By Shaahima Fahim- MM Correspondent covering Sri Lanka and the GCC

The city of Dambulla in Sri Lanka, more known for its representation in tourism brochures as a registered heritage destination for culturally-inclined tourists to the island, made headlines of a less-idyllic nature on the afternoon of Friday the 20^th of April – when Buddhist monks led a 2000-strong protest against a local mosque. Intimidation in the form of marching picket-wielders, fire-bombs being hurled and emotionally-driven chants demanding the demolition of Masjidul Khaira led to the cancellation of Jumaah prayers at the masjid, the evacuation of worshipers and effective cordoning off of the premises.

Said protestors claim that the land on which the mosque is built is of reverential value and sacred to their faith, the reason for which the 'illegal structure' must go.  The Muslim community of Dambulla has countered the allegations stating that the mosque has in fact been lawfully registered and operational for the past 50 years.

Muslims in Sri Lanka make up roughly 8% of the 21.5 million-strong population, a percentage tying them in third place with their Christian counterparts, after Buddhism and Hinduism. A statistic that also has them tagged a 'minority' in the Sinhala Buddhist dominated (70% of population) nation.

Surprisingly (as is not usually the norm with these type of targeted attacks) the majority of immediate public reaction exchanged over social media and online forums was not of reactionary animosity directed towards Buddhism and the Buddhist community as an entity, but rather a collectively-acknowledged finger of disapproval pointing in the direction of another sort of minority  – the minority of radical trouble-makers representing  the very anathema of what Buddhism entails.

Aside from a negligible faction of ideological individuals out to instill and fester strained Muslim-Buddhist relations, true Buddhists embarrassed at this misrepresentation sympathized with the Muslim community, and the Muslims though understandably upset at being targeted in such a fashion, in turn acknowledged that the attacks were not definitive of general public sentiment.

All ears however were directed to the then-silent government, at the time yet to take a stand on the issue.

On Sunday the 22^nd of April, the Prime Minister's office released a statement ordering for the mosque's closure, but 'assuring ' the Muslim community that they would be provided with the necessary facilities to facilitate the relocation of Masjidul Khairah to a safer location. The decision claimed to have been collectively made with the consent of the country's Muslim leaders, but the ministers in question have denied having had any say at the time.

This portrays the Sri Lankan government in a very negative light both internally and across international waters, especially to the Muslim countries who voted in support of Sri Lanka in the recent US-backed UNHRC resolution last month.

Despite a history in the island dating as far back as the 8^th century, Sri Lankan Muslims feel they've been plated an unfair share of occasions to feel targeted, especially over the last couple of years. What with a similar incident in September 2011, and when earlier this year more than a hundred visiting Islamic preachers were asked to leave on grounds relating to flouting Sri Lanka's immigration laws – this sentiment is not without argument.

The nationalization and politicization of Buddhism as a state religion has always been a cause for concern among the religious minorities, having the potential to hinder any balanced decision making that can serve to suitably placate all parties concerned.

The ethnic minorities have however proven their mettle in tolerance (not mere complacence) in light of recent events, but the minority in question that needs to be dealt with more pressingly, is this new surge of religious radicals set out to widen the divide on peaceful co-existence.

At the point of this going to print, the repercussions of this ordered move was only just getting started with a volley of words exchanged between the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka and the so-called 'Buddhists' behind the attacks.

The Muslim community of Sri Lanka seems to have now resorted to placing greater expectancies on the well-positioned Muslim parliamentarians (a considerably large representation in the current regime) than in the government as a whole. That in exercising their rights as MPs and leaders they will be dutifully positioning the well-being of the Muslim community before personal fears of potentially risking their political footing on the boards they represent.

If there is anything productive to come out of all of this, it is the exposition of the not-so-lesser-evil of the religious extremist. For like the hate-driven Breivik murders in Norway earlier this year, the exhibitionist tendencies of these misfits in question are being broadcast (and received) for what they truly are. A pandemic not just for the governments of Asia, Europe or America to learn to quash effectively long-term, but also a pressure test for the targeted groups to come out of it better represented than when they went in.

Image Courtesy: Associated Press

Israel's nervousness and isolation is best indicated by the attempts to counter this movement. It has organized massive public relation campaigns, initiated events such as Israel Peace Week and has sent out delegations on speaking tours all over the world. Condemnation of IAW pour in from right-wing politicians and media outlets continue to brand the event as a hate fest which is rooted in misinformation and anti-Semitism.

All this comes at a time when informed commentators agree that Israel implements a system of apartheid. A recent report by the United Nations concluded that Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories 'exhibit features of colonialism and apartheid'. B'Tasleem, Israel's leading human rights organization, published in its report Land Grab that Israel 'has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel any where in the world since the apartheid regime of South Africa'. The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa also concluded in its legal study that Israel is guilty of apartheid crimes.

Why use apartheid?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a multi-faceted one. At the core of it lies an illegal occupation coupled with innumerable human rights violations, war crimes, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, colonialism and apartheid. Solidarity activists of the past largely focused their struggle around ending the occupation, human rights violations and state-sponsored terrorism.

Focusing on the apartheid nature of the occupation represents a newer strategy in the movement, and perhaps the most effective one to date. This is a dimension of the conflict which was ignored largely in the past; partially because it is something which has developed overtime. It is the aspect of the conflict which affects Palestinians everyday.  Apartheid is a term which stirs strong emotions in the Western psyche; by exposing Israel as a perpetrator of this crime one has a much higher chance of changing public opinion towards the Zionist state. This has also allowed activists to structure their strategies in a similar fashion to the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980's. The apartheid policies of South Africa ended shortly after US withdrew its support for the regime. By forcing our governments to change their unequivocal support of Israel, we have the greatest chance of aiding an end to the conflict.

Israeli Apartheid Week is a unique (and proud!) Canadian contribution to the Palestinian solidarity movement. It started off in 2005 at the University of Toronto by a group of dedicated student activists. It was shortly followed by the BDS Call (Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions) made by 170 Palestinian civil societies. Through lectures, protests, concerts and film screenings, this week is dedicated to raising awareness about the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people. It also focuses on measures that can be employed by average citizens to help end Israeli apartheid. The event is now organized on university campuses in over a 100 cities across the globe.

Success of the anti-apartheid movement for South Africa was rooted in educating the public about this inhumane system. Given the lack of knowledge about this issue amongst the masses and to emulate former movement, this series will seek to inform people about what apartheid is, why it applies to Israel and how we can help fight it.

Next Post: What is Apartheid?

Mindanao, Philippines was recently hit by Typhoon Sendong (Washi), the deadliest cyclone to hit the country in the last 12 years. More than 1200 people died, drowning as the main cause of death. Tens of thousands of families were affected and displaced. Floods carrying logs, rocks and mud from the mountains damaged homes, cars and infrastructure. Since the storm struck in the middle of the night and there was no flood warning system, the population was unprepared resulting in a great deal of damage and a high death toll.

Later about a month after the disaster, people are still recovering in evacuation centers and there is ongoing reconstruction and relief work. As delegates of Amal Foundation of Malaysia providing assistance and community service, we had the opportunity to learn about and see the condition of the Muslim communities in Mindanao, at first hand. We collaborated with the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), an organization that has been mandated to determine, lead and manage relief, rehabilitation and development programs in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. We focused primarily on Muslims because extending help and supplying aid directly to them is crucial, since Muslims are often excluded from the official government's listing of victims. Also, as brothers and sisters in faith, it is our collective responsibility to assist them with their problems.

Allāh says in the Qurʾān:

“The believers, both men and women, are awlia (helpers, supporters, allies) to each other…” [Al-Tawbah, 71]

The Prophet also said:

“Whoever relieves a calamity that has struck a believer in this world, Allāh will relieve for him one of the calamities of the day of Judgment, and whoever makes things easy for a person in trouble, Allāh will make his matters easy in this life and in the hereafter, and whoever shields the faults of a Muslim, Allāh will shield his faults in this world and the hereafter, and Allāh will help and support his servant as long as he is helping and supporting his brother” [Sahih Muslim]

“The most beloved people to Allāh are those who help and benefit others the most, and the most beloved actions to Allāh , is pleasure and happiness that you cause to enter the heart of a Muslim, or to solve one of his problems, or to pay off his debt, or to prevent him from being hungry, and working to help my Muslim brother is more beloved to me than making I'tikaf in this masjid for a month, and whoever controls his anger, Allah will conceal his faults, and whoever controls his ill feelings, Allāh will fill his heart with contentment on the day of Judgment, and whoever strives to help fulfill a need for his Muslim brother, Allāh will make his feet steadfast on the day of Judgment, and bad manners ruin good deeds just like vinegar ruins honey.” [Sahih Al-Jami' - Graded sound by Sheikh Al-Albani]

History of Muslims in Philippines

Indeed, it is true when it is said that history is written by the victors. During our brief stay, we learned about the other side of history and came to understand the long and gory struggle of our welcoming hosts.

The arrival of Islam in the Malay-Indonesia archipelago and the Southern Philippines dates back to the late 13^th and early 14^th centuries when Arab merchants and missionaries brought Islam to Southeast Asia through the development of trade and trade routes. In the Southern Philippines, the core of the Muslim communities was developed when Muslim missionaries and traders married the local population and produced Muslim descendants. It was later that Muslim political figures arrived and introduced Islamic political, educational and religious institutions.

The Sulu Sultanate was established around 1450, and Muslim influence spread northward, reaching the island of Luzon. In fact, when the Spanish colonialists arrived, they were astonished to find a strong Muslim presence when they just had expelled the Moors from Spain after 800 years of conflict. Due to their similarity to the Moors, the Spaniards called them Moros, which today has become the name of preference when speaking of the Muslims in the Philippines. The Spaniards took over most of Luzon and Visayas and converted the population into Christianity.

The Sultanate was already 71 years old when the Spanish colonialists invaded the Moro territories in 1521. Due to the Spanish colonial policy of subjugating and Christianizing the Moros, there was fierce resistance and wars broke out in opposition to fight the Spanish attempts to establish dominance over Mindanao and Sulu. Having failed to conquer the Moros, the Spaniards signed them over to the Americans in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Later, the Americans signed them over to the Filipinos when the Philippines gained independence in 1946. However, the American regime managed to abolish the sultanate as a political institution through a brutal war, and imposed their socio-cultural, economic and political institutions on Moro societies.

After independence, the Philippine government encouraged the landless non-Muslims of Luzon and Visayas to settle in Mindanao to resolve rural instability. This resulted in tension due to competition for land, and, as a result, the most productive agricultural land was taken over by the settlers. However, although Mindanao contributed significantly to the national treasury, only small ventures were planned for development in there, especially in the Muslim areas.  This systematic marginalization caused resentment among the Moros, which eventually turned into open rebellion. Consequently, influenced by a series of incidents, in particular the Jabidah massacre in 1968 where at least 28 young Muslim recruits of the Philippine army were killed by their superiors, they were convinced that armed struggle was the only way to attain self-determination.

After the evolution of political resurgences, fragmentation, clashes, ceasefires and peace talks, negotiations are now being pursued, in order to discuss the establishment of a Bangsamoro sub-state, a far cry from its original demand of independence. Although they were previously granted autonomy in 13 Muslim majority provinces, and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was devised, discontentment resumed, as it was only autonomy in name, but not in practice.

During my trip, I came to realize that the response of some to this series of events is natural. It fits the frustration-aggression theory by Ted Gurr who argued that frustration does not necessarily lead to violence, but when deprivation is prolonged and sharply felt, it often results in anger and eventually violence.

I am not advocating violence but it is inevitable for separatist movements to rise when their aim is to attain the determination to retain control of their own culture, language and territory and not to be manipulated by foreigners and elites who deprive them of their rights.

I still remember their last remark as we were saying goodbye:

May Allāh grant them victory and we pray that we will see the fruit of their struggle in the near future insha'Allāh.

Related Video:

Reem is a 10^th grade student at Al-Arqam Academy in Doha.

A couple of months ago, several Palestinian prisoners were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier. While everyone seems to know every detail of Gilad's life and his freedom, few talk about the Palestinian prisoners, who by most accounts, suffered more terribly in Israeli prisons.

Some of the prisoners were sent to Doha as part of the deal. They were treated like heroes by the locals here. Two of the freed prisoners from Israel visited my school to tell us about their lives in prison and how they felt. The two men were cousins; one appeared to be in his late thirties and the other in his late forties. The two spent ten years in prison together.

They spoke in Arabic (Palestinian dialect) so the following account is an approximate translation of what we heard, with help from some of my friends:

In the beginning, they thanked our school for inviting them to speak and told us they were very happy to be talking to us.

The men described their prison rooms as small and approximately three by three meters. Sometimes eight people shared this tiny space. The food provided by the authorities was generally foul, sometimes with visible bugs, and harmful when eaten.

The two then gave us a glimpse of the torture they underwent. They told us that they did not want to disturb us psychologically, so they limited the details of the torture. They underwent two kinds of torture: physical and mental. They believed their mental torture was much worse than the physical torture.

For physical torture, they had different kinds of punishments. They would put bags or material on their faces so that they couldn't breathe, and a lot of prisoners died from that torture. They would hang them by their hands with chains, and then beat them. Beating was the most common torture. Also, they would put the men's heads under a faucet, and the water would continuously fall on their heads with so much pressure, that they felt like their heads would explode.

As mental torture, during prison trials/hearings, they would bring the prisoners' family members and relatives and beat the family members in order to make the prisoners admit to everything that they, the Israeli authorities, were charging them with.

The men said that they were barely ever allowed to have any visitors. On the rare occasion when a visitor was allowed, the visitors would have to go through a strip search as a form of humiliation for both prisoner and visitor and to discourage future visitation.  That was done to one of the men's sister.

Other important points mentioned:

• There were approximately 27 women in the prison
• In order to get a TV/radio for news or entertainment, they decided to go on a hunger-strike, and a few people even died. When they were finally given a TV, it barely had any worthwhile stations
• The judge told the prisoners that each of them had a secret file, which no one was allowed to see, which had all the information about them and the proof for whatever they did. And then they were asked if they did do that or not, and regardless of their answer, they were sent to prison
• A student asked how the prisoners managed to remain patient during these hardships, and the men replied that they kept their faith in Allah, and that kept them sane and alive

In conclusion, my class-mates and I were really touched by the stories of these freed Palestinian prisoners. Many of us were teary-eyed and the account was so vivid that we felt that we were in the prison with these men. We were impressed by the faith that these men had, despite the great odds of ever being freed.

The Arab League officially halted its observer mission to Syria on Saturday the 28^th of January 2012, just a month after agreeing to introduce the presence of their monitors across the beleaguered republic.

The current state of the Arab Republic needs no introduction; with the number of fatalities escalating to hundreds on a daily basis under the authoritarian rule of President Bashar Al Assad, and more recently with the heavyweights China and Russia vetoing a draft UN security council resolution pressing for his immediate resignation, all news bulletins are pointing Middle East-wards.

An 18-page confidential account of the League's mission was recently just leaked, and only serves to highlight its impotence as a functioning political collective.  Citing shortage of equipment and dispatches of ill-qualified monitors among other absurd excuses for retreating from this particular mission, the Arab League can now add 'the Syria attempt' as the cherry to its metaphorical pie of failed interventions.

Ever since its formation in 1945, the Arab League has relinquished many an attempted mediation to its Western counterparts or the UN.

In the Iraq War of 2003, it was not the Arab League that intervened but the non-member nations, Iran and Turkey. Palestine in the Arab-Israeli dispute has also not been provided with any support save for a half-hearted egging on from the sidelines in the form of the proposed (yet snubbed) Arab Peace Initiative.  And more recently, the League's decision to remain mum on the twin uprisings from earlier last year in the overthrow of Presidents Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, as well as its silence on the violence that followed in Bahrain and Yemen.

So with just a negligible success rate since its inception 66 years ago (see timeline), and with its role in abetting the establishment of Kuwait's independence as probably its most memorable accomplishment, it really is  no wonder that faith in the organization is waning.

Experts and political commentators blame the League's inability to reconcile internally between the priorities of individual member states (wataniya) and the interests of the general Arab allegiance (qawmiya) for getting in the way of its political clout. By allowing its hands to be tied by a combination of said inter-state pressures, as well as with individual members preferring to flex economic muscles to win personal battles in deference to asserting themselves as a collective force, it has become increasingly evident that the concept of Arab unity has little or no relevance to the self-proclaimed facilitators of the 'Arab cause.'

It probably is best then that in the case of Syria as well, the Arab League hands over responsibility before inflicting more damage than doing good.

Although the standard procedure of the international community (as witnessed from other 'Arab Spring'esque interventions) when it comes to mediations is a drawn-out process of: (a)acknowledging a 'state of emergency,'(b)condemning the incumbent regime, (c)calling for (from afar) a regime change, (d)pledging assistance to the victimized citizens and threatening imposition of trade sanctions, and finally (e)military/economic arbitration, a firmer management of affairs from without appears more efficient, albeit barely. Although ideally, umpiring from within the region would have proven less protracted.

The general consensus being that this is one missed opportunity too many for the Arab League, and any hope of salvaging a beleaguered reputation as the olive branch-bearers to both member and non-member Arab nations can no longer be entertained.

So if, in this repeated show of incompetence, the Arab League is only cementing itself as just another band of witnesses to the bloodshed, perhaps then it is not just the Assad regime that needs dissolving.

From BBC

Gunmen have attacked a church in north-east Nigeria killing at least six people, the church's pastor says.

Johnson Jauro said the killings took place when gunmen burst into his Deeper Life Church in Gombe, capital of Gombe state.

He said his wife was among those killed. Ten other people were injured.

Nigeria has recently experienced a surge in ethnic and sectarian violence. The government declared a state of emergency in parts of the country.

“The attackers started shooting sporadically. They shot through the window of the church, and many people were killed including my wife,” Mr Jauro told Reuters news agency.

“Many members who attended the church service were also injured.”

No group said it carried out the attack, but the Islamist group Boko Haram recently carried out a string of bombings on Christmas Day, including against a church in the capital Abuja which killed dozens of people.

Earlier on Thursday, two suspected members of Boko Haram were arrested after a father and son were killed in Maiduguri in neighbouring Borno state.

Escalating violence

The wave of Islamist violence is one of the biggest problems faced by President Goodluck Jonathan

Attacks by Boko Haram have become increasingly frequent and are a major problem for the Nigerian authorities.

President Goodluck Jonathan has vowed to “crush” the group.

Several northern states surrounding Gombe have had their borders sealed off under the state of emergency declared by Mr Jonathan following the Christmas bombings.

Boko Haram is fighting to create an Islamic state and wants to impose Sharia law across Nigeria.

Followers of Boko Haram believe any political or social activity associated with Western values should be banned.

This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers and receiving a secular education.

Boko Haram regards the Nigerian state as being run by non-believers and this was the case even when the country had a Muslim president.

In unrelated violence on Sunday, at least 50 people died in the eastern state of Ebony in clashes between two ethnic groups over a land dispute

Obama as a Leader

In a recent Foreign Policy article, Aaron David Miller argues that the Israel-Palestine issue is a “lose-lose” situation in which Obama is better off not getting involved. His position has the appearance of cogency; after all, isn't the real aim of every president to get reelected? How can Obama be expected to desire anything else? “There's no deal now that anyone can broker,” Miller remarks with resignation, “The president is right to protect his political flanks. This isn't cheap or dirty politics: it's smart.”[3] Cynically concluding that “Obama should veto [any proposed bid for Palestinian membership in the U.N.] and sleep well that night,” Miller aggressively— and inexplicably— supports the status quo of American politics as if it represented some value that is now under threat and must be protected. His whole argument devolves, predictably, upon this vanity when it is revealed that the reason for him taking this stance is his belief that “reelecting Obama next year [in order to avert a Republican victory]…should be the primary goal.” All the other reasons for supporting the veto — such as protection of “interests” or the ultimate inefficacy of the UN membership bid — are just platitudes. He gives no evidence that clearing the way for Palestine's unilateral ambitions will harm US interests, and he seems not to recognize the fact that everyone is already aware that the US will veto the bid — Obama has promised it. The point of the Palestinian bid is to send a message, to oppose the status-quo.

Miller's argument that the Palestinians are not fit to declare statehood because they lack unity around a single political party forces the Palestinians into a catch-22 scenario. They cannot declare statehood unless they are unified around a single political party, yet a (successful) declaration of statehood is the one thing that would truly bring Palestinians together. Miller's assertion that “no Israeli government will be willing to make a deal with a partner thatdoesn't control and silence all the guns of Palestine” reveals the degree to which the American consciousness is warped into thinking that Palestine is required to accept the partnership (read: overlordship) of Israel in navigating its path to statehood. Moreover, expecting a stateless people to be perfectly unified is unprecedented and unfair. Not only do the Palestinians occupy widely divergent geographical areas, but they also profess two different religions. Such is the ridiculous presumption of those who want either to prevent the State of Palestine from ever coming into existence or to prevent it from being anything more than a permanent ward of Israel and the West, only half real and devoid of dignity.

Miller is right to criticize Obama for inciting false hope in Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans alike. Much of Obama's positions and rhetoric have proven to be as fragile and as empty as a balloon. This is precisely the reason why influential policy experts ought not to go as far as Miller would have them go to make sure Obama gets reelected. Even if Obama is the lesser of two evils in comparison to most of the potential Republican candidates, subordinating the Palestine question to partisan politics obscures the urgency of the real human tragedy taking place. Palestinians are trying to claim a right that was stolen from them sixty years ago, and all policy experts can talk about is “national interests,” which is, more often than not, just code for “Israeli [expansionist] interests.” But for those who are genuinely concerned about real, tangible US interests (to which maintaining a permanent alliance with Israel has absolutely nothing to offer[4]), a reversal of terms may provide a fitting admonishment: If the US were to aggressively pursue the creation of a Palestinian state, wouldn't popular anti-Americanism in the Middle East all but disappear, thus easing relations with trade partners far more lucrative than Israel, a country deficient of oil? If the US loses an ally in Israel, won't it gain one in Palestine?

The so-called “Do-Nothing Strategy” might be described with exactly the same wording Miller denies: cheap and dirty politics. Its cheapness lay in the fact that it prioritizes the exigencies of party politics over real human concerns. Whether or not Obama gets reelected next term should take a back seat to such a pressing humanitarian concern as reversing West Bank settlement and clearing the path toward Palestinian statehood. The office of the president no longer has independent significance anyway. The president frequently serves as a scapegoat for the country's problems, but he has very little power or initiative to act independently to change the status-quo. There will never be another “great president” like those of the 18^th and 19^th centuries because each one, as soon as he enters office, is pressed with the necessity to conform to the demands of the most powerful lobbies. If Obama were a great president, he would be brave enough to act on the dictates of morality rather than in the interest of self-perpetuation. If he were a great president, he would, with his own hands, permanently ruin his chances of being reelected, and he would do so with zeal. George Washington, that first and greatest American president, established the honorable democratic tradition of term limits when he refused to run for a third reelection, despite the fact that his extraordinary level of popularity would have enabled him to crown himself king if he wished. He subordinated his own ambitions to a higher moral principle.

Obscurantism and cynicism are what allow the Israel-Palestine land dispute to continue — Obscurantism that diverts focus away from the Palestinian tragedy by focusing on nebulous phrases like “national interests” and “helping our allies.” The resignation inherent in the “Do Nothing Strategy” resembles the attitude taken by David Ben-Gurion, a Zionist ideologue and one of Israel's founders:

Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours—even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs.[5]

Resignation to the interminability of the dilemma of Israel and Palestine only buys time for the further expansion of settlements, and thus further diminishes the likelihood that the problem will ever be solved. Palestine deserves the right to make a unilateral bid for statehood. Israel hadn't obtained bilateral agreement when it seized Palestinian land in 1948, so Israel is groundless in trying to make the Palestinians do so, especially considering that the Palestinians are just trying to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Yet, based on the reaction from some quarters to a few lines in NTC chairman and Libya's interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil's speech, one could almost feel a tinge of regret. What did Abdul Jalil exactly say so horrible?

“anything contradicting the shari'ah is void, he gave two examples: the law forbidding polygamy, and laws allowing riba (interest)” [approx translation]

Some tweeps were in uproar. Self-declared liberal secularist, Sultan Al Qassemi, a popular and in-the-know tweep from UAE (must-follow) was quick to scoff at Abdul-Jalil:

“The Islamic Republic of Libya” brought to you by NATO.

Shrewd politicking from Mustafa Abdul Jalil to announce to thousands of freedom fighters that their quota of women just quadrupled.

The first line seems to indicate that Sultan was looking for NATO to bring something else. Was NATO there to facilitate freedom or did Sultan expect NATO to facilitate (impose) Western ideals as well? And in his second tweet, Sultan seems to have missed the fact that Abdul Jalil didn't need to announce anything that Allah hadn't already given the fighters 1400 years ago.

The editor of Gulf News (major newspaper in the Middle East), Abdul Hamid, similarly chimed in, “Mustafa Abdul Jalil has just given an evidence to all world that Arab uprising will end up to be Islamic states.” By tying the end result of revolution to state of affairs that Abdul Hamid shows obvious distate to, he is really insiniuating that it was better for the uprising not to occur at all. Better Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, fill-in-the-blanks than God forbid an nation whose citizens CHOOSE to live under Islam?

Habiba Hamid, seasoned writer and journalist at UAE's the National newspaper, tweeted, “No Muslim actor can claim a monopoly on Islam/Islamic thought. Any that does hijacks it”. Yet, she seems to have missed the fact that this is not the first time that Abdul Jalil has said that the new Libya will be based on shariah (yes that would be Islamic law- link below). So, what was so different this time? That he actually gave examples of what shariah might involve? Perhaps we should thank him for making clear what he is saying instead of assuming what he is not.

This blog article by Blake Hounshell sums up the sentiment of the do-gooders only when it suits their end-goals. Hounshell, normally an astute and fair-minded writer, falls prey to what I call “shariah-scare”. Just like the “ban-the-shariah” movement in the USA is based on hearsay and lack of any fundamental evidence, similarly this “shariah-scare” is based on few facts and much fear. The facts, as we have it, currently include three words: “shariah”, “polygamy” and “interest”. All of which one way or the other incorporated in most Muslim countries, even in current favorite Arab Muslim nation, Qatar.

Reading Hounshell's blog-post and his composition of revolution timeline, from how Abdul Jalil “sold the revolution” to how undercurrents of Islam were ignored, to how the issue has come roaring back, his intended thesis is quite clear. Libyans threw a fake bait at the West, and the West swallowed it all, bait and rod.

Hounshell then asks “If Libyans want to outlaw interest and bring back polygamy, fine, but let them do so in a democratic and transparent way”

But herein lies the inherent hypocrisy of those raising these alarm-bells, especially not befitting a seasoned writer such as Hounshell. First of all, this is not the first time that Abdul Jalil has talked about laws being based on shariah. But more importantly, in a speech on September 13 this year, Abdul Jalil talked about Libya being a democratic, civil society.

SO, the question for Hounshell and others who now suddenly want Abdul Jalil to wait for Libyans to vote is this: Why didn't you the raise the same alarm-bells and questions when Abdul Jalil wanted to build a democratic society? In other words, why is it okay for Abdul Jalil to promote democracy without asking the people, but it is not okay for him to promote shariah without asking the people? Shouldn't what is good for the goose be good for the gander too?

Real supporters of freedom are content that Libyans have gotten rid of a despot, and will be able to make their own mind. Abdul Jalil, as the current leader of Libyans can feel the pulse of his people and has the full right to express what that pulse might be. Those who are opposed to hearing him talk about Islamic laws should also be opposed of him talking about secularism, democracy or any other form of government or ideology. And if they don't, and they won't, then that smacks of double-standards, not befitting of sincerity to the nation of Libya or for journalists, to their profession.

On 7 October 2001, at approximately 12:30pm EST, US and British forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom, an aerial bombing campaign with the declared objectives of overthrowing the Taliban regime, destroying or capturing Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, and bringing an end to terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

In one of the fiercest displays of military might in modern history, early combat operations included air strikes from land-based B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress bombers; carrier-based F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet fighters; and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US ships and submarines in the Arabian Sea. In spite of this overwhelming display of “shock and awe” force, it was not until April of this year that US forces found and killed the alleged culprit behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden, through a US covert operation in Pakistan.

Less commonly remembered is that in the weeks following 11 September 2001, the Bush Administration held high-level secret negotiations with Taliban officials. As reported by the BBC, CNN and the Washington Post, among other news outlets, US-Taliban talks included the possibility of turning over Bin Laden to an international criminal tribunal. Although most Americans are unaware and policymakers are loathe to admit, negotiations proceeded so far that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral third country for trial if they were shown evidence of his culpability in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration turned down the offer. Meanwhile, with the exception of one brave dissenting voice from California's ninth congressional district, Congress had already authorized the use of military force by 14 September 2001.

As the tenth anniversary of our war in Afghanistan looms, Americans have the right to ask: Would not the capture and trial of Bin Laden through negotiation and engagement—with a resultant disruption of al-Qaeda networks, and without the deaths of over 1,700 US soldiers, thousands of Afghan and Pakistani civilians, and trillions of dollars in taxpayer income—have been a preferable path?

True, history is notoriously malleable in hindsight. But as any good historian would also admit, history is not an agreed upon set of dates and facts of the past. It is rather what a nation chooses to remember—and forget. It is about collective memory. The Bush Administration's secret negotiations with the Taliban are not the only inconvenient truth left out of the dominant narrative of 9/11 and our war in Afghanistan ever since. While some hailed the killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan to a tune of “Mission Accomplished,” meanwhile in Afghanistan, civilian casualties, inexorable corruption, and mind-boggling waste have filled up the margins of the official story. According to a recent report by a bipartisan commission on wartime spending, the US government wasted thirty billion dollars in contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade. This includes three hundred million dollars on a Kabul power plant the government will not run, and 11.4 billion dollars on facilities for the Afghan military that have been deemed unsustainable.

Behind precious American lives lost, families shattered, and the unquantifiable disservice to taxpayers and a public sector already under enormous financial strain, an even more disconcerting fact emerges from our Afghan war. From the beginning, the US-led military campaign prompted concerns over the number of Afghan civilians it was killing. Although no government has cared to count, the Los Angeles Times found that in the first five-month period from 7 October 2001 to 28 February 2002 alone, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 reported civilian deaths from the bombing campaign. An independent report by Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire states that in the twenty-month period between 7 October 2001 and 3 June 2003, US-led military operations killed at least 3,100 civilians. Shockingly, a February 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died as an indirect result of the initial US airstrikes and ground invasion, due to starvation, exposure, or wounds sustained while fleeing from zones hit by air strikes.

Read rest here.

A few days ago, a fellow activist from Twitter contacted me to discuss an online campaign for Syria. The campaign called for NATO to intervene in Syria. This was a topic that I hadn't made up my mind about at that point, but I wasn't completely against due to the brutal nature of the Syrian regime toward the people of Syria. I had to question whether or not I was going support that call. My final decision was to go for it for the following reasons:

1. When it comes to bloodshed, the regime is more willing to spill the blood of its people than anyone else. When things escalate, and I believe they will, the regime will have no problem killing hundreds or thousands of Syrians on a daily basis as it did in Hama. Any targeted strikes on Shabeeha forces will reduce the number of civilians killed because the regime will be more focused on protecting itself.

2. Financially, Syria stands to gain a lot from its new-found freedom. The world has become one big trading village. The Syrian people are known to be great business people. Unfortunately they have been robbed from the opportunity to prosper as they are treated as servants of the Assad family. Any business person, especially those with large businesses, knows that they must share part of their wealth with a family member or close friend of the Assad clan. There have even been incidents where businesses were taken away from their owners by members of the Assad family with no court system to protect them.

When someone looks at the conditions of living in Syria, he or she can see that it will be nothing but better in the absence of the regime. Protesters know that stopping now is suicidal. The current circumstances all point to a continuous increase in bloodshed. Any economic restrictions that helping countries might impose on Syria will not mount to anything nearly as bad as the daylight robbery of the Syrian economy done by the Assad family on a regular basis. In addition to the previously mentioned points, I am sure that the Syrian people don't mind living the rest of their lives in a dignified manner.

The call for intervention is not limited to a specific organization, country, or method. I do believe that the most acceptable intervention is an intervention by Turkey and Arab countries. On the other hand, the most acceptable type of intervention is the establishment of a neutral zone that is protected.

Regardless of who or how, one thing is clear. The Syrian regime is not going to be toppled by street protests. It's willing to kill thousands and that is exactly what it will do if protests stop. Protection of civilians in Syria has become an international obligation.

http://mayorkhairullah.blogspot.com/2011/10/leaning-toward-intervention.html