Weblog
Democracy Can't Be Imposed? So yesterday declared Shirin Ebadi Permalink, newly famous as the Iranian peace prize Nobel laureate. "Democracy is not a present to offer a nation. Democracy cannot be imposed on people by dropping bombs on them. The only way to go about it is through the United Nations." Which makes me ask in response, was it American and allied bombs that turned Germany and Japan into democracies post-World War II, or was it the United Nations? (June 3, 2004)
U.S. Medicine in the Persian Gulf. A noteworthy article by Scott Allen in the Boston Globe today points to a trend:
Harvard Medical School is breaking ground today for the Harvard Medical School Dubai Center that will help train medical staff, direct research, and provide quality control for a 435-acre medical campus "healthcare city" in the United Arab Emirates. This is the school's biggest international project ever and the first bricks-and-mortar project abroad since a Shanghai campus closed in 1915.
Joslin Diabetes Center of Boston just opened a treatment center in Bahrain, which has one of the world's highest diabetes rates.
Cornell University has launched a medical school in Doha, Qatar.
Cleveland Clinic will help run a hospital under construction in Saudi Arabia.
Outside of the Persian Gulf, Columbia University offers a medical degree through Ben-Gurion University in Israel and the Cleveland Clinic partly owns a hospital in Cairo.
The trend is a direct result of the war on terror. As Allen puts it, "People from the Middle East, who account for up to half of international patients in US hospitals, face more background scrutiny and visa delays since the 2001 terror attacks, increasing their desire for better health care at home." And there's big bucks involved; Dubai Healthcare City estimates that the 100 million Persian Gulf residents spend $25 billion a year getting treatment elsewhere. The building boom looks like a good solution for all involved. (May 31, 2004) Permalink
An Indian from Pakistan, a Pakistani from India It turns out that the new prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, was born in 1932 in the town of Gah, now in Pakistan. And the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, was born in 1943 in New Delhi, the capital of India. According to the Associated Press, "Singh, 71, was 14 when he left with his family, and he has not been back. Musharraf, the 60-year-old general-turned-president of Pakistan, left New Delhi when he was 4 and did not revisit the ancestral home until three years ago."
This symmetry is seen by some as a sign of hope for reducing tensions between the two states: Sher Mazan, a senior Pakistani Foreign Office official from Gah, says that "Manmohan Singh belongs to this area, so there will be different considerations about Pakistan. Definitely, it will make a difference that he was born here. In our part of the world, we always take care of the place we were born." Of course, it could work the other way too, with each leader all the more resolute and entrenched because of his place of origins. That possibility is hinted at this evidence from that same Associated Press article by Patrick McDowell:
The house where Singh lived with his family - wealthy Sikh landlords who also ran a dried fruit business - is now only a pile of stones near a well, overlooking terraced wheat fields. The Hindu and Sikh owners of the neighboring homes fled to India decades ago and the Muslims moved in. … Villagers recall Muslim outsiders massacring two dozen Hindus after hearing Hindus somewhere were killing Muslims. Refugee Muslims were later settled here with government land grants, but they soon sold out and moved to the city
Comment: This parallel brings to mind a sixteenth-century analogue, when the Ottoman sultan, who ruled over a Turkish-dominated realm, wrote Persian poetry and the Safavid shah ruling Iran wrote Turkish poetry. This mutuality did not improve their relations. (May 31, 2004) Permalink
Palestinian Terrorism in Decline I have written a series of articles tracing the ineffectiveness of Palestinian terrorism against Israel – the first of them in December 2001, followed by others in August 2002, January 2003, and most recently in April 2004. While the timetable of Palestinian recognition of failure has been slower than I expected, short of a mega-terror attack, things do seem to be winding down. Patrick Bishop of the Daily Telegraph reviews the situation today in "Has Israel beaten the suicide bombers?" noting that
It is three months since the last serious terrorist attack. The army says there were 25 such attacks in 2002, which killed 147 people. Last year there were 20, killing 141. So far this year there have been only two, in which 19 died. The Israelis are starting to believe that their tactics are working. Palestinian groups fighting them tend to agree
(May 22, 2004)
June 4, 2004 update: A reader, Judith Antonelli, points out that Bishop's figures are wrong. So far this year, there have been four (not two) suicide bombings, in which 35 have died (not 19):
Jan. 14, Erez, killing 4; Jan. 24, Jerusalem, killing 11; Feb. 22, Jerusalem, killing 10; Mar. 14, Ashdod, killing 10. Permalink
Girl Scouts Celebrate "Committing to Hijab" I'll wager that Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Scouting movement, never imagined that a Girl Scout troop in the United States would be celebrating little girls donning the veil – but that's what happened at a recent event held by the Muslim Scouts of Michigan at the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Tarek El-Tablawy of The Associated Press describes the scene when 43 girls, ages 8 to 11, attended a Takleef Festival, described by the Arab-American News as "a celebration of girls committing to hijab."
the girls line up in two groups — one dressed in white, the other in pink gowns and hijabs. On stage, they approach a copy of the Quran held by another girl. Gently kissing its spine, they pass underneath as parents in the audience snap away with digital cameras. "That's my baby," beams one father. …
Organizers of the Takleef celebration are well aware of the spiritual and cultural challenges these girls face in deciding to wear the hijab. "A couple of these girls are taking the veil before their mothers are," says 38-year-old Ali Ibrahim, one of the scout volunteers organizing the celebration. "We even have one girl whose parents are not convinced and are trying to get her to take off the veil. May God guide her." …
A song airs over the loudspeakers during the play, summing up, in Simon and Garfunkel-like acoustical melodies, a Muslim girl's answer to criticism: The hijab "is a simple cloth to preserve her dignity/So lift the veil from your heart/And see the heart of purity."
Comments: (1) This is the Girl Scouts. In the United States. A new era is upon us. (2) Note the confidence subtly expressed in the middle paragraph quoted above, that those Muslim women not already with hijab will soon make the necessary adjustment. (May 21, 2004)
June 2, 2004 update: Beila Rabinowitz, the researcher on militant Islam, points out that the logo of the Islamic Committee on Scouting, an official part of the scouting movement, has a format of note: the Islamic crescent and star surround the Boy Scout fleur de lys, as though gobbling it up, while the boy pictured by it has his hands extended out as Muslims do when praying.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57624/576244834901771e3e1ea8f0eb8bddadab920309" alt=""
No less interesting, the ICS offers an "Allahu Akber" award – the same as the war cry (usually spelled "Allahu Akbar") associated with militant Islam.
These Islamist features of ICS (as well as its sister organization, the Islamic Committee on Girl Scouting) should come as no surprise, as they are headed by Dawood Zwink, someone closely associated with a range of militant Islamic institutions, including the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Society of North America. More worrisome yet is Zwink's serving as chairperson of the Somali Relief Fund for, as J. Michael Waller pointed out in Senate testimony in October 2003,
Prominent Al-Qaeda operative, Wadih El Hage, now serving life in prison for masterminding 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, reportedly had Somali Relief Fund business card in his possession during a 1997 raid on his home by Kenyan officials.
If this report is in fact true, it establishes a connection between the Islamic Committee on Scouting and Al-Qaeda. Permalink
Do as We Say, Not as We Do I noted in "U.S. to Israel: Do As We Say ..." the rank inconsistency of U.S. governmental policy, permitting to itself exactly what it prohibits to Israel. "As American diplomats chastise Israel for its tactics," I wrote, "U.S. soldiers openly embrace many of those tactics." I then offered an explanation for this – not hypocrisy, bias, or holding Israel to higher standards but "the invisible assumption that Israel is engaged in a peace process while the United States is fighting a war."
That same inconsistency made a dramatic reappearance this week. I'll let Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post take over from here in his article, "White House Criticizes Israel on Attack":
In rare public criticism of Israel, the White House rebuked the Jewish state yesterday for its deadly incursion into Gaza, saying it did not "serve the purposes of peace and security" and had "worsened the humanitarian situation." … The White House statement, issued in the name of press secretary Scott McClellan, stopped short of condemning Israel and did not ask for a stop to the incursion. The statement urged Israel to "exercise maximum restraint now." It also called on the Palestinian Authority to consolidate its security forces and "act to stop smuggling and halt terrorism."
The administration's criticism of Israel came after Arab television stations broadcast reports that U.S. aircraft had attacked a wedding party in Iraq that killed dozens of people near the Syrian border. U.S. military officials said the fighting involved insurgents, and a senior administration official in Washington said the reports of the U.S. attack played no role in the rebuke of Israel for its attack on civilians.
(May 20, 2004) Permalink
Jordan's King Abdullah II Echoes My Thoughts on Iraq In an interview yesterday with Alan Cowell of the New York Times, King Abdullah II of Jordan offered his thoughts on the future of Iraq, opining that it should be run by a strongman, possibly one drawn from the ranks of Saddam Hussein's army.
I would say that the profile would be somebody from inside, somebody who's very strong, has some sort of popular feeling. I would probably imagine - again, this is off the top of my head - somebody with a military background who has experience of being a tough guy who could hold Iraq together for the next year.
He suggested that some officers might not be acceptable:
There were a lot of heroes; there are strong community leaders who are products of the Iraq-Iran war" of the 1980's. They are national heroes that do appeal to the Iraqi street.
This, of course, echoes what I have been arguing for over a year. (May 18, 2004) Permalink
Advice to Non-Muslim Women on Marrying Muslim Men The consular bureau at the U.S. Department of State from the mid-1990s until 2000 distributed a document titled "Marriage to Saudis," that offered straight-talking advice to American women contemplating tying the knot with Saudi men. As Martin Kramer describes what he calls "a minor classic by an anonymous diplomat":
It is remarkable for its undiplomatic and anecdotal tone, so distant from the department's standard bureaucratic style. For prospective spouses, "Marriage to Saudis" constituted an official tutorial in Saudi culture; for others, it served as a fascinating example of practical anthropology, school of hard knocks.
Here is a choice excerpt:
the Saudi-American relationship virtually always blossoms in the States, in a climate that allows dating, cohabitation, children out of wedlock, religious diversity, and a multitude of other Islamic sins which go unnoticed by Saudi relatives and religious leaders thousands of miles away.
American citizen wives swear that the transformation in their Saudi husbands occurs during the transatlantic flight to the Kingdom. There is the universal recollection of approaching Riyadh and witnessing the donning of the black abayas and face veils by the fashionably dressed Saudi women. For many women, the Saudi airport is the first time they see their husband in Arab dress (i.e., the thobe and ghutra). For those American women reluctant to wear an abaya (the all-encompassing black cloak) and for those Saudi husbands who did not make an issue of the abaya prior to arriving, the intense public scrutiny that starts at the airport—given to a western woman who is accompanying a Saudi male—is usually the catalyst for the eventual covering up. Since the overwhelming majority of American citizen wives never travel to the Kingdom prior to their marriage, they are abruptly catapulted into Saudi society.
That document comes to mind in light of the Vatican's release of Erga migrantes caritas Christi ("The Love of Christ Toward Migrants"), an 80-page booklet issued by the Pontifical Council for the Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. Despite its affectionate title, the document includes a warning against Catholic women marrying Muslim men. Here is the key passage:
When, for example, a Catholic woman and a Muslim wish to marry, … bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for. During it the two fiancés will be helped to know and consciously "assume" the profound cultural and religious differences they will have to face, both between themselves and in relation to their respective families and the Muslim's original environment, to which they may possibly return after a period spent abroad.
If the marriage is registered with a consulate of the Islamic country of origin, the Catholic party must beware of reciting or signing documents containing the shahada (profession of the Muslim belief).
In any case, the marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim, if celebrated in spite of all this, requires not only canonical dispensation but also the support of the Catholic community both before and after the marriage. One of the most important tasks of Catholic associations, volunteer workers and counselling services will be to help these families educate their children and, if need be, to support the least protected member of the Muslim family, that is the woman, to know and insist on her rights.
It's remarkable that, multiculturalism notwithstanding, such institutions as the U.S. government and the Vatican are warning women away from inter-religious marriages. (May 16, 2004) Permalink
Another Argument for my "Democratically-Minded Iraqi Strongman" Here is another argument for my notion of a "democratically-minded Iraqi strongman," prompted by comments today by Secretary of State Colin Powell on "Meet the Press"
SECRETARY POWELL: Of course the Iraqis want the occupation to end. They want the Coalition Provisional Authority to cease its work. And that's what's going to happen when this Iraqi interim government is established. But they need our troops there for some considerable period of time in the future to provide the security environment needed so that they can have free, open and fair elections and have the time to build up their own security forces.
TIM RUSSERT: In those free, open and fair elections, if the Iraqi people choose an Islamic theocracy, similar to what we have in Iran, we would accept that?
SECRETARY POWELL: We will have to accept what the Iraqi people decide upon. …
MR. RUSSERT: But, Mr. Secretary, if the Iraqis opt for an Islamic theocracy, which could easily become a haven for terrorists, how then do we explain to the 782 [Americans] who died, or the nearly over 4,000 who were wounded and injured, that this was worth the fight?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think that's going to be the case. I think that those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom for the Iraqi people will see that the Iraqi people are interested in creating a democracy.
I sure hope that the secretary is right about Iraqi aspirations; but I also worry very much about his sanguine acceptance of a Khomeini-style regime in Iraq, perhaps the one thing that could revive the otherwise dismal fortunes of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The best way to avoid this prospect is to delay elections – at least for the head of government – for some time. If elections need be held immediately, they should be for lesser posts. (May 16, 2004) Permalink
French Elected Official: Arabs Need Nukes vs. Israel His name is Paul Marie Coûteaux, he is the author of books with titles like Let Us Not Permit France to Die and A Little Séjour in France, and he is a member of the European Parliament. And here were his remarks three years ago today to parliament in the original French
Mais il y a un autre déséquilibre grave où notre responsabilité est engagée, c'est le déséquilibre des forces. Il faut que nous envisagions - je n'hésite pas à le dire - à doter la partie arabe d'une force suffisante, y compris d'une force nucléaire suffisante, pour qu'Israël ne se croit pas tout permis.
The official EU translation renders them thus in English:
There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants.
For a rather different take on the ways in which Arab states might use their nuclear weapons against Israel, see my "Deadly Denial [of Muslim Anti-Semitism]." (May 16, 2004) Permalink
Spread Islam or Maintain a High Standard of Living? As if the steady drumbeat of terrorism in neighboring Saudi Arabia were not enough to make expatriate workers want to leave the Persian Gulf, the UAE Ministry of Education and Youth has promulgated legislation to make to make Arabic compulsory during the last three years of high school for all students in the country, whether Arabic-speaking or not, whether Muslim or not, whether going to private schools or not.
In a Gulf News report on May 13 titled "Students see red over compulsory Arabic," an unnamed staff reporter gave an unvarnished set of reactions from principals and students.
Reacting to the circular, principals of schools catering primarily to expatriates felt that imposing a unified examination in Arabic at this level will put an additional load on the students, who are already reeling under pressure while appearing for their board examinations. …
Students who spoke to Gulf News expressed shock at the new rule and suggested that the ministry should rethink the decision. They felt it should either be scrapped, or made an optional language.
The article then fleshes out these generalizations with some juicy quotes, to which I can add one, told me by an expatriate of my acquaintance: "A country that does not allow us to become UAE citizens because of our religion wants to impose Arabic and brainwash our children with very ‘conservative' Islamic lectures. What a way to confuse our children and what a way very stealthily to spread the Islamic faith."
Two days later, however, probably under pressure from the UAE authorities, Gulf News came out with a second story by Bassam Za'za', this one titled "Compulsory Arabic will help bridge culture divide," that tried to undo the damage – calling the Arabic language decision one "hailed and scorned at the same time," again with a profusion of quotations.
Comment: It will be interesting to watch the conflict between the urge to propagate Islam and the urge to maintain a high standard of living unfold in the United Arab Emirates. At this point, the two forces seem about evenly matched. (May 15, 2004)
June 3, 2004 update: A reader reasonably asks why I associate the instruction of Arabic with the propagation of Islam. Two points in response:
First, I neglected to mention that the schools also must teach their students about Islam. Here is an extract from the first of the articles above, quoting a circular issued on April 27 by the Ministry's Private and Special Education Department:
Due to the importance of conducting a unified exam stipulated in Article No. 9 of ministerial decision No 4443 of 2001, regarding the organisational guideline for accreditation of certificates issued by private schools, the decision stipulates that the subject of Islamic education and Arabic language is a must for non-Arab Muslims as well as for others from Grades X to XII.
Second, for the connection between Arabic and Islam, see James Coffman, "Does the Arabic Language Encourage Radical Islam?" Middle East Quarterly, December 1995, where the author finds, looking at Algeria, that "because Arabs draw so close a connection between classical Arabic and the faith of Islam, Arabization invariably leads to an identification with the … Islamic religious tradition." Permalink
Oh Canada, Beware I am someone who prefers enemies to be straight-talkers. Better a Nikita Khrushchev who states "We will bury you" than a Leonid Brezhnev with his détente. Better a Saddam Hussein who blurts out his unfiltered thoughts and blunders into Kuwait than a Hafez al-Assad who disguises his views and steals into Lebanon. And likewise, it's better to face a jihadist who acknowledges his plans to take over the world than a smarmy "religion of peace" Islamist who double talks and confuses.
And you don't find a more straight-shooting jihadist than Khalid Khawaja, a bin Laden pal who calls Al-Qaeda's members "the most wonderful people of the world" and is the subject of a remarkable article in today's National Post by the redoubtable Stewart Bell (back on the beat after promoting his new book, Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism to the World). Here are some extracts from Bell's interview with him, conducted in Islamabad yesterday:
On the failings of Western civilization: "Your civilization is selfish and self-centered. Just you want to live and enjoy yourselves and that is all, you don't give."
On reasons why suicide bombers would want to strike Canada. "It is very simple. As Bush says, either you are a friend or you are an enemy. So if you are not my friend, you are our enemy. So it is very simple. When you are supporting the enemy [the United States] then you are a target." And Canadians should just learn to "take it."
On Canada's treatment of Abdul Karim Khadr, the teen who recently left Pakistan for Canada for medical treatment after being wounded in a shootout that left his Al-Qaeda father dead: "Look at these Canadians. They have millions and millions of dollars to fight against Muslims, to send their troops, to send their weapons, and all of them put together, they have objections to giving treatment to this 14 year-old-boy who has been a victim of your terrorism. … So you paralyzed this boy with no thought, you paralyzed his father with no thought, now the whole Canadian nation put together, they are bothered about taxpayers' money, that this boy should not be treated with this money.
On the success of jihad: "Today you have the power in your hand. The other day the suicide bomber also has power. So you use your cruise missiles and atom bombs and all that, so he uses his power. So why do you cry at that time? When you say we are fighting a war against you, so better take it then. They are also fighting a war against you. They are fighting their way, you are fighting your way. So let's be happy. But only thing is, your faces are pulled down, you are scared, sitting in America and Canada. You are scared of a man sitting in the cave. We are not scared of you."
On the ultimate goals of jihad: "We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age."
(May 15, 2004) Permalink
Shannen Rossmiller, American Hero A National Guardsman named Spc. Ryan G. Anderson stands accused of trying to aid Al-Qaida; the case looks strong, as the government has a 58-minute videotape of him telling undercover military personnel such things as: "I wish to desert from the U.S. Army. I wish to defect from the United States. I wish to join al-Qaida, train its members and conduct terrorist attacks."
And just how did the military come to suspect Anderson? Was it the military police, a counterintelligence agency, or a particularly alert fellow-soldier who found him? None of the above. Here's an account from Montana's Great Falls Tribune:
A city judge and mother of three from Conrad[, Montana] used the Internet to help authorities nab a National Guardsman accused of trying to aid Al-Qaida.
Judge Shannen Rossmiller, 33, is a key witness in the case against Spc. Ryan G. Anderson, a Fort Lewis-based National Guardsman and Muslim convert. Anderson, 26, faces five counts of trying to provide the terrorist network with information about U.S. troop strength and tactics as well as methods for killing American soldiers.
Rossmiller told the court Wednesday that she is a member of 7-Seas Global Intelligence, an organization that tracks terrorist activity and forwards leads to authorities. She often surfs the Web late into the night at her home in Conrad, a town of 2,750 an hour north of Great Falls, searching for clues of terrorist activity.
Last year Rossmiller's work led her to a posting from Anderson, who was using the name "Amir Abdul Rashid." Rossmiller baited "Rashid" by posting a call to jihad against the United States and he replied. "He was curious if a brother fighting on the wrong side could join or defect," Rossmiller told the court. After a series of e-mails with him, she contacted the Homeland Security Department, which put her in touch with the FBI.
A 1988 graduate of Valier high school, Rossmiller started tracking terrorists after 9-11, said her husband Randy, a computer technician. At the time of the attacks, she was recovering from a broken pelvis she suffered in a fall. Homebound, she watched news reports of the catastrophe for two weeks. "9-11 had a pretty big impact on her," Randy Rossmiller said. "She didn't know anybody [who was killed]. It was just the callousness of it. This is her way of paying them back." …
Although Rossmiller "doesn't really fit the bill of a terrorist spy," she's deeply dedicated, her husband said. Much of her free time is spent on-line. "She's one of those people that doesn't have a regular sleep schedule so she's up sometimes in the middle of the night doing this," he said. He said his wife has helped identify at least two other persons of interest. "She lives and breathes this stuff, especially when she gets on the trail of someone like Anderson," he said.
Rossmiller had been corresponding with Anderson since October. He was arrested in February after he allegedly tried to pass information to undercover Army investigators.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer cites cites Rossmiller's explanation that 7-Seas Global Intelligence is a group of seven amateur counterintelligence Web-surfing hobbyists tracking terrorist activity and providing information to the government. Its members include four in the United States, one in Australia, one in Indonesia and another in Canada.
Comment: Rossmiller is not unique. I know of several highly dedicated, increasingly skilled Internet warriors helping to defend their countries from jihadis through their scrupulous research and tracking. (May 14, 2004) Permalink
Getting Closer to a Showdown in Turkey? I wrote an analysis in August 2003 interpreting actions by the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as "throwing down the gauntlet" to the military over the future of the country, whether Islamist or secular. Things have moved slowly since then but the government today pushed through parliament an education bill that could prompt a showdown. The bill eases the way for graduates of imam hatip high schools to study secular subjects at Turkish universities (existing legislation has them entering only the theology departments). The legislation prompted strong denunciations from the opposition party, which walked in protest out before voting began. More importantly, the military leadership publicly criticized this bill, marking the first time it has spoken out on an issue not directly related to military matters since Erdoğan's party took office power 17 months ago. (May 13, 2004)
May 28, 2004 update: As expected, Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer vetoed the education bill. "Allowing graduates of religious schools to benefit from the same university education rights as graduates of general high schools does not comply with ... the principles of secularism," he observed, laying down the gauntlet.
June 1, 2004 update: Prime Minister Erdoğan chose not to take up the gauntlet. Instead, he announced that Turkey has other pressing business, indicating that he would not try to override the president's veto despite his party's large parliamentary majority. Permalink
Constructing a Counterfeit History of Jerusalem In "The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem," I focused on the intermittent and mostly instrumental Muslim interest in Jerusalem ("Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries") and at the end of the long article included a section titled "Dubious claims" where I listed four historically doubtful claims promoting the Islamic claim to Jerusalem (the Islamic connection to Jerusalem is older than the Jewish; the Qur'an mentions Jerusalem; Muhammad actually visited Jerusalem; and Jerusalem has no importance to Jews).
In a stunning update and extension, Yitzhak Reiter has written a study of the first and last of these dubious claims for the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, a summary of which by Nadav Shragai is published today in Ha'aretz. He traces the development of a new Palestinian argument about Jerusalem, the main themes of which are that "the Arabs ruled Jerusalem thousands of years before the children of Israel" and "a denial and negation of the Jewish-Zionist narrative." The audacity of this specious presentation make the head spin. Here are a few, taken from the Shragai account:
- The Muslims are slowly dropping use of the name given to the Temple Mount complex - Haram al-Sharif, which gave it its status as the third holiest site in Islam and reverting to exclusive use of the earlier name, Al-Aqsa, which appears in the Koran.
- Contrary to the standard history whereby the Al-Aqsa mosque was built in the seventh century, in recent years an ancient tradition from the beginning of Islam has been gaining ground. According to it, the Al-Aqsa mosque was built 40 years after the construction of the mosque in Mecca by Adam (i.e., close to the seven days of creation). Other traditions that appear in the Waqf administration offices in Jerusalem attribute the building of the mosque to Abraham and Solomon.
- The surroundings of Al-Aqsa mosque are not narrowly defined, as was the case in the past, and they are now providing an opening for the interpretation that Al-Aqsa refers to all of Jerusalem, and most recently, it refers to all of Palestine.
- The fact that Israel's official policy - as embodied in the decisions of the Chief Rabbinate Council, the government and the High Court of Justice - leaves the administration of the Temple Mount in the hands of the Muslim Waqf is not recognized in the contemporary Muslim world. On the contrary, "the activities of extremist Jewish entities, some of them minuscule, to revive the [First] Temple ritual, is perceived and disseminated by Palestinian sources as if it is a reflection of official policy," says Reiter
Comment Permalink: It is dismaying to watch the construction of a counterfeit history as it happens. Not until the Palestinians are prepared to deal with reality millennia ago will they be ready to deal with reality today. (May 10, 2004)
Iranian Women and the Right to Equal Inheritance Women winning the inheritance rights as men may not sound like hot news, but it is when that's the decision of the parliament in Tehran. The legislation still has more steps to go – in particular, it must pass muster with the hard-line Guardians' Council, which will not be easy, as the council has previously rejected enhanced rights for women. Should the council turn this legislation down, it will likely go before the Council of Experts, the Iranian government's ultimate decisionmaker. Further, the legislation has limited scope; it does not affect "blood money"—what a victim's family is paid if it pardons the killer—or the value of women's testimony in the courtroom, both of which remain half that of males.
Yet what has happened is major news in itself because Islamic law (the Shari‘a) unambiguously gives females a lesser portion of inheritance shares; for the self-styled Islamic Republic of Iran to rescind this age-old precept is a momentous event. It means, in effect, that today's legislators are declaring themselves competent to reinterpret basic elements of the Shari‘a. This in turn is a giant step toward the modernization of the religion, as I previously sketched out in "Islam's Future" (where I noted the rather less significant matter of the Turkish religious authorities permitting women to pray next to men and attend mosque services while menstruating; for an interesting update on the situation in Turkey, see "Turkey orders sermons on women's rights" in yesterday's Chicago Tribune).
Islam has changed in the past and can do so again. The process won't be easy, swift, or pretty, but the sooner it starts the better for everyone. (May 10, 2004) Permalink
"Settle for a Stable Iraq" The Washington Post has a long front-page analysis today, "Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy: U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq, Losing the War, Some Officers Say." Its main themes closely parallel the arguments I have been making over and over again, most recently two weeks ago, that "The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq, but an Iraq that does not endanger America." Here is a key passage from the article:
Like many in the Special Forces, defense consultant Michael Vickers advocates radically trimming the U.S. presence in Iraq, making it much more like the one in Afghanistan, where there are 20,000 troops, and almost none in the capital, Kabul. The U.S. military has a small presence in the daily life of Afghans. Basically, it ignores them and focuses its attention on fighting pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda holdouts. Nor has it tried to disarm the militias that control much of the country.
In addition to trimming the U.S. troop presence, a young Army general said, the United States also should curtail its ambitions in Iraq. "That strategic objective, of a free, democratic, de-Baathified Iraq, is grandiose, and unattainable," he said. "It's just a matter of time before we revise downward . . . and abandon these ridiculous objectives." Instead, he predicted that if the Bush administration wins reelection, it simply will settle for a stable Iraq, probably run by former Iraqi generals. This is more or less, he said, what the Marines Corps did in Fallujah—which he described as a glimpse of future U.S. policy.
As though in reply to my column urging an Iraqi strongman last week, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz is quoted saying, "I don't think the answer is to find some old Republican Guard generals and have them impose yet another dictatorship in an Arab country." Now, I have the greatest respect for Paul Wolfowitz – he was my boss at the State Department's Policy Planning Staff in 1982-83 and I have from that time admired his many outstanding qualities – and I hope what he intends for Iraq is achievable. But I cannot help but find his goal overly ambitious. (May 9, 2004) Permalink
CAIR Calls U.S. Government the "New Saddam" Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, shared his insights on current hostilities with several hundred worshippers as he led the jum‘a prayer service in a Mission Viejo mosque yesterday: the war on terror has become a "war on Muslims" and the United States government has become the "new Saddam." He then concluded: "So let's end this hypocrisy, this hypocrisy that we are better than the other dictator."
I have previously addressed the "war on Muslims" angle but Ayloush's equating Washington with the "new Saddam" deserves comment. First, Ayloush again (for a prior example, concerning the word "zionazi," see here) does Americans the favor of making explicit what his less hot-tempered CAIR colleagues are presumably thinking but not ready to say out loud. Second, he equates the Saddam Hussein regime's systematic use of torture with the apparent actions of a few rogue and criminal elements in the U.S. military, giving a clear insight into his political stupidity. Third, the phrase "the other dictator" implies that Ayloush sees the U.S. government as dictatorial. Finally, this repugnant comparison reveals the mentality and outlook of CAIR, again showing how it despises the United States and its freely elected government. (May 8, 2004) Permalink
The Demise of Militant Islam? Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian sociologist who rose to international attention when his government jailed him for nearly three years in 2000-03 due to his critique of the Mubarak regime, has an article, "An Open Door," about the Arabs' forgotten liberal legacy in the Spring 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly. In it, he makes an interesting argument: One of the consequences of 9/11
may well turn out to be the beginning of the end of politically militant Islam – resulting not so much from the devastating American military reaction as from a painful collective reassessment in the Arab world of the Islamic legacy as it was projected in the last quarter of the 20th century. That legacy will have to be stripped of its cultish millennial aspects if moderation is to be achieved.
This jibes closely with my view that the ultimate implication of 9/11 must be the destruction of militant Islam and the emergence of a moderate alternative. But Ibrahim and I differ in an interesting way. I expect the "devastating American military reaction" to be key, just as it was, mutatis mutandis, in World War II and the cold war, not the weak Muslim moderates. Here is how I expressed it in January 2002:
outsiders, and the United States in particular, can critically help in precipitating the battle and in influencing its outcome. They can do so both by weakening the militant side and by helping the moderate one.
It would be wonderful if Ibrahim is right, that a "painful collective reassessment" among Muslims themselves will precipitate this change. Color me interested but skeptical. In the meantime, the American and other forces should battle hard against militant Islam in all its global manifestations. (May 1, 2004) Permalink
U.S. Pressure on Al-Jazeera Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, upset with the coverage of Iraq on Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language television channel based in Qatar, brought up this subject with Qatar's foreign minister a few days ago, saying "the friendship between our two nations is such that we can also talk about difficult issues that intrude in that relationship, such as the issue of the coverage of Al Jazeera." His remarks, the New York Times explains, are part of a "growing chorus of complaints from American policy makers and military officials. They say their efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East are being undercut by politically motivated or erroneous reports, by both Al Jazeera … and the Saudi-based Al Arabiya."
I am glad the U.S. government is finally paying attention to the "news" coming out of Al-Jazeera, but it is, to use a favorite Americanism, a day late and dollar short. Al-Jazeera has been a problem long before the Iraq invasion. Here, for example, is what I wrote in January 2002 in a discussion of U.S. war goals in the war on terror:
In Qatar, the home of al-Jazeera television, Osama bin Laden's mouthpiece, pressure has to be put on the government to promote the teachings of a moderate sheikh rather than those of the entrenched extremist Yusuf al-Qaradawi ("On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them").
Comment: In the two years and more since I urged this policy, I have been repeatedly told that Washington cannot lean on a friendly government in this fashion. I guess that's now disproved. Whether to take such a step is a matter of understanding and will, not of capability. (April 29, 2004)
May 8, 2004 update: I have a distinctly checkered history with Al-Jazeera. As long ago as August 1998, I flew to London to appear on one of its shows, which I found responsible and interesting. But since then, the channel has gone wild. There was the occasion a year ago when I walked off the set before saying a word (due to the producers' breaking their promise concerning my U.S. Institute of Peace nomination). One time, I never made it to the station because the promised transportation never materialized, so some of the other participants on the show bad-mouthed me. A few months ago, after agreeing to discuss the prospective Israel-Hizbullah trade, the producers surprised me by having members of the Hizbullah captives' families confront me on air. Today, I had a similar experience, invited on to the program "Hiwar Maftuh" to discuss the clash or not of civilizations and then finding myself having to deal with the multi-minute description of alleged torture by an Iraqi. I continue to appear on the channel because it is important, but I do so with a certain dread at what unscrupulous tactics the producers will use next. Permalink
For more entries see the Weblog Archive...
|