http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm
According to the BBC Hizb ut Tahrir is "an extreme Muslim group operating in the United Kingdom...we could soon be experiencing terrorist attacks along the lines of those in Baghdad and Jerusalem".
The BBC defines Hizb Ut Tahrir or "HT" as "an Islamic splinter group, which is banned in many countries around the world. It operates freely in Britain".
Furthermore the BBC alleges that the "HT" website "promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people".
Unfortunately, the masses fail to understand the historic evolution of such an organization, dangerous, possibly, violent? Not quite, but it can possibly be the catalyst for future violence. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Muslims are driven by socio-economic issues, not ideology, and that the "type" of Islam they understand is quite personal, and introspective, very much dislike the Hizb ut Tahrir. Simply being a better Muslim/person is the goal of the vast majority of the Muslim population, establishing the Caliphate however is very extreme in most cases.
If the British want to combat extremism, what the must do is combat poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of formal education, and discrimination within the Muslim segments of Britain, those issues are the issues which extremist organizations use towards their advantage. Why would a young Muslim lad commit himself to an extremist ideology if there was no reason to be angry, if life is treating him well, why would he protest?
The term Jihad is so misused that when it is properly being used, people tend to still think of its inaccurate form of meaning holy war when in fact it simply, and purely means to struggle. Samuel Huntington was wrong with his conclusion of clashing cultures, it is ignorance that causes conflict.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Hezbollah "Hails" Obama
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/240393,lebanese-officials-and-hezbollah-hail-obamas-election.html
I would first like to begin with the slight bias of this article by the Earth Times. Let's begin with the very first sentence, "Lebanon's Shiite House speaker Nabih Berri, who is also close to the radical Shiite Hezbollah, hailed Thursday the election of Barack Obama as the next US president, urging him to push forward Middle East peace process". The author uses two code words, "close" when describing Berri's relationship with Hezbollah which is in fact misleading because Berri is often the negotiator between Hezbollah-led opposition and the pro-Government factions of the parliament, indeed he is Shi'i and leader of AMAL but by no means does he pose any real influence within the Hezbollah decision making process, "close" is code for the next word used, "radical" when describing Hezbollah. "Radical" is code for terrorist and fundamentalist.
However, moving forward, this article did pose an interesting situation, a situation in which all Lebanese factions seem to have agree with the notion that Obama's election was good for Lebanon, and the Middle East.
"Nawaf Moussawi, head of the international relations of Shiite group Hezbollah also welcomed Obama's victory, saying that "change will definitely come" in US policy".
I thought this was very telling of Hezbollah that they were welcoming of Obama's rise to primacy. It shows the underlying reason as to why Hezbollah was created, in the name of social justice., equality, welfare, and empowering the deprived. Obama represents the realization that the old racial barriers, agony, discrimination, that African-Americans have fought and died for since the creation of the United States of America can be overcome. That the "under-dog" can win, even against the greatest odds. Obama's movement was formulated at the grass roots level with a coalition of the workingmen, the poor, the disenfranchised, the college elites, women, and the general youth. This is in fact quite similar to Hezbollah's roots.
According to Lara Deeb Hezbollah was formed off the belief that Shiites must have their fair representation and can no longer be discriminated against and that Lebanese society must break down this Confessional System of power which artificially represents equality when in fact it mandates inequality. Deeb states, "Initially, this growing urban population of mostly Shi‘i poor in Lebanon was not mobilized along sectarian lines...Al-Sadr offered the “Movement of the Deprived,” dedicated to attaining political rights for the dispossessed within the Lebanese polity. A militia branch of this movement, Amal, was founded at the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975. Alongside al-Sadr, there were also other activist Lebanese Shi‘i religious leaders, most of whom had also studied in Najaf, who worked to establish grassroots social and religious networks in the Shi‘i neighborhoods of Beirut".
The lines are parallel, it seems that the similarities lie within the parameters of how each movement built their social network.
I would first like to begin with the slight bias of this article by the Earth Times. Let's begin with the very first sentence, "Lebanon's Shiite House speaker Nabih Berri, who is also close to the radical Shiite Hezbollah, hailed Thursday the election of Barack Obama as the next US president, urging him to push forward Middle East peace process". The author uses two code words, "close" when describing Berri's relationship with Hezbollah which is in fact misleading because Berri is often the negotiator between Hezbollah-led opposition and the pro-Government factions of the parliament, indeed he is Shi'i and leader of AMAL but by no means does he pose any real influence within the Hezbollah decision making process, "close" is code for the next word used, "radical" when describing Hezbollah. "Radical" is code for terrorist and fundamentalist.
However, moving forward, this article did pose an interesting situation, a situation in which all Lebanese factions seem to have agree with the notion that Obama's election was good for Lebanon, and the Middle East.
"Nawaf Moussawi, head of the international relations of Shiite group Hezbollah also welcomed Obama's victory, saying that "change will definitely come" in US policy".
I thought this was very telling of Hezbollah that they were welcoming of Obama's rise to primacy. It shows the underlying reason as to why Hezbollah was created, in the name of social justice., equality, welfare, and empowering the deprived. Obama represents the realization that the old racial barriers, agony, discrimination, that African-Americans have fought and died for since the creation of the United States of America can be overcome. That the "under-dog" can win, even against the greatest odds. Obama's movement was formulated at the grass roots level with a coalition of the workingmen, the poor, the disenfranchised, the college elites, women, and the general youth. This is in fact quite similar to Hezbollah's roots.
According to Lara Deeb Hezbollah was formed off the belief that Shiites must have their fair representation and can no longer be discriminated against and that Lebanese society must break down this Confessional System of power which artificially represents equality when in fact it mandates inequality. Deeb states, "Initially, this growing urban population of mostly Shi‘i poor in Lebanon was not mobilized along sectarian lines...Al-Sadr offered the “Movement of the Deprived,” dedicated to attaining political rights for the dispossessed within the Lebanese polity. A militia branch of this movement, Amal, was founded at the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975. Alongside al-Sadr, there were also other activist Lebanese Shi‘i religious leaders, most of whom had also studied in Najaf, who worked to establish grassroots social and religious networks in the Shi‘i neighborhoods of Beirut".
The lines are parallel, it seems that the similarities lie within the parameters of how each movement built their social network.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Battle For Gaza: Why?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6748811.stm
The conflict stems from Hamas winning the 2006 Palestinian elections. As a result, Israel, the United States, and the European Union, imposed sanctions upon the Palestinian Territories, thus suspending all foreign aid, upon which the impoverished Palestinians depend heavily on. The sanctions were coupled with the conditions that a resumption of aid will occur if Hamas fulfills the “Three Demands” of recognizing Israel, accepting agreements made by the defeated Fatah regime and denouncing violence. Despite the sanctions, and incidences of successful border prohibition, Hamas leaders were able to smuggle enough money into the Palestinian territories to maintain basic health and educational services. The defeated Fatah party maintained control of most of the Palestinian security apparatus. The US administration funded and armed Mahmud Abbas' Presidential Guard and Gaza-based Fatah warlord, Mohammed Dahlan.
The question that must be answered is: why did the U.S., E.U., and Israel give HAMAS a chance to effectively govern and essentially prove its legitimacy to the international arena? On many instances HAMAS unexplicitly recognized the now famous "THREE DEMANDS" of the United States. The U.S. should have been more diplomatic and allowed HAMAS to govern, as we all know, every politcian comes into office with high hopes and strong ideology, as we are all students of history, and then is forced to moderate his or her views with the hit of realism and pragmatism. HAMAS is no different, HAMAS senior leadership were not operating with the goals of establishing an Islamic State in the Gaza Strip, they were operating out of fear of being destroyed by the U.S. thus acted with complete rationality by ousting their enemies yet reassuring the masses that Shariah Law will not be implemented as policy.
HAMAS's popularity stems from its various services provided to the impoverished people of Palestine including: "Charitable societies, hospitals, dispensaries, kindergarten and schools, sporting clubs, elderly homes, zakat committees, computing centers, libraries, scholarships, legal aid, summer camps, and recreation facilities" (Mandaville 211). HAMAS in the eyes of the people is not viewed as the militant terrorist organization, the view that the propenderance of Americans understand, HAMAS is understoo as a multi-faceted organization, a community organization that actually cares for the people, and is not as corrupt in comparison to the PLO.
The conflict stems from Hamas winning the 2006 Palestinian elections. As a result, Israel, the United States, and the European Union, imposed sanctions upon the Palestinian Territories, thus suspending all foreign aid, upon which the impoverished Palestinians depend heavily on. The sanctions were coupled with the conditions that a resumption of aid will occur if Hamas fulfills the “Three Demands” of recognizing Israel, accepting agreements made by the defeated Fatah regime and denouncing violence. Despite the sanctions, and incidences of successful border prohibition, Hamas leaders were able to smuggle enough money into the Palestinian territories to maintain basic health and educational services. The defeated Fatah party maintained control of most of the Palestinian security apparatus. The US administration funded and armed Mahmud Abbas' Presidential Guard and Gaza-based Fatah warlord, Mohammed Dahlan.
The question that must be answered is: why did the U.S., E.U., and Israel give HAMAS a chance to effectively govern and essentially prove its legitimacy to the international arena? On many instances HAMAS unexplicitly recognized the now famous "THREE DEMANDS" of the United States. The U.S. should have been more diplomatic and allowed HAMAS to govern, as we all know, every politcian comes into office with high hopes and strong ideology, as we are all students of history, and then is forced to moderate his or her views with the hit of realism and pragmatism. HAMAS is no different, HAMAS senior leadership were not operating with the goals of establishing an Islamic State in the Gaza Strip, they were operating out of fear of being destroyed by the U.S. thus acted with complete rationality by ousting their enemies yet reassuring the masses that Shariah Law will not be implemented as policy.
HAMAS's popularity stems from its various services provided to the impoverished people of Palestine including: "Charitable societies, hospitals, dispensaries, kindergarten and schools, sporting clubs, elderly homes, zakat committees, computing centers, libraries, scholarships, legal aid, summer camps, and recreation facilities" (Mandaville 211). HAMAS in the eyes of the people is not viewed as the militant terrorist organization, the view that the propenderance of Americans understand, HAMAS is understoo as a multi-faceted organization, a community organization that actually cares for the people, and is not as corrupt in comparison to the PLO.
Friday, October 17, 2008
US missiles hit Pakistan village
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/2008101672724503831.html
On the 16Th of October, the United States fired missiles to a village in South Waziristan, Pakistan. South Waziristan is one of the northern provinces in Pakistan which are essentially autonomous, and the United States and NATO believe is the safe harbor for supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States also maintains the belief that Osama Bin Laden could be potentially in hiding within the mountainous north western provinces. United States missile attacks in Pakistan create extreme tension within the Pakistani domestic political scene. Moderates do not want to appear to be condoning U.S attacks in Pakistan, nor do they support the vigilantism exerted by militants within those provinces.
The Muslim parties use such attacks as evidence the secular, moderate central government is incapable of protecting Pakistan's sovereignty. According to Haqqani, " the Islamist worldview has become incompatible with the vision of modern Pakistan, the violent vigilantism of some Islamists has become a serious threat to Pakistan civil society and also promoted sectarian terrorism. Operating outside the rule of law, the Islamists have potential to disrupt the conduct of foreign policy especially in the view of their support for anti-India militants in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan". These groups have also been used as tools by the secularists as a means to create the atmosphere of a political zero sum game. For example, in Musharraf's reign, Musharraf had banned the PPP and the PML-N thus allowing the Muslim parties seize their personal record of seats, 11%, of the total parliament. The central government wants to portray to the Pakistani nation that their choice is between the central secular government and the extremists. Completely disregarding the remaining diverse field of political ideologies.
On the 16Th of October, the United States fired missiles to a village in South Waziristan, Pakistan. South Waziristan is one of the northern provinces in Pakistan which are essentially autonomous, and the United States and NATO believe is the safe harbor for supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States also maintains the belief that Osama Bin Laden could be potentially in hiding within the mountainous north western provinces. United States missile attacks in Pakistan create extreme tension within the Pakistani domestic political scene. Moderates do not want to appear to be condoning U.S attacks in Pakistan, nor do they support the vigilantism exerted by militants within those provinces.
The Muslim parties use such attacks as evidence the secular, moderate central government is incapable of protecting Pakistan's sovereignty. According to Haqqani, " the Islamist worldview has become incompatible with the vision of modern Pakistan, the violent vigilantism of some Islamists has become a serious threat to Pakistan civil society and also promoted sectarian terrorism. Operating outside the rule of law, the Islamists have potential to disrupt the conduct of foreign policy especially in the view of their support for anti-India militants in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan". These groups have also been used as tools by the secularists as a means to create the atmosphere of a political zero sum game. For example, in Musharraf's reign, Musharraf had banned the PPP and the PML-N thus allowing the Muslim parties seize their personal record of seats, 11%, of the total parliament. The central government wants to portray to the Pakistani nation that their choice is between the central secular government and the extremists. Completely disregarding the remaining diverse field of political ideologies.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Talking Turkey: She's a democracy - no qualifiers
http://www.meforum.org/article/624
In an article written by the controversial Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the dangers in supporting Erdugan's AKP and how the nationalists and secularists will react to America's new support of the "Muslim Democracy" as stated by Bush and Rice. According to Rubin, the nationalists reject the notion of qualifying Turkey's democracy with the term "Muslim" proceeding it. They ask, how would certain Americans feel by being labeled a "Christian Democracy"?
"Belief that Washington supports the AKP is widespread across Turkey, from parliamentarians in the national assembly to storekeepers in provincial towns to university students relaxing in cafes. One prominent AKP member told me, "We are a Muslim party and Powell called us a Muslim democracy. We know he chooses his words carefully""(Rubin 1).
Rubin describes America's support for the AKP as a betrayal of the sacrifice the Turkish secularists and military have made to America, whether it be in Korea, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. U.S. support for AKP in Rubin's eyes damages the "special relationship" between Ankara and Washington, furthermore, the AKP is what it is today because of the secularist-nationalist pressure to pull the Islamists towards the center. Therefore, the type of democracy that exists in Turkey today can not be thanks to either the nationalists or Islamists exclusively.
Rubin states, "The AKP is a product of Turkey's tradition of secularism, and should be treated as such. At the same time, Washington should approach the AKP warily, for it may still be a Trojan horse. The Western face of Erdogan and the strict, bearded Islamists found in the provinces are two sides of the same party. The Turks are carefully dealing with the balance, but platitudes from officials like Powell threaten to upset it. It is one thing for opposition parties to whine that Washington supports the AKP. It is quite another thing when the ruling party agrees. "
Edward Said would be ashamed of such an excerpt, and declare orientalism on the top of his lungs. Bolded and highlighted are the outright orientalist tones to Rubin's statement. Somehow, that AKP could be the disguise for the creation of a new Caliphate based in Ankara that Muslim organizations all around the world would swear allegiance to. That was the code in which Rubin was speaking in.
However, it is important to note such orientalists fears, as stated in Global Political Islam by Dr. Peter Mandaville, "Others harbor fear that the AKP is full of "crypto-Islamists" waiting to pounce once the populace has been lulled into complacency" (Mandaville 128).
In an article written by the controversial Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the dangers in supporting Erdugan's AKP and how the nationalists and secularists will react to America's new support of the "Muslim Democracy" as stated by Bush and Rice. According to Rubin, the nationalists reject the notion of qualifying Turkey's democracy with the term "Muslim" proceeding it. They ask, how would certain Americans feel by being labeled a "Christian Democracy"?
"Belief that Washington supports the AKP is widespread across Turkey, from parliamentarians in the national assembly to storekeepers in provincial towns to university students relaxing in cafes. One prominent AKP member told me, "We are a Muslim party and Powell called us a Muslim democracy. We know he chooses his words carefully""(Rubin 1).
Rubin describes America's support for the AKP as a betrayal of the sacrifice the Turkish secularists and military have made to America, whether it be in Korea, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. U.S. support for AKP in Rubin's eyes damages the "special relationship" between Ankara and Washington, furthermore, the AKP is what it is today because of the secularist-nationalist pressure to pull the Islamists towards the center. Therefore, the type of democracy that exists in Turkey today can not be thanks to either the nationalists or Islamists exclusively.
Rubin states, "The AKP is a product of Turkey's tradition of secularism, and should be treated as such. At the same time, Washington should approach the AKP warily, for it may still be a Trojan horse. The Western face of Erdogan and the strict, bearded Islamists found in the provinces are two sides of the same party. The Turks are carefully dealing with the balance, but platitudes from officials like Powell threaten to upset it. It is one thing for opposition parties to whine that Washington supports the AKP. It is quite another thing when the ruling party agrees. "
Edward Said would be ashamed of such an excerpt, and declare orientalism on the top of his lungs. Bolded and highlighted are the outright orientalist tones to Rubin's statement. Somehow, that AKP could be the disguise for the creation of a new Caliphate based in Ankara that Muslim organizations all around the world would swear allegiance to. That was the code in which Rubin was speaking in.
However, it is important to note such orientalists fears, as stated in Global Political Islam by Dr. Peter Mandaville, "Others harbor fear that the AKP is full of "crypto-Islamists" waiting to pounce once the populace has been lulled into complacency" (Mandaville 128).
Friday, September 26, 2008
Islamic Democracy and Islamic Governance
http://www.drsoroush.com/English/By_DrSoroush/E-CMB-20001121-Islamic_Democracy_and_Islamic_Governance.html
One of the greatest warriors in the debate regarding Islam and Democracy, and the possibility of an "Islamic Democracy" is Dr. AbdolKarim Soroush. Soroush outlines six preconditions in order for anyone to debate the notion of Democracy and Islam. These essential preconditions are:
1: The recognition of the distinction between "religion" and our "understanding of religion"
2: Distinction between "essential" and "accidental" aspects of religion.
3. Distinction between "minimalist" and "maximalist" interpretations of Islam.
4. Distinction between values and morals that are considered internal in respect to Islam and those that are external.
5. Distinction between Religious "belief" and Religious "faith".
6. Distinction between religion as an ideology/identity and religion of truth.
"Soroush believes that every Divine Law has a purpose. Once one uncovers these purposes, one has a clearer view of the law itself and can reinterpret it to fit changing modern requirements" (MEI).
This belief expands ones ability to argue for the ability for legislatures to exist within an Islamic State, and empowers the legislatures to govern more effectively. Simply due to the belief that yes, humans can not "create law" however, we can interpret divine law, and once we have realized the purposes for such divine law, we can create legislation that respects the ideals of such Divine law. Secondly, we as Muslims, are able to "seek knowledge to China" (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) thus one can only expect that the knowledge that has been obtained, even though foreign to Islam, should be respected, and can be incorporated into society so long as it respects the basic pillars of Islam. Therefore, the notion that "democracy" is foreign to Islam can be countered by the fact that certain aspects of democracy are inherently Islamic and can be attributed and used in an Islamic system of governance.
The most important tactic which Soroush imploys in this great debate, is the very fact that he is an Islamic Scholar, it is said that "Only a diamond can cut another diamond" therefore, Soroush's background enables him to use Islamic theory as a means to advocate for Islamic Democracy. Secondly, Soroush, combats those against the Islamic Democracy by using Qur'anic and Sunnah evidence. Therefore making his arguments legitimate in the eyes of fellow Islamic Scholars.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Pakistan: 5 Killed in Religious School Bombing
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842777,00.html
The current conflict in Pakistan, which has essentially been waged prior since the nation's inception in 1947 is a manifestation of the Mawdudi versus Jimah debates over what it type of system of governance shall be enacted in the Indian sub-continent .
Jimah used the Muslim identity almost identically to that of the Jewish identity in Israel. That there can be a state for Muslims in South Asia, a Muslim homeland, remaining secular. The notion of being a Muslim becomes a cultural identity with religious underpinnings. Jimah has basically manufactured a nationalist cause for Muslims. He created the idea that a people who share a religious philosophy can too form a unique nation.
Mawdudi rejects this notion, Mawdudi claims that the very notion of nationalism is to be essentially "haram" since we as Muslims shall not subject ourselves to a cause greater than Allah, and this cause is driven through the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which forms the foundations of Islam. Therefore, the idea of creating a homeland for Muslims was at first rejected by Mawdudi since it corresponds with the manufacturing of "Muslim Nationalism" (now Pakistani Nationalism) through a Muslim identity as a nation. However, since a state was created, the Pure Land, Pakistan, it was vital that this state subject itself to the teachings of Islam, and it be essentially an Islamic State, not simply a state for Muslims.
The September 19 bombings of a religious school in the outskirts of the city Quetta is simply another materialization of the inability to come to a consensus of how the state shall be governed, not to mention the general existence of geo-politics, a government being forced to enact America's demands on the War on Terror or it will experience the loss of grants, and military aid to keep Pakistan competitive with its fellow nuclear neighbor India. The school was run by Jamiaat Ulama -e Islam which is the far offshoot of Mawdudi's Jamaait Islami. Interesting enough, the bombing was a suicide bomb, which raises many suspicions and questions as to why a suicide bomber would bomb an Islamic school in support of Islamic cause in Pakistan.
The current conflict in Pakistan, which has essentially been waged prior since the nation's inception in 1947 is a manifestation of the Mawdudi versus Jimah debates over what it type of system of governance shall be enacted in the Indian sub-continent .
Jimah used the Muslim identity almost identically to that of the Jewish identity in Israel. That there can be a state for Muslims in South Asia, a Muslim homeland, remaining secular. The notion of being a Muslim becomes a cultural identity with religious underpinnings. Jimah has basically manufactured a nationalist cause for Muslims. He created the idea that a people who share a religious philosophy can too form a unique nation.
Mawdudi rejects this notion, Mawdudi claims that the very notion of nationalism is to be essentially "haram" since we as Muslims shall not subject ourselves to a cause greater than Allah, and this cause is driven through the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which forms the foundations of Islam. Therefore, the idea of creating a homeland for Muslims was at first rejected by Mawdudi since it corresponds with the manufacturing of "Muslim Nationalism" (now Pakistani Nationalism) through a Muslim identity as a nation. However, since a state was created, the Pure Land, Pakistan, it was vital that this state subject itself to the teachings of Islam, and it be essentially an Islamic State, not simply a state for Muslims.
The September 19 bombings of a religious school in the outskirts of the city Quetta is simply another materialization of the inability to come to a consensus of how the state shall be governed, not to mention the general existence of geo-politics, a government being forced to enact America's demands on the War on Terror or it will experience the loss of grants, and military aid to keep Pakistan competitive with its fellow nuclear neighbor India. The school was run by Jamiaat Ulama -e Islam which is the far offshoot of Mawdudi's Jamaait Islami. Interesting enough, the bombing was a suicide bomb, which raises many suspicions and questions as to why a suicide bomber would bomb an Islamic school in support of Islamic cause in Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)