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.

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.

"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]

Investor’s Business Daily, tell us how you really feel:

The likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says he’s just fighting bigotry in leading a Democrat jihad to deny law enforcement key terror-fighting tools. But he is in the pocket of Islamists.

John Conyers, son of a leftist Detroit union activist, represents the largest Arab population in the country. His district includes Dearborn, Mich., nicknamed "Dearbornistan" by locals fed up with cultural encroachment and terror fears from a steady influx of Mideast immigrants.

Conyers, who runs an Arabic version of his official Web site, does the bidding of these new constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them. They want to kill the Patriot Act and prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings.

…

Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access, even though many of their leaders have been tied to terrorism (some CAIR officials have landed in the big house).

In 2003, Conyers hosted the first dinner on the Hill that celebrated the end of Ramadan for such Muslim leaders. It’s now a tradition. Incoming Democrat freshman Keith Ellison, a Louis Farrakhan disciple and first Muslim member of Congress, will no doubt expand the invitation list.

When I read the above editorial from the Investor’s Business Daily, the old song from The Police comes to mind:

Billy’s joined the National Front
He always was (just) a little runt
He’s got his hand in the air with the other cunts
You’ve got to humanise yourself

And this guy comes to mind:

If you don’t recognize the guy in the picture, click here and here.

[Via AMERICAblog]

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

On the occasion of Eid ul-Fitr, my family and I wish all of you peace, happiness and good health. Eid Mubarak.

Last Thursday the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died after a long battle with breast cancer. After a long and successful career, her writings turned toward harsh criticism of Islam after the September 11, 2001 attacks. She has famously stated that Muslims "multiply like rats" and "the children of Allah spend their time with their bottoms in the air, praying five times a day.” Although she was critical of the Catholic Church for being weak in confronting the Muslim world, she had a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI after which she praised him for his stronger stance against Islam:

“I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true,” Fallaci told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview.

That was before Pope Benedict XVI waded into the intersection of religion and politics last week with his speech at the University of Regensburg.

In his speech the Pope quoted the Byzantine emperor Manual II Paleologus’s critique of Islam and its prophet Mohammed:

The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Pope went on to say:

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

In response to the uproar that was caused by the Pope’s speech, the Vatican initially suggested that the Pope’s speech had been misunderstood and that the Holy Father was criticizing violent jihad and extremism and not Islam itself. Today the Pope released a statement saying that he was "deeply sorry" for the reaction to his speech. His statement fell short of the apology demanded by Muslim leaders and in classic macaca-esque style he apologized for how his speech was perceived rather than the content of his speech:

At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.

However, I suspect most Muslims would be very reluctant to engage in dialogue after the Pope chose to say, though through indirection, that Islam’s prophet only brought things "evil and inhuman" into this world. The Pope’s choice of words and his use of the quotation was not a critique only of violent jihad, but a criticism of Islam itself.

The impact of the Pope’s words will be felt much more broadly in the Muslim world than the manufactured furor over the Danish cartoons. Certainly the extremists in the Muslim world will take this opportunity to practice violence (in that they need very little excuse), but more importantly these words will have impact on the moderate and majority Muslim population. After the papacy of Pope John Paul II, during which he made great strides in bridging the gaps between the world’s peoples, the Church under Pope Benedict XVI had already begun to pull back from such reconciliation. Pope John Paul II, who was the first Pope to set foot within a mosque, was revered and respected in the Muslim world as a man of God. Pope Benedict XVI was already viewed with suspicion in the Muslim world, even before Tuesday’s speech, after he removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald from his post that promoted dialogue with other religions:

One of the first signs of a toughening of the Vatican’s stance came with the removal from office of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald.

The British-born cleric ran a Vatican department that promoted dialogue with other religions. A distinguished scholar on Arab affairs, he was an acknowledged expert on the Islamic world.

The decision by Benedict XVI to remove him from his post, and send him to Egypt as papal nuncio, was widely seen as a demotion.

Some wondered about the wisdom of the move.

The Pope’s speech last Tuesday only served to confirm for Muslims concerns about the direction of his papacy. 

If the Pope had left out the reference to Mohammed and Islam at the beginning of his speech, his later call for dialogue and his position against violent spread of religion would have been warmly welcomed by the majority of Muslims. However, he chose for his own reasons to include criticism of Islam and its prophet.

Over the last century Islam has already been under attack from within by Islamism. Islamism is a political ideology that seeks to transform Islam into a political system from a religion. In that Islam the religion is quite distinct from Islamism. The rise of extremism in the Islamic world in the 20th century is intertwined with the rise of Islamism and in many instances the two are indistinguishable. On September 11, 2001, extremism (and Islamism) broadened its attack on Islam and brought it to America’s shores. After 9/11, there was a natural ally waiting to join forces with the United States in combating extremism and Islamism - that ally was the majority of the Muslim world. However, as we all now painfully know, the last five years have brought division where there could have been alliance.

Into this cauldron of division the Pope has now thrown in his hat. Already the extremists in the Muslim world are using his words to justify further violence and further destabilization of the Muslim world. In the West and in the United States, the far right is already using the Pope’s speech as approval, if not religious sanction, of a violent approach to confronting Islam. Neo-conservatives have been using "Islamo-fascist" as a synonym for "Islam" for quite some time - now they will find new life and a wider audience.

The Vatican is trying mightily to lower the temperature of this crisis. The Muslim leaders should also try to do the same. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, demands from prominent Muslim leaders that the Pope apologize are counterproductive and add fuel to an already volatile situation. I hope these leaders will come to their senses and join the Vatican in calming the waters. The Pope has expressed himself in his speech and the message has been heard. The Vatican, since then, has stated that the official position of the Church regarding Islam has not changed in spite of the Pope’s speech. Muslim leaders need to take the Vatican at its word. The alternative is to let the Islamists and neo-conservatives fight to the death at our expense.

 [Cross posted at Taylor Marsh]

Dear Comedy Central,

It is with great concern that I learn of your censorship of the show "South Park". Your refusal to allow "South Park" to broadcast an image of the Prophet Mohammed has caused great harm to the cause of Muslims in the United States and the rest of the world. You have inadvertently strengthened the hand of extremists on both sides of the issue. By your actions you have given further credence to the growing image of Islam as a religion of violence and hate.

While I understand your genuine concern about the safety of your staff in light of the recent hysteria in the Muslim world over the Danish cartoon controversy, your recent censorship of "South Park" over Scientology suggests that you are bowing more to your pocketbook than to your conscience or a desire for security. This censorship is particularly egregious in light of your airing of the offensive scene involving Jesus in the very same episode of "South Park" and your airing of an image of Mohammed on an episode of "South Park" in July 2001.

Your censorship of "South Park" also displays and propagates ignorance of Islam. The Islamic tradition of not portraying human beings, especially the Prophet Mohammed, stems from early Islam’s desire to change the culture of idolatry that was common in Arabia in the seventh century. Islam taught that God is divine and does not have a human image and any comparison of God to humans is considered blasphemous. Islam made the very clear distinction that Mohammed was only a man and a messenger of God, not God himself or a progeny of God. Therefore it was forbidden to worship Mohammed or any other human being as a God amongst men. Muslims should refrain from portraying the Prophet Mohammed if they choose in keeping with the tradition of no idolatry. However, there is no reason "South Park" cannot portray Mohammed if it chooses to do so.

This does not however mean that Muslims do not respect Mohammed and hold him in high esteem - we do. However, we also recognize that Mohammed was a man and thus susceptible to human failings; therefore, we do not worship Mohammed.

The depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper was also very different from that attempted by "South Park". The Danish cartoon’s portrayal of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was an attempt to equate the religion of Islam with terrorism. In light of the recent resurgence of xenophobia in Denmark and the hatemongering of the right wing there, the cartoons had the force of political flame throwing. I was offended by the Danish cartoons for two reasons. First, it was attempting to advance the stereotype of Islam as a terrorist religion by painting all of Islam in the figure of Mohammed as terrorists. Second, it was a deliberate attempt at inciting hatred on both sides by a newspaper whose job should be to report the news and not make it. I was however more offended by the display of hatred and ignorance by some Muslims. The Danish paper got the response it wanted. Extremist Muslims obliged the paper by coming out of the woodwork and behaving exactly as advertised. It was a display of ignorance and hate that must have made the fear mongers on both sides very happy.

However, having the right to be offended should not be translated into forcing one’s offense on to the entire society. If you are offended, watch something else or write a letter. "South Park" has a long history of satire and poking fun at every segment of our society. Though at times offensive, more often it is just really funny. I reserve the right to be offended by "South Park" but I defend more strongly the right of "South Park" to satirize.

I urge Comedy Central to reconsider its decision to censor "South Park". By doing so you cause division in our society and give hate a platform to thrive. Thinking Muslims everywhere should protest this censorship louder than the fanatics who protested the Danish cartoons. It is time for Muslims to truly begin defending our religion against both the enemy within and the enemy without.

I thank Comedy Central for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Mashuqur Rahman

http://www.docstrangelove.com

Contact Comedy Central to protest the censorship of "South Park".