YouTube Direktvideo link

Generally speaking, whenever the issue came up in my conversations with national Muslim leaders over the past few months, I have been relaying my personal preference for McCain over Obama, and that is primarily due to what I believe the policy progress will be under each administration. Normally I avoid the media like the plague (especially for the past few years) because I consider myself to be a policy analyst, not a political activist.

Anyway back to the request for the interview: (more…)

McCain: Its Radical Islamic Extremism, Stupid

Well this wasn’t the precise quote… but it sums it quite well. To quote then in the spirit of completeness:

“the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we’re in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.” [Read about this and more at “Perils of Honesty in Politics”-LA Times]

We already know that McCain and team are secretly hoping for another terrorist attack occur in USA. If we needed a reminder, then it happened in the Freudian slip by McCain’s senior adviser, Charlie Black, who after agreeing that Benazir’s assassination probably helped McCain capture the Republican candidacy (proud moment for Pakistan; Pakistanis can actually affect US politics, boohoo… payback?):

As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” [Fortune]

So, I was wondering what more can McCain blame Radical Islamists, Islamic Radicals, Extremist Radical Islamists, Radical Extremist Islamists, Islamic terrorists, or as favored by McCain, “Radical Islamic Extremists”. The following are few more things that McCain can blame a variation of “Islamists” and “Moslems” on: (more…)

In the spring of 2008, a conference was held on the outskirts of Washington, DC. Entitled Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan, it hearkened back to the Winter Soldier testimonies held three decades ago during the Vietnam War. Of the testimonies we filmed, this one, by Iraq War vet Jon Michael Turner, was the most compelling and intense.

See Also: American Soldier Exposes US Policy in Iraq

Jon Stewart, himself a Jew, can take on Obama’s pandering without being labeled antisemitic (”self-hating Jew” anyone??). The following statement by Jon Stewart says so much in so little (see rest of video below):

“Oh, I forgot, you can’t say anything remotely critical about Israel and still get elected President. Which is funny, because you know where you can criticize Israel? Uh, Israel”

How despicable the state of politics and media in America, that you can be more critical of Israel in Israel and not in America! A progressive Jewish blogger wrote: (more…)

So it’s funny that today I read about this incident in which two Muslim women were barred from sitting behind the podium at an Obama rally in Detroit, thus keeping them out of camera range - and thought, well there you go. The scarf on your head that says you’re Muslim - it really is more than a scarf. It is an idea, as the book says. (more…)

Please excuse me while I rush off to the bathroom and proceed to barf up the remains of my dinner. Indeed, that’s how I feel after having read the above news article.

Apparently, Mubin is such a good Canadian boy - how could we ever doubt his word? Goodness me, the dear lad cannot even bring himself to say the word “Negro” (or the more derogatory derivative thereof)… such are his sensibilities. A lewd joke further increases his credibility in the eyes of the reporter (it served as a reminder that one can be an observant Muslim and have a sense of humour).

But oh hey, let’s forget the fact that he’s a crack addict and a history of violence! Sssshhhh, don’t you know that it has nothing to do with the trial at all? Stop bringing up irrelevant facts! Oops, wait, it’s not that irrelevant after all - turns out that the reason he took on the case was so that he could score enough cash to pay for his addiction.

The media, however, is quick to forgive their darling for anything that could possibly hurt his reputation; although his beard, “Islamic dress” and certain other glaringly obvious signs of “Muslim-ness” are usually things used to belittle Muslims in the media, in this case the fact that he gleefully entrapped his brothers in Islam and created this whole mess trumps it all. Mind you, Mr. Sheikh does have a way with words; an eloquence that cannot be denied… and unfortunately, this contributes a great deal to the masses acceptance of what he has to say. How he says things, as opposed to the veracity of what he says, is what affects the audience the most. As the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “Indeed, in eloquence there is magic.” (Abu Dawood, Ahmad)

What interests me is that Mr. Sheikh’s testimony (summarized below), is given far more attention and less scrutiny than that of the defense lawyers’. Although it’s been noted over and over again that the entire “plot” was haphazard, foolish, and quite unlikely to happen in real life, the media loves returning to the original picture painted - that of a group of dangerous young Muslim men plotting to commit some drastic act of terrorize on Canadian soil… indeed, in the initial stages, the case was labelled as some kind of Canadian version of al-Qaeda.

According to the media’s twisted sense of (il)logic, Mubin Sheikh’s testimony simply reinforces that idea, despite the fact that anyone objectively scrutinizing the details of the case (the public details, anyway) would easily come to the conclusion that - assuming these young men really did harbour those feelings and wished to plan such an attack - it had absolutely no chance of success… that is, until Messrs. Sheikh and Unknown Informant #2 conveniently arrived on the scene with military experience, weapons licences, and the funds to obtain ingredients for bombs - all these being previously unavailable to the group.

In any case, let’s quickly summarize the main points of Mr. Sheikh’s testimony.

• The plot was already developed before he became involved. Targets were identified, method of procedure decided upon, and claims were made of weapons caches acquired (never materialized, however).
• A group of youth attended a 12 day “military camp” somewhere in Northern Ontario, where they played paintball as a simulation of live combat and watched “Jihadi videos.” Oh, and they made frequent trips to the nearest Tim Horton’s for hot chocolate.
• The ringleader of the group claimed to have been overseas in Afghanistan, and to have “Jihadi contacts” and “links” to shuyookh in Saudi Arabia.
• The leader (mentioned above) was extremely emotional - at one point Mr. Sheikh questions his mental health, citing a possible imbalance.
• Several individuals known to have access to weapons were identified for recruitment.

Something to note is that on one hand, Mr. Sheikh presents the group as being weak, inexperienced, and incompetent; on the other hand he argues that they were dangerous and their attempts were serious enough to be successful.

Although the inconsistencies and glaringly obvious weaknesses in the case are clear to anyone who scrutinizes the known facts, it is yet to be seen how the court case will play out and what the fate of the remaining suspects will be. AlHamdulillaah, 7 of those involved have had their charges stayed/ dismissed; Allah only knows if those currently in custody will be able to follow suit.

Luttwak’s argument borrows heavily from Daniel Pipes, who also attempts to prove that Obama is a former Muslim. Pipes claims that Obama was listed as “Muslim” on some documents from his elementary school in Indonesia and that he was occasionally taken to Friday prayer by his Muslim step-father. In the minds of Luttwak and Pipes, these events, sprinkled throughout what seems to be a very ecumenical childhood, are sufficient to make Obama a former Muslim and current apostate.

The issue of apostasy and execution in Islam, and how it applies to this situation, has been addressed elsewhere, so I will only mention a few points. First, this whole discussion relates to Obama’s religious conduct and identity as a child. Consider this: I have never been a Jew nor have I ever practiced Judaism. Yet when I was a child, my mother took me to a Passover event at a local synagogue. I don’t remember much about it except that she made me eat horseradish, which was a bit traumatic. As far as I know, the synagogue did not make me declare my religion before entering, but if it had done so, my mother would have written “Catholic”. Perhaps then you could say I was a practicing Catholic, unless you ever witnessed me at church, sitting several seats away from my grandfather so he couldn’t tell that I was lip syncing the Nicene creed because I didn’t know the words. Somehow, I think my religious experience as a child is fairly representative, and yet in the case of Obama, it has become a matter of national debate, significant enough to warrant space in the New York Times.

Obama knew Muslims as a child and even had Muslim relatives, through whom he gained some exposure to Islamic practices. OK, but how could any reasonable person conclude that Obama was a “practicing Muslim” and that his eventual embrace of Christianity constitutes apostasy? Normally I would say that Pipes and Luttwak, like all extremists, have an aversion to context and subtleties. But in this case, it’s not even subtle. First, there is the claim that Obama is a former Muslim based on some childhood experiences. Then, it is later argued that Muslims may view him as an apostate, but only if they mimic the same preposterous line of thinking that allowed Pipes and company to declare him a Muslim in the first place.

The fact is that Obama can only be considered a former Muslim in the same way that Pipes and Luttwak can be considered former Muslims. According to Islam, everyone is born with the natural predisposition toward pure monotheism, which the religion then nurtures and cultivates. That is why many of those who embrace Islam call themselves “reverts” rather than “converts.”

As a Muslim, I hope that Obama might accept the pure monotheism that was taught by Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them. However, if he chooses to exercise the religious freedom that is in fact protected by Islam, then I am still happy to see the good in him and his promises of change. And incidentally, I hope Pipes and Luttwak will return to Islam as well.

By Irum Sarfaraz

What is the legacy of Pakistan? Pakistan is in the throes of severe and aberrant conflict and the center of world attention at the moment. Stuck in a precarious geographical location with the medal of being a nuclear state around its neck, it has put the US and its allies on edge with its internal strife, its supposed harboring of terrorists and an overall political situation that refuses to be abided. But assessing the situation analytically even if this past decade was taken out of the life of the country, there is still little in its history to prove that things have ever been what could be deemed peaceful or even conducive to the social, economic or political advancements of any country. Education, basic civic amenities, clean water and health is a continuing woe for the vast majority of the 165 million. Why has Pakistan never been able to settle down?

Perhaps this predicament can be put in context with the following hadith: Umar al-Khattab narrates that the Prophet (saw) said, ‘Deeds are [a result] only of the intentions [of the actor] and an individual is rewarded only according to that which he intends. Therefore, whosoever has emigrated for the sake of Allah and His messenger, then his emigration was for Allah and His messenger. Whosoever emigrated for the sake of wordly gain , or a woman [whom he desires] to marry, then his emigration is for the sake of that which [moved him] to emigrates’. In the case of Pakistan, it suffers because the key person responsible for its acquisition, Jinnah never had a Muslim state in mind in the true sense of the word. No doubt he wanted a separate land for the Muslims but according to many historians exploited Islam as the means to gain the end. The niyaat was political gain not religious autonomy; the weapon was religion. Since Islam and Muslims were outwardly proclaimed as the sole reason, though it was not the case, the end result of the act has been jeopardized. In other words Pakistan suffers as a direct fallout of this discrepancy in niyaat.

Jinnah was a modern Muslim and a secularist by every definition that one uses to define the word.

(more…)

Part 1 | Part 2

Goldberg then discusses some interesting ideas from the founders of Zionism. They believed that Zionism would cure European hatred of Jews. The Russian Jew would leave the anti-Semitism of his homeland to become a “normal” person in Palestine, thereby earning the respect of Christians. More interesting still, the Muslims were never part of that equation. Jews assumed [perhaps based on the history of Muslim tolerance of its Jewish minorities] that Muslims/Arabs would welcome the enrichment that Jews brought with them; in the words of a novel character: “The Jews have enriched us. Why should we be angry with them? They dwell among us like brothers. Why should we not love them?”

But David Ben-Gurion, first prime-minister of Israel, could not have been unaware. Ben-Gurion said that Zionism would “bring a blessing to the Arabs of Palestine, and they have no good cause to oppose us.” To which Arab leader, Musa Alami responded, “I would prefer that the country remain impoverished and barren for another hundred years, until we are able to develop it on our own.” But Ben-Gurion believed that numbers would bring the cure. He said in 1933, “In the course of four to five years, we must bring in a quarter of a million Jews and the Arab question will be solved.”

While Goldberg mentions Ben-Gurion’s optimism, he fails to mention Ben-Gurion’s famous statement:

I don’t understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. [As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.]

The rest, of course, is history. Arab/Muslim opposition did not abate. Rather, it remained as Ben –Gurion stated. Goldberg then repeats Grossman’s fear for Israel’s survival:

“I think that this fear, this idea that Israel will not exist anymore—I cannot even utter specific, clear words because it’s really frightening—this idea or fear hovers above us all the time,” Grossman told me. “It is so present, even though we suppress it almost violently. Whenever it infiltrates the consciousness, it’s almost paralyzing. You can see if you look at the numbers—how few we are, how many they are, how hostile this region is, how we have never been accepted into this region.”

Grossman then emphasizes the notion that Israel has “not accomplished statehood, the realization that this is a legitimate state”, rattling off some fears: fanaticism, non-acceptance from other religions, parts of the West that have not accepted the idea of Israel, lack of inner confidence, and doubts about survival: “We’re a story that other nations read and borrow. But if you are a story, you can end.”

Goldberg then brings emigration to America into the picture, that “their story will come to an end not because of the actions of Iran, or of the Palestinians, but because they choose to end it, by assimilating completely.” But Grossman insists that, “Israel still gives a Jew the best chance of feeling at home in the world”

Goldberg then connects the lives of Grossman and Olmert by mentioning a memorial service for Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an extremist supporter of the settlements. Grossman doesn’t shake hands with Olmert and takes the prime-minister to task in this gathering of over 100,000 people. He tells Olmert to speak directly to the Palestinian people about their future, “Go to the Palestinian people. Speak to their deep grief and wounds, recognize their continued suffering.”

Grossman then addresses Olmert’s powerlessness in doing the “right thing”, withdrawing from the West-Bank, mentioning Olmert’s inability to even touch “illegal outposts” [though all settlements in the occupied lands are illegal by international standards, these outputs are illegal even by Israeli standards!]. Olmert has thus far removed only ONE outpost of 200 people. Grossman ties speaking to the Palestinian people with the existence of Israel itself: “When will he speak to the hopes and fears of the Palestinians? When will he do something to save us?”

The article then shifts to the author’s interview of Olmert himself, in his highly secure, windowless compound. He describes Olmert as someone who can project kindness, but can be a “haranguing, preemptively defensive man”. In the next paragraph, Goldberg mentions something interesting: how a group of American Jews are “investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government in Israel” because Olmert is too dovish for them, and is making too many compromises! This is further evidence of that claim that it is harder to speak against Israeli policies in America than it is in Israel.

In the interview, Olmert effectively dismisses Grossman’s criticism as being driven by “grieving fatherhood”. Goldberg mentions Olmert’s severe unpopularity in Israel (less than Bush’s in America), his shady business dealings, his reputation as calculating, and the official enquiry concerning the Lebanon war that found him “arrogant and hasty”. Goldberg then hearkens back to the lack of Jewish confidence in running their own affairs. In the words of former PM Ehud Barak:

“The last two experiments of Jews running a political state were not great successes,” he said, referring to the Israel of King Solomon’s time, which ultimately ended in the exile to Babylon, and to the Jewish commonwealth of the Second Temple period, which was conquered by the Romans, who scattered the Jews.

When Goldberg asks Olmert about these existential fears, Olmert again invokes Iran. He then details a list of Zionist achievement, and when asked about flaws in this plan, he retorts, “who cares!”. When confronted with the question, “Why is Israel less physically safe for Jews than America?”, his response is even more ballistic—that no one is safe anywhere, but at least in Israel, Jews can fight for their lives as Jews, not as Americans or Australians! When further pressed if the success of the American Jewish community lessens the need for an Israeli state, Olmert quips tellingly: “Never, never, no way. By the way, Jews in Germany—and I don’t draw any comparison at all—Jews in other parts of the world were very successful all their lives, and that didn’t provide them with safety.”

Goldberg calls this a “careless and cynical” statement due to the implication that the Holocaust might be repeated in America. Goldberg then addresses the reasons for Olmert’s shift to center-left, contending that it finds justification in the earliest history of Zionism. Max Nordau, the essayist and critic, wrote in 1897:

Zionism is meant to create for the Jewish people a homeland in the land of Israel, assured by international legitimacy. One sentence, the whole story. It’s about Jewish people, about defining the community of Jews as a nation, one in the family of nations. Second, it’s not a state for all citizens, but for the Jewish people. Third, it’s in the land of Israel, but not necessarily all the land of Israel. And it has to be secured by international legitimacy.

[“Not for all citizens, but for Jewish people” is a statement that is of course reminiscent of apartheid]. But leftists take comfort from the clause that excludes the necessity for all of Israel’s land, i.e. the belief that “greater Israel” is indeed Israel’s land, but it is not necessary to regain all of it to fully comply with Zionist goals.

Goldberg mentions that international legitimacy is a major concern for Olmert, and that Jewish organizations in USA would not support unequal voting rights for Palestinians in a “one-state” solution. This contrasts to the other Jewish influences in America, as mentioned earlier that strongly oppose a “two-state” solution.

Goldberg then reminds us of the “old” Olmert, one who was against the Camp David Accords with Egypt, negotiated by his party’s leader Menachem Begin While Begin was cutting peace deals with Egypt, he was also busy supporting Gush Emunim (the Bloc of the Faithful), the “near-messianic group that seeded the West Bank with Jewish settlements”. Goldberg addresses the presence of 200,000 settlers who exert a lopsided political influence. He mentions their argument that when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza (expelling 8000 settlers), it led to Hamas’s rocket-attacks…not peace

Goldberg mentions that there are over 100 “illegal” outposts—those not approved by Israel [note: all settlements in occupied are illegal by international laws, but some are illegal even by Israeli laws!] and that none of them are in danger of being shut down. When Olmert removed one in Amona in February 2006, more than 200 people, including two Knesset members, rioted. Olmert, like Begin, was apparently a friend of the settlers but only recently awoke to the “threat the settlements pose”. Olmert alluded again to the initial euphoria after the 1967 war when Israelis did not believe that they could be stopped. Goldberg reminded Olmert that David Ben-Gurion himself had begun advocating Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories in late ’67.

Olmert then adds another dimension to his “change of heart”, by mentioning the change of Palestinian leadership and a desire for peace from the Palestinian side, and recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Olmert thus wants to strengthen Fatah’s hand over Hamas.

Goldberg concludes the lengthy article by mentioning the farcical nature of the Annapolis peace process, Bush’s lack of understanding of the process, Rice’s lack of respect, and Abbas’s lack of influence. Goldberg mentions the cliché that time is running out but insists that indeed, it is, as extremists on both sides are emboldened each day to maintain the status quo. In fact, Goldberg argues that the settlements are the greatest boon to Palestinian radicals, because it reinforces the image of Israel as an apartheid state.

“The settlements mean that the egg is hopelessly scrambled. Basically, it is already one state.”

Goldberg quotes extremist positions from both sides,

“It does not matter what the Jews do. We will not let them have peace,” Ibrahim Mudeiris, the imam of the Ijlin Mosque in Gaza.

“We have to hold on for a few more years, at most,” Ron Nachman, the mayor, said. “Then the world will realize that the solution lies with Jordan.”

The “Jordanian solution” of course is for all Palestinians to be displaced to Jordan, leaving Israel behind for Israelites. Goldberg mentions how democracy is irrelevant for many of the settlers and their leaders. He mentions his visit to Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, which educated many of the settlement movement’s leaders. This visit occurred before the school was attacked by a Palestinian gunman who killed eight students. The school’s Rabbi, David Samson, clarified the Yeshiva’s position for Goldberg:

Democracy is not a value for us. Justice is a value, and fairness, but not democracy. In the Book of Exodus, it says that the Jews shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. It does not talk about democracy.” The Arabs who live in biblical Israel, he said, can either choose “to get along with us, to live peacefully, or to leave.” He said the Arabs would have the status of “protected foreigners” in Israel; they would have local autonomy, but have no say in the governance of Israel.

What if the world rejects this? Goldberg asks, to which the Rabbi answers: “The world has always rejected the Jews. But God always provides. God will punish the Jews if they divide the Holy Land. A Palestinian state would be an abomination.”

Tragically, while many media outlets take great pains to highlight the extremism propagated by Islamic madrassas, not even an iota of similar effort has been conducted to expose the extremism propagated by many of the yeshivas in Israel.

Goldberg mentions the statements of a veteran Palestinian peace negotiator, who forecasts that a two-state solution may only be realistic for another 2-3 years. After which, all discussions will turn to a one-state solution, which Goldberg argues is neither practicable nor desirable from the Israeli perspective. “I’ll make a prediction that Israel will not commit suicide,” Yehezkel Dror, the head of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and a political scientist at Hebrew University

David Grossman, like most of Israel’s leftists, sees binationalism as simultaneously utopian and dismissive of Jewish feelings. “You know, binationalism doesn’t work in so many places in the world,” he said. “You see it in Belgium now. And they expect, with this really hateful combination of Jews and Arabs, that it will succeed here? It’s so wrong. Part of the cure for the historical distortions of both peoples is that they need a place of their own with defined borders. We have to heal separately. I’m a little suspicious of these people who would experiment on us with binationalism.”

Goldberg then states that many of Grossman’s allies have abandoned their hope for peace after the collapse of the Oslo accords. But Grossman hasn’t forfeited the cause. He also believes that Israel must negotiate with Hamas, which Goldberg doesn’t find appealing because of Hamas’s extremist charter.

Goldberg traces the failure of the Oslo accords, noting that the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled in the seven years prior to the collapse of negotiations at Camp David in 2000.

It is difficult to blame Palestinians for their cynicism about Israeli intentions regarding the West Bank. Only by closing outposts and dismantling settlements can Israeli leaders help the Palestinian moderates, and themselves.

Not one outpost, let alone “legal” settlements, has been dismantled since Amona was closed, which is the core of Grossman’s criticism of Olmert.

Goldberg concludes the article by touching on Olmert’s family members, many of whom have joined peace movements. He describes how Olmert has been almost begging Grossman for reconciliation, reminding Grossman how he (Olmert) has completely lost right-wing support.

The Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva announced shortly after the fatal attack that Olmert would not be welcome to pay a condolence call. “We cannot receive a prime minister who advocates against the spirit of the Torah and accept that Israel withdraws from a part of the Land of Israel,” a yeshiva official, Rabbi Haim Steiner, said.

And with this, Goldberg wraps up a stunning gaze into Israel’s soul:

“The prime minister suffers the casualties of war,” Burg [former speaker of Knesset, one of Olmert’s emissaries to Grossman] said. “He doesn’t sleep at night. He knows what Uri Grossman represents.”

See Also:

• Israeli Occupation Causes Terrorism (UN Report Finds)
• The Farmocracy Experiment
• Farmocracy Experiment Part-2 (The Gaza Crises)
• Israeli Lobby Losing Steam??