Islamic Parties may rule Egypt, but Islam does not

The political situation in Egypt is very depressing for me and for most of the Egyptians I know, both in Egypt and out outside it.  The most obvious reason for that is the total lack of transparency in the political scene, combined with near total lack of credibility in Egyptian media.

Poor credibility, lack of political integrity and absent strategic vision taint the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Salafi Islamic parties,  as much as it taints the more secular, progressive and liberal groups.  Most Egyptians I interact with, which – for full disclosure – is not a representative sample of all Egyptians, feel totally lost.  They have no one that speaks for them, and no clear political figure that they trust.

I have no trust in  the ability of Islamic-leaning parties  to lead politically, yet I have to admit that the election that brought them to power was technically fair election for the most part.  They control 70% of the seats in the parliament: 45% for MB, and about 25% for Salafi groups.  The secular, liberal and progressive groups suffered humiliating loss garnering less than 20% of the votes.  The remaining 10% or so belong to Wafd Party that truly is a Machiavellian Chameleon that is hard to classify politically, and I personally would not rust with a penny.

And even though I am a believer in Islam and a practicing Muslim, I have to admit: I do not like any groups to rule in the name of religion, any religion.  But, in Egypt, that was the people's choice – like it or not.

But I am stull disturbed, and confused, but the results of Egyptian elections.  And here is why.

Nearly 70% of Egyptians voted willingly to be governed by parties with some version of Islamic ideology.

But, Islam is big on deeds – not words.

Quran 9:105 "And say: ‘Work (righteousness): Soon will God observe your work, and His Messenger, and the Believers: Soon will you be brought back to the Knower of what is hidden and what is open: then He will show you the truth of all that you did.’"

"وَقُلِ اعْمَلُواْ فَسَيَرَى اللّهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَسَتُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَالِمِ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ"

In Islam, you are supposed to do your work to the BEST of your ability.

"God loves, if one of you is doing something that they should perfect it".  A saying by Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

ان الله يحب اذا عمل احدكم عملا ان يتقنه""

In Islam, you should honest in your testimony, fair even to those that treat you with hatred.

Quran 5:8 "O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to God. Lo! God is Informed of what ye do."

"يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ لِلّهِ شُهَدَاء بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ"

In Islam, you are supposed to not take, give or mediate for a bribe.

Quran 2:188 "…  nor seek by [your wealth] to gain the hearing of the judges that ye may knowingly devour a portion of the property of others wrongfully."

"وَلاَ تَأْكُلُواْ أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتُدْلُواْ بِهَا إِلَى الْحُكَّامِ لِتَأْكُلُواْ فَرِيقًا مِّنْ أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ بِالإِثْمِ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ"

Or as the Prophet, pbuh, said "God's curse is on the one that gives a bribe, and the one that takes a bribe"

"لعنة الله على الراشي والمرتشي"

In Islam, you are supposed to care of you fellow society members as you care for your own family.

"Believers are like one body; if part of it is sick, the rest of the body responds to it with fever, and sleeplessness" ".  A saying by Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

"المؤمنون كالجسد الواحد  اذا مرض عضو منه تداعى له سائر الجسد بالسهر و الحمى"

In Islam, you are supposed to be fair, equitable, charitable, tolerant, non-argumentative, kind and merciful.

Quran 3:134 "Those who spend (of that which God hath given them) in ease and in adversity, those who control their wrath and are forgiving toward mankind; God loveth the good;"

"الَّذِينَ يُنفِقُونَ فِي السَّرَّاء وَالضَّرَّاء وَالْكَاظِمِينَ الْغَيْظَ وَالْعَافِينَ عَنِ النَّاسِ وَاللّهُ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ"

And Quran 42:40  " But requiting evil may, too, become an evil: hence, whoever pardons [his foe] and makes peace, his reward rests with God - for, verily, He does not love evildoers."

"وَجَزَاء سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا فَمَنْ عَفَا وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ"

In Islam, you are supposed to put your faith to work.  And when you do that, the society you live in transforms into a society where life is worth living and you become the envy of the world.

Well, Egypt is far from that enviable society.  That make me, and many others, wonder: if 70% of Egyptians voted freely for someone that declares Islam as a reference ideology, how come that Egypt is in the deep social, moral and economic trouble it is deep in?

And more importantly, if Islam-based political powers, be it Salafi movements or the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood are really keen on repairing and healing the society, rather that just being power hungry, how come they have not initiated nation-wide Islam-based campaigns encouraging their voters - the huge 70% of the population - to correct the social and moral evils that plague Egypt rather than focus on getting votes of those that responded to political Islamic slogans with no desire or intention to live Islamic morals rather that just vote for the candidate with Islamic slogan?

People of God care more - or should care more - about goals of religion and not about political positions.  If they control the hearts and minds of that huge segment of the population, why have not we seen any real change into the why their followers lead their lives?  If they do have that power over people and their use it for good, Egypt will be rebuilt and become great, even if there is not a single Islamic party in the parliament.

 

Unfortunately, Egyptians may have voted for Islamic parties to rule Egypt, but not for Islam.

Khaled

Shari'a in Egypt's Constitution: Leave it there or Take it out?

One of the problematic issues about the Egyptian constitution, currently under renovation, is Article No. 2, stating that the "principles of Islamic Shari'a are the principal source of legislation" in Egypt.

The article was introduced in the constitution few decades ago, during the time Sadat was appeasing the rightwing religious group in an attempt to stifle liberal secular groups, particularly leftist 'Nasserites' who continued to believe in the economic and pan-Arab policies of Nasser, Egypt's previous president.  Sadat's efforts were part of his attempt to look western-leaning, as he distanced himself from the Soviet Union.

Egypt's population is about 90% Muslim- an overwhelming majority.  From a practical point of view, Article No.2 was very unlikely to add much to the Islamic tendencies in legislations if the Muslim population elected to implement Islam inspired laws.  But since elections and the Egyptian parliament were a joke during the time of Sadat and Mubarak, the article practically meant absolutely nothing.

Extortion as a political ploy: from Sudan to our US Congress

The Morality of politicians is always suspect. And for most of us, a politician of integrity and solid principle is the exception rather than the rule. This applies everywhere, and regardless of religion or ethnicity.

Two news items, from very different parts of the world, were cases in point for me.

The first case comes from one of the most forsaken places where bloodshed, rape, ethnic cleansing and vicious starvation have been the norm for over a decade. That place is Darfur. the northwest territory of Sudan. Nothing compares to the scarcity of food and morality in that part of the world than the dearth of information about the truth of what has been going in Darfur. The true story underlying ethnic, social and economic strife there has never been told adequately by unbiased and honest people. The little that is truthful about the situation there is lost in the midst of the widespread lore about it, lore that depends on where you are on the planet, and on what your favorite media outlet is. On the one hand you find islamophobes and hardcore pro-Israeli groups who championed the cause of the poor people of Darfur as a way to sustain the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feelings in some parts of the West. Their popular narrative is that 'Muslim Arabs' are committing genocide against 'black Africans', forgetting the simple truth that on both sides, Sudanese people are Africans and black. Moreover, most of the displaced and starved people of Darfur are actually Muslims too.

The horror described in darfur is real, but the descriptors of the victims and perpetrators are expedient.

On the other hand, you find the apologists for any government or group lead by an Arab or a Muslim whose first knee-jerk reaction is to blame 'Crusaders, Zionists, and Colonialists' for any evil in the world without giving a damn about the truth in the matter under study. They easily rush to defend those with Muslim names without spending a moment to figure out for themselves if those Muslims are on the right path or not.

Frequently, those apologists rush to the defense of Muslims accused by Western and non-Muslim agencies, forgetting - or ignoring - that the victims of the accused Muslims are frequently their own people - who mostly are also Muslims. In the zeal to defend some of their own, they trample on the rights of the victims amongst their own.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir, on war crimes charges over six-year counter-insurgency campaign in Darfur that claimed 150,000 lives in some estimates.

And, like any other dictatorship in that part of the world, the leadership manages to get the people to 'erupt in spontaneous demonstrations' defying the world, and announcing their loyalty to the 'infallible' leadership [that, in my opinion, generally runs their economy, civil rights and national interests in the ground for one decade after the other].

And like any cruel dictator that gets stuck in a corner, they resort to extortion.

Al-Bashir has actually decided that his response to the international charges and warrants -- be it right or not -- would not be by logical discourse and setting fact-finding mutually agreeable missions and in legal and public opinion arenas, but would be to ban tens of the largest international humanitarian groups from providing food and services to the beleaguered people of Darfur.

I guess for such a leader and his apologists, starving few more thousand people to death in the area he is accused of committing war crimes against seems like a rational response to the ICC charges.

So, this is happening in a part of the worlds we think of as backward, clannish, and full of zealots. How about one of our politicians doing the same thing? It is not as inconceivable as you may think it is.

Less than 2 months ago, Israel waged a large scale destructive campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The horror inflicted on Gaza Elderly, women, children and non-combatant civilians has not been forgotten. The whole world saw first hand the cruelty of the Israeli Military in their desire to punish Gaza for 'harboring Hamas', or punishing Hamas militants by killing their families, neighbors and destroying their impoverished cities.

While that was a form of extortion (and even war crimes as per the pending law suits against Israel in some European courts at present), it is not the extortion I am talking about here. I am talking about something closer to home; something committed by our tax-dollar salaried employees that carry the title of 'honorable' representative of the US people.

Few weeks after the pace of Gaza war slowed down (it is not over yet, in case you have not been following the news) our new Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, did something that makes sense, and is actually admirable. Clinton announced that the US is dedicating $900 millions of aid for Gaza reconstruction effort. This is a rare instance where the American government has engaged in such a high profile effort that truly aims at helping Palestinians in distress, despite the US government ideological disagreement with those in authority in Gaza.

I admired the announcement, and it gave me some hope that finally we, Americans, can reach to the average person on the Arab street in a way that positively influences their lives without our help being conditional. To put it simply, we are helping because they need our help. This simple announcement by Clinton showed a level of political maturity that I pray will continue so that our moral integrity is revived after years of dormancy, and years of the usual expediency especially in our Middle East foreign policy.

But a US congress person could not help but try to throw the wrench in the gearbox. According to Haaretz in an article titled Proposal in Congress: No Gilad Shalit, no Gaza aid, "Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada drafted a petition to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which demanded that the financial aid be delayed for as long as the rocket fire continues and Shalit remains in captivity."


In the eyes of the 'honorable' representative Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Gaza people are collectively responsible for the Israeli soldier's return. Never mind that Israel failed to find him or save him over 3 years despite its military might, the thousands or tens of thousands of Israel's agents operating in the Palestinian territories and despite Israel's total control over all borders and communication lines in and out of the poor Gaza strip. Still, the average Gaza person should be held hostage -- in the eyes of the honorable representative -- till they bring back the Israeli soldier.

In the eyes of the congress woman, described by Haaretz as "a Jewish politician well-known in Congress for her support of Israel", extortion of the poor people of Gaza is a legitimate thing to do -- although expedient seems a more appropriate word than legitimate. In her eyes, the desire to support Israel gets her to petition to block one of the few resolutions in recent history that we, Americans, can use to show that we stand with innocent people regardless of who is oppressing them, be it Omar Bashir or Israel.

Her co-sponsor for the extortion petition, the 'honorable' Mike Coffman of Colorado, said that "Giving the money to the Palestinians residing in the Gaza Strip is no different than giving the money directly to Hamas...".

These 'honorable ones' are paid from my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of my fellow Americans, to represents our American interests. I would love to see how they see their petition (promoting the suffering of 1.5 million Palestinians till they produce the Israeli soldier) as serving the American public relations effort, American national interests or American foreign policy long term goals.

The distance between the President of Sudan and some of our members of Congress is vast, but extortion at the expense of the poor and oppressed seems like a useful political ploy of universal appeal.

As for my tax dollars paying the salaries of the honorable pair: does any one know how I can get my money back?

Khaled

I disagree with Stephen Walt - Israel is a strategic genius

In a previous post I presented a very good article by Stephen Walt disputing the Mythical Strategic Genius of Israel and its politicians.

Although it may be a stretch for me to disagree with the analysis of someone in Walt's stature, I actually do disagree with him. I still think that Israel is a strategic genius today, and here is why I think so.

I do not disagree with Walt on his historic facts. I just disagree with him on Israel's leadership intentions. He, for the sake of that article, assumes that Israel's intentions is to search for peace. He judges their strategic success (or genius) by assessing how their actions bring them closer to their goals.

And while I agree that a valid gold standard for strategic success is that such success should bring you closer to your goals, it seems to me that their strategy actually bring them closer to their goals. Only, that their goals are different from what Walt assumes.

Over time, Israel seems to me more and more like one of those fish that must keep moving otherwise it dies. Israel must continue to be at war or it ceases to exist as we know it now. The reason for that is that its current founding principles of uniqueness, and destiny to have Jewish majority forever are unsustainable without being at war. Therefore, regional hostilities and a national sense of eminent danger are essential for Israel's survival.

Only eternal 'existential threats', mostly perceived rather than real, will manage to keep its people together.

How else can you convince citizens that they live in a democracy, when the founding principle of their existence is based into a metaphysical promise made by God to some tribes that lived in the Middle East many thousand years ago?

How about a founding principle that dictates the need for eternal Jewish Majority otherwise the country faces demise?

For most of the smart, Western-style Israeli citizens, it should normally be evident that a democracy that somehow requires Jewish majority forever is a non-sustainable situation.

What if the Jewish majority is no longer possible due to emigration, natural growth rates, etc?

Are they going to kick out non-Jewish 'Israelis'? Or would they just deprive them of the right to vote and officially establish a second class citizenship status for non-Jews?

Would it be an option for Israel to shed some pieces of land that has more Arabs than Jews and transfer Jews to a smaller piece of land in order to restore the Jewish Majority?

None of these options would seem acceptable to the majority of Israelis under normal circumstance. And I stress the word normal in this situation. Hence the need to ensure 'abnormal' circumstance prevail all the time.

And when life is not 'normal', when people are at war continually, and when they are made to feel that they are surrounded by existential threats all the time, the glaring inconsistency between maintaining democracy on one hand, and maintaining Jewish majority on the other will become more of a 'philosophical issue' that is simply put on the back burner, or even in the freezer.

Most of us know that the fear for one's survival seems to trump all other values and fears. That is why demonizing the enemies -- who would 'pillage, rape, and torture you if they win' -- has always been a better propaganda technique than solely glorifying your cause.

You, as a leader, can bring up people to believe that every one is out to get them. Surely they would be emotionally scarred, and their life will be horrible and miserable, but you will succeed in controlling them and getting them to do whatever you want to defend their 'survival', no matter whether their fears are founded or not.

That is where strategic genius lies. Israeli leaders have one strategy that always achieved its goals: stay at war, avoid making peace and make sure you are always surrounded by enemies and existential threats. This strategy have worked so far for one government after another.

The failures that Stephen Walt mentions in his article(e.g., lack of peace, and persistence of hostility around Israel) are not strategic failures. These are part of the strategic goal. And if you look at things from that angle, Israel strategic genius is not a myth, it is a concrete reality.

And this strategy is still working for them but unfortunately, for Israel at least, I do not think it will continue to work for more than few more decades. And without sound and sustainable founding principles, any country, Israel included, will not last as a political entity, although their people could survive as people.

Israel is a de facto state now, and its presence cannot be denied on historic or religious basis any more than one can deny the presence of the USA or Australia as nations. The major difference though, is that USA and Australia will continue as nations no matter who is in power, and no matter which ethnic or religious group constitutes a majority, and Israel would not. Can you imagine where would the USA be today if its founding principle was that white majority has to be maintained for the USA to exist?

The strategic genius of Israel is a reality today, but their strategy will not be viable for a long time to come. And if Israel, as a nation, does not face the reality that their founding principle is flawed and non-sustainable as it is, then they are doomed to face a future where their worst nightmare will become their reality.

Khaled

Strategic Genius of Israel may not be that genius

Israel seems always to win. Does that make Israel a strategic genius?

With practically unlimited military superiority, and with boundless support from the World's only superpower, one imagines that Israel would always be on target when it comes to achieving its strategic goals.

Most pro-Israel politicians in the US keep would actually argue that only Israel knows what is best for Israel (although that same politicians often behave as if Israel also know what is best of the US as well). These politicians that adopt the idea of Israel's strategic genius are adamant that the US should grant unlimited support and never second-guess, dispute or criticize anything Israel does.

To some analysts and foreign policy experts Israel's strategics genius seems to be more of a myth than a worthy reality. One of those experts is Stephen M. Walt who is a professor of International Relations at Harvard University. He is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy (FP) Magazine and has a very active blog on FP website. He is, above all, best known to the public for his famous - or infamous - book about The Israeli Lobby and US foreign Policy co-authored with John J. Mearsheimer.

In a recent blog titled The Myth of Israel's Strategic Genius, Walt argues that Israel's history was full of strategic blunders that lead to the persistence of all the threats around them, and that had interfered with progression to a more peaceful existence of Israel in the Middle East. He briefly, but very succinctly, discusses his opinion about all the wars that Israel fought, and sheds very interesting light on all of them.

Following, I will include some Excerpts to entice the reader, but make sure you read the full article (link below). It is truly it is a very worth-while, brief and succinct reading. I will be posting why I disagree with some of his conclusions later.

The myth of Israel's strategic genius
By Stephen Walt (1/19/2009)

Many supporters of Israel will not criticize its behavior, even when it is engaged in brutal and misguided operations like the recent onslaught on Gaza. In addition to their understandable reluctance to say anything that might aid Israel's enemies, this tendency is based in part on the belief that Israel's political and military leaders are exceptionally smart and thoughtful strategists....

This image of Israeli strategic genius has been nurtured by Israelis over the years and seems to be an article of faith among neoconservatives and other hardline supporters of Israel in the United States. It also fits nicely with the wrongheaded but still popular image of Israel as the perennial David facing a looming Arab Goliath; ....

He then goes on to list the most famous 'strategic achievements and success of Israel often cited, buts expresses his disagreement with the significance of those achievements.

These tactical achievements are part of a larger picture, however, and that picture is not a pretty one. Israel has also lost several wars in the past -- none of them decisively, of course -- and its ability to use force to achieve larger strategic objectives has declined significantly over time.
.... The assault on Gaza is merely the latest illustration of this worrisome tendency.

He followed with listing of the different wars from 1948, 1956, 1967 etc, and all the way to the first Lebanon War in 1982. He highlights the role Israel's mischief as he discusses the 1993 Oslo Accords, and he puts the blame, or most of it anyway, squarely on Israeli leader's shoulders:

The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own....

He is also critical of the the so- called generous offer by Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the Palestinians in 2000 when Bill Clinton was trying to quickly fix the Middle East in Camp David before he left office. He quotes Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami saying "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well."

And while he is critical of both American and Palestinians leaderships for their own big mistakes, his focus in this article is on Israel's mythical strategic planning capabilities.

His analysis moves forward to Israel's role in the Iraq war, and their desire for an 'Iran war'.

Indeed, prominent Israelis like Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres helped sell the war in the United States, while Prime Minister Sharon and his chief aides put pressure on Washington to make sure that Bush didn’t lose his nerve and leave Saddam standing. The result? A costly quagmire for the United States and a dramatic improvement in Iran's strategic position. Needless to say, these developments were hardly in Israel's strategic interest.

Stephen Walt does not shy from nearly accusing the Israeli Leadership of malice for the 'unilateral withdrawal" from Gaza in 2005. He concludes that both withdrawal from Gaza as well as the 2006 Lebanon war were significant blunders that will harm Israel in the long term. He sees similar "strategic myopia" in Israel's latest bloody adventure in Gaza that left over 1400 Palestinians dead.

... Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever.

And while he admits that Israeli forces performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon ion 2008, he bluntly attributes that to the fact that "Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah".

And while picking for a weaker opponent may make one look more mighty, in his opinion "... this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "

He concludes from all these examples that "... there is no reason to think that Israel possesses uniquely gifted strategists or a national security establishment that consistently makes smart and far-sighted choices. Indeed, what is perhaps most remarkable about Israel is how often the architects of these disasters -- Barak, Olmert, Sharon, and maybe Netanyahu -- are not banished from leadership roles but instead are given another opportunity to repeat their mistakes.".

His most powerful paragraph comes near the end:

The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. In fact, Israel's strategic judgment seems to have declined steadily since the 1970s...

The reason for that in the opinion of that expert is what the rest of us with any common sense and some knowledge about the Middle East always knew:

... perhaps because unconditional U.S. support has helped insulate Israel from some of the costs of its actions and made it easier for Israel to indulge strategic illusions and ideological pipe-dreams.

He suggests that Israel's friends in the US government should be more honest and open about what they think is wrong in Israel's planning and goals, but he is not optimistic.

... that's unlikely to happen, because Israel's supporters make it almost impossible for Washington to do anything but reflexively back Israel's actions, whether they make sense or not. And they often do not these days.

This is a great article that reviews all Israels adventures and major blunders in a 10 minute reading.

Khaled
Links:

• The myth of Israel's strategic genius - Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy Blogs(January 19, 2009)

Also, check this very good article detailing the failure of Israel in the latest Gaza campaign from the view of an Israeli journalist.

• Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel - Gideon Levi, Haaretz

Excerpts from Gideon Levi article:

Israel's actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.

The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.

They might be our closest allies but, culturally, we are oceans apart.

For some people, the US and the UK may seem like two peas in a bod. Tony Blair throughout his era as a Prime Minister tried his best to make it look like that, even at the price of being called, Bush's lap poodle.

But no matter how you slice it: the UK is in Europe and the British are European people. And that set them oceans apart from Americans, culturally and politically. Look at the BBC and The Guardian on one hand, and look at our 'token liberal' New York Times on the other. Get the picture?

This can be a big topic, but I will keep it brief.

Few days ago, our esteemed 'public servants' in the Congress decided to show off the extreme loyalty to the usual cuddly ally: Israel. These 'loyalists' chose the right time to do it; the time when Israel is exercising it military superpower muscles on defenseless people in the unluckiest part of God's land: Gaza.

Our representatives [our is used here in the loosest possible] voted, in a non-binding resolution 390 to 5 in support of Israel's mischief in Gaza, despite the fact that even public opinion polls do not show the American public with that kind of determination (You can read more about this in Foreign Policy Magazine here). What is even funnier is that Israel's government cannot garner this kind of support in its own parliament!

While, on the other side of the ocean, British Members of Parliaments (representatives of our twin pea in the pod) do the unthinkable: they express anger against Israel. In our Congress, that is a 'career-ender' move.

But in the UK, expression of fury at Israel crosses party lines, and the harshest words come from a Jewish MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman.

Check this from The Scotsman:

• BRITISH MPs yesterday lined up to give their strongest condemnation yet of Israel's actions in Gaza, branding Ehud Olmert's government "mass murderers" and calling for the country to face sanctions.
• The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish. Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."
• The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish. Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."
• Chris Mullin, a former Foreign Office minister, said "These are war crimes that we are witnessing in Gaza. "Britain should start talking with EU allies about sanctions and "at the very least to stop selling them weapons and, perhaps, the withdrawal of our ambassador".

The Jerusalem Post quotes Gerald Kaufman using even harsher words:

• "The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."
• The MP [Kaufman] also commented on the claim that large numbers of the Palestinian victims were militants, saying that "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants," he said.

Elected representatives harshly criticizing Israel?!!!!!

I know that sounds unreal, but believe me: on the other side of the ocean, in a place called Europe, things like these do happen.

Khaled

More quotes can be found on The Guardian "Commons debate on Gaza - live".

Links:

• Cross-party fury of MPs at Israel - Scotsman
• Jewish MP compares Israeli troops in Gaza to Nazis - Scotsman
  British MP: Israel exploits guilt over Holocaust to murder Palestinians - The Jerusalem Post

• US Senate supports Israel's Gaza incursion - Reuters
• Americans Closely Divided Over Israel’s Gaza Attacks - Rasmussen Reports
• It's time to redefine "pro-Israel" - Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy Magazine

American Muslims and the political process - A follow up to 'Is voting a religious duty?'

A commenter on a previous post about the importance of voting took exception with my feeling that voting is a religious duty. I may frequently assume that what is obvious to me must be obvious to others, but this is not always the case. So, I took the opportunity to express in some detail my sense of the necessity of participate in the American political process and the obstacles American Muslims face trying to be part of the political scene (not all issues will be raised in this posting).

A large number of American Muslims are transplanted from other societies. Early generations of immigrants tend to avoid political involvement in their adopted communities for many reasons, and under many pretenses. Their focus is usually on establishing sound economic foundations for their offspring.

Many also tend to be 'non-engaging' with their new communities for fear of losing their culture. Such desire for non-engagement plagues even some Muslims who are no longer immigrants or first generation American Muslims.

Other Muslims also like to cite their reason for non-participation in politics to be that it is important to hear explicit approval from the different Sheiks, Imams, etc, before getting involved. They also take the lack of repeated and explicit opinions on political American issues by most Muslim clergy to reflect that something is wrong with being part of the American political system.
I do not agree with these assumptions and reasoning, so I will state my case.

I doubt anyone would disagree with the fact that it is my religious duty as a Muslim to do what I believe to be beneficial to my community, Muslims and non-Muslims.

I doubt many would disagree that being part of a society is a choice that comes with some obligations. Citizenship entitles you to some benefits that you should take advantage of only if you agree - implicitly at least - to be in a social contract with the society. You are obliged to pay taxes, and defend the society if it is endangered. You are also in a contract to change the society only in the manners accepted by that society, and out of desire to benefit the society - your society - and not out of hatred for it. If someone does not feel such obligation to their society of citizenship, then they are not good citizens. And for them to be honest, they should strive to find another society to be belong to. And for the immigrants amongst you, do you remember the citizenship ceremony and the citizenship oath you took?

The American society agreed to govern itself in a public and participatory manner.

• Those who have ideas to change and improve the society, i.e. candidates, put their thoughts forward.
  
• The others , i.e., voters, make a 'judgment call' or better yet 'an educated guess' as to whether the plans are possible to implement, will indeed be useful, and whether the candidates seem honest enough to be trusted implementing their proposed plans.
  
• The America society then asks its members to 'give a testimony' as to which candidate they believe is better for our society.

This 'testimony' is represented in your vote.
If I think of myself as a citizen of this country, and as a responsible Muslim; if I have thoughts and feelings about the proposed changes put forward by different political candidates; and if I know in my heart that the proposals will have an impact - positive or negative - on American Muslims, American non-Muslims, non American Muslims and the rest of the world, THEN it is my religious duty to testify. It is my religious duty to vote.

As for religious opinion by Muslim scholars: there are many who have absolutely no problems with voting and political participation. Still, I do not need their approval to feel the way I feel about my civic duties, and my religious duty to my community. Islam is not Catholicism.

Of course, it will be great if our clergy -- and I am using the term loosely, as there is no clergy in the literal sense of the word in Islam -- put their minds together in public forums and engage in lively and free discussion with their communities and outside their communities but that, unfortunately, is just not part of 'our culture'.

We need them to go outside their immediate mosque communities, reach out to Muslims and non-Muslims outside the close circle of their followers, write Op-Eds and publish it on local and national media with what they feel is an Islamic religious opinion that relates to our Muslim community and American society issues.

By doing these things, their knowledge will have the impact that they hope for on all of us; Muslims and non-Muslims. An they would be fulfilling their roles as thought leaders in their communities.

But even then, if we were to wait for a consensus amongst them, we will have to wait forever. So far, we cannot even agree on starting Ramadan, the month of fasting, together or to cerebrate 2 days a year of Islamic feasts together.

Khaled

Jesse Helmes: decent human being or just polite?

I rarely would feel the urge to waste any time writing about the death of a politician, especially if I did not particularly like him or her. A former senator's death is not going to change the world, and in one or two weeks, it will be very distant history - gone and forgotten. So, I did not plan to write about Jesse Helms. Bob Dole made me do it.

Jesse Helms has never been a character that I am fond of. And just because he was getting old, and looked like a permanent fixture in the Senate, he would not automatically gain my respect. I was very pleased when he got out of the picture by not running again for the Senate.
But all those not-too-warm feeling about him would not normally get me to write something not flattering about him a day after his death but Bob Dole got on my nerves earlier today during the 5 seconds I watched CNN news.
Dole said he did not agree with Jesse Helms on many things, and in particular he disagreed with the late senator on civil rights issues, but Dole went on to state that Jesse Helms "was a good decent human being". That got me to shout "What???". Dole then explained that Helms was nice and friendly to the Senate pages, and used to 'talk to them' and 'ask them about their families'.
With all respect to senator Dole, being nice to Senate pages and interns is being polite. Being a 'decent human being' is a far cry from that.
To me, decency especially when it is used as a descriptor of a human being means "the quality of conforming to standards of propriety and morality". Reading about Jesse Helms stances on a lot of things did not fit in this definition of decency. As I did some reading I came across an obituary on the British Guardian Online that expressed exactly how I felt.
Here are some quotes from that obituary:

"To echo this newspaper's memorable comment on the death of William Randolph Hearst, it is hard even now to think of him with charity. From his earliest years, Helms's attitudes recalled those of an earlier southern bigot, ..."

And as for the veneer of 'politeness', the Guardian editor states that he

"... maintained an old-world courtesy in his personal contacts. But that was only on the surface. "

The paper then lists some of his memorable achievements and statements, for example:

"... voting against virtually all arms control measures, opposing international aid programmes as 'pouring money down foreign rat holes', and avidly supporting military juntas in Latin America and minority white regimes in Southern Africa."

His pro-segregation stances are well known and in 1964 he denounced the Civil Rights Act as

"... the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress"

The Guardian writer, Harold Jackson, attributes Helms' extreme views to where he grew up during the years of the great depression in North Carolina in poor rural white areas that:

" ... produced generations of deeply conservative poor whites, steeped in jingoistic patriotism and fundamentalist religion, who regarded the surrounding black population as barely part of the human race."

He established a mysterious extreme conservative organization by the name of "the National Congressional Club" that ushered the era of mass mailing campaigns with "the repeated arrival of impressive-looking letters signed by Helms and denouncing school busing, funding for the arts, compensation for Japanese-Americans ... ".

In a paragraph that tells more about his constituency than about Helms himself, the article reminds the reader of some of the bizarre statements that he did not have a problem making:

"Your tax dollars are being used," he claimed in one letter, "to pay for grade school classes that teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior."

But his rhetoric convinced millions of Americans and, invited to save the nation by donating a dollar, they did just that. A river of cash poured into the club.

Other obituaries, especially on American mainstream media, were a bit less scathing but the facts they mention still do not add up to a flattering legacy. And certainly they do not suggest that 'decent human being' is an acceptable description for Jesse Helms.

One could be described as polite while he or she is racist, hateful, exclusive, and xenophobic bigot. But being any of those is an automatic 'decency disqualifier'.

A reader's thoughtful comment on the New York Times obituary article especially resonated with my thoughts:

From his activities on behalf of segregation in the 50s and 60s to his opposition to AIDS research and education while thousands were dying, you’re looking at a career which demonstrates that defense of privilege is conservatism’s purpose and that viciousness is its essence, its world view and often enough its method.

— Posted by Jim Cory on NYT

Khaled

Links:

• Obituary: Jesse Helms - The Guardian
• Jesse Helms - From Wikipedia
• Jesse Helms Dies at 86 - New York Times
• Jesse Helms in his own words - A collection of 'indecent' quotes
  

The Middle East: A place with a lot of laughs, very bitter laughs

An old (and very popular) verse of old poetry that reads as follows in Arabic:

" كم ذا بمصر من المضحكات ---------- لكنه ضحك كالبكا "

It is translated from Arabic somewhat similar to the following:

For, in Egypt, there is a lot to laugh about ...

... but your laughter will sound more like crying.

This is not the case in Egypt only. The whole Middle East is a fulfillment of that centuries-old poetic verse. Many of the world's nations are filled with stupidity, poverty, greed and abuse. But the Middle East is special: it is where the depressing state of affairs goes hand in hand with the delusion of grandeur amongst the mighty rulers, and total despair amongst the people.
That despair is what immerses people is material hedonism or religious fatalism, and in some cases, a weird mix of both.
And with total thought control over everything, political cartoon and street-wise jokes have traditionally been the only venues for anything resembling expression of opinion.
The British Guardian Online has published a collection of political cartoons by several eminent cartoonist, and below is a small selection that I found very thoughtful, and painful. to see the full collection, please check the Guardian Online web site.

The comments next to the pictures are mine.

This will resonate with a lot of people here (in the US), as much as in the middle East.

You can easily apply this to most of the Arab world countries.

The next 2 cartoons are from Palestine: both are very deep and very sad.

The Graduation Party.

And finishing with this one:

To see the whole collection click here.
And for an article about it, click below:

Through a cartoon darkly
An exhibition of cartoons on the Middle East exposes the corruption, torture, venality and oppression common to region. By Ian Black for the British Guardian.

Finally, something that unites religions of the world

05.29.2008
By Khaled Hamid

Special to the Post-Dispatch

Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!

A major and an unusual event took place earlier today uniting people from ALL major religions of the world. Look at this list of diverse nations that agreed on that one thing: US (Western Christianity), Russia (Eastern Christianity), China (Buddhism/atheism), India (Hinduism), Pakistan (Islam), and Israel (Judaism). Any lucky guesses what brought the disparate parties together?

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. I am not talking about prospects of world peace, abolition of poverty or God revealing Himself to all humanity. I am talking about little flying things that go by the ‘cute’ name of bomblets.
I know this is not a political blog but the list of those countries, covering all major world belief systems, uniting behind anything makes religion somehow come to my mind.
Some of you may know by now that earlier on Wednesday, 111 nations have approved in Dublin a treaty banning the use, manufacturing, distribution, and selling of cluster bombs. These horrible weapons are considered indiscriminate, they cover wide areas that tend to include civilians and, moreover, they have high failure rates (see photo below).

The unexploded 10% of the hundreds of bomblets released from each cluster bomb just lay there, waiting for civilians coming back to war-torn areas after the war is over. The bomblets tend to have bright color, attracting children who make a significant fraction of the post-hostilities victims in areas carpet-bombed by cluster devices. Hundreds of civilians are still being reported injured, maimed or killed since the end of Kosovo/Serbian war, the 2006 Israel war in Lebanon, and, believe it or not, in Vietnam still.
It would seem, then, that the ban on cluster bombs is a reason for celebration and cause to unite behind. It definitely has a pretty good moral foundation. But that is NOT what united those 6 countries. They united behind NOT approving it. They simply refused to be part of the negotiations. They opted out.
The reason, as some observer mentioned, is that those countries are the largest manufacturers and/or stockpilers of those horrible devices. Why would they waste a perfectly good bomb?
Money was the main reason the British military objected early on. But the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, took the decision to ban cluster bomb use by the UK, overriding his military, in a move that pushed the treaty beyond the final hurdles and got it approved. He felt that the 80 million or so dollars to be wasted were a minor sacrifice considering the harm done by these weapons.
The British PM was quoted saying that the ban was “in line with British interests and values, and makes the world a safer place.”
Hats off to Mr. Brown, who had his priorities right this time.
As for the objecting nations, nothing is new there. Throughout history, the mighty buck has proven a strong rival to deities of all kinds.
That is probably why the question ‘what would Jesus do?’ - or its equivalent in other religions - has never been frequently or seriously contemplated in making decisions in business, politics or war.
I am opposed to making religion a gold standard in the public arena, but shouldn’t morality be part of the decision making process for all of us?
Additional links:
Cluster bombs explained - The Guardian
111 Nations, Minus the U.S., Agree to Cluster-Bomb Ban - The Washington Post
Turnabout key to cluster bomb ban - LATimes

"Why do Muslims vote Democrat?"

[This post is also published on the St. Louis Post Dispatch Civil Religion Blog]

A reader (Centrist) commented on my first posting asking 2 questions. I answered the first question last week. The second question was as follows:
"... why do Muslims vote Democrat. The Democrats support abortion on demand and gay marriage, two things that the Muslim religion is so opposed to."
I do not know how accurate it is to generalize in absolute terms that Muslims vote Democrat. But judging from my immediate circles, I would say a lot of them vote that way. I am aware of at least few Muslims that are hard-core republicans who are active in the party, and are fund raising for it. I admit, they are in the minority among the Muslims I know. As for those Muslims who vote Democrat, they do it for predominantly the same reasons that non-Muslim vote Democrat.
Social justice and collective social responsibility has been a pillar concept of the Muslim community since the birth of Islam. The Qur'an stresses that the wealth is a trust to some of us from God, but for the benefit of those who need help "... and spend on others out of that which He has made you trustees for, those of you who have attained to faith and who spend freely [in God's cause] shall have a great reward."(Chapter 57:7). The Qur'an does also repeatedly link true piety to generosity in spending of the most cherished of possessions: "... truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends his substance - however much he himself may cherish it - upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage ..."(Chapter 2:177). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told the early Muslims that "the believers are like one body; if a part of it is sick or ailing, the rest of the body shall respond with aches and fever", and that "Not of us are those who sleep on a full stomach, knowing that their neighbors are hungry", bringing to the forefront of the believers' conscience the collective responsibility of the society towards its weakest and least fortunate elements. Omar, the second of the early civil leaders following the Prophet, established 'The house of treasury' where Alms (Zakat in Arabic), and charity (Sadaka in Arabic) revenues were distributed to the poor, the needy, for freeing men and women who were in bondage, and as pension for the elderly who are unable to to earn a living, Muslims or non-Muslim alike. My point is that social justice and essential elements of a welfare state where the underprivileged are entitled to basic services and care provided by the state was an early and central part of the Muslim conscience.
As for health care, as early as the first century after the Prophet's death, public hospitals were established and sponsored by the consecutive Islamic governments. From the very beginnings of Islam, commercial monopoly has been demonized and the the universal right of all community members to access natural resources (typify by water and grazing land - two major livelihood essentials in Bedouin desert life) were established.
Very few people in the US would dispute that these early practices of Muslim communities are closer to Democratic Party principles than to Republican Party principles. It is no wonder then that a significant portion of American Muslims, despite their relative affluence, would feel more aligned with the message of the Democratic party, thus they vote Democrat.
Islamic attitudes toward abortion are definitely more flexible than the strict 'pro-lifers'. In Islam, the physical and emotional welfare of the mother takes precedence over that of the fetus, even though I know of no Muslims who would give a blanket approval to the 'abortion on demand' mentioned by the reader Centrist. However, I personally think the 'abortion on demand' statement is an emotionally-loaded, and inaccurate way to describe the attitude of most Democrats, many of whom are practicing Christians.
As far as the gay marriage issue, I am opposed to it, and so are almost all my Muslim friends and acquaintances. But we are also opposed to many other issues such as unjust 'preemptive' wars, strengthening corporations at the expense of the individuals, attrition of civil right, unchecked executive powers, and last but not least, denying health care to several million American children because it costs a small fraction of what we spent in one day saving a failing big Wall Street firm.
Most of my Muslim friends are Democrats, and in addition to the economic and social justice causes, it was a lot more obvious to us that the Democratic party is more inclusive, more diverse and less elitist than the Republican Party. Most of us are not 'one-issue' voters, and we choose a party to run a country not to lead us to Heaven.
Despite all this, and as I mentioned early on, some Muslims still vote Republican albeit in minute numbers that are dwindling by the minute. But would that surprise any one seeing how Republican presidential candidates were after the likes of Pat Robertson and John Hagee?
Khaled

[I have put together in the past a more detailed Essay on Social Justice in Islam with more documentation of Quranic verses on the subject. It is available on line at: http://muslimdreamer.blogspot.com/2008/01/islam-and-social-justice.html]

Tags: American Muslims, elections, Islam, Politics, social justice

When Experts Spoke on Iraq

The quotations are from a web-only article on The Nation website, by Victor Navasky & Christopher Cerf presenting their new book:
Some pretty amusing statement by the engineers of the quagmire.
So far,

• THOUSANDS of American lives were lost
• HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives were lost
• near a TRILLION of DOLLARS was spent (primarily out of tax-payers pockets and into weapons manufacturers accounts).

"........
More people get killed in New York every night than get killed in Baghdad. The fact of life is that there will never besuch a thing as one hundred percent security--it doesn't exist.

L. Paul Bremer III
Director of the Coalition Provisional Authority
August 2003.

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."

Kenneth Pollack
former director for Persian Gulf affairs -National Security Council
September 2002

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."

Glenn Hubbard
White House economic adviser
October 4, 2002

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003

......"

You would probably hear less hype in some 'Bait & Switch' schemes.

If it were not for these little annoying details (lost Lives and $$$) I mentioned at the beginning, some of those statements may even make you laugh.

With people that clever at the helm, I am surprised we are not in deeper mess (if there were any mess that is deeper).
And do you know what is even more painful? NONE of the war engineers left office in shame. And, who knows, we may find some of them in a coming administration, to help finish the job they started.

Read the full article, with more quotations on the Nation website.
The Experts Speak on Iraq- The Nation