Israeli would invest billions in a territory he intends to turn over to the Palestinian state. A person who is eating a pizza is not negotiating about it in good faith.
Even at this late stage, Abbas and his people still hope that something good will come out of all this: the US will acknowledge that they are right and exert, at long last, real pressure on Israel to implement the two-state solution.
But Biden and Obama did not give much cause for hope. They wiped the spit off their faces and smiled politely.
As the saying goes: when you spit in the face of a weakling, he pretends that it is raining. Does this apply to the president of the most powerful country in the world?
Gold, silver and the metals group are coming down from their January highs, on the eve of gold’s nine year bull market run. Considering the gold price has had nine consistent yearly gains, and it’s still above $1000 is a feat in itself. Gold’s bull market is solid, a new phase has begun and it’s currently declining in a sharp, yet normal downward correction.
Corrections tend to cause fear. And considering the volatility we’ve seen in recent years, the fear level rises fast. The word bubble is the buzz word, and it’s understandable since we’ve had so many over the last decade. The tech bubble was followed by the housing bubble, the credit bubble, and the debt bubble that continues to grow.
The debt bubble is an ongoing reality; it’s international in scope and it’s the biggest ever. This is hanging over our heads and over the markets, and it isn’t going away, it’s just getting bigger.
GOLD RISES WITH UNCERTAINTY
Debt monsters of the past have tended to end in deflationary depressions, but it’s important to understand that gold can rise in this kind of environment. Remember, gold rises during economic uncertainty. In the early 1930s, for example, during the Great Depression, President Roosevelt raised the price of gold almost 70% from $20.65 to $35 an ounce in a struggle to bring back inflation.
Gold is money. It’s the currency of last resort when monetary times are difficult. So when gold rises in all currencies, as it’s been doing for several years, you know the rise is enduring and superior (see Chart 1). So even though gold has no yield or earnings to measure like the other markets do, it has true value.
The central banks are flooding the markets with their own currencies, and competitive devaluations will continue to grow. Many countries depend on exports for economic survival. This means the best price in the current deflationary environment wins, which is what a cheaper currency does.
This situation originally started with globalization and it’s bullish for gold. The U.S. is still in a delicate situation. It needs a weaker dollar to compete and stimulus measures must continue, which are both ultimately bullish for gold.
This is one important reason why we do not think gold or commodities are in a bubble. We believe they are rising within a mega trend that could last several more years, perhaps a decade. Some say that China is in a bubble and if they are, the demand for commodities will fall. China may be overheated but we don’t think it’s in a bubble. Their growth, even if it’s only a part of what they claim, is solid.
Commodities are in demand and this continues growing with each passing month. China is the engine for demand. It’s the biggest consumer of many raw materials, like aluminum, copper and iron ore. In fact, just last month the number of iron ore and coal ships hired to carry cargo to China jumped 38%.
Rio Tinto, the second largest resource company in the world, forecasts that China’s consumption will be more than double by 2020. That’s only 10 years away.
China and other countries are also buying gold. It currently only makes up about 2% of the reserves in emerging markets. With the average being 10%, there is interest and a need to continue adding gold to their reserves.
Aside from central banks, mutual funds are adding gold to their portfolios as well. This month, the second biggest U.S. public pension, the California State Teachers retirement system, is considering investments in commodities in order to boost returns and provide a hedge against inflation.
Yes, gold is slowly making its way into mainstream investing, in large part thanks to the Exchange Traded Funds, ETFs. They have made it easy to invest in gold and commodities.
BAD NEWS COINCIDES WITH DECLINING MARKET
Debt and how it’s handled will be the driving force in the markets looking out to the years ahead. And interest on the debt, compounded, will be the biggest problem.
This is why there are so many doubts that the economic recovery will be sustained. The commodities, metals and energy fell sharply in recent weeks on concern that rising job losses in the U.S., and mounting debt in Europe, will slow economic growth and, therefore, curb demand.
Interestingly, this type of news becomes more common when the markets are due for a downward correction anyway. The great rises in the metals and crude oil were overextended and they’ve been poised for a downward correction.
With copper being the global economic barometer, the fact that it fell sharply for the first time since the rise began a year ago, provided a good example of bad news hitting an overextended market. A bull market decline is now underway.
Gold is a good example too. Its seven month rise that peaked in November, which we call the C rise, was a bullish one that had reached maturity. By gaining 40% and meeting our original target level, we knew the bulk of the rise was over, for the time being.
GOLD: “D†decline underway
A D decline is now underway. These declines tend to be the sharpest intermediate declines in a bull market, and so far this one is following the pattern. Chart 2 shows that gold’s leading indicator (B) declined clearly below its uptrend and it could now fall to the low area while the gold price itself stays under downward pressure.
The $1000 level is a key support area, which is near the prior C peak in 2008. The 65 week moving average, now at $975 is rising and it’s set to reach the $1000 level in a few months, which will further reinforce the support at $1000. For now, $975 to $1000 is the strong support level for gold.
Interestingly, gold at $975 would be a 20% decline from the November $1218 peak. The worst D decline so far in the current bull market was in 2008 during the financial meltdown. Gold fell almost 30% from March to November. This was an extreme case in an extreme situation. A decline to the $950 level would be similar to the 2006 D decline, which was the second worst decline since 2001.
In other words, the extent of the decline is about half over. As for timing… since 2004, the D declines have been lasting about twice as long compared to the first years of the bull. This means we could see the decline end any time from here on out, if it’s on the shorter end, but more likely it could last until April.
Pressure is likely to stay on gold and the metals in the weeks ahead, which means it’s time to take advantage of weakness by adding or buying new positions. Gold’s major trend remains up, indicating it’s headed higher. But for now, it will temporarily remain under downward pressure by staying below $1110.
Livonia–March 13—American Muslims have made inroads institutionally, with established mosques, advocacy groups, and media. There are also fledgling efforts to build funeral services and graveyards and other necessary forms of care. But the next level of institution building is to create self-sufficiency in medical and other care.
One group which has begun the work of providing community and social and medical services to Muslims is Muslim Family Services, a devision of ICNA Relief.
Muslim Family Services held a fundraiser on Saturday night at the Radisson Hotel in Livonia, hosting about 250 people for an evening which celebrated the accomplishments and looked at the future goals of the organization.
Muslim Family Services is led most prominently by Dr. Ali Suleiman, Ph.D, who studied at the University of Michigan and at the University of Madina Saudi Arabia. Dr. Asim Hussain (not to be confused with keynote speaker Altaf Husain), professor of Wayne State University, is also involved. Mr. Yousuf Vaid is also prominently involved. The organization focuses largely on providing social services, mainly specializing in marriage counseling, but also providing many other services including subsidizing funeral payments and providing food and other emergency care to Muslims in need.
The fundraising dinner began with Maghrib prayer, followed by a welcome by the MC Yousuf Vaid, followed by recitation of Qur`an by a young man, Nadeem Gulam, then dinner. Then there was a slide presentation by Steve Hernandez on the accomplishments of Muslim Family Services, followed by a keynote speech by Harvard Professor, Dr. Altaf Husain. Finally there was a fundraiser and a closing du’a.
Mr. Hernandez spoke movingly of the accomplishments of Muslim Family Services, pointing out its cooperation with other groups, and its work to support the community’s education, activities to minimize family violence (in coordination with ACCESS and the State of Michigan and Wayne County), counseling of individuals, families, pre-marital and marital counseling, psychological counseling, anger management, and substance abuse counseling.
He spoke movingly about MFS’s Janaza fund, which provides about seven funerals per year, at a cost of $3,000 each.
Dr. Altaf Husain also spoke movingly, focusing more on the future of Muslim healthcare in the United States, pointing out that the Muslim community faces similar challenges to those faced before by Catholics and Jews (such as dietary restrictions, discrimination, refused treatment, predatory missionary work by those who see vulnerable people of a different religion, and cultural conflicts)–who in the 1850s responded by building their own hospitals which exist to this day. Husain emphasized one such hospital, Mt. Sinai, which had its origins in the need of Jews to respond to the above challenges, but which now serves the wider community.
Muslim Family Services emphasized that they provide services in a professional and confidential manner, and invited all Muslims facing issues to come to them for assistance.
Seven Muslims Awarded Soros New American Fellowships for 2010
There are seven Muslims among thirty awarded of the Soros New American Fellowships for 2010. The awards are granted to high achieveing immigrants or children of immigrants in the United States. The fellowships are funded by income from a $75 million charitable trust created by philanthropists Paul and Daisy Soros, of New York City and New Canaan, Conn. Since its founding, more than $33 million has been spent to support graduate education of immigrants and the children of immigrants.
The Muslim Observer will be publishing the profiles of Muslims each week beginning this issue.
ABDULRASHEED ALABI is the son of supportive Nigerian parents who were seeking advanced degrees in the United States. He is now pursuing MD and neuroscience PhD degrees at Stanford Medical School. AbdulRasheed grew up in Nigeria but then returned to the United States to complete an undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering at Johns Hopkins University where he was, and remains at Stanford, an active member of the Muslim community amongst other activities. Balancing complex personal and financial responsibilities, he soon made his mark as a young researcher, a student leader, and a civic volunteer.
For three summers, he conducted biomedical research with Dr. Emery Brown at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital culminating in a co-authored article in the American Journal of Physiology: Heart and Circulatory Physiology. As an Undergraduate Scholar at the National Institutes of Health, he worked with Dr. Kenton Swartz on electrical signaling proteins in the nervous system, research that netted him a first-author article in Nature. At Stanford he has been leader of the Student National Medical Association and the annual SUMMA (Stanford University Minority Medical Alliance) conference—where over 500 young people are encouraged to consider science and medicine. AbdulRasheed plans on a career as a physician-scientist-public advocate intent on innovative basic science for diagnostic, therapeutic and preventative applications. He also has a defined interest in international scientific exchange for biomedical development and enhanced educational opportunities in Africa.
Jewish students tour Islamic center
HAMPTON,VA–Far from the conflicts a world away efforts are being made in Virginia to bridge the misunderstandings between Muslims and Jews. On a recent Sunday, students from Beth El Temple in Williamsburg visited the Mosque and Islamic Center of Hampton Roads for an educational tour. The two dozen students, their parents and teachers, and their Rabii were given an introductory talk about Islam and the Muslim faith.
The reactions by the grown ups and the children were positive. Rebecca Feltman, 10, was struck by the egalitarian nature of Islam. “I didn’t know Islam was such a popular religion,†she said. “I like that it’s open to different races. I didn’t know that they [Judaism, Christianity, Islam] were so alike.†Esther Shivers, attending with her daughter Erin, 8, was also impressed by the similarities between the religions. “They’re burdened with that terrorism. They have a lot of damage control to do,†she said. “All religions have extremists. We have more in common. It’s wonderful that they open their facility and educate the children.â€
Barack Obama’s impersonator Ilham Anas of Indonesia poses in front of an image of U.S. President Barack Obama after being interviewed by Reuters TV in Obama’s former school, State Elementary School 01 Menteng, in Jakarta March 16, 2010. Obama is scheduled later this month to visit the world’s most populous Muslim nation, where he is a popular figure. Obama studied at State Elementary School 01 Menteng from 1970-1971.
REUTERS/Dadang Tri
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States hopes President Barack Obama’s visit next week to Indonesia will help spur reforms that boost trade with Southeast Asia’s largest economy and the world’s fourth most populous nation.
“Economic nationalism, regulatory uncertainty and unresolved investment disputes give pause to American companies seeking to do business in Indonesia,†U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in a speech on Wednesday.
To increase trade, “it’s incumbent upon Indonesia to make market-oriented reforms that will make it a more attractive market, not just for U.S. companies but companies all around the world,†Locke said.
“Growing trade with Indonesia is a piece of the president’s broader plan to create jobs here at home by growing market access overseas.â€
Obama is returning to the country where he spent part of his youth for talks in Jakarta with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and a stop in Bali to meet civil society groups and urge further progress on democracy.
Indonesia — a majority Muslim nation of 230 million people — and the United States are expected to sign a “comprehensive partnership†agreement, which Locke said would be a “blueprint for cooperation on a whole host of issues.â€
Two-way trade between the United States and Indonesia was just $18 billion last year, a tiny chunk of the $788 billion in trade the United States did with all Pacific Rim countries in 2009.
“In fact, Indonesia does less trade with the United States than some of its smaller, less populous ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) neighbors like Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand,†said Locke, who will be leading a clean energy trade mission to Indonesia in May.
The United States exported $5.1 billion of goods last year to Indonesia, led by civilian aircraft and farm goods such as soybeans, animal feeds and cotton.
U.S. imports from Indonesia were just $12.9 billion last year, included clothing and textile goods, furniture, electronics, computer accessories and coffee.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will visit Indonesia just weeks after Obama but Locke downplayed the idea that the back-to-back trips were a demonstration of Washington and Beijing vying for influence.
“I don’t think these visits in any way were set up to compete against each other,†Locke said.
But Ernie Bower, director for Southeast Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he did see a healthy competition between the United States and China for “hearts, minds and markets†in Southeast Asia.
China “really picked up its game†in Indonesia with help it provided during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s and Obama’s trip helps set the stage for more U.S. involvement in a strategically important region, Bower said.
But Indonesia has a long way to go before it is ready to join a proposed regional free trade agreement with the United States, said Mark Orgill, manager for Indonesia at the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council.
A much less ambitious trade deal between ASEAN and China already has raised concerns among Indonesia’s manufacturers, Orgill said.
The United States began talks this week on the proposed Transpacific Partnership pact with Australia, Chile, Singapore, New Zealand, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei. Two other ASEAN countries, Malaysia and Thailand, have expressed interest in joining the talks.
“Indonesia fights battles at home†over moves to open its market, Orgill said.
Proposals to ban face veils provoked debate in France’s Muslim community
By Zubeida Malik
France could become the first country in Europe to ban the burka. A draft law submitted to the French parliament would make it illegal for a woman to cover her face in public spaces such as hospitals and trains. But the proposal has divided the country’s five million-strong Muslim community.
26 year-old Anisa wears a bright blue niqab, a piece of clothing that covers her completely except for her eyes and perfectly arched eyebrows.
You can’t miss her among the crowds: maybe it is because of the colour of the niqab or because there is no other woman around who is covered up to this extent.
She has been wearing it for a year-and-a-half. Anisa’s family, who are originally from Morocco, are against her wearing the niqab. But Anisa believes it is her religious duty.
According to official figures there are just 1900 women who wear the burka in France. Most of them are young and a quarter are converts.
But a report from the French intelligence services put this figure much lower at 367, out of an estimated population of five million Muslims, the largest in Europe. When I met Anisa in the suburbs of Seine-Saint Denis, an area with the highest concentration of Muslims in France, she says that ever since she started wearing the niqab she has had unwelcome attention from the police, has been insulted in the street and is frequently stared at.
Women wearing the burka – a veil which covers the whole face – or the niqab in France are not as visible as those in Britain. But look hard enough in the suburbs and you can find them.
The mosque in the town of Drancy, on the outskirts of Paris, is currently the most controversial in France because the imam here has come out in support of the government’s decision to ban the burka.
Imam Hassan Chalghoumi is now facing death threats and has been given police protection. Ignoring the advice of his advisors he spoke to the Today programme. He says the burka has nothing to do with religion but the wearing of it was down to tradition.
And the imam added that the burka debate was diverting attention from the real problems facing the Muslim community, including racism, integration and young people dropping out of school early. The imam, who is originally from Tunisia, has the support of the mayor of Drancy.
Tempers are running high at the mosque and there are some it is hard to tell how many want the imam to leave. And there is also a lot of anger and frustration with the media and the police.
Friday prayers when I was there were tense. There were policemen present, plain clothes officers filming and an ambulance on standby, in case anyone got hurt. Multiculturalism in France is different to that in Britain and the United States. One of the core principles of the Fifth Republic is “laiciteâ€, the separation of church and state.
Religion here is seen as a highly private matter, even more than in the US, where church and state are also constitutionally separated.
Pierre Rousselin from Le Figaro newspaper says that in France people still believe that ‘’foreigners can adapt to the French way of life’’
A commission has spent six months looking into the burka in a review which took evidence from more than 200 people. It recommended proposing a ban on women wearing either the burka or the niqab in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.
It is not the first time that the Muslim community in France feels that its been put under the spotlight. In 2004 a law was passed banning the hijab – or headscarf – and all other religious symbols, from state schools. Although the ban affects all religions, the Muslim community here feels that it was aimed at them.
Wider debate
The current controversy comes in the wake of months of debate and President Sarkozy’s speech last year where he said the veils were not welcome in France, but which stopped short of calling for an outright ban.
A draft law has been submitted to parliament but any further action has been put on the back-burner until after the regional elections in France this month.
Sihem Habchi, who describes herself as a Muslim feminist, is director of Ni Putes Ni Soumise – “Neither Whores Nor Submissivesâ€, an influential feminist organisation. She says it is not a question of how many women wear the burka, but one of ‘’democratic principle’’. And she too wants the burka banned.
Ms Habchi says that a ban would ‘’liberate’’ the Muslim community from those who want to hold it back and ‘’use our religion’’.
Adding that her Algerian background allows her to understand this issue and the wider one of women’s rights as a whole, Ms Habchi says ‘’laicite’’ actually protects religion because it means all religions have an equal footing.
Catherine De Wenden, an expert in the history of immigration in France, believes the timing of the current debate is political and is tied in with the regional elections in France.
Although she is personally against banning the burka, she says there it is part of a wider debate in France about national identity, adding that there are many forms of multiculturalism and that France regards religion as a private matter.
Ms De Wenden is concerned that if the ban happens then France will not be seen as a country which practises toleration, a core value of the French Revolution. But any legislation could have the reverse effect. The young women I spoke to in Drancy said that if the ban became law then they would start to wear the burka for the first time.
NEW DELHI/AHMEDABAD: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi is in news again, but not for the reasons he or his party associates appreciate. Eight years after Gujarat-carnage, in which of thousands of Muslims in the state were killed and/or injured, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has summoned Modi. Created by Supreme Court in March 2008 to probe into 2002-Gujarat riots, the SIT has summoned Modi to appear before it on March 21. Modi, if he appears before the SIT, is expected to face questions over the murder of Congress legislator Ehsan Jaffrey. He and more than 50 other Muslims were killed by extremist Hindu rioters in Gulbarg Society, a residential complex in Ahmedabad (February 28, 2002). Modi and at least 60 others have been blamed and criticized for not doing enough to check the communal violence and protect the state’s Muslim citizens.
“Yes, we have summoned Mr. Modi,†R.K. Raghavan, SIT head said. “On 21 March, we will ask him a few questions. Then we will send a report to the Supreme Court,†he said.
The Supreme Court is taking action on a petition filed by Jaffrey’s widow, Zakia. In her petition, she named Modi and 62 others, alleging that they conspired to “let Hindus vent their anger†after the Godhra-incident. The Godhra-incident refers to fire on Sabarmati Express, in which around 60 Hindus died. While fire’s cause was said to be an accident, extremist Hindu groups alleged that it was started by Muslim protestors because of which they reacted leading to Gujarat-carnage, with Hindu rioters targeting Muslims.
Following Zakia’s petition, the Supreme Court directed SIT to probe the alleged role of persons she had named as responsible for the riots, including Modi and 62 others. Though it is not clear, whether summoning of Modi will lead to any judicial action against him or not, according to Zakia: “I have not slept properly ever since the incident. Now, he (Modi) will also have sleepless nights.†“I hope justice will be given to us. It has been a long journey. I am very happy that Modi has been summoned,†she said.
Elaborating on the petition filed against Modi, Zakia’s son Tanveer Jaffrey said: “This is a step to file an FIR (First Information Report) against Modi. Until an FIR is filed you cannot say where the investigation will lead to.†Tanveer is hopeful, that “this will open up other cases too.â€
“The summoning should have happened long ago as the chief minister of Gujarat and his government presided over the worst ‘pogram’ against minorities in independent India,†Congress party spokesman Manish Tewari said in New Delhi. The Congress felt that it would be appropriate for Modi to resign as chief minister.
The Congress in Gujarat has not yet too made too much noise about Modi facing summons. Justifying the cautious stand taken by his party, Gujarat Congress spokesperson Arjun Modhvadiya said: “The SIT must have strong evidence to issue a summon. We hope that the team carries out further investigations in right earnest and bring him to justice.†Modhvadiya, former leader of Opposition in the State Assembly, also voiced demand for Modi’s resignation inside and outside the House. Modi should tender his resignation on “moral grounds,†he said as the summons were based on Supreme Court’s directives and on the basis of evidence collected by SIT.
Dismissing Congress demand for Modi’s resignation, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said: “The summons to Modi by SIT are a part of the legal process which shall be dealt with as per the process of law.â€
The BJP is considering legal options to save Modi from facing a tough legal battle. “What our strategy is something that we don’t want to discuss on camera. But it takes long term planning in such cases,†Gujarat government spokesperson Jaynarayan Vyas said. The Congress was “day dreaming,†by thinking that Modi would resign following the summons, Vyas said. “The party may wish for anything but there is no reason for Mr. Modi to quit,†he said.
Survivors of Gujarat-carnage are fairly pessimistic on whether summoning of Modi would spell any major development in speeding action against the rioters. “What we are going to witness on March 21 is a high-voltage drama when the chief minister appears before the SIT to respond to allegations leveled against him by various witnesses. That is it. It is going to be an eyewash,†according to Mukhat Ahmad, a riot victim-turned-rights activist.
Dismissing the summons as a “hype,†a senior officer said: “What can deposition achieve? The SIT is not in a position to interrogate, grill anyone or Modi. Can it force him or anyone to say something that one chooses to hide? So what will this achieve except create a hype?†Asserting that Zakia’s petition cannot force legal action against Modi, analysts said: “There is no direct evidence against Modi.†A chief minister cannot be held as directly responsible as, they said: “There are no constitutional or legal liabilities on the CM or the political head of the state in a riot-like situation. The direct-action duty lies on the police head and local officers of the disturbed area.â€
Nevertheless, all are waiting for March 21. Will Modi face the summons? If he does, what will be developments? Or will he seek a change in the date, citing some prior engagement, and thus evade the March 21 summons!
PRECONCEPTIONS, MISCONEPTIONS AND “NO FEEDBACK LOOP†LEADS TO AMERICAN DISASTER IN AFGHANISTAN
By Gordon Duff
I have only recently returned from the region where I toured as a journalist and lecturer. Our group included Jeff Gates, Raja Mugtaba, BG Asif Haroon Raja and BG Ali Raza and me of Veterans Today and Opinion Maker. We met with some people we will not mention and many we can. Prince Ali of Afghanistan had a delegation with us headed by Fayyaz Shah, as advisors. BG Ali Raza was primary coordinator on the ground for Pakistan during the “Charley Wilson War†against the Soviets. No person has spent so much time “where he isn’t supposed to be†as General Ali Raza. BG Asif Haroon Raja is Pakistan’s best known military analyst and author and an invaluable resource.
I would thank the Director General of the ISPR, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas and Director BG Syed Azmat Ali for their detailed briefing and great courtesy.
Background on the critical border regions was supplied by the former military head, BG Amir Gulistan Janjua. His vast experience in the region was an invaluable aid to our understanding. I would also thank Ahsan Rashid and Col. Javed Mujtaba for their advice, hospitality and analytical skills.
Our primary briefer and advisor for the region and constant correspondent is Admiral I A Sirohey, former Chairman, JCOS of Pakistan. General Aslam Beg, former Army Chief of Staff and General Hamid Gul, former DG ISI, also briefed us extensively on military affairs. These three, along with our companions, BG’s Raja and Ali, are the primary experts on regional military affairs and the Taliban.
We also want to thank Tarik Jan of the ISSI for his kind assistance. I am leaving out two dozen names, some out of kindness. Many political leaders met with us who normally would never see Americans. We were treated with more than courtesy and kindness in some of the most unexpected places.
My close friends and personal advisors, Col. James Hanke, USA SF (ret) former Defense Attache to Israel and Fred Coward, former FBI counter-terrorism expert were a continual help. Their knowledge and extensive contacts in the region were vital.
The question, of course, what did we learn? Does anyone learn anything if weighed down by prejudiced, misconceptions or military and political theories based on flawed analyses or policies? Our job is simply to listen, learn and use our best judgment. Our responsibility is to be honest in our assessments. The findings in this work are entirely my own.
The root of the problems in the region are historical in nature. Unless you go back 200 years or more, something we aren’t doing here, nothing will make sense. The region, Af-Pak, is a creation, primarily of Britain’s, seemingly created out of a design to stimulate instability and conflict to enable “the great game†Britain is famous for to be played, one side against the other. In 1893, when Afghanistan and India/Pakistan were split by Durand, dividing tribes and even families, continual war was guaranteed. In 1947, when Pakistan was created out of a group of peoples, roughly “Islamic†but otherwise unrelated, we were guaranteed even more instability. Pakistan would be a combination of advanced culture, warlike tribes and resentful quasi-independent regions constantly at odds with their powerful neighbor, India.
The alliances that have defined the region, India and the Soviet Union, Pakistan and the United States (and China) and now, India and Israel and the United States(maybe Russia again and part of Afghanistan) and Pakistan and the United States (and China) have led to continual military buildups, including nuclear weapons and other advanced strategic technologies, all within a framework of acrimony and continual terrorism.
India, Israel, the United States, Afghanistan, China and Britain are all accused, on a daily basis, of coordinating terror attacks inside each country of the region, including Iran. Accusations of training and arming terrorist groups, numbered in the dozens, perhaps the hundreds, in each of the countries involved, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, are continually voiced. In the process, everyone denies involvement in the vast drug trade that has reemerged with the American occupation of Afghanistan and the vast network of corruption based primarily on what seems to be an American policy to stimulate waste.
Permanent war, in itself, has become the only business of the region, other than drug trafficking, with endless thousands of “contractors†from around the world flocking to the region to suck down the American dollars carelessly thrown at every imaginable perceived threat or ill, often with little or no consideration for end result or attempt at accounting.
This has brought American war planners to a number of disastrous conclusions about the area, ones that defy any historical or strategic model. The gutting of the intellectual capabilities of American policy planners during the Bush administration, based on an overlay of an Evangelical Christian model, applied, not only to the Pentagon but intelligence services, State Department and many key decision making environments has left the United States unable to process and respond properly to feedback. Thus, failed policies are replaced by untested experiments and short term fixes, none based on broad or sound analysis.
All advice comes from groups tied financially to the continuation of the war and even the destabilization of Pakistan. One major unseen actor is Israel, whose powerful lobby in Washington is capable of making policy for the region. Israel’s military alliance with India and extensive investment in the regions gas and oil industry is a major driver in, what has become a suicidal American effort. With Israel benefitting from billions in arms contracts with the United States and India along with becoming a defacto “super power†of the region by proxy, their “special interest†and unique ability to use their control of media, their massive influence over the electoral process in the US and their long relationship with the Pentagon, continual regional conflict may be a hidden agenda.
Current American policies in the region, both military and economic, seem to prove this out. All are doomed to eventual failure, seemingly purposely so and all are the result of reliance on advice from sectors profiting from war and destabilization, not only of the region, but of the United States itself. It is a unique possibility that the series of ill conceived wars begun under the Bush administration may eventually bring about the economic collapse of the United States as had happened to the Soviet Union some years before.
Afghanistan
America claimed they came into Afghanistan seeking the terrorists who attacked on 9/11. This is blatantly dishonest. Osama bin Laden had been a guest of the Taliban for some time but had been put under severe restrictions by that group. There is no evidence any terrorist organizations were being run by Bin Laden in Afghanistan and current intelligence has proven, despite “media†coverage to the contrary, that bin Laden had no involvement in 9/11. Broad evidence exists that bin Laden died during the initial US attack in 2001. All intelligence and informed opinion leads to this conclusion causing both embarrassment and consternation when “press driven†demands for a continued hunt for bin Laden come from the United States.
Less publicly, the United States has long accepted the death of bin Laden yet has spent millions of dollars and hundreds of lives in a dishonest attempt to keep a “branded†big name terrorist in front of the public.
This has caused a general distrust of the United States among its military allies who, universally, believe that the phony “hunt for bin Laden†is proof, not of a need to resurrect a phony “boogieman†for public consumption but rather to create an artificial “icon†to cover massive corruption and a history of failure.
At the outset, America’s approach in Afghanistan was flawed. Our dependence on the Northern Alliance, a group of warlords wishing to restore drug production, prohibited by the Taliban, to assist us led to establishing a regime in Kabul that was never accepted by the people of Afghanistan. President Karzai, not only notoriously corrupt and weak but closely allied to India, would make an unlikely leader in a war requiring continual coordination with Pakistan, a country nearly as distrustful of Karzai as his own people.
The decision by the US to support Karzai, even after a rigged election and to build an army and national police force primarily out of tribal minorities from the Northern Alliance who are hated by the majority of Afghanis has led to the need for the current increase in American presence and the stalled military operations in Helmand, the nation’s primary opium producing region since 2001. Current American plans to consider restructuring the massive national police force on regional ethnic lines is encouraging but doomed to failure.
Tribal traditions in Afghanistan are based on a system called Pashtunwali. All judicial and police functions reside within a long established tribal structure, one that functioned well prior to the Soviet occupation and one which could be restored. Replacing this with a “northern occupation†will only lead to continual warfare.
Gun Culture
The economy of Afghanistan is almost entirely non-existent. Warring groups are living off American bribes, payments to allow supplies to pass unharmed to American forces or from taxes on the massive opium harvest. With the destruction of tribal cohesion under the Russian backed government and the mining of Afghanistan, the traditional yearly migrations of the large pastoral population within Afghanistan has stopped. This group, numbering as many as 15 million, are a recruiting ground for “gun culture.â€
Replacing normal occupations, farming, husbandry or small industries is a vast number of fighters, many simple bandits and criminals but untold thousands fighting out of a belief they are opposing a foreign occupation. Discerning the difference between the two and restoring a traditional economy to replace warlord-ism, drug production and mercenary activities is the only way of bringing about stability. The cost of these programs, some of which the USAID is working on now, is low in comparison to military action.
However, too little is being done and, for every successful program, ten “boondoggle†programs are put in place, building useless projects with massive cost overruns and corruption.
Military Action
American military planners are currently trying a variety of approaches, including working with the Afghan army, a vast mercenary group, primarlily of the northern tribes that is, on the whole, both unsupportable economically and totally helpless when used in any independent capacity. Afghanistan has a tradition of compulsory military service, a “people’s army†of lowly paid but highly motivated soldiers from every area of the nation. These troops are paid as little as $5 per month but receive food subsidies for their families and extensive training in civilian trades as part of their service.
This successful system has been destroyed by the United States and the Karzai government, replaced with a “paid†professional army untrusted by any group within the country. Pakistan fears that this army will fall under Indian command and threaten their borders and, perhaps, rightly so. The model used is based on Blackwater, a private military contractor, not any national army. The new national army in Afghanistan is quite likely to work for any group capable of paying them. The nation of Afghanistan itself will never have that capability.
American efforts to occupy destabilized regions thru “civil affairs†operations used in Vietnam with some success can only function as they did in Vietnam, as part of a permanent occupation force which will be immediately replaced by an opposing “occupation force†of domestic fighters, the enemy, when Americans leave. In fact, Taliban units simply melt into the civilian population when confronted by American forces beyond their capability of defeating.
Only the foreign fighters in Afghanistan, those who came to fight and die, continue action against the US forces under unfavorable conditions. Others, trained in “irregular warfare†from birth, simply wait out America’s resolve, exactly as had happened in Vietnam. Pentagon planners understand this, thus making our current efforts by cynical and deceitful.
America is unaware that most of the Taliban live in Pakistan. The total number of Taliban exceeds 50 million, a number America and Pakistan can never fight successfully nor do they need to. The vast majority of those the US considers enemy combatants can be rehabilitated, but not under programs currently being initiated by the United States. The idea of paying “fighters†or members of the “gun culture†to stop resisting is hardly a thoughtful strategy but it is the one the United States has chosen.
There are forces that need to be defeated and that could be defeated by an Afghan army, a traditional force based on compulsory service and fighting for a government with wide support among the tribes, a government Afghanistan currently doesn’t have.
Current military operations are likely to recruit more fighters against the United States and the unpopular Karzai government and, as things are going, eventually lead to a wider conflict in Pakistan and the economic destruction of that nation, a vital US ally. We are well along that road already and are more than well aware of it despite our protestations to the opposite and the total lack of media attention to any “reality based†assessment.
Economic development programs being enacted in Afghanistan are primarily based on supporting a corrupt culture and maintaining “cover†for the massive drug trade that powerful groups among all the players, Afghanistan, Israel, the United States, India and Pakistan, are growing immensely wealthy and powerful on. A restructuring of the economies on both sides of the Durand Line separating Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan along lines suggested by Imran Khan and Jeff Gates and groups supporting Prince Ali Seraj may be the best solution.
Simple “grass roots†development built on supporting and expanding traditional industries while providing improved delivery of educational and health care services is a start. Only education of men and women can fight the cycle of extremism, broad public education delivered at village level within a social and economic environment supporting a traditional model. These plans exist, are inexpensive and have broad support among nearly all tribal leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only thing stopping their implementation is the current much more profitable and corrupt system that is creating a new ruling oligarchy based on American money and continual chaos.
Solutions?
They have always been there but real solutions have been opposed by those profiting off the war and the environment the war has created. Too many with too much money and power want the wars to continue for too many reasons, including long term geopolitical goals unfavorable to the United States and Pakistan. With a lack of strong leadership within the United States compounded by the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, US foreign policy will continue to be a “runaway train.â€
The first step toward enacting known solutions would be getting real information to decision makers and keeping the American people properly informed. Currently, media in the United States is so heavily skewed toward misinformation and propaganda that political accountability has nearly disappeared. An systematically misinformed populace negates all concepts of democracy and representative government. There can be no accountability and no national policy as long as the mechanisms for disinformation that have taken control of America’s news media exist.
Defacto control of Americas media by foreign nations and a cabal of corporations tied to the war economy has ended effective public participation in American policy and decision making and, in the process, ended Congress’s ability to oversee policy. Grassroots movements in Afghanistan, while America remains the “prime mover†depend on restoration of similar authority in the United States.
Muslim Arbitration Tribunal reports 15% rise in non-Muslims employing Shari’ah law in commercial cases
Campaigners have voiced concerns over a growing number of non-Muslims using Islamic law to resolve legal disputes in Britain despite controversy over the role of Shari’ah law.
A spokesman for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that there had been a 15% rise in the number of non-Muslims using Shari’ah arbitrations in commercial cases this year. Last year, more than 20 non-Muslims chose to arbitrate cases at the network of tribunals, which operate in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Nuneaton and Luton. “We are offering a cheap and effective service for Muslim and non-Muslims,†said MAT spokesperson Fareed Chedie.
“95% of the people who come to us for arbitration do not feel they need legal representation.†Chedie said that tribunals deal mainly with civil and commercial cases, including mosque disputes referred by the Charity Commission. But the tribunals have also continued to hear cases in the field of family law and divorce, Chedie said.
“We are increasingly dealing with reconciliation and mediation in marriage,†said Chedie. “Many of these are cases where women have petitioned because they have a difficult marriage and want some guidance and direction. If they then want to terminate the marriage then we can help with that.â€
The increase in marriage and divorce cases comes as one law firm has begun offering advice on civil Scots law and Shari’ah law, making it the first in Britain to offer both civil and Islamic law as part of one service.
Glasgow law firm Hamilton Burns says that it is responding to a greater demand from Muslim clients who want advice on Shari’ah law alongside civil advice under Scots law. It has teamed up with Shaykh Amer Jamil, a Muslim scholar who specialises in Islamic family law.
“We hope that by incorporating Shari’ah family jurisprudence against a background of domestic Scottish legislation, we can provide our clients with as much relevant information as possible,†said Niall Mickel, a solicitor advocate and managing partner at Hamilton Burns. But some groups have criticised the move by the Scottish firm, arguing that the recognition of Shari’ah law decisions in Britain is regressive and harmful to women.
“We have a petition signed by more than 22,000 people saying that all religious tribunals should be prevented from operating within or outside the legal system,†said Maryam Namazie, a spokeswoman for the One Law for All Campaign, which campaigns against Shari’ah law in Britain. “I have spoken to women who are losing custody of their children in the Shari’ah councils – under Shari’ah law custody of a child goes to the husband after a certain age, irrespective of the welfare of the child.
There are cases of domestic violence where women have dropped criminal charges and the Shari’ah councils have sent the husbands on anger-management courses. That is just not how we deal with domestic violence in this country,†Namazie said. Many Muslim lawyers have challenged criticism of Shari’ah law in Britain as “islamophobicâ€, arguing that there is a distinction between Shari’ah councils – which largely operate outside the law – and arbitration tribunals, which are subject to the Arbitration Act passed by parliament.
“The media get this out of context and hyped up,†said Dr Saba Al-Makhtar, from the Arab Lawyers Association. “Under English law there is room to settle disputes on any ground that it is acceptable to the parties involved, provided it doesn’t conflict with English law .… it is an extremely good idea.
Critics deny that the campaign against Shari’ah law is targeted specifically against Muslims, however. “Our campaign is focusing on Shari’ah but we are against all religious tribunals including the Jewish beth din,†said Namazie.
“Human rights are non-negotiable and religious tribunals puts religion before people’s rights and their freedoms. Law based on any religion – whether the Bible, Torah or the Quran – is completely antithetical to rights woman have in this day and age. Many of the rights women have now result in the UK is the result of a hard fight to wrestle control out of church hands.â€
“I was saddened today to learn of the passing of Grand Imam Mohamed Sayyid Tantawi, the head of al-Azhar University in Cairo.
“Imam Tantawi was a highly respected cleric and the leader of one of the most important institutions of Islamic learning in the world. As President Obama said in Cairo last summer, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning for over a thousand years, and it continues to play a dynamic role today. Imam Tantawi was an important voice for dialogue among religions and communities. Under his leadership, the university co-hosted the President’s speech laying out a vision for a “New Beginning†between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. And Americans will always remember Imam Tantawi for his condemnations of violence after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when he said: “It’s not courage in any way to kill an innocent person.â€
“We offer our condolences to the Imam’s family and friends today, as well as his many students in Egypt and in Muslim communities throughout the world.â€
