People cross flood water in the Masti Kalan village

The last two years have been like something out of an apocalypse movie for Pakistan. The huge wounds inflicted on the economy and the populace of this nation have not even begun to heal, and a fresh flood has arrived in Sindh.
People are no doubt fed up of the same footage of water-drenched peasants being played before them, and perhaps that is why the media in its utmost sagacity has decided not to show it. This does not take away from the tragedy on the ground, which is an utterly grave one with over 5.3 million people affected and more than 475,000 in camps having lost their homes to the oncoming waters.

It's like driving in an ocean and it's seriously scary

I have along with the team of SA Relief been visiting the rain-affected areas of Khorwah, Golarchi, Badin, Nindo, Khoski, Shadi large and Kohli to distribute relief in whatever way I can. SA Relief is no great NGO with minions across the land. It's a community-based initiative put together by 6 friends who couldn't stand by and watch anymore. Four of us are bloggers, that is me, Awab Alvi, Sabahat Ashraf and Arif Rafiq; two of us are from the business community (Nabil Jangda and Rehan Bandukda). Collectively what we have seen on the ground this time is definitely worse than the floods of last year. Of course people are going to tell you that the overall scale is lower. But this year's disaster is concentrated in one province and that has brought destruction with a magnitude that is utterly unimaginable.

One only has to drive beyond Thatta about one and a half hours from Karachi and it starts. The highway is suddenly surrounded by water from both sides. Half an hour into this and the water reaches road-level on either side and stretches as far as you can see. It's like driving in an ocean and it's seriously scary. Not only is the road upon entering the Badin district littered with people seeking shelter but is in several places run over with water: you can see fish and even water snakes the length of your car if you care to stop.
The problems do not end here, sadly. The destruction of homes and crops is just the start. This area is the breadbasket of Pakistan and grows sugarcane, rice, onions and tomatoes, and 5.3 million acres of this crop has been destroyed. The economic results will be before us in a few days with double digit inflation in food staples. Add to this the fact that an over-stretched army is trying its best to evacuate people with little or no response from them, and you have a situation resembling a nightmare. (More)

Attacking children was a real low. However, it was still out in Peshawar. Today, the horror came very close to home as a bomb blast outside the house of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Pakistan, Chaudhry Aslam. Aslam heads the counter-terrorism unit of the CID in Karachi. According to Ali Chisti of The Friday Times, “Chaudry Aslam is the one who killed Rehman Dakait (a notorious gangster in Karachi), captured numerous TTP, alQaeda & Quetta Shura members.”

What makes ones blood boil is that Aslam's house is right next to 3 major schools of Karachi and the area has several more in the vicinity. Thus, the blast which occurred at 7:26 am was at a time when the area was filling up with school going children and their parents. Had the blast occurred 10-15 minutes later the carnage would have been horrible. The initial reported death count is 08 people which includes 06 policemen and a child and her mother. The child went to the school my cousin's wife teaches at and their children study there. They were safe Alhamdulillah but it was terrifyingly very close to home. Not that the death of any in Karachi is superior to that of that the people in Peshawar and other areas. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for the bombing, saying Aslam had arrested and killed many of its fighters. “We will attack other police officials as well who are taking action against our people,” TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Speaking to the media right after the blast (partial video above), Aslam remarked:

“I was sleeping when they carried out this cowardly act and rammed a vehicle packed with explosives into my house.”

“I will not be cowed. I will teach a lesson to generations of militants.”

“I did not know that these terrorists were such cowards that they would attack sleeping children.”

Karachi, has not been a stranger to violence and around 10000 civilians have been killed in Karachi since 2002 due to ethnic, political, sectarian violence and incidents of terrorism. In August alone more than a 100 people were killed due to ethnic violence.

Citizen's Reactions

Some of the tweets this morning showed the reaction of citizens:

#karachi blast happened outside our friends house 32nd lane (adjacent to SSP house) house totally damaged kids family safe (via @DrAwab)

Our friends driver was killed he was ringing the house bell to call out the kids and take them to school – family immensely traumatised (via @DrAwab)

Its time to raise ur voice against these brutal inhumane terrorists responsible for slaying our little children daily. #Pakistan #terrorism (via @RiazToori)

“Damn , if I wanted a holiday for my birthday, I would DEFINITELY not want one if it meant a bomb blast wd occur” – schoolgirl #Karachi (via @BeenaSarwar)

“We saw this guy next to our car, his face was filled with blood and he was waiting for the ambulance!” – says my daughter's friend #Karachi (via @BeenaSarwar)

Trying to explain to my 4yr old – who's just woken up – why its not safe to go to school. #hatethis #Karachi (via @SalmaJafri)

“the blast was shit scary!” – friend of my daughter on facebook chat #karachi #blast (via @BeenaSarwar)

Blast was more powerful than needed to target just the SSP's home: 6-10 ft crater, nearby cars and houses damaged, massive sound (via @MadihaSattar)

The school teacher who was killed worked at Washington International School. Always used to reach early. Colleague of my mother's student. (via @Sabeen)

Just spoke to wife who's at the scene. The explosion happened right behind X's school. They would've been there at the time of blast if not for the wrongly parked car blocking ours in the apartment. (via @farrukhahmed)

Kid's school closed for next 3 days , all windows blown out (via @schawlaf)

Kids have nerves of steel, if we'd seen this much carnage at our times, many would be needing psychological help #Karachi #ChangingTimes(via @schawlaf)

People plan for next 10 years or even next 10 days, here you can't even plan the next day (via @schawlaf)

#Pakistan – all is well until it doesn't happen to you and when it does you are just news :'(

#Karachi (via @DrAwab)

Related articles

• Pakistan Bomb: Explosion Kills Several Outside Police Officer's Home (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bomber targets top Pakistani policeman; 8 killed(sfgate.com)
• Blast in
  Karachi targets SSP CID, 8 killed (tribune.com.pk)
• CID arrests suspected Hizbullah terrorist (tribune.com.pk)
• Suspected Taliban commander arrested in Karachi: CID (tribune.com.pk)
• Senior al Qaeda leader arrested from Quetta: ISPR (tribune.com.pk)
• Pakistan Navy base in Karachi attacked by terrorists (muslimmatters.org)
• Heavy bomb blast in Karachi (dawn.com)

A violent and unhinged dictator has used overwhelming air power and foreign mercenaries to mow down Libyans who dare protest against his tyranny. Teachers, lawyers, and peasants have taken up arms in a rag-tag rebellion against the dictator. Egyptians vow to help their brothers and sisters in Libya but can do little due to their own difficult political situation. There are a great many similarities between the genocide perpetrated by the forces of Mussolini in his vain attempt to re-enact the Roman conquest of Libya and the actions of Gaddafi today.

Back then, the Libyan people faced seemingly insurmountable odds against victory. They were armed with ancient rifles and swords whilst the Italian army faced them down with all the resources available of a modern state, everything from tanks to fighter planes. Despite the desperate situation, Libyans continued their struggle against their oppressors with persistence.

A large explanation of the will and resolve of the Libya people was exemplified in their leader – the Grand Sanussi. Although a native of Algeria, he studied in Morocco and developed his Sufi order in Makkah thereafter, before finally settling in Eastern Libya.  The Grand Sanussi was the very embodiment of Muslim unity for his followers. From his base in Zawia Baida (the White Monastery), he called people back towards an Islam free of sectarianism and superstition. His message reverberated around the world, but nowhere more than his adopted homeland of Libya. Within his lifetime it was estimated that a third of all Libyans were part of his movement.

Muhammad Al-Mahdi left behind one of his followers–Omar Mukhtar– to continue the struggle.  A Quran teacher from near Tobruk, Omar led the Libyans in their seemingly impossible struggle. Through a combination of faith and excellent military strategy, he managed to keep the hopes of victory alive. The oppressors showed no mercy, however, imprisoning large sections of the Libyan population in concentration camps attempting to starve them into submission. Over half a million died before Omar Mukhtar was captured by the Italians. Three days later, he was hung to death in front of his own people as a warning to all those who dared to believe they could overthrow the oppression of tyrants.

For a brief moment, the people of Libya allowed themselves to dream they may have achieved victory. Unfortunately, their hopes were dashed as they watched the ambitious young Captain quickly take on the persona of the tyrants they had once fought and, worse, became ever more repressive. Yet again, for the next 42 years, freedom would be put on hold. Until now. The majority of the Libyan people have risen up once more, refusing to give up even when Gaddafi brought his vengeance to the gates of Benghazi. As NATO and the West implement a No-Fly Zone and launch air strikes to prevent a massacre soon to be on the scale of Rwanda, the fate of Libya and Libyans still rests in the balance between the armies of a murderous dictator and the true sons of the Sanussi.

A Pakistani man shoots dead two Americans on a busy strip using an unlicensed weapon, and then another Pakistani colleague radioed by the shooter runs over a third American. Then all three try to feel the scene but are overpowered by the police and turned in.

The Pakistani man is found to have entered America on a business visa, claims to police that he was a “consultant” to the Pakistani Consulate, but the Pakistani government swiftly changes documentation at the Embassy to include him as an employee, to provide him legal immunity.

The Pakistani government then brings great pressure on America to “follow the Vienna Conventions” and to release the man, including statements from the Prime Minister & President.

——————

Scene from la-la land? Precisely. It’s hard to imagine that any citizen from any part of the world, let alone from Pakistan, could wreak havoc on a shopping strip in America and get away without consequence.

Such is the hypocrisy of American pressure on Pakistan (threats about aid, by Obama & to Ambassador) to release the now notorious, Raymond Allen Davis, the businessman-turned-consultant-turned-consular staffer-turned-embassy staffer. The American government wants Pakistan to comply with its own convenient interpretations of the Vienna Conventions for diplomatic immunity.

What Happened?

For those unaware of the situation, it is exactly as described at the top, except with roles reversed. On Jan 27, 2011, Raymond Davis shot dead two Pakistanis on a motorcycle in broad daylight on a busy shopping strip. The egregious incident led to three direct deaths and one indirect one when the widow of one of the shooting victims committed suicide due to her sense of hopelessness in a just trial.

Instead of letting Pakistani courts evaluate the legal ramifications of the situation and the extension of Vienna Conventions to Raymond, the entire US government apparatus including President Obama is bearing great pressure on their feeble stooges in the Pakistani government to release Davis without any consequence for his killing spree. By prejudicing a legal case with political expediency, Mr. Obama is further damaging his reputation in the Muslim world, and pretty much hammering the final nail in the coffin of the great optimism in his Egypt address to the Muslim world.

Window into the Vienna Conventions

As for the Vienna Conventions, the emphasis on the distinction between consular and embassy staff is not trivial. There is also little doubt that Davis was only placed in the Embassy rolls AFTER the incident.

Davis was not one of the embassy employees listed on January 25, 2010, two days before the incident However, a revised list submitted a day after the incident on Jan 28 carried his name.

So, there are two Conventions in play here. One is the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961, adopted 1964) and the other being Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations (1963, adopted 1967).

Article 29 of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations states that

the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

The United States would like to see him being treated as a diplomat (linked to the Embassy), with extremely expansive and broad immunity, and not liable to any form of arrest.

On the other hand, consular staffers have much more limited immunity, as under Article 41 (1) of the Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations which states:

Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority

There is little doubt that the case is extremely grave and Davis would face a competent judicial authority as applied under this scenario, which makes it understandable that records are being modified (sloppily) to apply Article 29 rather than Article 41.

Which Convention is appropriate?

Let's see what a couple of experts have been saying. In order to be treated as a diplomat, it is more than just being a staffer at the Embassy. Najmuddin Shaikh, a former Pakistan diplomat and Ambassador, concludes that Davis would have immunity under Article 29 “only if it was established that his presence in Mozang Chowrangi on that day was in 'execution of his duties' and that was something that had to be determined by a court of law.”

Similarly, former British Ambassador and Human Rights Activist Craig Murray concludes that the circumstances surrounding Davis do not allow for diplomatic immunity.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Agent Twist

Which Vienna Conventions might apply is likely to be only an academic exercise. More than two weeks ago, the Guardian reported that Raymond is in fact a CIA agent. Once that fact is realized, all the pieces of the puzzle fall nicely into place. There was a reason for the sudden rush to classify Raymond as a Consulate staffer, and then realizing the Vienna issue, there was another mad rush to classify Davis as an Embassy staffer. All done to protect Davis' real identity as a CIA agent, which of course makes the entire issue of diplomatic protection a moot point, as the Guardian hints:

Based on interviews in the US and Pakistan, the Guardian can confirm that the 36-year-old former special forces soldier is employed by the CIA. “It's beyond a shadow of a doubt,” said a senior Pakistani intelligence official.

Also, from the same article, we find that unsurprisingly, the US stooges in the Pakistani government were fully aware of Davis' CIA status but were complying with “immense pressure” of American directives to circumvent the entire justice system of Pakistan via the Vienna Conventions.

“Immense pressure” is probably being kind to Pakistani government. What is even more unfortunate is the acquiescence of the US media (including the New York Times) to yield to government requests and hide the information from the American public. By continuing to flout it as a case of Pakistan not complying with international conventions, Pakistan again became the whipping boy in the US media, with continuing negative implications for its public image.

A number of US media outlets learned about Davis's CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration. A Colorado television station, 9NEWS, made a connection… [but] removed the CIA reference from its website at the request of the US government. [Guardian]

Aftermath

Writing for CounterPunch, the journalist Dave Lindorff has written

“in other words, the prosecutorial, police and judicial authorities in Lahore and the state of Punjab are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in holding Davis on murder charges, pending a judicial determination concerning whether or not he can properly claim diplomatic immunity. The US claim that Pakistan is violating the convention is simply nonsense.”

In a strange twist, the US government has also been actively seeking an Islamic shariah-based approach of offering blood-money (diya) to seek Davis’ release! This is especially ironic in light of the laughable and Islamophobic attempts by several states to ban “shariah law”.   Under the principles of Qisas, blood money would be an option, only if the relatives of those murdered accept to forgive the murderer, but cannot be FORCED to forgive. The ruling emanates from the Qur'anic verse [2.178] that is a clear evidence of Islam's emphasis of mercy and life over punishment and death.

In conclusion, Davis needs to be tried by the Pakistani courts. If he escapes prosecution, then there would be no bigger travesty of justice, comparable only to the travesty of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s prosecution (persecution) and conviction.  I dare say Davis has a better chance of getting a fair trial in Pakistan than did Siddiqui in a New York court. While Aafia was sentenced to 86 years in prison for the ATTEMPTED murder of US interrogators in Afghanistan (in the complete absence of any forensic evidence), we have here a killer identified by witnesses that America wants freed under the pretext of conventions it itself routinely flouts as Glenn Greenwald cites. From the same linked article, I’ll leave you with more food for thought from Greenwald, one of the few defenders of truth in the American media:

Those crazy, primitive Pakistanis and their inscrutable Muslim customs.  Scandals over diplomatic immunity are usually one-time, aberrational occurrences…  But what happened in Lahore is part of an ongoing, continuous assault by American forces in that region.  They [Pakistanis] (but not we) hear routinely about the killing of their innocent civilians by Americans in their country.  Why don't we hear much about such things?  The Guardian article provides some insight: A number of US media outlets learned about Davis's CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration.

That's our intrepid, independent Watchdog press.  The cost of this conduct is so predictable — intense anti-American sentiment and the threats of Terrorism it produces — that a rational person would have to inquire whether that outcome is not a bug but a feature of our policy in that region.

In other words, American hypocrisy in its foreign affairs only leads to anti-Americanism, which ultimately feeds radicalism that will continue to haunt our nation.

I watched CNN and FOX News with contempt…as they were focusing on was how America could be affected, nothing on the where, what and how. Switching to BBC World News, I finally found something substantial to watch. Still, I did not fully comprehend the profound effects and ramifications of the bombing that were to come in British society. Perhaps it was due to my lack of understanding or the distance between London and New York. My parents were worried, not just because members of my family work in Central London, but also because I was due to start my degree at university that year right in the centre of London and I would have to travel on the Tube daily. Naturally, their feelings were understandable.

That day came and went and I began my first day at university with excitement, stress, and the joy of making new friends. It wasn’t until 7th July, 2006 came around that I truly felt the magnitude of the previous year’s events. I watched the memorial for the 56 people who died that day…and it was then that the tears flowed. I cried. I wept. The tears gushed for the people who had died. For their families who were suffering without them. But most of all, for the Muslims and for what was to come. I knew that it was going to be an uphill struggle for us all from now on.

So how do I feel 5 years on? I’m not quite sure. Yes, it has been an uphill struggle for Muslims in the West. But has it been as tough as I thought it would? No. But then that’s relative. How do I feel about 7/7 now? I still feel the horror and the shock when I go to Russell Square and Edgware Road. And it’s not like there isn’t something to remind me at the Tube stations either. I feel like my beautiful hometown has been tarnished…like someone broke it. But not just that, I feel like the Muslim community in London has become divided as a result of it all. And it hurts.

I just wish I could find the glue for it.

I pray that Allāh (swt) reunites us all and gives us all hidayah. May Allāh (swt) bestow His Mercy on us all. Āmīn.

Of course blaming Obama for being awarded the prize is absurd.

Nobel keeps its selection process a secret for fifty years and Nobel reported that its five person committee was unanimous, so speculation here is of no use.

I found myself having a sympathetic ear for a very unlikely source, Bill O’Reilly who sidestepped the opportunity to sling political mud and presented the award as “good for America”:

However, I can’t accept this stance (the idea that it is good that the world is “hearing” America and Peace in the same sentence) as the realities on the ground show that every major hotspot (Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine) have further degenerated since Obama’s term began.

Along with the famous sense of hope, human suffering has also increased and because of the pivotal role of American policy in the major conflicts occurring in Muslims lands, the number of my brothers and sisters in faith who are perishing continues to rise. Not exactly a change toward peace…

This idea that Obama was chosen for his efforts as President seems ridiculous due to the brevity (nine months) of his administration. So does the more accurate and definitely more outlandish nomination which happened in, count them folks, eleven days! You read that correctly; the deadline for nominations for the prize was a mere eleven days into Obama’s term. That means, for the nominator at least, Obama was worthy of this tremendous honor in less than two full weeks of service and authority!

So what does it mean to have an American President awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for announcing his good intentions? Does it devalue the prize or the previous awardees’ actual accomplishments?

Consider these important sentiments:

• UK Journalist Robert Fisk is quoted saying that, “this isn’t the Nobel Peace Prize; it is the Nobel Speech Prize.”
• Fidel Castro essentially said that this prize is more of a rebuke of past administrations.
• Reporters covering the announcement gasped upon hearing that Obama was selected!

Explaining, or perhaps defending their decision, the Nobel spokesperson pointed out that they are commending Obama for “…creating a new climate in international politics.” I find myself forced to ask, just how does one measure political weather? Is there a consensus on “political global warming?”

As a Muslim activist I have to ask; what good can be done?

Certainly, Obama was correct in labeling it a “call to action.” Yet, considering the response from Israel on settlements and Iran on non-civilian nuclear technology or our own increase of the use of drones in Pakistan, despite the resulting civilian casualties and increased violence, one has to wonder if accepting the award will actually strengthen the cause for peace?

I for one, believe that accepting this award is a hugely missed opportunity.

President Obama, on Dec. 10^th at the Nobel Award Ceremony, I urge you to table your acceptance of this once, noble prize. Use the occasion to call on those whose actions and policies are roadblocks toward peace. Table your acceptance by naming names, and applying political pressure to each diplomatic failure and stalemate you have ran into this far in your efforts.

President Obama, you once told Republicans the plain truth, that you won the election. Now it is time to act with similar boldness. Act so that illegal settlements are stopped, the siege in Gaza is lifted, genocides are not ignored, torture is truly repudiated and nuclear nonproliferation is moved forward. Then with renewed political pressure you can share the award with those who are currently the very obstacles to peace, should they decided to embrace change. With this clear demonstration of your resolve they might be persuaded to take steps on these most pressing problems.

Tabling your acceptance based on tangible results creates a no lose scenario. Regardless of your progress on these important fronts, you will be able to take home something much more valuable than the Noble Prize. You will have harmony with your stated principles and our nation’s honor as an honest broker for peace. What better legacy for a statesman is there than one where action and rhetoric are in unison?

The fourteenth of August was technically the Pakistani day of independence, but Pakistanis found little to celebrate this year; many citizens expressed their fear that their independence is gradually but surely being eroded away by American interventionism in the region.

Just a few days ago, the Americans announced that there was a high probability that the CIA had killed Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. Certainly not many Pakistanis will shed tears over the Taliban's slain leader: recent polls indicate that support for the Taliban in Pakistan has dropped to less than five percent.. In fact, the majority of Pakistanis (80%) view the Taliban as a crucial threat to their country, and a similar number (78%) support their own government's military campaign against the Pakistani Taliban. One would think then that Pakistanis would be grateful to the Americans for eliminating the top Taliban official in their country.

But such is not the case. In fact, the Pakistani populace stews in anger over what–according to international law–was an American attack against Pakistan. The United States ignored Pakistan's sovereignty and initiated drone attacks on independent Pakistani soil, something which constitutes an act of war. This is of course the latest in a series of drone attacks on sovereign Pakistani territory; there have been over “60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14th, 2006 and April 8, 2009.” Even more damning is the fact that “only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders,” whereas on the other hand the drones have killed “687 innocent Pakistani civilians,” giving the US predator strikes a success rate of “not more than six percent.” (link)

Unfortunately, few Americans are introspective enough to ask: “how would we Americans feel if some Muslim government did the same to us?” For example, what would be the American reaction if the Iraqi government initiated drone attacks against Blackwater facilities in North Carolina? If the Americans are justified in striking against Baitullah Mehsud, who has never killed a single American, then would not Iraqis be justified in striking against Erik Prince, the Blackwater CEO responsible for massacres against Iraqi citizenry? But when the shoe is on the other foot, many Americans reject any “moral equivalency;” no American would tolerate another country launching missiles into sovereign U.S. territory, even if it be directed against criminals and murderers. We are quite capable of prosecuting our own, would be the prevalent American response. Yet, why is it then that the Americans cannot seem to understand that the Pakistanis want their own government to deal with militants in their country, not foreigners with a long history of what is viewed by some as neo-colonialism?

Can one imagine the American reaction if some foreign Muslim sounding country launched missiles into America that killed 687 American civilians, including women and children? There would be rage in the American eyes, and cries to “bomb them back into the stone age.” There would be a savage and absurdly disproportionate retaliation from the Americans. But suddenly when Americans kill 687 Pakistani civilians, then so what? Are brown lives really equal to those of Americans?

To add to the absurdity, some American neoconservatives had the gall to criticize the Pakistani “ingratitude:” after all, these hawks argued, shouldn't Pakistan be thankful to America for getting rid of the Taliban's top official in the country? If anyone were to attack American soil, these neoconservatives would be outraged–and they would call to bomb some country (any country!) back to the stone age–whereas Pakistanis should not only be silent about the same transgression, but send a thank you card.

Some Americans have tried to justify the drone attacks by arguing that the Pakistani government gave them the wink and nod, unofficially giving the Americans permission to launch these strikes. Yet the reality is that the Pakistani government has repeatedly issued official and unofficial statements categorically rejecting such fanciful claims.

The Pakistani foreign office issued the following statement: “It has been Pakistan's consistent position that drone attacks are in violation of its sovereignty and must be stopped.” (link) A spokesman for the Pakistani military, Major Murad Khan, even went so far as to vow retaliation should America strike within Pakistani borders. Khan warned: “Border violations by US-led forces in Afghanistan, which have killed scores of Pakistani civilians, would no longer be tolerated, and we have informed them that we reserve the right to self defense and that we will retaliate if the US continues cross-border attacks.” (link)

The Pakistani government's stance did not change after the strike against Baitullah Mehsud, as evidenced by a statement released after the attack:

No Drone Accord with US: FO

Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said…drone attacks had caused more damage than benefit to Pakistan…No accord existed between Pakistan and the US with regard to drone attacks, he said.

(link)

Former president of Pakistan, Parvez Musharraf, rejected claims that he had an agreement with the United States, saying: “There was no such agreement. There was no permission for outside forces to operate inside Pakistan.” (link)

In 2007, the Foreign Office spokesperson, Tasnim Aslam, reiterated:

“We have stated in the clearest terms that any attack inside our territory would be unacceptable…We are committed [to fighting terrorism] and we will take firm action on the basis of information gathered by us through our own means or concrete and actionable intelligence shared with us…We are therefore, combating terrorism in our own interest. We do not want our efforts to be undermined by any ill-conceived action from any quarter that is inconsistent with the principles of international law.”

(link)

Amazingly, some of the Americans will continue to insist that the Pakistani government is just placating its own constituents, and that in reality they have given the green light to the Americans. Once again, these same Americans would categorically reject this logic if it were used by anyone else. Can one imagine Russia justifying an assault on Georgia by claiming that despite the Georgian denials, the Georgians had secretly sanctioned the Russian intervention in order to quell rebels and terrorists? Or perhaps Israel could invade Lebanon, claiming that the Lebanese government secretly requested its help against Hezbollah. Such sort of justification would completely destroy any semblance of international law.

Americans claim that they wish to spread democracy. Do they think it wise then to launch such strikes in Pakistan, even though an overwhelming majority (81%) of Pakistanis oppose U.S. missile strikes within their country? Is this how American democracy works? As Malcolm X said: “You and I have never seen democracy; all we've seen is hypocrisy.”

The American strikes within Pakistan destroy Pakistan's credibility as a nation-state, call to question its sovereignty and hegemony, and bring it one step closer to becoming a failed state. It has stirred up feelings of resentment against America and the West in general, which do nothing but fuel the rise of fundamentalism and extremism.  The death of hundreds of Pakistanis as a result of U.S. drone attacks serves to boost Taliban recruitment.  The Pakistanis feel a great deal of shame and humiliation over the blatant U.S. encroachment on their country's sovereignty; one cannot help but recall a similar sense of shame and humiliation that overcame Germans after the Allied Powers placed severe restrictions on their country's sovereignty. It was this same sense of helplessness that allowed Adolf Hitler to throw aside the inept and incompetent Weimar Republic, promising the people to restore the country's hegemony and honor. If a government cannot safeguard a country's sovereignty, then what right does it have to rule the people? Similar questions will be asked by fundamentalists and extremists, who will use it as a recruiting tool to agitate against the government.

The Pakistani fear of American influence in the region is further exacerbated by the news that the U.S. is planning on massively expanding its embassy in Islamabad. It is estimated that the embassy will cost a whopping $736 million, rivaling that of the gargantuan U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which cost $740 million. Such massive compounds serve not simply as embassies but as military bases, and remind Pakistanis of the British trading posts established by the East Indian Company that preceded British colonial rule. Indeed, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was the control center for U.S. rule over Iraq; Pakistanis fear a similar fate with the creation of such a compound on Pakistani territory. The nonchalance with which Americans flout Pakistani sovereignty gives Pakistanis little reason not to fear growing American interference.

The embassy cum military base will house U.S. marines. The exact number of marines is unknown, and Washington insists that it won't be more than a “couple of dozens.” Yet, the American government has allocated a staggering $112.5 million for the residential complex for Marines inside the embassy. Unless the “couple of dozens” of Marines plan on living in a palace, it is safe to say that the building would easily accommodate hundreds–if not thousands–of marines. The Pakistani Foreign Office Spokesman, Abdul Basit Khan, mentioned that some one thousand U.S. marines will be stationed there.

One recalls a similar situation in Saudi Arabia. Thousands of U.S. troops were stationed in the Arabian Peninsula, despite the local population's opposition. It was in fact the issue that caused Usama bin Ladin to choose the “interesting” career path that he did. Islamic militants and extremists used the foreign deployment of troops in the birthplace of Islam as a recruitment tool. Is it not then foreseeable–nay, inevitable–that militants and extremists in Pakistan will use the heightened American presence in the country as a means to recruit fighters and agitate against the lackey Pakistani government?

Pakistanis know all too well that if they give an inch to the U.S., the Americans will take a mile. If in the first year, a few dozen soldiers station themselves in Pakistan, in subsequent years that number will double and triple and multiply many-fold. After all, it took decades for U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia, who stayed behind long after Saudis needed protection against Saddam. Pakistanis do not want a monstrous U.S. embassy cum base in their lands, for they know it will be the command center from which the Americans will micromanage the country. The Americans themselves have echoed a similar tone; an American diplomat “reassured” Pakistanis: “When you have got non-military and economic assistance going up to $1.5 billion every year and the security aid almost trebling, then you need people [Americans] to develop, implement and run the programmes and, more importantly, keep an oversight to ensure that money is appropriately spent.” (link)

The celebrity turned politician Imran Khan asked:

“The [Pakistani] government keeps begging the US for more dollars stating that the war is costing the country more than the money it is receiving from the US. If it is our war, then fighting it should not be dependent on funds and material flowing from the US. If it is our war, why do we have no control over it? If it is our war, then why is the US government asking us to do more?”

(link)

Pakistanis feel that America is forcing Pakistan to go against its own national interest by fighting a war at the behest of America (which is why Imran Khan famously said “this is America's war, not Pakistan's.”) Admittedly, unlike Mr. Khan, most Pakistanis want their government to take a forceful stance against the Pakistani Taliban, but they don't want Pakistan to be puppeteered by America. The United States has become the school bully, declaring that it can bomb Pakistani land at will, whilst still demanding that Pakistanis eagerly respond to the American jihad against the Taliban; hundreds of Pakistani soldiers die fighting a war that oftentimes serves the American self-interest, not the Pakistani national interest. The American puppeteers have decided that the remote control they had from Washington was not good enough; now they want to move into Islamabad in order to exert even more influence.

On the sixty-second annual celebration of Pakistan's independence, Pakistanis question how much independence they still have. The collectively wonder: how far off is the country from simply becoming a sock-puppet?

The situation in China finally hit the CNN frontpage briefly before getting drowned out by a story about Michael Jackson's skin color, a 'sexting' teen, cops buying a doughnut shop, and Obama girls causing a fashion stir.

Thankfully, the beacon of balance and fairness in America – Fox News – had a small line about, “China Vows Executions for Rioters Behind Killings” (not much information there), buried underneath a story letting us know that it has not yet been clarified whether Michael Jackson will get a butter statue memorial or not (see “Jacko Butter Debate Churns“).

To find out what is going on requires some digging, and we hope to bring a recap to the events unfurling in China, and specifically how the Uyghur Muslim population there is affected.

Before continuing on to the present protests and incidents, it is important to quickly look at some of the history of the Uyghurs in China.

The Washington Post has put together a brief primer on the conflicts between China's various ethnic groups here.  The BBC also gives a historical breakdown of the events starting from around the 1940′s. One of the primary causes for conflict is the restrictions the Chinese government have placed on the ability of Uyghur Muslims to practice their religion. All religions are subject to state control by the government, but Islam seems to have received the harshest regulations. This is partially motivated by politics as well,

This severity is a result of the association between Muslim groups and the independence movement in Xinjiang, a movement that is absolute anathema to Beijing.

BBC also notes that the policies implemented have seemed to incite an excess amount of tension that the government seems unwilling to take responsibility for,

Severe repression since the launch of a “Strike Hard” campaign in 1996 has included harsher controls on religious activity, restrictions on movement, the denial of passports and the detention of individuals suspected of support for separatists and members of their families.

This has created a climate of fear and a great deal of resentment towards the authorities and the Han Chinese. ….

In the past, Beijing has also blamed an Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement for causing unrest, although there is no evidence that this ever existed in Xinjiang.

The authorities in Beijing are unable to accept that their own policies in Xinjiang might be the cause of the conflict, and seek to blame outsiders for inciting the violence – as they do in the case of the Dalai Lama and Tibet.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese government has also tried to label the Uyghurs as terrorists, despite a lack of evidence for the assertion (from BBC),

Beijing says Uighur militants have been waging a violent campaign for an independent state by plotting bombings, sabotage and civic unrest.

Since the 9/11 attacks in the US, China has increasingly portrayed its Uighur separatists as auxiliaries of al-Qaeda.

It has accused them of receiving training and indoctrination from Islamist militants in neighbouring Afghanistan, although little public evidence has been produced in support of these claims.

More than 20 Uighurs were captured by the US military after its invasion of Afghanistan. Although they were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for six years, they were not charged with any offence and many have now been accepted for resettlement elsewhere.

MuslimMatters also touched upon some of the crackdowns last year, noting restrictions placed upon the Muslims in Ramadan.  And while the situation is affecting the predominantly Muslim minority there, there is a group of Christian Uyghurs that are also affected.

The violence occurring now is a fallout from protests that took place in response to clashes there. According to the BBC,

The Uighurs in Urumqi were reportedly angry over an ethnic clash last month in the city of Shaoguan in southern Guangdong province.

A man there was said to have posted a message on a local website claiming six boys from Xinjiang had “raped two innocent girls”.

Police said the false claim sparked a vicious brawl between Han and Uighur ethnic groups at a factory. Two Uighurs were killed and 118 people were injured.

A Korean paper also fills in a few holes,

Demonstrations that took place two days ago in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, led to major clashes that killed over 150 and wounded an estimated 800. The situation on the ground remains serious, with demonstrators regathering despite tight guard by military and police. … Most of the victims of the bloodshed were innocent victims.

Uyghur separatists who are pursuing sedition by stroking ethnic nationalism share in the blame for the recurring bloodshed in the region, but the Chinese authorities, who blame the separatists for the government’s severe crackdown, are also at fault. It is being reported that this incident started with a fight between Han Chinese and Uyghur workers at a toy factory in Guangdong province last month. Xinhua reported that two Uyghur workers were killed and about 60 injured when Han Chinese workers were provoked by rumors that a Uyghur worker had raped a Han woman. Photos of the scene, with people standing next to the bodies, circulated on the Internet, flaming anger from the Uyghur community. Uyghurs are saying the government lowballed the casualty figure and demanded it reveal the truth. These actions provided the backdrop for the latest bloodshed.

It is being said that Uyghurs are rioting due to strong feelings of being victimized by discrimination. The Turkic and Muslim Uyghurs have a different ethnicity, culture and language from the Han Chinese. ….

Ultimately, the Uyghur incident originates with China’s policies towards ethnic minorities. Without active efforts to respect the ethnic identity of minorities and reduce economic discrimination, the unrest in Xinjiang and Tibet cannot help but repeat itself. China must now re-examine its ethnic minority policies at its source.

Radio Free Europe adds that this is only the tip of the iceberg,

The fierceness of the rioting, in which by official count more than 150 people died, points to deeper wellsprings of discontent.

“Why they are so upset at the situation is because, every day, the government brings in hundreds, thousands, of [Han] Chinese into our motherland, East Turkestan — the Xinjiang autonomous region — but at the same time our people are sitting without jobs, suffering,” says Nizam Sametov of the Uyghur U.K. Association in London.

Sametov asserts that Chinese policy is to offer jobs to Uyghurs elsewhere in China, outside the Xinjiang region, thus reducing the concentration of this ethnic group. On the other hand, in the last five decades, there has been heavy Han immigration, so that today, Uyghurs barely outnumber the immigrants. … “Because our land is very rich in minerals, oil, gas, they just keep coming, every day bringing people from inside China to our own land. They hope soon that we will be a small minority, but we won't,” Sametov says. “It is our own land.”

How the violence started is heavily disputed. The Uyghurs claim that the police started firing upon them, and the Chinese authorities say that the Uyghurs started the violence. The Chinese government's control of the media has not helped produce the truth in this matter either.

A witness in the Xinjiang city of Kashgar told AP there was a protest there on Monday of about 300 people but there were no clashes with police. It is still unclear who died in Urumqi and why so many were killed.The Xinjiang government blamed separatist Uighurs based abroad for orchestrating attacks on ethnic Han Chinese. But Uighur groups insisted their protest was peaceful and had fallen victim to state violence, with police firing indiscriminately on protesters in Urumqi.Dolkun Isa, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) in Munich, disputed the official figures, saying the protest was 10,000 strong and that 600 people were killed. He rejected reports on Xinhua that it had instigated the protests. (BBC)

The Xinjiang government said that WUC leader Rebiya Kadeer was behind it, but she has denied such accusations, comparing them to the accusations that the Dalai Lama was behind Tibetan violence.

In reaction, many of the Han Chinese took to the streets as well.

There were reports of Han mobs assaulting Muslim Uighurs throughout the city, even as helicopters hovered overhead.

Ethnic Han Chinese residents armed with makeshift weapons and vowing revenge on Uighurs were seen roaming the streets for a second day.  (VOA)

AP recaps the violence,

Thousands of Chinese troops flooded into this city Wednesday to separate feuding ethnic groups after three days of communal violence left 156 people dead, and a senior Communist Party official vowed to execute those guilty of murder in the rioting in western China. Long convoys of armored cars and green troop trucks with riot police rumbled through Urumqi … Other security forces carrying automatic rifles with bayonets formed cordons to defend Muslim neighborhoods from marauding groups of vigilantes with sticks. ….

Officials have said 156 people were killed as the Turkic-speaking Uighurs ran amok in the city, beating and stabbing the Han Chinese. The Uighurs allege that trigger-happy security forces gunned down many of the protesters, and officials have yet to give an ethnic breakdown of those killed. ….

“When the Uighurs heard the people were fired upon, parents all came out looking for their sons and daughters,” he said, adding that security forces started to “disperse them by force, then started to beat them, tear gas them and shoot them.” [This] account could not be independently confirmed.

More than 1,100 people were wounded in the violence. Dr. Yuan Hong of Urumqi People's Hospital said most of the people treated at his facility were clubbed, while others had been cut by knives.

Ahmet was quick to rattle off a long list of grievances commonly mentioned by Uighurs. He accused the Han Chinese of discrimination and alleged that government policies were forcing them to abandon their culture, language and Islamic faith. … His neighborhood in southern Urumqi was targeted by mobs of Han Chinese who roamed the capital Tuesday seeking revenge. Ahmet's friends had video shot by mobile phones and cameras that showed the stick-wielding Han men beating Uighurs. He pointed to blood stains on a white concrete apartment wall, where he said a Uighur was severely stabbed.

A Uighur college student who called herself Parizat added, “The men were carrying a Chinese flag. I never thought something like this would happen. We're all Chinese citizens.”

The Uighurs accused paramilitary police of allowing the Han Chinese to attack their neighbors. But in the video, the troops appeared to be trying to block or restrain the mobs.

On Wednesday, the government warned residents against carrying weapons on the street, and most people generally complied. But there were groups of Han Chinese who tried to find soft spots in police cordons and rush into Uighur neighborhoods. ….

The ethnic hatred in Xinjiang appears to run so deep that many Uighurs won't express sorrow for the Han Chinese who were attacked Sunday.

One of them was Dong Yuanyuan, 24, a newlywed who said she was on a bus with her husband getting ready to leave on their honeymoon. She said Uighur attackers dragged them off the bus and beat them until they were unconscious. Her husband was still missing, said the woman, who had abrasions on her face, arms and knees.

“My aunts have been going to all the hospitals to search for him. He must still be unconscious,” she told reporters who joined a government tour at the People's Hospital.

Abdul Rehim, a Uighur with his left arm in a sling, said he was walking with his brother when a group of Han Chinese “just came out and did this to me.”

Another victim was Ma Weihong, who said she was walking home from a park with her 10-year-old son when the riot started. The boy suffered minor injuries, but the mother had a broken arm and wrist, missing teeth and head wounds.

Amidst the religious, political, and ethnic factors at play, unfortunately, it is the innocent civilians who become the victims.

The Huffington Post has a nice article which touches on some of the ramifications and expected outcomes of this incident,

For a few reasons, the Communist Party's response is likely to be harsher, and even more sustained, than last year's response to the Tibetan uprising. ….

Second, the outside world's familiarity with Xinjiang and Uighur plight is low. The region has never been romanticized in film and literature and only a few foreigners have visited. There are no transcendent architectural wonders a la Tibet's Potala Palace that capture Western imagination. There is no roving ambassador, no Dalai Lama, to elicit sympathy for compromised values. Therefore, the global community's response will be muted, led by diplomats and human rights groups, rather than CNN, bloggers and an indignant mass of activists. The issue will, sadly, fade quickly from the world's moral radar screen. The Party will have significant room to maneuver.Third, the American “war on terrorism” – replete with kangaroo military courts and torture-extracted confessions – will make it more difficult for the West defend the interests of Uighur demonstrators, whom the Party has branded “terrorists.” Yes, there are a few separatists amongst the agitators, some of whom advocate violence as a means of advancing independence. The majority, however, want equal opportunity and protection under the law, and nothing more. But American Geneva Convention violations will lead to relatively sotte voce diplomatic condemnation.

Finally, and most critically, Chinese people “fear” Uighurs more than Tibetans. The former is unfamiliar, an “alien nation.” The latter, on the other hand, is a hot tourist destination. (Tibetans practice Buddhism and their appearance is not starkly different from the Han.) The people expect their government, first and foremost, to protect the country from danger. Most mainlanders view the unknown as a threat to stability and unity, a sacred national imperative. If the Party is seen as “soft” in dealing with the uprising, it will lose credibility — even legitimacy — in the eyes of many citizens, including new generation types, perhaps the most nationalist group of all. Despite a universal belief that the “autonomous region” is an inalienable part of China, denizens of Xinjiang are regarded as outsiders. Their religion, Islam, is “foreign,” associated with violence. (Only the Hui, an assimilated and geographically scattered Muslim minority, have been accepted as “real” Chinese.) Ethnically, the Uighur do not resemble Han. Their eyes are rounder and lighter. Their skin is olive, not “yellow.” In smaller towns, the Uighur, a Turkic people, do not speak fluent Mandarin due to a culturally tone deaf, memorization-driven education system.

What's Next?

So what will happen? The rebellion will be contained and Uighurs will continue to seethe.

To avoid adding fuel to the fire, the government will avoid extremely harsh measures – e.g., open gunfire — and keep the death count to a minimum. But make no mistake. Any fear of international opprobrium will not dampen the government's determination to smother dissent. Under the guise of safeguarding stability, it will use coercive means to stanch future uprisings – e.g., torture, a continued tightening of digital communication that lasts for months, travel bans for Uighurs and journalists that extend into 2011, continued demolition of traditional neighborhoods and Draconian bans on community/religious congregation. The Communist Party believes “to scare the chicken, you must kill a monkey.” So it will hold high-profile show trials, covered only in Chinese publications. Some verdicts will carry the death penalty. Leaders will refuse to “negotiate” with Uighur leaders. Tension with minority populations will increase, reinforced by continued hiring discrimination and old-style, propaganda. (Today's China Daily headline: “Locals hope for normal life after riot.”) I wish I could say the government will adopt a conciliatory approach and acknowledge the legitimacy of some grievances but primal dread of “looking weak,” exacerbated by a disinterested West, will cause tension to mount.

Mona Eltahawy also touches on a few similar points in an article as well.
See also: Slideshow of the Unrest

In the past, Beijing has also blamed an Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement for causing unrest, although there is no evidence that this ever existed in Xinjiang.

The authorities in Beijing are unable to accept that their own policies in Xinjiang might be the cause of the conflict, and seek to blame outsiders for inciting the violence – as they do in the case of the Dalai Lama and Tibet.

• Iesa Galloway
• Dr. Ali Shehata
• Mohamed Elibiary
• Related Posts

PLS READ THIS FIRST: Please note that in light of the previous post on this issue, comments will be controlled and moderated very strictly, and aggressively. We may moderate a comment out until review, and so if you comment disappears after it appeared once (i.e. if it didn't go to spam or mod. automatically), then it could show up again or it may not.

The best way to avoid moderation is to comply with the following:

1. Keep your comment related to specific content of post or speech,
2. Do not cut and paste content, or add links that are related to the generality of the issue. In other words, remain specific to content,
3. Remain good-mannered and good-willed,
4. Do not resort to personal attacks,
5. Do not repeat a previous comment.

Where there is ambiguity on whether the comment complied with what is laid out here, we will err on the side of moderation.

Please note that political content is not the primary thrust of MM, thought it is an important facet of the MM's content diversity. We will inject political discussion whenever the situation dictates. That happened around election time for instance, and is also relevant around a time where this speech by Obama was publicized very heavily around the Muslim world.

We ask for readers' patience and understanding in this matter:

Iesa Galloway

A Public Relations view of Obama’s Speech:

Rhetorically, the speech was beautiful. Its delivery had a sense of sincerity, understanding and statesmanship rarely seen in the region. Strategically, it was also executed with precision.

The speech itself was truly groundbreaking in many ways, especially on Israel and on American adventurism in the region. Obama’s mention of the plight of Islamic Charities and that U.S. Muslims are empowered to protect their rights was truly refreshing. However, Obama's policies are what they are. We should not over look the differences between his campaign pledges and his inability to garner the support of his own party to close Gitmo. We should also not forget his recanting on the release of the torture photos and his numerous continuations of Bush area policies.

The key to this historic speech is that Obama clearly positioned himself as the opposite of Bin Laden or groups ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda and doing so it was a brilliant P.R. move for him to have Al Azhar co-sponsor the event. So was having numerous Azhari Scholars so visible in the first rows. For Al Ahzar, it was incredibly important to participate as it is widely recognized as the preeminent institution and leader of Islamic learning. However, Al Azhar’s participation helped Obama’s positioning with what many may assume as religious acceptance of all the speech’s content, beyond the anti-clash of civilizations theme.

The Obama message was simple, we (America and Islam) are not at war, and you Muslims should choose non-violence ala MLK and Ghandi in order to be with Obama. Or we can choose the opposite. This of course is much more sophisticated than an axis of evil declaration, yet equally sweeping of the complexities of the region, the conflicts and the long road to real solutions. It is definitely progress for people to hear that Islam is not the source of and should not be held hostage to every Muslim group’s actions and interpretations. However, our response should be to promote and empower our own leaders by seizing the moment rather merely enjoying it.

In some ways I see the speech as a move to make this administration’s Pakistan policies more palatable. One goal of the speech may have been to at least pacify the reaction towards continuing as previously planned in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan in particular is an important issue for Obama he has to appear strong militarily in order to ease pressure in the U.S. Furthermore, going after Al Qaeda is his ticket to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq, thus Pakistan is a tool, an ends to a means.

Obama used Israel/Palestine as a pointed example of were violent resistance has been failing and ineffective. He more than likely won the hearts many Arab and Muslim educated elites (one of Obama's primary target audiences) via an argument easily seen as “this worked for my people back home.” The speech allows these elites to feel better about their inaction on the Palestine issue, which of course will endear him to them. However, the point seemed unqualified. As if the real message was there was no just war or reason for military resistance at any hotspot where Muslim lands or people are being attacked.

It is important to realize the strategic importance of delivering his message in Egypt, the center of the Arab world and the traditional trendsetter of the Muslim world. I was impressed that Obama felt as confident as he did, for example promoting democracy while in Egypt and while the Muslim world has recently as well as historically seen the U.S. attempt to undermine democratically elected Muslim governments.

Many Muslims are sensing and/or reacting to this confidence, as Obama is assuming a lot of conditioned leadership of Muslims. In other words, is he possibly paving the way for a continued status quo? If violence continues in Palestine, Obama has an out. If the nonviolent path is not followed Obama can use it as an excuse to avoid pushing Israel in the peace process. This is a relatively safe assumption once we take into consideration the situation of the Palestinian people and the multitude of factions on the ground, and the fact that each assumes their own leadership, independence and has different motives.

I do appreciate the groundbreaking nature of the speech. However, I am weary that our President’s words and actions could yet again be at odds. I am also worried that many of us will be caught grinning as things remain the same.

Return to the top

Dr. Ali Shehata

Alhamdulillah.

When listening and trying to assess the President's words from his historic Cairo speech, we have to have the correct frame of reference. Some people seem to want to judge him as if he were a Muslim and as such their focus is on the oppressive acts of the Bush/Cheney regime and issues like walaa and baraa. I personally think that we have to view President Obama as one would have viewed one of the Chiefs of Quraish or Byzantium during the lifetime of the Prophet (saas) or the rightly guided Khulafaa. It is well documented in the seerah that there were in fact people among the disbelievers whom the Prophet (saas) respected greatly, like Mut'im ibn 'Adi for example, and the respect paid to the Patriarch of Jerusalem by Umar ibnul Khattab. While they may be at odds with Muslims to some degree, that does not detract from the good they seek to do and the gestures of respect they make towards us.

As for Mut'im ibnu Ad'i, I believe that a strong argument can be presently made that Obama is offering Muslims an opportunity to change the condition of their lands. Mut'im ibn Ad'i was still a Qurashite and still a member of those who stood by while the Prophet (saas) and his early followers were persecuted. He is no different than any current western leader who wishes better for Muslims but is also well aware of his limitations and the limits of his own people's understanding and mentality. I see that at least Obama is making strides in trying to change that perspective and once others stand by his side, that at that point in time, more significant changes have the potential to be made on the ground level.

Furthermore, The President's efforts yesterday may well be likened to seeking a peace with the Muslim world, and as such, Allāh orders us in the Quran to accept such an effort by saying what means:

But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allâh. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. And if they intend to deceive you, then verily, Allâh is All-Sufficient for you. He it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers. [8:61-62]

Ibn Kathir mentions in regard to thiese ayaat, “Allāh says, conduct a peace treaty with those who incline to peace, and trust in Allāh. Verily, Allāh will suffice for you and aid you even if they resort to peace as a trick, so that they gather and reorganize their forces …”. And it has been recorded on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Taalib that the Prophet (saas) said, “There will be disputes after me, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do so.” (Ahmad – Sahih)

It would be unreasonable to expect Obama to erase or reverse eight years of Bush policy in a few months, but he is already ardently working to erase the hatred that was bred by that administration. His speech risks a great amount of criticism here in the US by conservatives and others opposed to a positive image for Islam, and I think that his efforts should be appreciated and lauded for their boldness and potential benefit to many around the world. This doesn't mean that we will rest on these words and not expect action, but anyone who has been in a leadership position understands that dramatic actions require a sort of preparing the ground before the action behind those words will be ready to be implemented. As such, I personally was happy to hear his words and accepted his efforts and ask Allāh that they lead to peace in those regions where war and oppresive policy have become commonplace over the past years. Wallahu ta'aala a'lam.

I can also see that there are a lot of confusing things happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan these days that even Muslim scholars in the region are opposed to and displeased with.

I for one do not have a trusted and unbiased news source to follow for events in the region, but if it is like Iraaq – then there are significant violations on both sides of the equation and it is not a simple black and white issue by any means. I am absolutely not in support of those who call themselves mujahideen but spill the blood of Muslims in a careless manner more than 75% of the time. I cannot blame the western governments in a blanket manner for their involvement when they can convincingly and effectively justify their actions to a global audience. If we ignore this, we can only do so by presuming that we are the only people on earth with our eyes open and that everyone else is clueless (politically speaking, not spiritually).

Some have called Obama an apostate; that is a serious accusation that I doubt anyone can really prove. One would have to prove clearly that he actually was a consciously practicing Muslim at some point who renegaded. That would be an even greater challenge considering his non-practicing Muslim direct family members.

Sh. Ja'far Idrees discussed a similar concept in his last lesson and message to the Muslims in the US which I had the honor and privilege to attend. His idea was equally disregarded by many in the room. I understood the practicality of his message and this is the same practicality that I see in the Hudaibiyyah treaty. The Prophet (saas) understood the reality of the circumstances of the Ummah and he acted accordingly, which was termed a manifest victory by Allāh.

I don't honestly see what Obama “needs” from Muslims, and certainly he could have continued Bush policy by continuing to marginalize us. He hasn't and this provides us with room to get involved and to help direct outcomes which are of benefit to Muslims. Continuing to stonewall him and disregard him as if he doesn't matter is not logical to me at all and detrimental to the interests of Muslims world-wide. Making an effort to work with him has not been attempted and as a result we do not know the outcome.

What is the most immediate outcome of his speech thus far? That people are hearing a new message that they haven't heard in a long time – that Islam is not the enemy. Yes, Bush may have used similar words at one point or another, but this message was lost in the vast majority of the anti-Islamic messages his administration was promoting. This is what I am hearing from non-Muslims and not speculation. We have the choice to now see how far this goes or to just reject it like we always do and continue to get pummeled. I sincerely and firmly believe that the lessons of the Seerah provide us with ample precedent to accept this invitation and to seek the best from Allāh. And Allāh knows best.

I really am not in a position Islamically or otherwise to argue any further. I can see that some people will always see the glass as half full and I wish only to be optimistic as the Prophet (saas) had instructed us to do and to do whatever is in my very limited scope to use any and every opportunity presented to us to save any life of a Muslim and their dignity in the process. I am glad that this perspective has been adopted by those much more knowledgeable than me in Islam and more experienced than me in life, wal-hamdulillah; and I ask Allāh to continually guide me and every Muslim to that which is most correct and most pleasing to Him – āmīn, was-salaam alaikum.

Dr. Ali Shehata

Return to the top

Mohamed Elibiary

This speech was a milestone in numerous ways and it should be celebrated, not least of which is because of the Muslim eyes that weighed in on its drafting that we don't necessarily want to see paraded in public as a community. My hope is that Muslims can set aside some two very important knee-jerk reactions.

The first is to be star struck by the temporary popularity the President currently commands and assume it reveals more than is politically feasible at the moment.

The second is to be become dhimmis in reverse and follow the path of reconciliation laid out by the President hook, line and sinker. Politics is about the art of the possible, and that's a fact often forgotten by many Muslims who take their faith seriously.  The President should be commended for two very strong points, one reaching out on the Muslim charities issue and the other at the beginning of his speech recognizing how majority Muslim nations were handled in a paternalistic way during the Cold War, a fact I wrote about it here beginning with the Eisenhower Doctrine continuing through today.

Many Muslims will instead focus on the Israel-Palestine centered commentary in the President's speech. The Muslim ummah today is in a weakened political state, a fact none deny; but yet it has assets of soft power to impact western democracies like at no time before in history that remains underutilized.

Success for the Palestinian cause will not come from them totally adopting a 100% non-violent stand in all circumstances and just appeal to the consciousness of their oppressors. Nor will the Arab and Muslim world find all their dreams met by sweetening the deal as the President requested to see the Arab Peace Initiative as a start to future compromises.

As one who spent the morning of the President's speech at a major DC Think Tank debating Counter-Radicalization Policy in this Administration, a celebrated small rhetorical change in this speech by Security Policy Strategists very close to the Administration and overlooked in the media was dropping the phrase “Muslim World” to instead using “Muslim communities”.

So it behooves us as Muslims to be cautious and understand that there are sophisticated forces at play still pursuing the same foreign policy objectives all people of conscience including Muslims naturally oppose, and that they're trying the honey method to simply divide the Muslim opposition globally using the ageless cultural battle on whether religion should play a role in the policy making or simply be a manifestation of personal life. I think that as Muslims we should celebrate the new rhetoric from the White House, but also not fall into the pitfall of dividing amongst ourselves as Muslims on who's leadership to follow. Obama is not the leader of Muslims, never has and never will be; he's the President of the United States government. There is no shortcut, if Muslims desire the world's respect then they have to politically organize themselves around their “Muslim” identity. Nothing has changed … a great deal of our foreign intelligence operations are still spent on disinformation campaigns.

Return to the top

Related Posts:

• President Barack Obama’s Speech to the Muslim World in Cairo (Co-Sponsored by Al-Azhar)
• Honeymoon's Over: Critical review of Obama's Admin
• Obama To Continue Iraq Occupation
• The Message the Muslim World Was Waiting For – Nafees Syed
• Obama Orders Missile Strikes in Pakistan
• Thank President Obama for Closing Guantanamo
• Presidential Inaugaration: Letter from Dr. Mahathir to Obama

Return to the top