A match is a tool for starting a fire under controlled conditions. A typical modern match is made of a small wooden stick or stiff paper. One end is coated with a material that can be ignited by frictional heat generated by striking the match against a suitable surface. Matches are usually sold in quantity; wooden ones are packaged in boxes, and paper matches are clustered in rows stapled into matchbooks. They are commonly sold by tobacconists and many other kinds of shops. The coated end of a match, known as the match “head,” contains either phosphorus or phosphorus sesquisulfide as the active ingredient and gelatin as a binder. There are two main types of matches: safety matches, which can be struck only against a specially prepared surface, and strike-anywhere matches, for which any suitably frictional surface can be used. Some match-like compositions, known as electric matches, are ignited electrically and do not make use of heat from friction.

14-40

By Parvez Fatteh, Founder of http://sportingummah.com, sports@muslimobserver.com

Arsalan Kazemi, first native Iranian to Division I college basketball, is reportedly leaving Rice University in Texas to transfer to Oregon University.

At Rice, Kazemi posted impressive numbers. Last season’s 12.1 points (while shooting over 60 percent from the floor) and 10.3 rebounds had many thinking he would be the main Conference USA Player of the Year candidate to beat entering the 2012-2013 season.

But all of that came at Rice; a program that went 19-16 (8-8) last season, and hasn’t played in an NCAA Tournament game since 1970. Kazemi leaves behind a team and program that is in dire straits, as Rice has now lost six players from last year’s team.

While he was Owl during the past three years, we’ve known about this intriguing story tucked away in an apathetic basketball school in Houston, knowing that, while it was cool the first Iranian person to play Division I basketball was no hack, it did little to answer if he was truly a great basketball player or half neat story, half decent game.

We get to see what it’s like to face potential double teams from PAC-12 bodies, not Tulane. We get to see how he reacts to playing in a conference that just launched a shiny TV network, with ample opportunity for coast-to-coast exposure.

Simply stating that Oregon was “the best situation for me,” Kazemi officially enrolled at the University of Oregon on Monday for the start of the Fall Quarter. That he will apply for a hardship waiver in an attempt to be eligible to play this season instead of sit out a year is sort of a clever opportunity for a joke. Yet, Kazemi’s perceived talents come at the right time for Dana Altman’s program.

After finishing second in the PAC-12 last season, but just missing out on the NCAA Tournament, it feels as though there’s a certain cadence Altman is looking to build, and losing two of his top three scorers in Devoe Joseph and Garrett Sim, and enigmatic but promising guard Jabari Brown will make that challenging.

Returning for the Ducks is senior E.J. Singler, and that’s about it. There’s a decent flow of prep talent coming in the next two seasons, but Kazemi is the coup for Oregon right now, meaning he’ll at least be expected to be the on-court team leader once he’s able to suit up and play.

14-40

By Bill Bischoff

If you move for work-related reasons, you may be allowed to deduct some expenses on page 1 of Form 1040. Page 1 treatment is good, because you don’t have to itemize to reap a tax-saving benefit. Here’s what you need to know.

The Internal Revenue Code sets up two tests for moving expenses. You must pass both to claim a deduction.

The 50-mile test

The distance between your former home and your new job location must be at least 50 miles greater than the distance between your former home and your old job location. Oddly enough, the location of your new home doesn’t even enter into the equation. Go figure.

Anyway, when attempting to pass the 50-mile test, please understand that you don’t need to actually change jobs. For instance, your existing job might get transferred to a new location that’s farther away from your old home.

Example 1: Your former home was 10 miles away from your old office location. Your former home is 45 miles away from your new office. You fail the 50-mile test. So you can’t deduct any moving expenses. Sorry about that.

Example 2: Your former home was 10 miles from your old office. Your former home is 65 miles away from your new office. Since the difference is 55 miles, you pass the 50-mile test with five miles to spare. So far, so good.

The 39-week test

The second test generally requires you to be employed full-time in the area of your new job location for at least 39 weeks during the 12 months after you make the move. The purpose of this test is to disallow moving-expense deductions for folks who move for a change in scenery rather than for work-related reasons.

If you’ve re-entered the full-time work force, you can claim a moving-expense deduction if your former residence and the job location are at least 50 miles apart and you pass the 39-week test.

Recent college grads take note: When you snag your first full-time job, you can claim a moving expense deduction if your former residence and the job location are at least 50 miles apart and you pass the 39-week test.

If you’re a married joint-filer, only one spouse needs to pass the 50-mile and the 39-week tests.

Special rules apply to self-employed folks, to military personnel and for foreign moves. For details, see IRS Publication 521 at IRS.gov.

What can you deduct

If you successfully pass the 50-mile and 39-week tests, your allowable moving deduction is limited to only a few eligible expenses. Even so, the deduction can be meaningful.

•You can write off the cost to pack and ship your possessions and up to 30 days of storage and insurance.
•The cost of traveling to your new home (once) is also allowed, including lodging but not meals. If you drive, you can deduct actual gas and oil costs or claim a standard moving allowance (23 cents per mile for 2012).
•You can deduct costs to disconnect utilities at your old home and get hooked up at the new home.

There’s a longer list of things you can’t deduct: house-hunting expenses, transaction costs to buy your new home and sell the old one, payments to acquire or break a lease, apartment security deposits, losses from selling or abandoning club memberships, and driver’s license and car registration fees if you change states.

Once you’ve identified your deductible expenses, complete IRS Form 3903 (Moving Expenses). The resulting write-off shows up on page 1 of your 1040.

If you company pays for some or all of your moving expenses, you cannot deduct those costs. No surprise there.

There are two basic ways for employers to help pay moving costs. The company can give you a tax-free reimbursement for amounts you could have deducted if you had paid them yourself (see above), or it can simply give you a moving allowance and treat the whole allowance as additional salary.

If you receive a tax-free reimbursement that covers the expenses you could have deducted, you don’t need to do anything tax-wise. In effect, you’ve already received a deduction because the reimbursement wasn’t included in your taxable wages.

If you receive a tax-free reimbursement that covers only part of the expenses you could have deducted, you can deduct the difference by filling out the aforementioned Form 3903.

If your employer treats your entire moving allowance as additional taxable salary, you’ll have to fill out Form 3903 to claim your rightful deduction. Remember: You can only write off what the tax rules allow. So if your company pays for things you could not deduct if you paid them yourself, like house-hunting trips and temporary housing while you wait to move into your new home, those extra allowances count as taxable wages.

Your employer may give you an advance to cover anticipated moving expenses before you actually do the deed. So what happens if you get an advance this year (say in December) but don’t actually move until next year (say in January)? Do you have to pay taxes on the advance with this year’s return and then wait until next year’s return to deduct your allowable expenses? No. You can deduct the allowable expenses on this year’s return even though the move actually takes place next year.

Finally, you might pay deductible moving expenses this year and get reimbursed next year. In that case, you must include the reimbursement for expenses you deducted this year as income on next year’s return.

See IRS Publication 521 for full details on employer moving-expense reimbursements.

14-40

White House Press Release

New York City, NY–September 25, 2012

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens.

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York September 25, 2012. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician. As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps, and taught English in Morocco. He came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East, and he would carry that commitment throughout his life. As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria; from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked – tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic and listening with a broad smile. 

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for a future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. After the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and saw dignity in the people he met. Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city he helped to save. He was 52 years old. 

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents. He acted with humility, but stood up for a set of principles – a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice, and opportunity.

The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and the Libyan people. And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region – including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen – have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm. So have religious authorities around the globe.

But the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded – the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; and that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis. Because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart, and the hopes we hold in common.

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. Since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that has taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspirations of men and women who took to the streets.

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy put us on the side of the people.

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were not being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents; and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values – they are universal values. And even as there will be huge challenges that come with a transition to democracy,  I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians, and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair. This democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab World. Over the past year, we have seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal, and a new President in Somalia. In Burma, a President has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society; a courageous dissident has been elected to Parliament; and people look forward to further reform. Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity, and the right to determine their future.

And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said: “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people. 

In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress – dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend upon the status quo; and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia; from Africa to the Americas; from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we’ve witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order. At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with. 

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. 

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.

That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change. But such efforts depend upon a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company; no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnership to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support. 

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, and those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard but the destination is clear – a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine. Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence. 

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision – a Syria that is united and inclusive; where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed – Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians. That is what America stands for; that is the outcome that we will work for  – with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute; and assistance and support for those who work for this common good. Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights. That is why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict; that is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War; and that is the lesson of the last two decades as well. History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices.

Nations in every part of the world have travelled this hard path. Europe – the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century – is united, free and at peace. From Brazil to South Africa; from Turkey to South Korea; from India to Indonesia; people of different races, religions, and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress I’ve witnessed that after nearly four years as President, I am hopeful about the world we live in. The war in Iraq is over, and our troops have come home. We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014. Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals. I’ve seen hard choices made – from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan – to put more power in the hands of citizens.

At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity. Through the G-20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery. America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations. New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent.

New commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity. And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of leaders – it is the people I’ve seen. The American troops who have risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away. The students in Jakarta and Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit humankind. The faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations. The young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise. These men, women and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the globe who share similar hopes and dreams. They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. That’s what we see on the news, and that consumes our political debates. But when you strip that all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes from faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people – and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people, and all across the world. That was our founding purpose. That is what our history shows. And that is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And today I promise you this – long after these killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’ legacy will live on in the lives he touched. In the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi; in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris; in the sign that read, simply, “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.”

They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed. Thank you.

14-40

By Dr. Aslam Abdullah, TMO

One of the Suras of the Quran reminds believers of a known reality: “Grievously odious is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not.” (61:3)

And in our masajid and Islamic centers, most of our speakers and religious scholars remind us “You are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah…” (3:110)

Or:

“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.” (3:104)

Yet when they are invited to get involved in the affairs of the country or the community they live in, some of them say, “we are either concerned about the life in heaven or underneath the ground.” Or they explain, “We do not want to get involved in worldly affairs.” Or, “how can we get involved in these issues when we are under attack.”

But:

Enjoining good would obviously mean; helping fight harm in issues that are grappling the society; issues such as:  prostitution, child pornography, unemployment, under employment, spousal abuse, drugs abuse, sexual perversion, child abuse, violence, value-less education, school drop outs, and broken families, etc, even though they may not be the issues, the community might be facing.

In the earlier days of Islam, the companions of the Prophet  (s) were involved in every sphere of their society’s life. Freeing of slaves was one of their passions. Other issues that drew their interest and resources included: protecting the rights of unborn babies, taking a stand against innocent victims of exploitation and oppression, gender inequality, protecting peaceful people from violence and so on so forth.

They were least concerned about what was being said about themselves. They did not create a taskforce to deal with Islamophobes of their time, even though there were many. They did not organize protests against their opponents. 

The negative feelings promoted by the power elite did not prevent them from getting involved in the society and their involvement in efforts to find solutions to people’s problem offered the best introduction of Islam.

It was a manifestation of the Quranic message: “To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good. Wheresoever ye are, Allah will bring you Together. For Allah Hath power over all things.” (2:148)

And

He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables? (13:17)

In the United States much of our Islamic work revolves around Islamophobes. A content analysis of the press releases of the last 10 years on behalf of Islamic Society of North America, (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council of Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), or Muslim Public Affairs Council, (MPAC) reveal that an overwhelming majority of them focused on concerns raised by Islamophobes or issues pertaining to the foreign policy of the US administration or issues related with hijab or beard or discrimination in places of work or vandalism against Islamic centers. Only a handful of them focused on issues faced by the society at large. Only a few of them identified with people at the grassroots levels with their struggles in everyday life.

Obviously, the society at large knows us through these statements that we put where we appear to be complaining or criticizing or condemning most of  the time. We are not seen as a people trying to identify with issues and problems of the society.

At an individual level, probably, many of our community members are involved in social work at the grassroots level. But at organizational levels, that involvement is very limited. Yet, in almost every sermon we are reminded of our role in bringing about positive changes in the society. How can we do that when we are not there?

How can we explain this dichotomy? We have become a reactionary community and many a times our actions have contradicted our own claims about religion. We need to examine our role and resources in this country and see how best we can use them to ensure that our community becomes a positive force in bringing about constructive changes to enhance the dignity of each and every human being. This will happen when we get involved in the real issues of our society throwing away the shell of isolation and apathy that we often justify in the name of our religion.

14-40

By Karin Friedemann, TMO

“And among His signs is that He has created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may live in tranquility with them; and He has created love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect.”         (Quran 30:21)

There have been several recent anthropological studies done on how feminism has influenced the goals of traditional Muslim women, and also a lot of discussion both private and public about the effects of Western influence on marriage and family within the Muslim community. When women marry young, with increasing frequency we find that around middle age, they start to feel like they have lost out on life because of their innocent devotion to husband, home and family. They start to regret that they never got their PhD, for example. The husband becomes in their mind like an obstacle to overcome in order to realize their true potential in life. One Arab woman commented to her husband that when she comes home, she doesn’t feel the same respect from him that she gets from her professors and the other students. An Iranian man whose wife left him after over 20 years of marriage was completely baffled by her decision. “I gave her everything. I bought her a car and let her drive all over the country. Maybe I gave her too much freedom?” An American woman abandoned her husband of ten years, leaving two young children behind for no reason other than to become a historical tour guide downtown.

These explanations for divorce focus on the lack of intellectual stimulation experienced by the majority of housewives and are no doubt partially true, but they overlook a key reason why some women might choose to focus excessively on personal or intellectual interests outside the home. Women around age 35 reach their biological sexual peak, while men begin to decline starting at 40. When a husband is older than his wife, this can become a serious problem, especially if he never studied the arts of love.

Imam Ali taught that “Almighty God has created the sexual desire in ten parts; He gave nine parts to women and one to men,” but that “God gave the women equal parts of shyness.”
“Many times this shyness makes the man ignore the desires of his wife,” writes Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in Marriage and Morals in Islam. Fatima Mernissi has also written about the cultural tendency among many Muslim men to avoid emotional investment in women.

The Prophet (sa) said, “When one of you sees a woman and he feels attracted to her, he should hurry to his wife. With her, it would be the same as with the other one.” Yet a dawah pamphlet published in Pakistan summarizes this minimally offensive hadith in an astonishingly cheap way by stating that the man should hurry to his wife in order to “put his sperm in the proper receptacle.”
At a certain point, women who have been thought about or treated in such a way, if they have any intelligence, will become tired of it and want something more – whether or not they have been exposed to feminist theory. They will desire the passionate love that true Islam promises. A man should make love to his wife like he is worshipping Allah, with the same spiritual intensity.
The Prophet (sa) said, “When a man approaches his wife, he is guarded by two angels and he is like a warrior fighting for the cause of Allah. When he has intercourse with her, his sins fall like the leaves of the tree [in fall season]. When he performs the major ablution, he is cleansed from sins.”

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said, “I do not think that a person’s faith can increase positively unless his love for women has increased… Whenever a person’s love for women increases, his faith increases in quality.”

There is no room in the prophetic tradition to regard wives as halal containers, like sacred toilets, for the collection of distasteful male emissions. Women in Islam are rather revered as spiritual pleasure mates whose physical enjoyment is regarded as a right.

The Prophet (sa) said, “Three people are cruel, [including] a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.” The Prophet (sa) also said that the mutual foreplay of a man with his wife is haqq, in other words it is a means to the realization of Truth. Therefore, women who have learned how to actively pleasure themselves with their husbands are rewarded with high status:
“The best woman among you is the one who discards the armor of shyness when she undresses for her husband, and puts on the armor of shyness when she dresses up again,” stated Imam Muhammad al-Baqir.

Married people are described in the Quran as being “garments” for each other, because when people are satisfied at home, they can go out in the world with a clean heart and don’t attract sexual attention from others. They are spiritually “covered” because their chastity is protected by the love of their spouse. Yet many men are not aware of their Islamic duty to protect their wives spiritually by fulfilling their desires.

Imam Ghazali wrote, “The woman’s ejaculation is sometimes a much slower process and during that process her sexual desire grows stronger and to withdraw from her before she reaches her pleasure is harmful to her” (at-Tabrasi, al-Ihtijaj).

Imam Ali said, “When you intend to have sex with your wife, do not rush because the woman also has needs.” When Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was asked about this, he answered, “It means kissing and talking.”

According to a hadith related by Ubaydullah bin Zurarah, an old man owned a young slave-girl. Because of his old age, he could not fully satisfy her during sexual intercourse. She would therefore ask him to do some things to please her as she liked it.

It is remarkable to note that many Muslim wives today can only dream about the respect that even a slave-girl was given in the early days of Islam.

14-40

By Geoffrey Cook, TMO

Part 2

III. The U.S.-Pakistani Relationship and the Film

Medford (Ore.)–Although produced in America secretly under private auspices, the disgusting inflammatorily and defaming film against the memory of the Prophet (PBUH) was done by an individual of North African descent residing in the Northern Continent within the Western Hemisphere.  The government of the United States has denounced it at the very highest levels, and has sponsored ads, etc. within the Islamic world to express their own disdainful position against this historical libel!  If anything, official policy is not culpable for the apostasy, but rather the irresponsibility and insensitivity of individual(s), and, further, the religious and cultural norms prevalent towards the one tradition to the other (e.g. Islamophobia).  If anything, this demonstrates that we have to develop dialogue and understanding. (In the San Jose area, during the height of the aftermath of the 9-11 crisis, Muslims invited outsiders into certain Mosques at pre-arranged times to explain what Muslims believe and how they worshipped, and that it is not that much different from the “Mainstream” American religious sensibility!  (After all, we are all children of Abraham!) This slander to the Prophet PBUH) himself, further, engendered the tragic demise of the U.S. envoy to Libya, Ambassador Stevens (whom, incidentally, studied at Berkeley at the same time as your author), who dedicated his career to correcting American foreign policy towards Muslims.  The incongruity of his untimely death should not go unnoticed by men of good will on both sides of our inauspicious contemporary divide.

Also, (drama) actors within the film have sued in the U.S. courts to have the film withdrawn, for the plaintiffs allege that they were misled upon its intent at the time of production. Even so, twenty-five individuals – including a newsman – have died during the past week of filing of this submission in demonstrations over the width of Pakistan.

Though, the Pakistani Railway Minister has offered $100,000 (U.S.) bounty upon the individual responsible for this murderous travesty, once the facts of responsibility are perceived the U.S.-Pakistani alliance should survive.

Since the YouTube cinema, derogatorily cartoons have appeared in Europe which has only exacerbated tensions between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ensconced across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

IV. Dr. Joeck and the Enduring Geo-Political Friendship

Last week we went through Neil Joeck, a predominant expert intelligence analyst and advisor to the U.S.  Administration on South Asia, who is resident at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the University of California’s, comments in Berkeley on (D.C.’) current relationship with the Islamic Republic there.

He continued that there is a constant potential for the collapse of the Pakistani State, for the income generated to maintain that State is inadequate to meet its challenges.  A social breakdown would be most disastrous for all concerned – both internally and externally.  The Military has constantly stood between political disintegration and order.  “The Army [has] always took over when [it felt it] had the popular support” to do so.

At the same time, Pakistan has a robust civil society, but its International political vision is determined by its perception of its hostile bi-lateral relationship with India.  Neil stresses that Pakistan has to develop a more mature religio-political narrative with their eastern neighbor.

One of the chief factors in the evolution of the three nations (U.S., India and Pakistan) is each’s perception of the terrorist threat and how that relates to the other two.

Succinctly Joeck proclaims India and Pakistan must make economic peace with each other. Dr. Neil Joeck presented a grim assessment of the situation on the ground:  There is a one in five probability for a fifth Indo-Pakistani (if one counts the Kargil conflict of 1999 as a fourth out and out) war.

Further, China should take more responsibility for its interests (i.e., peace) within the Subcontinental geosphere.

Ultimately, though, the Obama Presidency has to realize how deeply the District of Columbia’s concerns lie within Pakistan’s perimeters themselves.

14-40

By Justin Raimondo

If someone had planned to upend US foreign policy — to utterly destroy the very basis of all our diplomats (and military personnel) have been working to achieve in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world — they couldn’t have done a better job of it than whoever put together Innocence of Muslims.

As violent protests spread, the consequences continue to roll in: the suspension of joint US-Afghan military operations, the suspension of US aid talks with Egypt, the rapid decline of US prestige in the region, and the growing influence of the radical Islamist movement US support for the “Arab Spring” was designed to counter. The Obama administration’s effort to split the Islamist upsurge and lend its support to “moderates” has been stopped cold.

Was the release of the video a random event, one of those unpredictables that can arise at any moment to foil the best-laid plans? Perhaps. Yet one is hard-pressed to explain what the makers of Innocence sought to accomplish, if not precisely what has occurred. According to various explanations floated in the media — primarily by anti-Muslim agitator Steve Klein — the idea was to promote the video to Muslims. In one account, Klein says he hoped the video would “smoke out” Muslim radicals in the US, who he is convinced have organized secret “cells” that will strike on command. On the other hand, we are told the film’s authors and promoters hoped to “convert” Muslims.

Neither explanation is very convincing. The video itself is so crude, so inept, and so deliberately insulting it is hard to believe anyone thought it could convert anyone to anything. And as for the prospect of “smoking out” secret Islamist cells — if there were such cells, one would hardly expect them to reveal themselves because of a YouTube video.

In order to understand the real motives and goals of the makers of Innocence, it is necessary to take a good look at the people who have, so far, been identified as the film’s authors and promoters.

The central figure in all this is reported to be one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 56-year-old Egyptian immigrant: although Nakoula presented himself in an interview with the Associated Press as “Sam Bacile,” a 56-year-old “Israeli-American” real estate developer, he is a Coptic Christian, a member of a persecuted minority in Egypt — and a convicted felon. Media reports portray him as the central figure in the making of Innocence: he denies this, and describes his job as arranging “logistics” for the film. Nakoula’s role seems to have been that of a facilitator — gofer — rather than “creative director,” and in any case he hardly seems the type to have originated the idea for the movie. Having been released from jail — where he was serving a sentence for bank fraud — barely a month before filming started, Nakoula was hardly in a position to undertake such a project. Chances are he was recruited by someone else, the real originator and driving force behind Innocence— but who is that someone?

Public records show a filming permit was taken out by “Media for Christ,” an outfit run by one Joseph Nasrallah Abdelmasih. His group sponsors Christian programming in Arabic, including “The Way,” a production that has featured such prominent Islamophobes as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The Geller-Spencer collaboration goes back to the protests against the New York City “Ground Zero” mosque in which the duo achieved national notoriety: Nasrallah was one of the speakers at their rally. The idea for just such a movie as Innocence showed up on Geller’s blog in February, in a post entitled “A Movie About Muhammad: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” (s) Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim and board member of Geller and Spencer’s “Stop the Islamization of Nations,” exhorted Geller’s readers to support his movie project:

…

“The other good news is that I have been promised a substantial angel financing. I have been daydreaming about this movie for ten years. It was this promise that prompted me into action. I put everything aside for five months, read everything I could about my protagonist, selected the most salient episodes and wrote the script.

“The seed is now sown. Now it’s time to nurture it. What I need is an experienced executive producer, someone who shares my values, to make it happen with professionalism and missionary zeal.
“I am not thinking of a high budget movie, but given the subject matter, it can become one of the most seen motion pictures ever. (Recall Danish cartoons?)”

This may or may not be the same movie as Innocence, but what’s important here is that the idea of such a provocation — “recall Danish cartoons?” — was percolating in these circles when the movie was in production.

Nasrallah has now issued a non-denial denial, in which he claims he was duped — along with the actors — by Nakoula who “did not make the movie we thought he was making.” However, he admits Nakoula called him and that Media for Christ lent him their facilities: and, one has to ask, what movie did Nasrallah think his buddy Nakoula was making?

Nasrallah’s recent involvement with the Geller-Spencer crowd coincided with a very profitable time for his organization: Media in Christ’s income has recently skyrocketed, according to public records, with receipts totaling under $200,000 in 2009 and prior, rising to $633,516 in 2010 and $1,016,366 in 2011. Where did all that money come from — was it Mr. Sina’s “substantial angel”? Nakoula claims he funded his movie project with money from “over 100 Jewish donors.”

When Nakoula spoke to the Associated Press, he described himself as an “Israeli-American” real estate developer operating out of California: this was soon debunked, however, when inquiring reporters outed him as an Egyptian of the Coptic faith. They also discovered he’s a convicted felon — not only for a check-kiting scheme, but also for drug-dealing (methamphetamine). He’s an unlikely hero for the right-wing Christians who have made a martyr out of him, although to ostensible “libertarians” like Matt Welch, who thinks Nakoula & Co. are on the same level as Salman Rushdie, the meth conviction is doubtless a plus.

The idea that these vermin, who deliberately set out to make a “movie” that would inflame the Muslim world, are “free speech” heroes is worse than nonsense: it is valorizing villains. We don’t yet know where the money, or the impetus to make the film, came from, but what we do know is this: the driving force behind Innocence was a desire to create an international incident that would bring discredit on the United States, and empower radical Islamists who hate America and everything it stands for. And the promoters of this garbage pose as “patriots”!

Free speech has nothing to do with this issue: the President requested of YouTube that they reconsider the video’s place on YouTube in light of their terms of service. YouTube refused, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, however, that’s not the end of this imbroglio, the consequences of which we’ll be living with for a long time to come.

There is an ugly sore festering under the skin of the West, and its first manifestation — or should I say symptom? — surfaced when Andre Breivik committed his ghastly crime, slaughtering the attendees at a Norwegian Labor Party youth camp. He, too, wanted to “stop the Islamization of nations,” and his online manifesto cited Geller, Spencer, and the writings of the movement their hateful rantings have energized. The English Defense League — a sorry collection of skinheads, neo-Nazis, and soccer hooligans — which Geller endorses, has mounted a campaign of violent intimidation aimed at British Muslims, inspiring imitators in several European countries. These groups feed off the more radical elements of the Zionist movement: Geller and her supporters claim to be “defending Israel,” and the EDL regularly flies the Israeli flag at their hate rallies.

Defense of the Jewish state is a major theme of the Islamophobe network: they use it as a shield to deflect criticism. A key leader of this network is former New Leftist and Black Panther groupie David Horowitz: his “David Horowitz Freedom Center” (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), sponsors Spencer’s “Jihad Watch.” Horowitz’s “Frontpage” site — ablaze with stories decrying the “betrayal” of Israel by the American government and the perfidy of all things Islamic — recently speculated Innocence was created by the very Salafists now leading the protests. Since the video sprang from the same bigoted milieu of which Frontpage is the online Jerusalem, this “theory” isn’t merely ironic — it’s a moral obscenity.

It isn’t hard to imagine where the money to create this deadly provocation came from. Of the many millions in neocon money sloshing around this country, it’s hardly inconceivable a hundred thousand or so would find its way into the hands of a twice-convicted felon and all around dubious character like Nakoula, who is, I suspect, just a con man rather than an ultra-Zionist ideologue like the promoters of his “work.”

Although, to be sure, the difference is altogether negligible.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].

14-40

By TMO Stringer

Fatimah Waseem is a very impressive young woman.  While she was not able to attend the TMO Foundation fundraiser and awards banquet this past Sunday, she did send a videotape which showcased her brilliance and ability to use words in unique and powerful ways. 

She said in her video from Virginia that one of the main benefits of the awards banquet was the very fact of hundreds of Muslims being together in a room, “forced to network.”  She explained the benefit of having many diverse Muslims in one place for one purpose. 

One of her quotes was “We all like to champion these phrases of filling the so called void of Muslim journalists.  We talk about how we must give a voice to our youth.  That we have to step back in and put the “new” back in “news.”

The last words of her video were a clever tribute to The Muslim Observer, saying that as a Muslim observer, speaking to Muslim observers, she thanked The Muslim Observer for the award.

Fatimah is a student at the University of Maryland.  She won a scholarship for $1,250.

14-40