On Anger - An 1100 year old medical advice

"Medicine of the Soul" is over a thousand year old book written in Arabic by Abu Bakr Al-Razi (born in AD 875 near Tehran), the greatest medical scientist and physician produced by the early Islamic civilization. He ventured in all aspects of medicine and psychiatry (including scientific medical research) and is known to be the first in the history of medicine to treat pediatrics as a distinct specialty, and not just medicine for people with small bodies.

Despite his great respect for Hippocrates, Galen and Aristotle, the three divine figures of medicine and philosophy in early Islam, he felt free to criticize and oppose their opinions (e.g., he wrote a book titled Doubts on Galen) if he felt he had adequate proof for his opinions. In his own words 'philosophy demand that you do not submit [intellectually] to your teachers, for that leads to stagnation of knowledge'.

Believe it or not, his criticism of the three learned ones earned him a lot of enemies in the academia of the Muslim world at that time, but could not cloud his influence as he continued to be a revered and reprinted author in medicine until the 18th century in northern Europe especially his book on infection diseases (You can read more about Al-Razi here).

As a medical professional myself, a message he wrote to a student of his leaving for a job in a distant royal court was unbelievably impressive in how modern it is. He was teaching his student (a budding new attending) not only the morals, and ethics of medical practice, but also on the psychology of 'VIP patients' and extended the scope of his advise to teach the student about life and politics in a royal court and how to handle it as a physician.

That lead me to another book of his called "Medicine of the Soul", an short treatise on psychology and psychiatry that also has the feel of a modern self-help and self-improvement book. I liked the the section on Anger very much that I decided to translate it and share it on the blog. I hope you would like the structure and the flow of logic, starting with the practical and mundane, culminating in a great sublime conclusion that has far reaching significance today as much as it had eleven centuries ago.

On conquering anger

Anger was created into the animal so it could revenge on other harmful creatures. That trait in excess, which leads to the loss of the control of reason, would inflict more harm on the angry creatures than on the ones that made them angry.

For that reason, the wise person should keep reminding themselves of situation of those whose anger lead them to bad outcomes, either immediate or late. Then they guide themselves to imagine those bad outcomes when they themselves are angry.

Many of those who get angry can end up punching, or butting heads, thus bringing pain onto themselves sometimes more that what they inflict on the other. So many times I have seen a man, throwing a punch against another’s jaw, suffer from broken fingers that may take months to heal, when the one that received the blow did not get nearly as much harm.

And I have seen those who get so angry and screaming that they started coughing up blood, resulting in breathing problems that may lead them to their death.

I also became aware of people who, in their times of extreme anger, excessively punished and harshly abused their family, children or their loved ones with what they regretted for a very long time. They may have even been unable to repair what they damaged in their lifetime.

Galen [a ancient Greek founder of medicine] has even mentioned that his own mother [getting angry if she is unable to unlock a door] would jump at the lock and start biting on it in anger.

And, by God, their does not seem to be much difference between the one who loses his mind and his poise in anger, and the one who is actually crazy.

And the more one remind themselves of these things when they are calm, the more likely they would remember it when they are getting angry.

As for those who have done such unpleasant things when they were angry, they need to be informed that anger got the best of them because they lost their reason, so that they train themselves not to act in times of anger except after contemplation and patience. That way they would not get afflicted, when they thought they were punishing another person. And that way, they would not share with beasts their nature of unrestrained behavior.

He who wants to punish others need to be free from four attributes at the time he inflicts punishment: free from pride and hatred towards the one they are punishing, and free from the opposites of those two attributes. If he has the pride and hatred, revenge and punishment will exceed the extent of the crime, and to have the opposite of those two, revenge and punishment will not measure up to the extent of the crime.

A wise person who educates himself about these thoughts, and trains his instincts to follow their guidance, will have their anger and revenge fairly meted, and will be safe from harming themselves, in soul and in body, soon after they get angry or much later.

----- End of translation text.

Khaled

These two old drawings are interesting if you just think how Al-Razi was perceived in the minds of of an artist, depending on cultural background of the artist.

Internet Round 1/27/2009

Gaza War Pushes Arabs to the Brink - The Nation

Anger is boiling over in the Middle East over Gaza, and -- exactly as I predicted -- the result of the war has been to boost radicalism throughout the region, to strengthen the terrorist-inclined fanatics of Hamas, and to enhance the muscle of terrorist-inclined Israelis, including far-right parties such as Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and, of course, Likud's bombastic Benjamin Netanyahu.

Speaking on January 14 at the New America Foundation, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilizad said explicitly that the United States feared a violent explosion in the region, including the seizure of US embassies by angry mobs, if the United States continued to block action by the UN. A central concern, said Khalilzad, is that mosque leaders all over the Middle East would mobilize the anger and direct it against the United States.

In case you think the anger against Israel and the United States among the Arabs is limited to Hamas and Hezbollah, consider the stunning comments of Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, who also served as the country's ambassador to both Great Britain and the United States: ".... America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region – from the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib – but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. ..."

Miri Eisin: Is only the Israeli narrative 'the truth' and all the others wrong? - Haaretz

Israel has a national obsession with everything concerning hasbara (a Hebrew word for "explanation" and referring to information, spin, propaganda or a strategic public relations policy).

Every time a warlike event takes place, the Israeli broadcasting networks turn to hasbara experts with the recurring question - what must we do to improve Israel's international image? They really mean "how can we prove to everyone that we're right, they're wrong and everybody hates us and they're anti-Semites?"

The narrative shown in the Western media, especially in Europe, is based on a different world of cultural references than Israel's. It says the era of wars is over, that military force is not the way to solve disputes and that there is a direct link between occupation and violence. The challenge facing Israeli hasbara is not simple - certainly as long as the Palestinians' tragedy is shown to the world. The Western media scrupulously present the Israeli side, but does not accept its narrative.

Israelis are exposed mainly to the domestic networks and are shocked to hear how we appear to others. But is only the Israeli narrative "the truth" and all the others wrong?

And finally, and possibly as a reaction to the total lack of other important issues facing Muslims, the Yoga Police strikes again in Indonesia.

Yoga ban: Indonesia follow malaysia in Banning Yoga - The guardian

Indonesia has joined Malaysia in banning Muslims from practising yoga that
includes Hindu rituals, fearing that it may corrupt their faith.

The country's senior body of Islamic clerics ruled that Muslims must refrain from yoga if it involves elements such as chanting mantras, which reflect its Hindu roots.

When Malaysia's fatwa council told Muslims they should avoid yoga last year, the ruling provoked such strong opposition that the prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, stepped in to overturn the outright ban.

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.

"From Mumbai to Hebron" and "Jewish Jihadis"- by Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam

The horror that went on in Mumbai not doubt far exceeds the material horror of what has been going on in the Palestinian West Bank city of Hebron. Despite this, the coverage of the Settlers aggression and 'pogroms' in the Israeli Media is extensive. In the centrist newspaper like Haaretz, the editors and reporters have not been shy calling a spade a spade. they are not wavering of mincing words describing the horror committed by Jewish settlers on innocent Palestinians (for examples see links below).
On this side of the world Richard Silverstein, who publishes the progressive Jewish Website Tikun Olam, is not shy either.
On December 4 and 5 he published two great posts with most provocative titles: Mumbai and Jewish Jihadis and From Mumbai to Hebron, Hate Speaks the Same Language Regardless of Religion.
In those 2 posts he looks for the similarities in the attitudes of fanatics in both Muslim and Jewish worlds. He also puts in perspective the attacks on the Jewish Chabad that was part of the Mumbai Massacre, ending with a murder of a Rabi and his wife.
Take a look at these excerpts, but please read the full articles on his web site. As you may have imagined, he is getting tremendous heat of his opinions form many right wing pro-Israel readers.

From the first article Hate Speaks the Same Language Regardless of Religion:

I tried to carefully calibrate my response to the attack on Chabad House so that I excoriated the terrorists without trashing Islam. Most commenters would have none of it. They placed the blame squarely on Islam. All of Islam. There was no nuance. No fine points. No distinctions. It’s goddamn depressing.

And that is the frustration I feel dealing with religious violence. It carries almost a hypnotic power. If you are an extremist the violence is like an accelerant to a fire or a drug. If you represent the victimized, then such terror cries out for vengeance.

And from the second article Mumbai and Jewish Jihadis :

My Jewish jihadi friends NEED to see the Mumbai attack as based in anti-Semitism because they either wish to, or are prepared to concede a religious holy war between Islam and Judaism in which we will all fight to the death leaving a world in which none of us shall remain standing.
So if you wish to see the Mumbai attack as one that threatens all Jews, be my guest. But you’ve only allowed yourselves to be drawn into the cycle of global Jewish-Muslim jihadi revenge. And that is a dead end literally in which the bodies of the future Gabriel and Rivka Holtzbergs korbanot will pile like kindling up to the heavens.

Silverstein's frustration with fanatics on all sides and from all religions is as deep as mine. Fanatics and extremists are all the same. They see the world form only one perspective; the only legitimate perspective: their perspective. And they see the truth through only one pair of eyes, the only eyes that can see the truth: their own eyes.

The Golden Rule in the Torah says Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said Love for your brother what you love of yourself.

To simplify it would be like that: put yourselves for a moment in the other persons place. Make some effort to walk a mile in their shoes. Take a moment and try to see the worlds through your 'enemies' eyes. If you do that, the other may not continue to be a stranger, and the enemy may be no longer an enemy. You may see the humanity in them, and they may see the legitimacy of your grievances.

Fanatics and extremists unfortunately are unable to do that, no matter what their holy scripture tells them. Domination and even exterminations of the others is their only way of doing business. Too bad the rest of us get in the line of fire.

Khaled

Other links to Hebron Events:

• Jews storm Palestinian home in Hebron - Israel News, Ynetnews
• ANALYSIS / No other word than 'pogrom' for settler acts in Hebron - Haaretz

A window into Jewish Extremist-stan (aka, West Bank settlements)

The Israeli paper Haaretz is generally representative of the more moderate Israelis. Many of its journalist are very analytical and frequently critical of the dark side of the Israeli society, from occupation to daily humiliation of the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.
Yesterday I read two brief articles with accompanying videos that are worth sharing. so here they are, with some excerpts to give a taste of the articles. Please read the articles and watch the videos to get the full picture.

Hebron settler mob caught on video clashing with IDF troops

During the clashes that erupted early Thursday, some settlers began to attack Palestinian locals while others wounded an IDF soldier by pouring turpentine on him as he tried to stop them from throwing stones at Palestinians.

Settlers spray 'Mohammed Pig' on walls of mosque
The settlers also scribbled graffiti around Hebron, including spraying 'Mohammed Pig' on the walls of a local mosque and on Palestinian homes nearby

An IDF spokesman said settlers also vandalized a cemetery near the mosque. Solders were "working to remove the graffiti and repair the damage" to the mosque and a cemetery, the spokesman said.

Prof. Avi Shlaim: Settlements turned Israel into apartheid state

British-Israeli Professor Avi Shlaim joined a handful of academics in London earlier this month to debate the future of Zionism, in a panel entitled "Israel at 60: What happened to the Zionist dream?"

... He continues, he said, to believe in Israel's legitimacy to exist within its pre-1967 borders, but "rejects uncompromisingly the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line."

In his talk, entitled "Obsession with Territory Post-1967," Shlaim blasts the settlements, which he says have turned Israel into an apartheid state, as the primary source of failure for peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Israel must give up land, he says, not just as a concession to the Palestinians, but because "a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free."

Khaled

A simple 'Search & Replace' would have changed the Iraq war outcome!

This is one situation where I wish history repeated itself.
After the bloody battles of the World War II, the US took over total control of the conquered nations, namely Germany and Japan. Less than 2 decades after the war, both countries were truly democratic, and moreover, both were formidable economic forces that looked like they would rival their occupier, the USA.
How the USA handled the defeated nations that killed hundreds of thousands of American, and caused the loss of tens of millions of civilian lives everywhere they ventured, is an example that, unfortunately, modern day America could not bother to follow in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A previous post of mine presented and article by Brian O'Malley in the Washington Post that showed how George Washington instructed his military leaders on handling occupied people. The article I am presenting below is a more recent one from the time of WWII.
Recently, the National Archives declassified a secret memo that had been prepared for FDR’s Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, titled “Observations on Post Hostilities Policy Toward Japan".
Peter F. Schaefer, in an article for Foreign Policy magazine writes

"Had U.S. decision makers read it before invading Iraq, the present mess might well have been different."

The declassified paper outlines suggestions for handling post war Japan. The author of FP article simply includes the text of the original document, replacing the word "Japan" with "Iraq", "Allied Military Government" with "COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY", etc.
The result sadly revealing: every recommendation for post-hostilities Japan would have contributed significantly to the success of Americans in Iraq, and to the wellfare of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the arrogance of the neocon hawks that ran the war as f it were a private enterprise did not have much tolerance for opinions different from their's. Their approach, frequently referred to as hubris was along the line of: we have bigger guns, therefore we can shoot first and think about it later.
I will present the text of the declassified document here. Please take the time to check the original article.

1. To be realistic, post hostilities policy toward Japan IRAQ must be based upon:

a. Recognition of the probable reaction of the American public over a period of time. A policy which does not win the continuing support of the American public is doomed to failure.

b. Recognition of the lessons taught by history with respect to relations between the conqueror and conquered.

2. The most important points to be noted in connection with a and b above would appear to be the following:

a. The American public will unquestionably become restive under a prolonged occupation of Japan IRAQ by American Forces. It will not wish to assume the burdens of governing Japan IRAQ over an extended period. Demands for withdrawal are likely to begin within 6 months after the surrender of Japan IRAQ and thereafter to build up increasing political pressure to that end.

b. Even under the most just and equitable administration, resentment against a conquering nation exercising direct political and military control over a vanquished nation inevitably tends to increase over a period of time. Difficulties arise which present the ruling nation with the alternative of either extending and tightening control or withdrawing without accomplishing the desired objectives.

c. The conquering nation cannot impose its form of government, ideals, or way of life upon a conquered nation except by permanent military occupation and immigration.

3. The formulation of our policies toward post hostilities Japan IRAQ, therefore, requires the highest degree of statesmanship. We must look forward as well as backward. We must:

a. Avoid to the maximum extent possible policies dictated by current war hysteria which subsequently the American public will repudiate or which will involve commitments which the American public will be unwilling to fulfill.

b. attempt to accomplish the maximum degree of progress towards the regeneration of Japan IRAQ in the minimum amount of time. Our degree of success in accomplishing this objective will depend upon the intelligence with which we approach the problem or the relations between the victor and the vanquished.

4. It would appear desirable in the light of the above:

a. To retain the civil administration.

b. To set up a supreme authority in the country which would function and issue its directives through the regularly constituted government.

c. To give every encouragement to the Japanese IRAQIS to undertake under their own leadership the development of democratic institutions and the elimination of the spirit of military conquest.

5. The following arguments are advanced in support of such a program as compared with the establishment of a Allied Military Government COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY in place of the Emperor CIVIL AUTHORITY:

a. Allied Military Government THE COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY is bound to be bungling, undiplomatic, and inefficient. We must give full recognition to the fact that we do not have sufficient personnel with the proper vision, training and ability to carry out the task effectively.

b. The continuation of the Imperial IRAQI rule with the Allied Control Commission COALITION remaining in the background should reduce the possibilities of friction and disturbance to the minimum and permit the earliest withdrawal of Allied Occupation COALITION Forces, and of the Allied Military Council. The Allied Military Government COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY, particularly with the quality of personnel available, would almost inevitably create situations that would require a more protracted military occupation than the American public will accept.

The author believes that we, as the only superpower remaining, are bound to venture in similar wars in the future, for one reason or the other. He has this advice to conclude his article:

"We will never know how Iraq might have turned out had the Bush team made all the right moves from day one. But one thing is certain: Before the next war, those in charge had better listen to the wisdom of their predecessors"

Ten Commandments for Arab and Jew at war - Haaretz

Ten Commandments for Arab and Jew at war. By Bradley burston -Haaretz

"It helps little that each side lays claim to ultimate morality and consummate victimhood. For Palestinian Muslim and Israeli Jew both, many of the most strident calls for escalation, for war until absolute victory, for refusal to compromise, for justifying injury to civilians on the other side, in fact, for eradication, political or physical, of the other side, come from ultra-nationalist religious leaders.

With radicalism at the clerical level having tainted and to some extent warped both Islam and Judaism, perhaps now is the time for the rest of us believers to put in our two cents.
Herewith, a first draft: Ten Commandments for the Arab and Jew at war:"

The author then follows with elaboration of his list of proposed commandments. It is difficult for most reasonable people to disagree with that list.

I, as a human, and as a Muslim agree with him on each and every commandment

"1. Thou shalt not kill the civilian
.......

2. Neither shall you use civilians as human shields.
.........

3. Thou shalt not worship the use of force, nor mistake revenge for self-defense....."

And my personal favorite, number 10

"10. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain
The clergyman - rabbi, reverend or imam ? who counsels hatred for the other, who preaches that the Lord is on the side of wider and deeper war, is not a man of God.
The man of the cloth who dismisses the beliefs of the other, the history of the other, the validity of the other's faith-based claim to this land, is not a man of God."

Read the full list and his 'commentary' on Haartz
Ten Commandments for Arab and Jew at war - Haaretz

Anti-Semites for Obama - The Sleaze from Tennesse Republican Party

The smear campaign against Obama is going on - full steam ahead.
From the Muslim first name, to a 'Hussein' middle name, to Muslim attire pictures, etc, the pressure will not relent.

A recent Tennessee Republican Party press release has taken the sleaze to new heights with the title "Anti-Semites for Obama". That 'piece of work' was beautifully covered on Richard Silverstein Blog post.

I will not be trying to defend Obama. His campaign people can do a better job than I ever will. But for fun I did some research (thank God for Google), and I came across some interesting pictures from Ethiopian Sigd Festival - a religious worship in jerusalem.

Any of you with some familiarity with African attire realizes that most people in any particular region in Africa, as well as in any other part of the world, dress like their compatriots regardless of religion. So, look at these pictures and tell me: is it a Somali Muslim attire that Obama is wearing, or could it be...an Ethiopian Jewish attire?

The point is attires, and names, do not matter.


If someone votes for Obama because of an attire, or because of his first or middle name, they are stupid.
If someone votes against Obama, for his attire, or because his first or middle name, they are twice as stupid.
I like his spirit. I like the spirit that his presence as a candidate has ignited in this country. If he is elected, that will tell me the great revival of America has begun.
That is why I will vote for him.

Khaled

Addendum:
Just to be fair to all Abrahamic religions in Africa, i am adding a picture of Christian Ethiopian, and a group of Sudanese men. As you may be expecting: the dress is still almost the same.

Islam will win - Haaretz

Quite a provoking title, especially for an article form the Israeli newspaper. The author, Bradely Burston, is a very moderate and balanced Israeli writer, who is very frequently flamed by the right wing readers of the paper. He makes some interesting points. see what you think.

"As Iran prepares to celebrate the 30th anniversary next year of the revolution led by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the world of jihad is fraying at many points and, in the worst symptom of any revolution, beginning to show its age."

'The same day the Al-Qaida video appeared, senior Iranian cleric Hassan Rowhani strongly criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his verbal assaults against Israel, asking: "Does foreign policy mean expressing coarse slogans and grandstanding?"'

Click below to read the full article
Islam will win - Haaretz

Most Muslims 'desire democracy' -BBC

The largest survey to date of Muslims worldwide suggests the vast majority want Western democracy and freedoms, but do not want them to be imposed.

The poll by Gallup of more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 nations found most wanted the West to instead focus on changing its negative view of Muslims and Islam.

The poll, which claims to represent the views of 90% the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, is to be published next month as part of a book entitled Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think.

Click Below to read the full article
Most Muslims 'desire democracy' -BBC

Genuine or Political: Turkey's radical revision of Islamic texts

From the BBC online: Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

This article on the BBC website was quite a jolt for me this morning. Turkey occupies an important place in the Muslim world, and in the world in general. Being at the fault line between the East and the West, belonging to Europe (and NATO) with EU aspirations on one hand, and being governed by a democratically elected Islamic party on the other hand. Turkey has close to 75 million people, 99% of them are Muslims, and 30% of the population is under age 15. It is a country that that has a growing strategic influence for many decades to come.
There is a definite revival in Islamic spirit in Turkey, as evident by the recent lifting of the ban on Islamic head cover in state universities, which - believe it or not - required a constitutional amendment to be lifted. But the country is still very secular, and a significant portion of its practicing Muslims see no contradiction between strongly believing in Islam and practicing it on one hand, while fully supporting a secular mode of governance for the state on the other hand.
Turkey also occupies a big place in Islamic history, being the headquarter of the last transnational Islamic state (Ottoman Caliphates).
That is why reading this article on the BBC was quite interesting for me.

There is no doubt in my mind that Muslims for 1500 years have had different approaches to the understanding of the same religious text. That is why we see so many ways of implementation of Islam that varies by geographic location.
At least in some case, one may find that the daily life, moral values, and cultural norms in one Muslim group more similar to those of non-Muslims living in the same geographic location, than to Muslims in a remote country on a different continent, even though both communities are predominantly Muslim.
That is not necessarily bad. Islam is strong yet flexible enough to accommodate to peoples across different culture and over many centuries of history. This is almost a prerequisite for any successful ideology. A space-age scientist in cutting edge high-tech lab in California can be a proud and a practicing Muslims. An illiterate cattle herder in the middle of a small village in central Africa or Afghanistan can be also a proud and a practicing Muslims. They both can get together, share in performing the rituals, and enjoy and learn a great deal form listening to the Quran, and at the end they each can go back where they live and work and carry on with there lives.

My point is that prevalent culture has always colored what we individually think Islam is. Many of us, Muslims, think that we know THE ONLY WAY to practice properly, while we actually only know how we were raised (or taught) to practice. This invasion of prevalent culture into religious thinking and interpretation leads to many problems, with 'cultural baggage' that gets stuck to Islam and makes it difficult to reconcile our differences withing the Muslim community, and more importantly, it confuses the non-Muslim world as to what Islam really is.

Now back to the article. I truly hope that such academic effort is conducted with utmost consideration for the spirit of Islam, and with truth seeking as the ONLY motive behind it. But I also cannot help get worried a bit because we keep hearing the words 'reforming Islam' coming from individuals and groups that are also explicitly islamophobic and inherently hostile to Islam and Muslims. It is frequently the code word for those who believe Islam is genuinely evil, but talking about reforming it seems more politically correct than suggesting to throw it all away.
I cannot imaging the Turkish researchers belong to the latter, so i am hopeful.
I do believe Islamic thinking needs revitalization, and that serious effort is needed to strip Islam (the religion) from the dead weight (cultural baggage) that associates with it more frequently than not. Local culture and societal traditions are valuable. they tell us a lot about who we are. And, as long as they do not contradict with core Islamic beliefs, they are totally acceptable. But they should never sneak on us to become part of our religious beliefs.

And as for judging the effort by Turkish scholars, I will wait until the document mentioned in the article is out there for all of us to see.

Click below to read the BBC article:
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Obamaphobia in Israeli Press

"There's still this lingering Israeli and Jewish phobia that a Black politician, especially one who earlier in his career was sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians might revert to his earlier positions and turn his back on Israel. The very notion is ridiculous because (unfortunately) no one can become President of the United States without being slavishly pro-Israel whether they wanted to be or not. There's just too much Jewish campaign money on the table and too much lobbying power from the likes of AIPAC and other Israel lobby groups."


Comment:
This is a very nice article from the well-established progressive Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein. He is a straight talker, and a joy to read. He is a big fan of Obama, and he did not take well to the racist cartoon of the major Israeli newspaper, Maariv.
Read the full posting on Richard Silverstien's Tikun Olam Blog

Khaled

Muslim Brotherhood Announce Their Participation in Local Elections and Abandon the Slogan of 'Islam is the Solution'

"MB [muslim Brotherhood] General Guide Mohamed Mahdi Akif in a press conference held at his office said: "We decided to participate in the elections to carry out God's will and to save the nation, despite the arrest campaigns that MB is subjected to."He added: "There are 400 MB detainees because of the upcoming elections, but this will not prevent us from participating strongly and effectively," explaining that the Guidance Office would not disclose the names of candidates and would not raise the slogan of 'Islam is the Solution', but would rather raise slogans against corruption and price rises"

• To read the rest of the article in English click here
• To read the rest of the article in Arabic click here

Comment:
An interesting bit of news from The Egyptian Today (Almasry Alyoum) newspaper published in Cairo. The most interesting part is that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood decided to drop the slogan they held for decades "Islam is the Solution". What that means, practically, will not be obvious for some time. I hope it signals a change from the customary lip service they pay to their principles, toward finding if they can come up with practical and implementable solutions to peoples everyday problems. But if it is anything like the usual Egyptian politics, it is likely to be substituting one slogan for another, so I will not hold my breath.

khaled

This November, I'm voting Christian - Bradley Burston

"The United States has been in church for nearly a year, now, preached to, proselytized, evangelized, testified to by one presidential candidate after another. It seems to be working, on me at least. I've come to a decision. I'm going to vote for a Christian. "
---

"I am not about to demand that my candidate be the most consistent of church-goers. My candidate need not believe in Church theology or politics. This is what I want from my candidate: Emulate Jesus. Heal. Be a true Christian. Act to heal a country which is wounded and cleft to its core.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:44) "

Click here to read the full article in Haaretz.

US-Islamic forum in Gulf backs Obama

"DOHA, Feb 18, 2008 (AFP) — Delegates at a US-Islamic forum voiced support on Monday for US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, although some warned against expecting any radical policy change irrespective of who captures the White House.

Obama, who is vying to become the first black president of the United States, won overwhelming support in a mock election by more than 200 American and Muslim delegates at the US-Islamic World Forum in the Qatari capital.

His Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican candidates won only a handful of votes."

Amr Khaled, a famous Preacher, was quotesd as saying: "I would like to see Obama become president of America because he champions 'change and hope', which we Muslims need as much as the Americans do," Islamic television preacher Amr Khaled told AFP."

He went on to say: "on behalf of millions of Muslim youth who seek work, respect and freedom," and urged the next US administration to "solve the political problems in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and not to mix between Muslims and extremists."

Read the full article on AFP

Misjudgment that made martyrs of others

"It is all very well for the archbishop to explain that he does not want the term 'sharia' to refer to criminal punishments, but for most people that's what the word means: something atavistic, misogynistic, cruel and foreign. It is the Death of a Princess, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the hangings in Iran and the stonings in Afghanistan. It is the law which locks up middle-aged primary teachers for allowing their classes to name a teddy bear Muhammad. To the British media a demand for sharia is a demand to 'behead those who insult Islam'."
Click here to read the full article from the Guardian.
From the BBC: Q and A: Sharia law explained

In Timbuktu, a new move to save ancient manuscripts

"Timbuktu, Mali - Abdel Kader Haidara carefully picks up one of a dozen small leather-bound books lying on his desk and leafs through the age-weathered pages covered in Arabic calligraphy.
This tiny book is centuries old and one of more than 100,000 manuscripts that can be found on shelves and in boxes in Timbuktu, the ancient Malian city of mud-brick walls nestled between the Niger River and the Sahara Desert. "The manuscripts are our heritage," says the curator of the Mamma Haidara Manuscript Library, the largest of more than 20 private libraries in the city. "They have been passed from generation to generation. They are the history of Africa, the history of mankind." But if not for an $8 million donation from South Africa, this history might have been lost forever. The manuscripts in Arabic and African languages cover almost every conceivable subject from history and medicine to law and human rights, from astronomy and philosophy to conflict resolution and literature. It's a Who's Who of ancient kingdoms." [Click here to read the full story from the Christian science Monitor]

So what if Obama were a Muslim?

So what if Obama were a Muslim? (by Leonard Pitts - Statesman journal, Oregan)

"Barack Obama is not a Muslim.We know this because he has told us so.We know it because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.We know it despite a campaign of lies and whispers from various bloggers, pundits and head cases. Barack Obama is not a Muslim. But, what if he was?Same guy, same charisma, same inspirational idealism. But also, a Muslim. Not a crazy Muslim. Not a guy prone to strapping bombs to his chest in hopes of meeting virgins in heaven. A Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-type Muslim. A Dave Chappelle, Ahmad Rashad, Shaquille O’Neal-type Muslim. A guy you like and admire who just happened to be, you know ... Muslim.Would it matter? Should it?" [for the full article click this]

Self evident. No comment necessary on this one, but see Jim Hacking's post "Obama, the non-Muslim" on this blog.

khaled

A World Without Islam

Salaam and Peace to you all:
A friend emailed me about this article a few days ago. It is a worthwhile reading. Here is an abstract from the Foreign Policy web site

"..... A World Without Islam
By Graham E. Fuller	January/February 2008
Imagine, if you will, a world without Islam—admittedly an almost inconceivable state of affairs given its charged centrality in our daily news headlines. Islam seems to lie behind a broad range of international disorders: suicide attacks, car bombings, military occupations, resistance struggles, riots, fatwas, jihads, guerrilla warfare, threatening videos, and 9/11 itself. Why are these things taking place? “Islam” seems to offer an instant and uncomplicated analytical touchstone, enabling us to make sense of today’s convulsive world. Indeed, for some neoconservatives, “Islamofascism” is now our sworn foe in a looming “World War III.” But indulge me for a moment. What if there were no such thing as Islam? What if there had never been a Prophet Mohammed, no saga of the spread of Islam across vast parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa? Given our intense current focus on terrorism, war, and rampant antiAmericanism—some of the most emotional international issues of the day—it’s vital to understand the true sources of these crises. Is Islam, in fact, the source of the problem, or does it tend to lie with other less obvious and deeper factors? For the sake of argument, in an act of historical imagination, picture a Middle East in which Islam had never appeared. Would we then be spared many of the current challenges before us? Would the Middle East be more peaceful? How different might the character of EastWest relations be? Without Islam, surely the international order would present a very different picture than it does today. Or would it? IF NOT ISLAM, THEN WHAT? From the earliest days of a broader Middle East, Islam has seemingly shaped the cultural norms and.... ..."

The idea of a world without Islam is a 'comforting thought' to many, suggesting to me that they have no clue what on earth is going on, and that their knowledge of history. politics and religion is marginal at best. The author, on the other hand, argues that wiping Islam from the collective memory of mankind may not result in a dramatically different world today.

I tend to agree with the author, not because he is a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, but because I always strongly believed that most of the conflicts are fueled by economy and ethnicity rather than religion. Religion in political conflicts is just a useful banner to get the less educated, and more emotional recruits, who may not understand the economics underlying the 'need for war' or in fact may object to a war that has economic and/or ethnic basis, or a war for the sake of expanding the reach of a superpower. In other words, the greedy plan most of the wars, and the faithful fight it for them.

This does not mean that all wars are unjust, or that patriotism is foolish. There are definitely wars worth fighting, and causes worth dying for. But the majority of wars were also definitely fought for announced causes that did not reflect the full story.
Some of the wars that seemed well justified to many include the American Civil War, World Wars I & II, and even the current Afghanistan War. But examples for the less-well-justified wars are more abundant: the Crusades, the Ottoman conquests in Europe, American recruitment and support of Mujahedeen to fight godless Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89), Western- and Arab-supported Iraq War against Iran (1980-88) , North-South war in Sudan (1983-2005), and finally the Iraq war with Neoconservatives getting Fundamentalist Christians to back it as part of the ultimate struggle between Evil Islam and Good Christianity, etc. The economic and ethnic components may differ in magnitude from one war to the other, but in all these cases, religious aspects were inflated by all sides to gain moral and material support, and to keep the war going on.
Anyway, I liked the article because it resonated with my thoughts. See what you think.

Khaled

Links:

• Foreign Policy Magazine (Abstract only - Full text if you are a subscriber)
• Very heated debate about the article in The Wall Street Journal blog site
• PDF with the full text of the article that I came across using Google Search.