Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The New York Times says that Muslims in America feel snubbed by Barack Obama. Well, I don’t feel snubbed. I don’t feel snubbed because I have never been courted for my "Muslimness". I am not used to being courted so I don’t know what being politically snubbed feels like.

The Muslim vote is the stealth voting bloc in American politics. It is highly likely that Muslims in 2008 will play a major role in electing Barack Obama to the presidency, yet Barack Obama stands to lose politically if he courts the Muslim vote. That is Obama’s dilemma, and that is the essence of the Muslim double-smear that has so far been used effectively against Obama.

In 2006 Muslims in Virginia came out in overwhelming numbers to help elect Jim Webb to the United States Senate. I was one of those who cast his vote for Webb. Webb won the Senate by 9329 votes out of over 2.3 million votes cast. According to the New York Times, about 86% of the estimated 60,000 registered Muslim voters turned out and voted overwhelmingly for Webb. Webb’s razor-thin margin of victory was dwarfed by the number of Muslims that voted for him. It was a constituency that was pivotal in putting him in office.

In November, Virginia will likely be the state that will hold Barack Obama’s presidential hopes in the balance. If the voting goes similar to 2006, with Northern Virginia and Richmond coming out strongly Democratic to offset the overwhelming Republican vote in southwestern Virginia, it will once again be Muslims playing a pivotal role. There’s the rub.

Muslim leaders, according to the New York Times article, are upset because Barack Obama is keeping his distance from them. He is apparently trying to avoid the inevitable photo that will play on a loop on Fox News. And he is right.

So, Muslims in America have a choice. Do you vote for a candidate whose policies are going to do the most to help restore civil liberties and change the "us versus them" mentality we have become used to, or do you vote against the candidate for not pandering to you as a religious bloc because you are radioactive? In 2000, Muslims voted overwhelmingly for the candidate that pandered to them but whose policies have brought us where we are today. The lesson has been learnt. The choice it seems is clear. In 2006, the Muslims in Virginia got it - and we voted our interests.

Muslims in America, get ready for a long summer of hate. As the general election gets more brutal what remaining distance there is between the words "Muslim" and the word "terrorist" will disappear in the political dialect. There will be more smears from the right linking Obama to us (the scary people). There will be more condescending cries from the left for us to just shut up like little children. In the end, none of it will matter. What will matter is your vote. And your vote will most likely determine who will be the next president of the United States. Now, isn’t that ironic.

 [Cross posted at the Daily Kos.]

They scrawled the words "Fuck yeah" on the pages of the Holy Koran and then they shot it full of holes. Last week a few American soldiers in Iraq thought it would be cool to use the Koran for target practice. The US commander on the ground, Major General Jeffery Hammond, has quickly apologized to try to repair the damage. I hope it will be enough, but I seriously doubt that fallout from this act of stupidity by a few soldiers can be contained.

I am a Muslim. I am an American. I am deeply offended. Those who know me know that I am not easily offended in these matters.

Muslims consider the words in the Koran to be the literal word of God. Korans in Muslim homes are kept in a place of honor, usually displayed on a stand made to hold the book on a mantle or another prominent place. Muslims consider it a grave insult if the Koran comes into contact with one’s feet or is desecrated in any other way. Every Muslim understands this. It is instinctive to protect the Koran.

So when an American soldier desecrates a Koran and riddles it with bullets, the message is clear: it does not need any translation. This isn’t the "cartoon controversy" where a bunch of radical Islamists thumped their chests in response. This will hit home with the moderate Muslims around the world. Moderate Muslims are not going to go out on the streets and march in protest. But they will understand the message coming from America. At a time when America needs the moderates in the Muslim world to rally to the cause and isolate the extremists, this kind of act will cause the moderates to sit on their hands.  I doubt very many Muslims around the world will care to make the distinction between the act of a few American soldiers and the policy of the United States. That kind of nuance is likely not going to translate well.

This kind of action is a victory for the hatemongers on both sides. It makes my conversations with Muslims in the country of my birth - Bangladesh - that much more difficult. I will trot out the standard line about how this was an act of a few and does not represent the attitude of the United States government toward the Muslims of the world. I will get a polite hearing, but I doubt anyone will believe me. Already I am confronted with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay when I speak out against human rights violations in the Muslim world. At least in those cases I can make the admittedly weak case that those abuses were carried out in the overzealous response to terrorists acts - that those acts were targetted at who the United States thought posed a security threat to itself. In this case, however, there is no getting around the fact that the target is the over one billion Muslims around the world.

I am not so worried that this particular act will increase the level of terrorism against the United States. Those who would act in violence don’t particularly need this as an excuse to do their acts - if it wasn’t this, they would find another justification. But I do worry that the long-term goal of winning "hearts and minds" just took a major blow. I don’t know how many more such blows can be absorbed before the divide between the Muslim world and the West is irretrievably made permanent.

Those of us who stand with a foot in each culture have a responsibility to try the bridge the gaps of misunderstanding and mutual fear that have hightened since the September 11th attacks. But our voices are drowned out, along with the voices of the majority of those in the West and in the Muslim world who simply want to live in peace to raise their families, when this kind of act is carried out by a "strategic corporal" . This must stop.

UPDATE:  I crossposted this on Daily Kos last night. It has reached the recommended list and launched a vigorous debate in the comments. Now there are over 700 comments on the post and the debate continues. The diary has elicited strong opinions on all sides and quite a lot of insightful commentary.

Today is Eid ul-Fitr. It marks the end of the month of Ramadan and is a day of celebration, forgiveness, peace and unity.

On the occasion of Eid ul-Fitr, my family and I wish all of you peace, serenity, and joy. Eid Mubarak.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

The first word in the Holy Koran is "Read". When I was a child growing up in Bangladesh, my parents hired the imam of the neighborhood mosque to teach me how to read the Koran. Twice a week after school the imam, an old man with a kindly face, would come to our house for an hour to give me lessons. He would ask me to read out loud certain passages from the Koran, and as I would be reading, he would slowly drift off into a sound sleep. At the end of the hour I would wake him and thank him for the day’s lessons. Although the imam taught me how to read the Koran in Arabic, he did not teach me what the words meant. One day I asked him what the words of the Koran meant. He smiled and replied that I would have to learn the meaning myself. He said Islam was about knowledge and the first word in the Koran was an instruction to Muslims to acquire knowledge.

*****

Growing up in Bangladesh you learn tolerance. I am a child of genocide. My identity, and that of the country of my birth, Bangladesh, was forged by resistance to racial and religious hatred. Three million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistani military and their Islamist collaborators in the name of "God and a united Pakistan". We were killed for not being "pure" enough - for being Hindus, or converted Muslims, or Muslims who sympathized with Hindus or converted Muslims; in short, we were killed for being Bengali. Yet we resisted, and at a cost of three million lives, we created a free Bangladesh with the dream of a secular state where Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and others could live without fear of intimidation or persecution.

Over the years the Islamists have crept back into Bangladesh. Yet they operated at the margins amongst a populace who had fresh memories of the killings and rapes of Bengalis at the hands of these Islamists. Democracy in Bangladesh ensured that as long as the people had a voice the Islamists would remain at the fringes.

Today with democracy and fundamental rights suspended, and a ruthless military regime at the helm, the dream of Bangladesh is under threat. Today a young Bangladeshi man, Arifur Rahman, is behind bars for a cartoon he drew. His cartoon offended the Islamists and the military government obliged them by putting the young cartoonist in jail. The military government has suspended publication of the magazine that published the cartoon and its editor, one of the most important voices in the Bangladeshi media, has been forced to publicly apologize to the leader of the Islamists - an apology facilitated by the military government’s Information and Law Advisor. Out of fear, no lawyer dared to defend the cartoonist in court as he was shipped away to jail.

The editor and publisher of Prothom Alo, the newspaper that published the cartoon, have been charged with sedition and blasphemy. No publication in Bangladesh has dared to defend the cartoonist. In fact, the most progressive English language newspaper in Bangladesh, The New Age, published an editorial yesterday that offered no support to the cartoonist and backed the government’s decision to jail the young man for retelling a joke that even Islamists themselves have published before:

Alpin’s controversial cartoon seems to have been a product of the pseudo-liberal minds and the editorial authorities of the daily have rightly offered unqualified public apology for hurting the ‘religious sentiment’ of the Muslims at large. And that the Prothom Alo authorities do not subscribe to the pseudo-liberal idea of the cartoonist was also apparent, at least for now, in the administrative measures that they took against the person/s responsible for publishing the cartoon. The government, on the other hand, has justifiably confiscated the particular issue (September 17) of the fun magazine, and taken legal steps as regards the cartoonist. The matter should end here, while the cartoonist, already arrested, should be ensured justice within the framework of the law of the land.

When The New Age newspaper, a paper which has been outspoken against the military in spite of constant intimidation, capitulates and cannot find the voice to defend a cartoonist for drawing a cat, Bangladesh has succumbed to a climate of fear.

To add to the climate of fear created by the military government and the Islamists, another publication was banned yesterday because it contained an article that apparently hurt "the religous sentiments of the people."

Today in a show of force Islamists demonstrated in Dhaka against the Prothom Alo newspaper. They demanded the execution of both the editor and publisher of the newspaper:

Demonstrators gathered at the north gate of Baitul Mukarram national mosque and brought out a procession after the juma prayers, demanding ban on Prothom Alo and arrest of the editor and publisher of the daily.

Protestors clashed with police as lawmen prevented them from marching towards the newspaper’s office at Karwan Bazar. At least 50 people were injured when the police used clubs to disperse the protesters, witnesses said.

…

Demonstrations were also reported in Chittagong and some other district towns. Copies of the newspaper and effigies of its editor and publisher were burnt in Dhaka and Chittagong.

The clash broke out in Dhaka at around 2:20 pm when a group of activists, apparently belonging to Hijbut Tahrir Bangladesh, tried to cross the barbed-wire barricade near police control room at Shahbagh crossing. Later, some other groups joined the Hijbut Tahrir, but the police chased the demonstrators and used batons to disperse them.

The protests were led by Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamist political party that aims to create an Islamic Caliphate. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a media savvy Islamist group that has tentacles in many Muslim and European countries. In August of last year, I wrote about them in a post entitled "Meet The Enemy". Hizb ut-Tahrir was at the forefront of the Danish cartoon protests and never misses an opportunity to exploit controversy to push its Islamist agenda. Until now, however, their reach and their influence has been limited in a largely secular Muslim country such as Bangladesh. Last year I wrote:

While bin Laden hides in caves Hizb ut-Tahrir takes its message freely to the young people of the Muslim world. It targets colleges and universities in the Muslim world looking for recruits to its idea of jihad and of an enduring Caliphate. For example, in Bangladesh, which is a largely secular Muslim majority country, Hizb ut-Tahrir is starting to make inroads with university students and intellectuals.

The group’s presence as a political party in Bangladesh is small but nonetheless vocal. It markets itself as a discussion group to university students and openly holds weekly meetings at the country’s leading universities. It feeds on political unrest in the country and presents itself as a utopian alternative to all the country’s ills. It capitalizes on Muslim grievances and focuses hate and anger toward the West and the country’s own government. 

…

The tactic is always the same: blame the West and then find a way of tying the country’s government to the West. In many cases, the grievances are legitimate. That is exactly where Hizb ut-Tahrir’s appeal lies. It first voices a legitimate grievance and then pivots the rhetoric into hate.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are masters at capturing the media spotlight and magnifying the smallest hint of a controversy. During the Danish cartoon controversy, it was Hizb ut-Tahrir in Bangladesh and elsewhere that engineered the protest marches for the benefit of Western cameras

In a largely secular country like Bangladesh, Hizb ut-Tahrir will not garner much support and will likely remain in the fringes. However, it need not have a huge following to mobilize hate. Its target audience, university students who are looking to channel their frustration, are the engine that fuel the armies of hate. [Emphasis added.]

The situation in Bangladesh has changed dramatically since last August. Democracy has been squelched and the country is now under military rule. Dissent has been criminalized under draconian laws passed by the military government. The secular political parties have been silenced. In this environment, where the will of the people becomes irrelevant, Islamist parties thrive.

Military governments in South Asia come to power at the cross-section of three forces: the "civil society", the Islamists, and the military. It is "civil society" that makes a military coup viable. In a naive and arrogant hope that they can substitute their wisdom for that of the masses, "civil society" enables the military to overthrow the "corrupt" political leaders. Once the military comes to power it is "civil society", in the mistaken belief that this time the military will "fix" the system, that enables the military as they implement more and more draconian policies and roll back more and more fundamental freedoms. There is however no room for "civil society" on the autocratic end of the "J curve" and at some point disillusionment sets in as the military turns on "civil society". At the same time, the Islamists inevitably benefit from military rule as dissent and the free flow of ideas are stifled. Islamists provide a ready constituency for the military and in return the Islamists get what they crave from the population: silent obedience. This pattern of military rule has happened in Bangladesh once before and has been the norm in Pakistan for most of its history.

In Bangladesh, it was "civil society" types like Motiur Rahman, the editor of Prothom Alo, and Mahfuz Anam, the publisher of Prothom Alo and the editor and publisher of the leading English language newspaper The Daily Star, who were the most fervent supporters of the military coup last January. Today both Motiur Rahman and Mahfuz Anam find themselves facing the wrath of the Islamists, the beneficiaries of the regime they helped bring to power. When Motiur Rahman, once one of the most powerful editors in the country, begged forgiveness on bended knee to the leader of the Islamists the capitulation was complete.

The Islamists now have the upper hand in Bangladesh. With the military government’s help they have managed to silence the very outspoken Bangladeshi media. They have bred fear in the hearts of the population. They have set Bangladesh on a path of both militarization and extremism. Tolerance, the essence of a stable society and the founding dream of Bangladesh, has vanished from the streets of Bangladesh. Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamists are today burning newspapers and anything else they can find that hurts their "religious sentiments". The first instruction of the Holy Koran, to read - to acquire knowledge, is being abandoned in Bangladesh.

With the mainstream media cowed into silence, the Bangladeshi blogosphere is raising its voice. Today the battle is joined. Brave Bengali language bloggers from inside Bangladesh are speaking out at Somewhere In blog and at  Sachalayatan. Expatriate English-language Bangladeshi bloggers like Rumi Ahmed, Dhaka Shohor and Rezwan are spreading the word to the outside world, and group blogs like E-Bangladesh (where I also write) and Deshi Voice are giving voice to those who are living in fear.

I ask you the reader to join us in spreading the word about the slow death of the dream of Bangladesh. The real war on terror is being fought on the streets of Bangladesh. It is not a war between the West and Islam - it is a war between knowledge and willful ignorance; between freedom and persecution; between reason and insanity. It is a battle in which all of us have a stake.

[Welcome Crooks & Liars readers. Please consider supporting the campaign for release of the 23-year old cartoonist Arifur Rahman by adding the "Free Arifur Rahman" badge that is on the sidebar to your own blog. Thank you for spreading the word about this unjust abuse of power by Bangladesh’s military government and suppression of freedom of expression.]

Bangladesh has its very own Muhammad cartoon controversy. Two days ago the leading Bangladeshi newspaper Prothom Alo published a cartoon in its weekly supplement "Alpin". By today the military government of Bangladesh had arrested the cartoonist, banned the cartoon, confiscated all copies of the newspaper issue, and forced the newspaper to fire the editor responsible for publishing the cartoon. Prothom Alo has also apologized profusely to its readers in two front page editorials.

The Bengali language cartoon entitled "Name" ("Naam" in Bengali) depicts a conversation between a Muslim man and a boy:

Man: Hey boy, what is your name?
Boy: My name is Babu.

Man: It is customary to say "Muhammad" before saying a name.

Man: What is your father’s name?
Boy: Muhammad Abu.

Man: So what is on your lap?
Boy: Muhammad cat.

For the record let me say that I found the cartoon to be quite funny. It made me chuckle and remember the countless times when people would inadvertently add "Muhammad" - a very common practice in Bangladesh - to the beginning of my name.

What the Islamists find offensive about this cartoon is that the Prophet Muhammad’s name is being used to describe a cat. Somehow that is considered offensive even though the Prophet Muhammad was apparently very fond of cats. Presumably these very same Islamists did not find it offensive that the man who piloted a plane into a skyscraper causing massive loss of innocent life was named "Muhammad Atta".

Opportunistic Islamist politicians in Bangladesh have jumped on this cartoon to try to silence a newspaper that has often been critical of them. The Islamists have found a ready partner in Bangladesh’s military government. Islamist politicians met with the military government’s Law and Information Advisor Mainul Hosein and got what they wanted:

A delegation led by the Baitul Mukarram mosque’s khatib, Obaidul Haque, called on the law and information adviser, Mainul Hosein, and demanded cancellation of the declaration of the Prothom Alo and arrest of its editor, along with others concerned, before this Friday ‘for showing disrespect to Prophet Hazrat Mohammad (pbuh)’.

The cartoon ridiculed the prophet by adding his name (Mohammad) before an animal, they said.

‘It is a conspiracy to destabilise the country. We are very concerned over the issue,’ Mainul told reporters after the meeting.

The conspirators wanted to throw the country into a chaotic situation, he claimed.

The adviser asked everyone to remain alert against the plot so that the conspirators cannot be successful. [Emphasis added]

It is alarming that the unhinged Information Advisor sees a "conspiracy" in the cartoon. This is the same military government that saw a "conspiracy" when mass protests broke out in Bangladesh last month. Those protests were promptly crushed by a brutal response from the military that included beatings of students and journalists, and the ongoing arrests of university professors.

Since it took power in a coup last January the military in Bangladesh has suspended fundamental rights, intimidated and censored the media, purged the political parties, and created a climate of fear within the country. In this climate of fear the Islamist political parties have been left largely untouched while the two major political parties have been decimated by arrests of their top leaders. In what was a largely secular Muslim majority democratic nation, the Islamist parties played at the fringes - only managing to share power by joining in coalitions with the larger secular parties. However, with democracy and political activity suppressed by the military Islamists have a disproportionate voice. This has been the case in Pakistan through successive military dictatorships, and today Bangladesh is on a similar path.

The military government’s validation of the Islamists’ absurd complaints over a harmless cartoon amply demonstrates the symbiotic relationship the military and Islamists share in South Asia. They both reinforce each other’s paranoia and intolerance for dissent. When democracy is suppressed Islamists thrive in the vacuum. It is then vitally important to restore democracy in Bangladesh.

The Washington Post today carries an article entitled (at least on its homepage) "Pakistani Immigrants Fret Over Fate of Homeland". Not to be outdone, the New York Times has its own article about Pakistan entitled "Al Qaeda Threatens; U.S. Frets". Both articles exhibit the fear and ignorance that has led the United States, over the last half century, to be the prime benefactor of Islamist extremism in the world.

The Washington Post takes a man-on-the-street approach by reporting the views of Pakistani immigrants in the Washington DC area. In a paragraph overflowing with ignorance, the Post captures the essential failure of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Islamist extremism. The Post writes about Pakistani immigrants and of Pakistan:

Although almost all are observant Muslims and many attend mosques, local Pakistanis tend to be moderate and well-integrated into American culture. Now, many say they fear that their once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy — could become the next victim of the violent militancy that is causing mayhem in many Islamic countries.

The Post seems to imply that somehow it is exceptional to both be moderate and attend mosques at the same time - a prejudice that obscures a more enlightened understanding of the struggles in the Muslim world. Then the Post reveals its ignorance further in the very next sentence. To state that Pakistan was a "once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy" it to ignore a half century of history. The name of the country, "Pakistan", means "Land of the Pure" - there is nothing tolerant in that formulation. To be "pure" means to be a "Muslim", that is, to be a "Muslim" untainted by cultural or other local "impurities". This is not a theoretical matter. In 1971 the Pakistan military slaughtered, with support from the Nixon administration, up to 3 million Bangladeshis - a spasm of insanity and genocide that was made possible because Bangladeshis were viewed as "impure" and tainted by Hindu and Bengali culture.

The New York Times, meanwhile, explains how Washington is "captivated" by the current Pakistani strongman:

Washington is captivated by General Musharraf because he is a secular moderate, which is not to be confused with a civil libertarian. John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state who until late last year tracked the gathering Qaeda threat as the director of national intelligence, ended a trip to Pakistan a month ago convinced that General Musharraf’s government had, at long last, gotten the message about the tribal areas in the northwest officially known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. [Emphasis added by me.]

Washington is so captivated by the General that they fund him and his military to the tune of $2 billion a year, even though this money has resulted in failure after failure. Banking on Musharraf being a "secular moderate" is naive.

The New York Times continues:

Yet, when asked how the United States would respond if Al Qaeda were to plot a successful attack on the United States from the tribal areas, the answer from one intelligence officials was direct: “We’d go in and flatten it.” [Emphasis added by me.]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Al Qaeda did plot a successful attack on the United States from Pakistan on September 11, 2001. I am quite confident no "flatten"ing has occurred in Pakistan - in spite of the bravado.

Pakistan has been a breeding ground for Islamist extremists since its founding. The Pakistani Constitution itself institutionalizes religious persecution. The primary benefactor of Islamists in Pakistan has been the Pakistan military. The Pakistan military, through the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has consistently stifled democratic opposition in the country while at the same time used Islamist extremists to carry out its domestic and foreign policy goals - the organization and funding of genocidal Islamist extremists in Bangladesh, the funding of Islamists extremists in Kashmir, and the creation and backing of the Taliban are only a few of the extreme examples. Throughout, from the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan to Islamist General Zia-ul-Haq to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan military and the Islamist extremists have co-existed in a symbiotic relationship. The Islamists have acted as a support pillar for the military while the military has generously funded the Islamists and the growth of Islamist thought in Pakistan and beyond. Both groups share a common antipathy toward secular democracies. In this relationship, the Pakistani military is the dominant partner. An Islamist takeover of Pakistan is at best remote and certainly not necessary from the Islamist’s point of view. Islamists do not have to rule Pakistan to wield enormous power - many of their policy objectives are helped along by the Pakistan military, an institution that controls much of Pakistani society and is in no danger of collapsing. In this atmosphere, the occasional flexing of muscle by the military against extremists that go off the reservation is window dressing.

Pakistan was the birthplace of modern Islamist thought. The primary Islamist party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, has been, since its founding, at the forefront of political Islam, or Islamism. It is an ideology that is inconsistent with secular democracy and distinct from Islam, the religion that is practiced by me and more than a billion other adherents. It is also an ideology that cannot win the day in the Muslim world. However, it finds a home within military dictatorships as in Pakistan. The consequences of this coddling of Islamists by the military for Pakistan, South Asia, and now the world have been severe.

Yet, the United States has consistently supported military dictatorships in Pakistan at the expense of political freedom. It has done so while engaged in games of geo-political chicken, sacrificing wisdom for expediency. It has propped up Pakistan’s military dictatorship, and in doing so it has given aid to the very extremists it now hopes to combat. Dealing with Islamist extremism without first addressing its big brother in Pakistan is simply folly. Propping up the Pakistani military regime by sowing fear that Islamists will takeover otherwise is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Fretting however is not the answer.

I am always wary when religion and politics are mixed. I am especially wary when the politics of religion is disguised as charity. As a Muslim in America, and as a blogger, I have always attempted to raise the warning flag when I have seen a dangerous politicization of Islam, or when I have seen attacks upon Islam motivated by hate only. In the post-9/11 world I think it is important as a Muslim to explain the religion to non-Muslims in an attempt to foster understanding and hopefully some sanity.

Islam is one of the world’s major religions. It stands on its own. However, when the religion is politicized (as with all religions), bad things happen.

It is with the above in mind, I was quite perturbed when I came across a "Quran Distribution Project" at the blog Eteraz.org. The idea of this project is to donate 1000 copies of English translations of the Koran to "Western mosques and prisons". The project asks readers to donate money to raise $30,000 to help purchase the 1000 copies. Another post offers to give out a free copy of the Koran to Muslims who desire one, and directs non-Muslims to CAIR for their free complementary copy.

I will leave aside my concerns about a political blog raising money to distribute a religious text for a moment. I will focus on the project itself. The project aims to send copies of the an English translation of the Koran by a man named Mohammad Azad, who converted to Islam and became a citizen of Pakistan and Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations. The blog claims that his translation is more accurate than the "Saudi sponsored" translations. In fact, it claims that this translation is the most authoritative English translation of the Koran:

At the Eteraz.Org homepage you will see a large gray box asking for donations. We are trying to raise $30,000 to purchase 1000 copies of the Muhammad Asad Translation and Tafsir (Exegesis) of the Glorious Quran. This work is considered the most authoritative English translation/commentary and corrects a number of errors in the Saudi sponsored Qurans proliferating in the U.S.

…
This particular translation and exegesis is one of the most authoritative in the English language. The edition we are purchasing is also very aesthetically pleasing. Pictures: 1, 2, 3. This project will be the Islamic blogosphere’s first major money raising project. I believe it will be a success and will demonstrate that the global Islamic netroots is alive and powerful; and a force for positive action.

…

At the current time, the only English translation which provides in depth commentary on every verse is "The Noble Quran", distributed by the Saudi Arabian King Fahd Center For Printing of the Holy Quran. That translation does not provide any actual exegesis; merely references to various ahadith that relate to some of the verses. In that sense, it is not comprehensive; nevermind the fact that many of the ahadith themselves are far too nuanced for average Muslims with no scholarly background to understand. Hadith is a complex science that most Muslims, including myself, are not equipped to understand. It is no wonder that people reading this Quran often quote verses out of context and often for extremist causes.

The Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation does provide a commentary; however, most authorities believe that the Muhammad Asad commentary is far superior.

…

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable. For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The blog also has a separate post describing why this translation is better than the "Saudi sponsored" translation.

Let me point out that Muslims believe that the Koran can only be understood when read in the original Arabic. All translations of the Koran into other languages, including English, are considered to be "interpretations" and not translations. Having said that, it is important to debunk a lot of misinformation contained in the posts on this topic at Eteraz.org. If the argument for distributing the Koran, and asking readers for money, is that other translations are inadequate and there is a compelling need to push a particular translation, the argument has to be based on fact and not assertion.

First, it is not the case that the Muhammad Asad "translation" is considered the most authoritative English translation of the Koran. It is a worthy translation, one amongst many. The two most widely read and available English translations of the Koran are the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version and the Marmaduke William Pickthall version (I happen to have both). The Yusuf Ali version is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative versions in existence today. In fact, the "Saudi sponsored" translation that Eteraz.org cites is in fact the Yusuf Ali translation and not some wahhabi text serving the will of the Saudi government. It is also worth noting that Yusuf Ali was an Indian and not a Saudi. If I were to venture a guess, I would bet the few dollars in my pocket that if you counted up all English translations of the Koran ever sold, the Yusuf Ali version would come out on top by a large margin.

Second, Eteraz.org also claims that:

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable.

He is once again referring to the Yusuf Ali version, and claiming that it is the "Saudi Translation". The Yusuf Ali version does indeed contain "parantheticals". So do many other versions, the Picktall and Shakir translations come immediately to mind. As an example of "parantheticals", please see the translation of Surah Fatiha (the first surah in the Koran) by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir side-by-side at the University of Southern California Compendium of Muslim Texts project. Clearly, it is not "unacceptable" to use "parantheticals". Given the complexity of translating the Koran from its original Arabic to English, "parantheticals and other devices" are an accepted tool of translation.

Third, Eteraz.org claims that:

For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

This claim feeds the fear of the Saudi government as anti-Semites and anti-Christians. While it might be convenient to bring the politics of Saudi Arabia into this religious discussion, it must still be based in fact. Click here to read the English translation of Surah Fatiha at the Saudi King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an. As is claimed, "phrases ’such as the Jews’ and ’such as the Christians’" are not "inserted" into the Surah Fatiha in the Saudi translation. As a note, there are many worthy translations (as I will list below) that the reader can examine other than the one available at the King Fahd Complex.

Fourth, Eteraz.org claims that:

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The above statement is patently false. As I noted above, most English speakers use either the Pickthall version or the Yusuf Ali version. All the popular and scholarly English translations are available free online or via bookstores (and for you online types, Amazon is a great resource).

Finally, on a more humorous note, part of the reason Eteraz.org cited for pushing this particular translation of the Koran is that it contains "depth" commentary that helps the common man "understand" Islam. Many other translations (notably the Yusuf Ali translation) contain commentary. Of course, commentary on religious texts is always risky business. To bolster the argument, Eteraz.org presents us with commentary in his preferred translation that tries to tackle a troublesome passage in the Koran. Specifically, verse 34 of the fourth Surah, "The Women". In this verse, some translated versions seem to suggest that wives should be beaten if they are unfaithful. Eteraz.org explains why the commentary in the Muhammad Asad translation is "valuable":

However, the reason the Asad Quran is more valuable than the Noble Quran is because it offers a comprehensive commentary at the bottom of the page which The Noble Quran does not, and in that commentary, beating is invalidated.

It is this commentary, running throughout the Asad Quran, which is the reason for our support of the Muhammad Asad Quran. It is probably a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less.

By reading the commentary in the Asad Quran, the reasonable Muslim will become convinced that beating is not a good idea. Meanwhile, The Saudi Noble Quran, which has no commentary, leaves the average reader with the impression that beating is OK.

I am not sure that I agree that is "a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less." I kind of like the idea of figuring out things. I think suggesting that Muslims should rely on commentary rather than figuring things out sounds more like indoctrination than knowledge (as they say, when in doubt, use the source Luke!). Nonetheless, let’s go to Asad’s explaining away this passage (as quoted in Eteraz.org):

On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars ( e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem.

I am not sure whether this commentary is valuable or simply humorous. I guess a good Muslim will take away from this commentary that we should take a toothbrush or a folded handkerchief to our wives, and beatings "should preferably be avoided". Oh good, beating is ok then - as long as I’ve tried the toothbrush technique first!

I am always wary of any form of "thumping", whether it be "Bible thumping" or "Koran thumping". The project proposed by Eteraz.org seems to me to be Koran thumping.

If the goal is to spread an understanding of Islam, I recommend pointing readers to the many authoritative translations of the Koran as well as many worthy books on Islam. There is absolutely no need to push one version over the other - and certainly not on the basis of false or misleading assertions. For those readers who are interested in the Koran, feel free to peruse the following free online versions or versions that you can purchase on Amazon.com.:

Free Online versions:

• Side-by-side text of three major translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir) at USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts.
• Four major translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Palmer, Rodwell) available online at sacred-texts.com.
• Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir translations available separately at SUNY Buffalo.

Translations in book form available at Amazon.com:

• "The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an" by Yusuf Ali (leather-bound version). This is by far the most widely read and cited English text of the Koran.
• "The Glorious Qur’an" by Marmaduke William Pickthall.
• "The Qur’an" by H.M. Shakir.
• "The Message of the Qur’an" by Muhammad Asad.
• "The Koran: The Holy Book of Islam with Introduction and Notes" by E.H. Palmer and Reynold Nicholson

There are many other translations. Feel free to choose any one as a starting point. If you are doing scholarly research, you need to read multiple translations and preferably the original text of the Koran in Arabic.

Finally, there are a number of very good books on Islam. One of my favorites is No god but God, a recent book by Reza Aslan. No one book will give you an understanding of Islam or any religion - similarly, reading a translation of the Koran will not give you a full understanding of Islam. Like the study of any religion, the study of Islam is not a one-stop deal - the reader will benefit from multiple viewpoints and multiple sources. Anyone who pushes one at the expense of others is selling you something. Beware false prophets.

The latest wingnut hit job on Barack Obama is a two-pronged attack. First, it tries to paint Senator Obama as a Muslim (i.e., "terrorist" ) who cannot be trusted. Second, and more subtly, by forcing the Senator and most thinking people to point out that the Senator is not in fact a Muslim, it leaves the implication that being Muslim is something to be feared. This second line of attack is the subject of this post.

Others have pretty much made mincemeat of the nonsense being flung at Senator Obama, so I won’t spend time here defending the Senator. I will only add two points. First, anyone who knows anything about the education system in Indonesia would laugh at the wingnuts’ ignorance. Second, the Bush Administration actively supports Islamic education in Indonesia through the American Corners program. (psst…one more thing: don’t tell the wingnuts that the Asian Development Bank just gave $50 million to develop madrasa education in Indonesia).

Regarding the American Corners program, behold Karen Hughes, public diplomat extraordinaire and George W Bush confidant, cozying up to those Islamic educators in Indonesia:

Let us get back to the charge that somehow being Muslim is a bad thing - that Muslims cannot be trusted, that they must be feared and watched. A lot of Muslim commentators that are dragged out every time there is a suicide bombing usually go into a defensive crouch: don’t blame us, we are the moderate Muslims; we categorically reject the latest heinous crime, etc., etc., etc. This image of Muslims claiming their "moderate"ness and the incessant Muslim bashing that comes from the wingnuts is poisoning the well. It has led to the notion that unless Muslims jump every time some Muslim has done something horrible, they are not being patriotic or they are supporting the terrorists. This notion has taken hold lately - Muslims are being painted as a monolithic herd and the only way to proclaim one’s patriotism or innocence is now to distance oneself from the herd. I have written in the past that this is a dangerous trap for Muslims to fall into - yet here we are.

I recommend a different approach. I recommend an approach that I hope you, the reader, will find to be quintessentially American.

I declare: I am proud to be a Muslim.

I am proud to be a Muslim. I am proud to have been raised in the Islamic tradition. My parents taught me tolerance, respect for others, respect for one’s elders, honesty, dignity of labor, and other essential qualities of a good and decent life. My parents raised me to celebrate diversity and strive for understanding rather than confrontation. In other words, the values I have been taught are Islamic values - just like they are Christian values, or Jewish values, or Hindu values - they are family values.

I was born in a majority Muslim country. I learned at a very early age the importance of tolerance for other religions. I grew up surrounded by other religions. I celebrated pooja with our Hindu neighbors in my village; I celebrated Christmas with my Christian nanny. My mother, a Muslim, studied at a convent in Bangladesh; I went to a school run by Christian missionaries in Dhaka.

I grew up in one of the largest Muslim majority countries in the world. That country, Bangladesh, has a secular constitution that guarantees freedom of religion - it is a constitution that borrows much from the American constitution. That country, Bangladesh, has had two female prime ministers - imagine a Muslim country with not one, but two, women who have ruled it. Bangladesh was formed in part to protect the rights of its people - Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists - to live in a secular state. All my life, I have lived under the Muslim belief that there is "no compulsion in religion".

I am proud to be a Muslim.

I grew up admiring American ideals. I memorized the Bill of Rights as a child. I read and absorbed the Constitution of the United States - the result of thousands of years of human evolution. I immigrated to this country, became naturalized, and with my right hand raised, I claimed that Constitution as my own.

I am proud to be an American and a Muslim.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That Constitution guarantees me the free exercise of my religion and forbids the establishment of a state religion. That Constitution celebrates diversity.

I am proud to be an American and a Muslim. I am grateful that my daughter is growing up in a country that protects and celebrates diversity. I am confident that the pitiful and ignorant hatemongering will ultimately fail.

Finally, if the reader will indulge me, I have a message today for the Debbie Schlussels of the world: you can kiss my American and Muslim behind.

The title of this post is a statement of fact. Before the hate mail starts to pour in, let me explain…No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

When I wrote my previous post, the ghastly cell phone video [CNN’s sanitized version is here] of Saddam Hussein’s execution had not yet surfaced. I had argued then that the execution would make a martyr out of Saddam. Now I am certain of it.

Saddam died reciting the Shahada, which is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam. The Shahada is the Muslim testimony of faith: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." Saddam recited the longer form: "I testify that there is no god but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is his messenger." To become a Muslim, one has to recite the Shahada, usually in front of two other Muslims. Muslims will also recite the Shahada, as Saddam did, moments before death.

Every Muslim, including myself, knows the Shahada, in its original Arabic, by heart. The spectacle of Saddam Hussein, while he was being taunted by masked men moments before his death, reciting the Shahada had the effect of humanizing him to the Muslim world. The fact that the execution took place on Eid-ul-Azha did not particularly help his executioners’ cause with the Muslim world. The timing of the execution was an affront to Muslims - protestations that it was the Iraqis, and not Washington, who decided the timing will fall on deaf ears in the Arab and Muslim world.

Before Saddam’s execution, I did not think it was possible to humanize the Butcher of Baghdad - I was wrong. During Saddam’s rule, he sent many people to the gallows and torture chambers. His cruelty was well known throughout the Arab world. Yet, by putting him to death in such mafia fashion, with his executioners in death squad garb, the thugs of Iraq and their benefactors in the Bush Administration have managed a Herculean feat. Through the power of video, they have managed to humanize a tyrant.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times. Already in Iraq many long for the stability of Saddam’s rule. It is not difficult to imagine that the men who executed Saddam, while chanting "Moqtada! Moqtada! Moqtada!", are the same men who deposit tortured corpses of Sunni men, with drill holes in their heads, all around Iraq. The grainy execution video made it quite clear to anyone who was not paying attention that George W Bush has handed Iraq over to sectarian militias and death squads.

By some estimates, this new Iraq has already cost over 650,000 lives. Those numbers suggest that the thugs that rule Iraq today are far outpacing the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein’s regime. By comparison, Saddam looks good. This is a fine legacy for George W Bush and his war of choice.

"Rock The Casbah" is probably the most misunderstood political song of modern times, but like this post it has nothing to do with rock and roll and everything to do with politics and religion…

I don’t often write about Islam directly. The last time I wrote about my views on Islam was over a half a year ago. But I read a post yesterday via Crooks and Liars that I feel I need to address. The post, entitled "Western Muslim Opinion On The War In Iraq", either inadvertently or deliberately puts up the mother of all straw men. The straw man and its attempt to knock it down is in large part the reason we are still in Iraq. We are in Iraq still because for too long the American public has been fed a steady diet of misinformation about the nature of the conflict there - and this post propagates the misinformation.

I am a Muslim, I live in the West, and I have an opinion on the war in Iraq. Given that the title of the post addresses me directly, I feel that I am well positioned to answer it. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a Sunni Muslim.

The post, from Eteraz.org, exhorts Muslims to speak out against the methods of Muslims in Iraq:

I have to say, I am severely hurt by what Islam has become in Iraq. In fact, to say that this blatant murdering of civilians by the militants contains any remnants of Islam, is difficult if not impossible. The Islam of the Sunni militants is a theology of anarchy which has no respect for the rules of war, or the values of Islam. The Shi’a themselves are no less. Islam does not stand for total war, but the Sunni and Shi’a militants violate that prescription almost regularly (to the tune of thousands of murders of average Iraqi civilians). We Western Muslims can oppose the American occupation, but we also have to oppose the way the insurgents are brutalizing and defilling life and human dignity.

…

The Sunni militants’ version of "insurgency" and "freedomfighting" is non-sensicial; they want not to fight the "occupier" but to kill the occupied. It is the most heinous and disgusting form of "resistance" I have ever seen in my life, or read about. Their strategy is: if we murder enough Iraqi elders, women and children, then the Americans will leave. I beseech Western Muslims to take heed of this. I know you are anti-war, and I know you wish that Americans left Iraq, and I know you think Bush is a liar. I think all these things. But please, for God’s sake, can you at least recognize, that the strategy of "resistance" being employed by the militants is barbaric. I challenge any person to find me any instance in the history of Islam where murdering civilians as a way to resist an opponent was considered legitimate under Islam. There is no such event.

…

The "Islamic" thing for the insurgents would be to attack only military targets. If they cannot attack the military targets, then they have lost. These are the rules of Islamic Law. The Shariah doesn’t say that "well, if you can’t attack the military, go ahead and slaughter any one who comes across your way." That’s not Islam. Please recognize that. That’s nihilism. It has no honor. It is not Islamic.

My point is pretty simple: a Muslim that opposes the War in Iraq must also oppose the methods of the insurgents and speak out against them. I don’t care if you think that criticizing the insurgents bolsters the American occupation. If your condemnation of murder is based on political strategy, then I have to say, you need to check your Islam.

The post buys into the meme that Muslims are complicit in the "War on Terror" if somehow they don’t denounce as un-Islamic actions by those designated as "them" in George W Bush’s "War on Terror" in Iraq. It feeds the notion that the Iraq conflict is a part of the "War on Terror" and the "them" is Islam or a "hijacked" version of Islam.

I do not consider it a duty of Muslims to oppose the violence in Iraq as "un-Islamic". The post lays it out: "a Muslim that opposes the War in Iraq must also oppose the methods of the insurgents and speak out against them." Why? Specifically, why Muslims? Who says that Muslims, just like everyone of good conscience, are not horrified by the violence and killings in Iraq? Who says that Muslims are not opposed to this chaos? I feel no inclination to draw a line here between me, a supposed "good" Muslim, and "them", who are the "bad" Muslims in Iraq. Killers and murderers are just that, as they have been throughout history, and I feel no inclination to give them the mantle of Islam, however "bad" their use of it may be. The War in Iraq was not, and is not, a "Clash of Civilizations", and I feel no desire to label it as such. I feel no desire to conflate Iraqis with al Qaeda as "them" as George W Bush’s "we must fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here" slogan implies. Suggesting this conflict has something to do with "what Islam has become in Iraq", as the writer asserts, is a gross misreading of the conflict in Iraq and is the kind of thinking that fuels the remaining support for George W Bush’s ill-advised policy in Iraq.

Iraq has been, since at least March of this year, in a state of civil war. It is a civil war not over religion, but over tribal and sectarian lines. The Shia-Sunni split in today’s civil war is a convenient shorthand but it is not quite accurate. The writer of the post states:

The Sunni militants’ version of "insurgency" and "freedomfighting" is non-sensicial; they want not to fight the "occupier" but to kill the occupied. It is the most heinous and disgusting form of "resistance" I have ever seen in my life, or read about. Their strategy is: if we murder enough Iraqi elders, women and children, then the Americans will leave.

The killing in Iraq right now has very little to do with "resistance" to the occupier. The killing of Shia by Sunnis is not meant to drive the Americans out of Iraq. The American presence in Iraq currently is almost irrelevant. The American invasion and occupation was the catalyst for the civil war, and to that end, it has succeeded spectacularly in destroying civil society in Iraq.

There are a number of conflicts going on in Iraq. There is first the sectarian civil war between the Shia and Sunni Arab communities. There is the struggle for Kirkuk taking place between the Iraqi Arabs and the Kurds (this in many ways is the most intractable of the conflicts facing Iraq). There is a fight emerging between the multiple factions within the Shia community - this is the bloody struggle between the Sadrists and the SCIRI. The government of al Maliki will be a casualty of the battle within the Shia community. There is an Iraqi nationalist insurgency going on against the Americans. And lastly, there is a battle between foreign Islamists and the American forces in Iraq. So, when Iraqis butcher Iraqi, they are settling their own scores - they are not killing Iraqis to expel the Americans. Only people like Dick Cheney in their narcissistic existence believe that Iraqis kill each other because they don’t like him or his boss.

The current Shia-Sunni violence in Iraq is driven by tribal loyalties. It is a political fight and not a religious one. When civil society broke down in Iraq during the American occupation, the country began to disintegrate along tribal and sectarian lines. The so-called debaathification of Iraq essentially decapitated Iraqi civil society - what was left was chaos.

The Shia-Sunni split in Iraq has in many ways come full circle. The Shia-Sunni split in Islam originated in Iraq. The split started as a political and tribal dispute, not a religious one. The dispute is over who should have succeeded Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, as the first caliph (ruler) of the Muslim community. After Muhammad’s death, his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, was elected the first caliph. However, some in the Muslim community felt that Muhammad’s son-in-law (husband to his daughter Fatima), Ali, should have been the first caliph. These followers of Ali, or Shiat Ali (Shia, for short), are the modern day Shia. The Shia believe that the caliphate should pass down the descendants of Muhammad, not through elected position. It is worth noting, at the risk of blasphemy, that Ali is not a direct descendant of Muhammad.

The dispute, between Shia and Sunni, then is all about who should wield political power. It is a tribal dispute between the tribe of Abu Bakr and the tribe of Ali. Its western analogue is the difference between electing your leader and believing that your leader has been divinely ordained, as in western monarchies.

To round out our foray into Islamic history, I should note that the last descendent of Ali was Muhammad al-Mahdi. He is considered the last of the twelve Imams by the Shia. At the age of four, after inheriting the title of Imam, al-Mahdi disappeared. The Shia believe that al-Mahdi did not die, but was "hidden". When al-Mahdi failed to reappear after a few centuries, the Shia chose to elect a supreme Imam from a council of twelve scholars as their spiritual leader. The Shia believe that the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, will return some time in the future.

So, in modern day Iraq, the fight between the Shia and the Sunni once again is over political power. To put it crudely, the dispute is over which tribe should rule Iraq after Saddam Hussein. The unresolved tribal dispute that has its origins in Islamic history, continues to rage in Iraq now that civil society has collapsed. In this fight, George W Bush’s "War on Terror" is irrelevant.

 [Cross posted on Taylor Marsh]