Naeem's Blog

I want to thank Salon and Osman Adnan for finally explaining to me how I can become a loyal Muslim American. Never having felt comfortable with being just a Muslim American, I have scoured the planet endlessly searching for the recipe for true loyalty to my birth-nation.

Finally, I have discovered it: Attend a Catholic school, celebrate bar mitzvahs and Christmas parties, have an Irish best friend (preferably born on 4th of July), join the military service, keep public displays of your Muslim faith to a minimum and carry a flag of the USA in your back pocket in case some pathetic Muslim child in some far-off pathetic land needs a reminder of your nation's unending benevolence - 'Hey, please don't mind the drone attack that just wiped out your entire village and uhmm, yeah, ignore our propping up brutal dictators across the Muslim world and go ahead and overlook our occupation of two major Muslim nations because, well, Imma teach you to read English. Oh and here's a flag of the good 'ol Stars and Stripes - just promise me you won't burn it...har-har, just kidding. But seriously, don't burn it.'

Yessiree-bob, a good 'ol Loyal Muslim American.

Where do I sign up?

For you news junkies out there, here's a nice list of top 10 stories that snuck under the radar this past year.

Personally, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of news I absorb each day, as so much junk is out there.

Yay for me for ditching HuffPo from my list of daily reads! That site has gone down the tubes in the past year, resembling more a tabloid than a viable alternative to MSM. Even with Google News, I focus only on the World news as other useless sections clutter up their front page (Entertainment, Sports).

I'm finding this gluttony of information that the Internet has afforded us to be very unhealthy for my spiritual state. Is that a poor reflection on me or on the dismal value of the news?

Probably a bit of both.

Stuck in a crumbling marriage with Billy Bob, poor Mary Lou is constantly wavering between the lows of physical violence and the highs of sweet love - abundantly showered on her by a suddenly remorseful husband.

While she knows that Billy Bob loves her to death, a fact unrealized by her friends and family, she fears those moments when his inner demons incite him to let loose on her petite frame.

Like that evening last weekend, when little Johnny broke daddy's favorite beer mug. Mary Lou pleaded in vain, begging her high school sweetheart to simply buy another mug. But the backlash was swift and severe. Billy Bob’s eyes turned bright red and with one fell swoop, he planted Mary Lou on her back with a deep blue bruise on her side to serve as memorabilia.

Or like the time two weeks ago, when Betty Sue from down the street dropped by for an unannounced visit. While she may be as nice as apple pie on a Sunday afternoon, Betty Sue just doesn't know when to quit talking. So she ended up leaving right before Billy Bob came home, causing Mary Lou to rush dinner; and in her haste, she burned the casserole.

Billy Bob didn’t take too kindly to the sentiment. She tried to explain that Betty Sue the neighborhood chatterbox had come over unexpectedly but that only increased his fury, resulting in a ferocious slap to the back and a quick punch to the face.

Pastor Buck has regularly provided them with counseling, constantly calling on Billy Bob to withhold quick judgments and temper his anger – but to no avail. The beating has only intensified at every perceived slight to his fragile manhood.

Mayor Jones even got involved, at the behest of Mary Lou’s mother. But no bigwig from Town Hall, driving a big car and spouting even bigger words in some official statement is changin’ Billy Bob’s wayward ways.

Mary Lou’s family has consistently pleaded for her to leave the scoundrel. The gifts he showers you with are no consolation for the misery he has heaped upon you, they cry. But she keeps holding out, in hopes that next time Billy Bob’s tears will be genuine and his promise to rehabilitate himself will be legitimate.

*****

The more I think about it, the more I can’t help but compare the plight of the American Muslim community to the sufferings of poor Mary Lou.

In the postmortem analysis of the tragic shootings in Texas, the situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the tension felt moments before an abusive husband’s foreseeable outburst:

1. An unfortunate incident involving Muslims has lit the fire in the American landscape with media talking heads inciting the masses to question every American Muslims' loyalties.

2. Leaders of the Muslim community have come out with all sorts of statements in hopes of forestalling an Islamophobic backlash.

3. Politicians and religious leaders have released official statements calling on the American community to temper bottled-up frustrations and withhold judging the wider Muslim American community.

4. All the while, American Muslims are legitimately fearful of the impending backlash from the wider American citizenry with whom they wish simply to coexist peacefully.

And this sad cycle has repeated itself countless number of times since the inception of the Global War on Terror.

So the question remains – Should Mary Lou leave this roller coaster relationship with Billy Bob or cling to the hope that they can find a way to coexist and maybe even live happily ever after?

I just watched the 2008 movie Traitor, starring Don Cheadle, and I must say I was very disappointed.

It's a completely fear-mongering film. If you want to monger anyone's fear of Muslims, let them watch this piece of crap.

It features a seditious plot to simultaneously blow up 50 buses using terrorists who have secretly blended into American society. Said terrorists have been laying low for an extended period of time, waiting for their diabolical instructions. These normal folks include an upper middle-class fellow living in suburbia, a female college student, a young man working at a coffee shop, and a construction worker.

The implication is so very clear. But thank God movies don't affect people's behavior and thinking.

Oh wait.

So not only should Americans be afraid of the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the Muslim world, they should fear the new Muslim who just moved into the neighborhood or the Muslim co-worker who begins to pray five times a day (incidentally, the film had the Don Cheadle character getting fired from work due to that exact reason).

Even the hero of the film has questionable loyalties upto the end. So no worries Mr. Joe Sixpack, go ahead and question your fellow American Muslim's loyalties. It's completely understandable.

Nice.

And of course let's just totally forget about the legitimate threat posed by homegrown terrorists.

The other item that made me sick was the inference that the only good Muslim is the one who proves his allegiance by turning informant to the FBI. I've written on this before and coincidentally Suhaib Webb recently put up this related post on his site.

The movie comes off as some pseudo analysis of the inner conflicts faced by Muslims torn between their faith and country. But it fails. Miserably. Not only because of what I mentioned above, but in its 'analysis' the movie fails to once make mention of possible grievances that Muslims may have against the west such as Iraq, Israel, economic exploitation, etc.

Save your money, your time and your mind. Don't make the mistake I made.

On the bright side it could have been worse. I could wasted hours reading some stupid book.

Oh wait...

I hate conspiracies. Really, I do.

Conspiracies are by their very nature quirky and implausible. When the popular understanding of an event has more than satisfied the vast majority, the conspiracy theorist is keen to insert some deranged possibility ('we never really landed on the moon'). Conspiracies are conversational fodder for those situated at the periphery of society ('US government has alien remains stashed away in Area 51'). Sometimes, conspiracies are used by the weak and the weak-minded to explain away their failures ('the Jews are behind all the chaos in the world').

I hate conspiracies.

But more than that, I hate those of you who write-off plausible critical analyses to global occurrences as conspiracies. As if to say that any narrative not in sync with yours (which you've merely parroted from the media) must be some wacky conspiracy.

What freakin' arrogance.

So the point of view espoused by the talking heads and public officials and university professors and other gods of rhetoric and subsequently regurgitated by your not-so-discerning intellect is the one and only possibility? And anything to the contrary is laughed off as a stupid conspiracy?

Really?!

To suggest that the Iraq war was more about money, oil, and geopolitical strategy than about gifting the people of Iraq democracy and liberty is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Darfur is more than the Arab government of Sudan savaging poor African farmers is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Pakistan's endless spiraling into chaos is more than the handiwork of jihadis is a conspiracy?

To suggest that the war in DR Congo is fueled less by tribal wars and more by corporate greed for natural resources is a conspiracy?

All the above have been callously labeled as conspiracies because they don't chime with the 'official' explanation that you've swallowed lock, stock, and barrel. Have you become so lazy that you refuse to lift the confusing layers of deceit blanketing the daily news?

Repeat a lie enough times and it will be accepted as truth.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest back in the 80's that America was supporting the Afghan mujahideen and even had a hand in creating Al-Qaeda.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in Ethiopian forces storming into Somalia and ousting the Islamic Courts in late 2006.

The list goes on with countless other 'conspiracy theories' that have been proven true (Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, CIA renditions, etc.).

Simple minds accept simple explanations to complex situations.

Listen, I'm as skeptical of zany 9/11 theories as the other guy. Really, I am. But when serious geopolitical events take place around the world and the writing on the wall clearly suggests alternative narratives to the ones pushed forward by press releases and PR specialists, I'm more than a bit skeptical.

And my skepticism turns to outright anger when my suggestion of thinking outside the officially mandated box is written off by you as conspiracy. As if I'm being equated to the losers who believe that Elvis is still alive.

What the hell?!

You need to go back and re-read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. It talks about the techniques employed by corporations and governments - "techniques of regimentation of minds used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course."

[For lazy slobs like me, watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary. You can download the entire 700MB video here. For the even more lazier, here is a nice summary about how consent is manufactured in public opinion.]

This urge to marginalize alternative explanations (as if to prove to the powers that be 'hey, look at me, not only have I fallen for your explanation hook, line, and sinker, but I'm even crapping on those who suggest otherwise') has seeped into the Muslim community. Now, any and every terrorist event is apologetically attributed to the Muslims. Granted, the jihadi element within the Ummah have long crossed the line on decency and acceptable norms, but must you so quickly take the baton from the western media and despotic heads of state in attributing every evil deed to Muslim terrorists?

And then you flippantly denounce any other possibility as a conspiracy?

Have you become so intellectually inert that you simply rehash the media headlines as you see them and the governmental press releases as you read them? Is it so difficult for you to allow the rays of your intellect to burn through the propaganda-filled fog clouding your judgment?

Allow me to begin with two anecdotal tales:

1.) I was talking to my son's second grade teacher from last year and he told me about a Pakistani national curriculum project he's working on, commissioned by one of Pakistan's largest publishing houses, Ferozsons Ltd. The Pakistani government, he told me, had hired some consultants from Germany to revamp their nationwide curriculum in attempts to modernize archaic teachings found in their outdated education system.

They submitted their proposal and one of the members of some governmental board wasn't too happy with the additions, which included subjects such as the celebration of Diwali (Hindu holiday) as well as taboo topics such as dating. This eventually led to Ferozsons getting involved and hiring my friend.

2.) My wife's friend teaches at King Saud University here in Riyadh at a newly opened English prep program that has been subcontracted to a British educational company. Their textbooks (and I read them myself) are filled with references to pop culture completely foreign to local Saudi culture (dance clubs, mixed social gatherings, Britney Spears, Bruce Springsteen, and many more cultural icons).

I was floored by the blatant message being pushed in their texts. It wasn't even subtle. Conversations discussing Xmas parties and social mixers. Vocabulary focused on attire specific to western society (tank tops, shorts, etc.).

I figured that since the program is new, the school administration hasn't gotten the chance to review the material, but boy was this stuff explosive. I would seriously have a difficult time exposing my children to such cultural propaganda (the Disney channel is bad enough).

I share with you these two tales to introduce my post on censoring education, especially as is being practiced in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

I'm seriously beginning to get upset with Muslims so callously denouncing the actions of ultra-orthodox traditionalists in the tribal areas of Pakistan - all based solely on the media's misrepresentation. But its a bit too much when respected teachers in the (online) community take a public stance without due diligence in getting all the facts.

For sure, I haven't traveled to northern Pakistan and gotten all the details, but based on my limited experience and personal reactions to disturbing trends in Western educational material being presented to our children, I can *begin* to understand what drastic measures an uber-conservative people (as found in Pakistan and Afghanistan) would carry out in order to counter such garbage.

Let's keep these factors in mind when reading about stories on girls education in northern Pakistan/Afghanistan:

1. These places are extremely poverty-ridden. The dynamics of such a society differs from ours. Education, for both sexes, is not necessarily seen as a way out of poverty. The boys normally drop out in order to help the family make ends meet, while the girls end up either staying home to help the extended family or they get married off. So when the school is seen as a source of questionable teachings, introducing thoughts and practices not only foreign to the society but antithetical to it, the result is a closing down of the schools.

2. The tension in the north of Pakistan has less to do with implementing Islam and more to do with the failure of the Pakistan government. The insurgency has used Talibanization as its vehicle to counter the gross incompetency of the national leadership. Sadly, education, seen as a propaganda tool for passing along the government's curriculum, is collateral damage in this war.

3. The other side of the story as told by the pro-Taliban folks is that the schools being blown up by them are in reality being used as base camps by the Pakistani army. They aren't targeting schools in order to shut them down, but as military tactics in their battle against Pakistani forces.

4. There is a major propaganda war going against militant Islam and one of the main weapons against them is the issue of educating girls. Just as apostasy, honor killings and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) were the favorite topics of yesteryear, girls education is the hot topic of today in countering Islamism.

Such sensationalism is so widespread that CNN has even ascribed shutting down girls schools to the recent implementation of Shariah in Somalia. Such a phenomenon (of preventing girls from attending school) was never advocated under the Islamic Courts nor has the more radical Shabab ever promoted it. CNN's attempt at cross-over demonizing is pure disinformation at its best.

So before we start criticizing these movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan for taking away the God-given right of education, let us introduce some perspective into our dialogue as well as get our facts straight.

As much flak as Muslims get in the media, I think we should all be thankful that we're not Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

The poor man gets absolutely no love. He recently won a referendum ending presidential term limits by getting 54% of the vote and he's presented as an autocrat who has no respect for the constitution.

Counterpunch has a nice article on the recent referendum showing how the Washington Post worded the democratically held referendum in this manner:

“President Hugo Chávez persuaded Venezuelans today to end term limits through a referendum that allows him to rule far into the 21st century to complete his socialist transformation of this oil-rich country.”

Odd how I never read anywhere that Obama "persuaded" the American public to grant him the presidency. Interesting choice of words by WaPo.

Do read the Counterpunch piece as it presents statistics on how 10 years of Chavez have drastically improved the lives of Venezuelans.

Since I'm travelling to Pakistan this week (no, I'm not moving to Swat valley. I prefer my religious freedoms offered me here in KSA thank you very much*), and I don't have much time, I'll take a page out of Dunner's book on posting comments made on other people's blogs.

I had this interesting exchange with fellow blogger ThinkingMuslim on the issue of terrorism and how we so callously condemn every Jihadi group, naively taking our orders from oppressive governments and their biased media.

He commented on a recent Mumbai-style attack in Afghanistan attributed to the Taliban and I responded to his questionable conclusion.

I'll let you be the judge on who is right and who is wrong, but seeing that you are loyal readers of MY blog, it's safe to say that you all will side with me. :-)

===========

AA- ATM,

I think its worth noting that you are basing your opinion solely on the presentation of the facts from an obviously biased perspective.

You haven't questioned one bit of the narrative that is being fed to you.

At least the article you cited was more cautious in differentiating between the Haqqani/Al-Qaeda group and the Taliban than you care for:

"The group counts a number of foreign fighters among its ranks and is generally considered more extremist than the Taliban in their tactics and political outlook"

Secondly, while your calls for rallies and khutbahs against such tragic acts are warranted, where were your calls for similar action against the daily fitnah caused by the US invasion and the ensuing Karzai government?

Yes, let us not be duplicitous.

And at the same time, let us question our sources...


ThinkingMuslim said...

It probably doesn't matter to you, but "defense" of the sort you have provided has been used for centuries by people who commit heinous acts. From colonial rulers in centuries past, to nazis in the earlier part of the last century to zionists brutes in Israel and militant hindus in India. It is called OBFUSCATION and it consists of the following:

- Call the source "obviously biased"
- Blame the other side of some vague "daily fitnah"

Such defense is dangerous because it feeds in to the lifeline for the actions of such monsters.

Bottom-line: There were several explosions in Kabul and innocent people have died. I have read first-hand accounts of people who are on the ground there. So I suggest we stop with this "have you questioned the media" bit already - it's gotten old. Instead, tell us if these reports of explosions are fabricated, if the Taliban claiming responsibility is a lie.

Secondly, no government in the world is perfect, nor will it ever be. There is some good and some bad in them. If the Taliban don't like something Karzai is doing, there has to be a better way to bring it to the world's attention than terrorism.

If we keep pointing to the past, insanity will never end.

People protested when the US invaded Afghanistan. Let's not use that to justify or pause to criticize the insanity of the Taliban.

In one friendly yet very emphatic tone: Please stop making excuses to justify or condone acts of terrorists. This culture of settling conflict/dispute with random explisions is taking too many innocent lives. Don't wait till it hits one of us very close to home to have an awakening. What is wrong in principle must be condemned no matter who is doing it.


Naeem: said...

AA-

"Please stop making excuses to justify or condone acts of terrorists."

Really? I ask for some balance in perspective and you accuse me of justifying/condoning acts of terrorism? How very Dick Cheney of you.

"I have read first-hand accounts of people who are on the ground there."

And *that* is your idea of getting the facts? I read the same articles. The Afghan Intelligence Service doesn't come off as the most reliable of sources. My doubts remain until I hear more than a statement of responsibility by Mr. Zabiullah Mujahid.

I have no love loss for Al-Qaeda who have shown themselves to be more anarchists than freedom fighters. To lump them with Taliban who have a better track record than most wish to recognize seems convenient and intellectually lazy.

In one friendly yet very emphatic tone: Please stop being a mouthpiece for America's imperialistic aspirations.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> Please stop being a mouthpiece for America's imperialistic aspirations.

Imperialism and America? Where did that come from? Bro, I think the word is TRIBALISM (not imperialism) and in your case, it will cause you to drag everything else into this debate instead of simply calling a spade a spade, err...a terrorist a terrorist.

If balance in perspective means pretending that TWO wrongs make a right, I am happy with my slanted perspective.

Look, can we agree on at least the following:
- That explosions occurred in Kabul?
- That people died as a result of those explosions?
- That no matter who did it (which seems to be your big issue), such actions are criminal in Islam?
- If Taliban or Muslims were behind it, shame on them.
- If imperialistic America did it, shame on America?

One more request. 8 years of the world's most intellectually lazy man as our president and I may have caught a case of that myself. So enlighten us with the virtues of the Taliban, will you? If you post on your blog, please let me know and I will come to get enlightened, IA.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> I have no love loss for Al-Qaeda who have shown themselves to be more anarchists than freedom fighters.

I wish you could hear yourself. It's called pussyfooting. You sound you're afraid to call these sick people sick. With use of phrases like "love loss" and "more anarchist than freedom fighters" you're betraying the struggle many Muslims face despite overwhelming evidence.

Say it out loud - "Al Qaeda is a bunch of monsters. They have brought suffering to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Their agenda has nothing to do with Islam." Say it, bro, you won't be hit by lightening.

I am afraid you will read the above and see more Imperialist American agenda. Don't worry, I am used to it by now. Step 1 ("acknowledging you have a problem") in most 12-step recovery programs is the hardest and it takes some time to get there. I respect your struggle... :)

America: Imperial, the satan!
Taliban: Better track record than most wish to recognize...
Al Qaeda: Umm, maybe freedom fighters but really, err, anarchist sort of, you know...
Iraqis who're still running suicide missions: Could be CIA, you never know! Right, one never does know!


Naeem: said...

AA- ATM,

You know what's gotten really tiring? The GWOT paradigm where its us vs them, good vs evil, lovers of democracy vs lovers of terrorists. I thought that bipolar view of the world left with Bush and Co.

I don't buy that narrative where I must either vociferously denounce the terrorists or else I'm a secret supporter. Its not as black and white as you wish to present it. Its very disappointing to see you peddling such an overly simplistic perspective.

And what's even more disappointing is that you have to ask me for my stance on the Taliban, especially after having written two recent posts on my blog on said topic.

I guess its my fault that I haven't been able to captivate you with my writing as you have done me. I will try harder.

When it comes to the Taliban, the key difference between us is the ease with which you accept all media reports on them as the sacred truth, while I question everything they report based on the countless misreports they have passed along from that region of the world.

I agree that any indiscriminate killing of civilians is deplorable, no matter who carries it out. I include in that suicide bombing, drone missiles, economic embargoes, and crony IMF deals wreaking of economic oppression. I choose to define terrorism myself instead of taking my cue from the world's sole superpower. I humbly suggest you do the same.


ThinkingMuslim said...

> ...I must either vociferously denounce the terrorists or else I'm a secret supporter.

I didn't say that. But I believe this menace of terrorism could have been kept outside the fold of Islam if the community had been more vigilant. We let our guard down and it came in, I would say, even thrived. Given everything we call Islam, this menace should never have found a breeding ground in the house of Islam.

> you have to ask me for my stance on the Taliban,

By failing to be unquivocal on terrorism I think we opened the door for it to come and stay. It's time to shut that door tight. No more "yeah, they're bad, but..." - too many of our young children's lives are at stake. This is not some theoretical issue or some amusing debate, we're talking about lives.

> I guess its my fault that I haven't been able to captivate you

I promise to read your posts on Taliban. Your previous point about lack of curiosity may have more to do with it, my apologies.

> I agree that any indiscriminate killing of civilians is deplorable, no matter who carries it out. I include in that suicide bombing, drone missiles, economic embargoes, and crony IMF deals wreaking of economic oppression

THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Introduce ambiguity. Confuse our children. Not cool.

There will be a time to talk about drone missiles, "smart bombs" and IMF. By equating this with the other stuff, the listening you create is, since so much wrong has been done against Muslims, we are therefore justified in responding through terrorism. I hope but don't expect to be able to get this point across. I didn't think it was so subtle, but it's killing our future.
==============

*That remark is funny on so many levels that I won't even go there. :-)

I hesitate to write too much about Zionism as too many Muslims use it as a vehicle to transport their anti-Semitic sentiments (which is a very real problem in the Muslim world). However, in this case, I feel the stench from the Zionist propaganda efforts have become too strong to ignore.

Most of you may have heard about the BBC's refusal to air an appeal for humanitarian aid for the Gaza relief effort. And then Sky News (I see them as UK's version of Fox News) needed to get in on the action and decided to follow suit.

This is par for the course as we have seen for many years the old media (print and TV) step to the tune of the Israeli lobby. However, what has really upset me is the way this pressure has migrated to the new media, the Internet.

DIGG is a popular social networking site that allows users to positively 'digg' (or negatively 'bury') a web page, image, or video. There are others like it, such as Reddit and StumbleUpon. All of these sites make use of the internet community to popularize content on the web. So by way of an open vote, links of value are promoted to the front page garnering tens of thousands of views.

So this effort was adopted by a small group of pro-Palestinian supporters who felt that the Israeli propaganda machine could be countered by recruiting fellow supporters to flood these sites with articles and videos promoting their point of view.

MuslimMatters.org, a prominent group blog, spearheaded the effort by sending out regular action-alerts with articles to support. A group in Facebook was created with over 700 members. And so the seed was planted to create a voice for Muslims on the Internet. After all, Israeli supporters have a similar effort with nearly 40,000 members.

(On a side note: Normally, I'm not a strong fan of mimicking the seemingly successful efforts of the Israelis - too many Muslims say 'Look at what the Jews have accomplished' as an argument to replicate their ways. This is an extremely defeatist attitude and Muslims need to create their own identity.

While I do believe that Muslims have serious housecleaning to perform, the battle for hearts and minds in the public sphere must be engaged and the Internet is a new battleground where we can succeed.)

However, no sooner had this effort gained some momentum did the good folks at Digg pull the plug. They banned all diggs for the MuslimMatters blog due to violations of their policies. And they have been extremely rude and blunt in their communications, expressing no desire to discuss or explain their decision. While monstrous efforts such as Giyus.org continue unabated, the newcomer gets the shaft.

Oh well. Such are the ways of bullies.

But all is not lost. 60 Minutes aired an amazing piece sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective. Check it out:

In the midst of this all-out media and web blitz on the Gaza crisis, I'm feeling a bit confused. While my outrage at the tragic events is self-explanatory, I have an additional nagging feeling - a feeling that I'm being manipulated emotionally. And not just me, but the whole lot of us.

I'm incapable of putting into words the horror of what's going on in Gaza. It's truly maddening. But then again, how is the suffering there any more worthier of our attention than the horrors in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Darfur, and so on?

How come Al-Jazeera English is broadcasting non-stop from Israel, Palestine, and Egypt with what seems like their entire crew of reporters, while nary a whisper is coming from the other hot spots around the world? Even when the humanitarian crisis in DR Congo was the main news story, they only had one or two reporters assigned to it.

The same goes for CNN International and BBC News.

If it's a pro-Israel bias (which CNN and BBC may be accused of), then one would assume that less coverage of the one-sided affair would be better for the Israeli cause. Not really sure what their agenda is...

I'm actually more upset with the likes of Al-Jazeera. Are they giving it such serious airtime because it's the Holy Land? Or maybe because it's Jews massacring Muslims?

Don't get me wrong. I love Al-Jazeera English for the amazing coverage of stories that never get the light of day in the rest of the media world, especially their unparalleled reporting from South America and Africa.

I'm just not comfortable with the extreme media coverage being given to this issue. Something just doesn't feel natural. I feel like I'm being agitated and poked and prodded to become angry, hopeless, enraged, frustrated, heartbroken, helpless, maddened.

And my other beef is with us, for the gluttony in coverage has brought about a gluttony in reaction. Again, don't get me wrong - it's very heartening to see all these efforts taking place in support of Palestine - fundraising, protests, boycotts, etc. But doesn't it seem like we're simply pandering to the media and its high level of coverage? I feel we've become a Pavlovian people who upon hearing the ringing of the media's bell immediately begin salivating with cries of rage and calls to action.

Am I the only one thinking this?

We’re always reading about reporters embedding with the US forces or the coalition forces, but here’s a piece of real journalism where the reporter is embedded with the Taliban.

A real must-read folks.

My problem with the jihad being waged by the Taliban is illustrated in this passage of the article:

“Ibrahim's recent injury, it turns out, was the result of a clash between his forces and a group of foreign fighters under the command of Dr. Khalil. The foreigners wanted to close down a girls' school, sparking a battle. Two Arabs and 11 Pakistanis commanded by Dr. Khalil had been killed by Ibrahim's men.”

These fighters may spend most of their time praying in the masjid (as mentioned in the article), but they have no problem turning around and killing each other over differences in religious interpretation.

How very typical of this Ummah.

When it’s all said and done and the US negotiates a face-saving withdrawal (involving both the Afghan government and the Taliban), I fear the end result of this latest episode in Afghanistan will be the same in-fighting that erupted when the Russians were expelled in the 90’s. But instead of greedy warlords aspiring for power, it will be jihadi zealots claiming religious authority over each other.

That’s what you get when hearts are not transformed, choosing instead to force change from the outside in.

And about all this talk of a surge in Afghanistan, I like what was written in the article:

"More troops are not the answer," a senior United Nations official in Kabul tells me. "You will not make more babies by having many guys screw the same woman."

The Amusing - Thwarted Terrorist Attacks List

I found this list of thwarted terrorist attacks to be quite humorous. Most of the plots have been debunked and shown to be nothing more than fear-mongering by the Bush administration.

I find the glaring absence of the good Dr. Goldstein, who planned to fire-bomb a Florida masjid, to be a mere clerical oversight. I'm sure FOXNews will make that correction very soon. Riiiiggght.

The highlight of this most farcical list is the Miami Seven who were plotting to carry out a 'full ground war' on the US military. (Check out this wikipedia link to read the questions taken by the Attorney General and his answers - hilarity ensues)

And how could they leave out the Ghettoest Terror Plot in History?!


The Sad - Sami Al-Arian's Plight

Having failed to get a guilty verdict against Palestinian activitst Dr. Sami Al-Arian before two grand juries, the US government is hoping a third time's the charm. All the while Al-Arian is stuck, rotting away in jail for the past 4 years. He has now begun his third hunger strike in protest of this latest stunt by Bush and Co.

Please keep him, his family, and the countless other oppressed individuals in your dua'as


The Pathetic - The 'Free' Press

Here is a very interesting article exposing the truth behind the dirty relationship between the press and the object of their coverage, the powerful. It centers on the controversial statement by Obama's advisor, Samantha Power, referring to Hillary as a monster. As soon as she made the statement to Gerri Peev, a British reporter, she asked for it to remain 'off the record'. As that was never an agreed upon understanding from the beginning, Peev rightfully refused to oblige.

Peev was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson, a prominent MSNBC talk-show person, who took her to task for not respecting the 'off the record' remark. I love how she responded, "Are you (the press) really that acquiescent in the United States?"

Carlson then responds, unintentionally revealing the pathetic principles that guide the press when he states:

"but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece. Don’t you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?"

Read the entire piece.

Yes, me. And others like me.

The vast majority of voters in America are simply not going to put in the required effort to educate themselves where each candidate stands on the myriad issues.

Just not gonna do it.

And that is why leaving the vote to numskulls like myself is the greatest of travesties.

The masses are so easily swayed. Votes can be manipulated, bought, or simply cast in outright ignorance.

And even those who put a semblance of effort in understanding the differences between the candidates, they are influenced by the all-powerful media which frames the discussion of the issues and the candidates (see how they're hamstringing the Kucinich campaign by excluding him from the debates).

Look at the two frontrunners in the Democratic party, Obama and Clinton. Most will agree that a vote for Clinton is a vote for the status quo. But few will admit the same of Obama.

A cursory look at his platform shows that he is a man of the establishment, for the establishment, with nary a chance of rocking the boat (h/t to gess).

Obama's team of advisors are a bunch of recycled politicians from Clinton's presidency. And one doesn't raise as much campaign funds as Obama ($80M as of last September) without serving the interests of some powerful lobbying groups in Washington. And a closer look at his foreign policy shows many similarities to that of Mitt Romney's.

I'm afraid that many Muslims will get lulled into voting for him, in the same manner that they voted for Bush 8 years ago. The man is charismatic, saying all the right things, and is promising change, yet has accomplished very little on the political scene (domestically and especially internationally).

And then there are those who are advocating voting for these Obama/Clinton based on their racial and gender minority status. (Many voted with that same spirit in the past two elections - voting for the candidate from the mentally handicapped minority group - and look where that got us?...OK, that was cheesy - couldn't help myself)

But to even suggest that a leader be elected based on gender or race is extremely ignorant. But I'm sure most votes will be cast with that being the major factor.

How pathetic.

And don't even get me started on the change-resistant nature of the two-party system. What a joke!

Let me be clear that I'm not against representational governance. I'm just fed up with all this hoopla about western-style democracy being the greatest thing since sliced bread. Lets acknowledge the absurdity of the claim that democracy is the height of man's political evolution.

Last night, I’m flipping between the three international news channels that we receive: BBC World, CNN International, and Al-Jazeera English. BBC and CNN both headline with the missing Maddy McCann story, highlighting the ‘breaking news’ of the mother becoming a leading suspect in the case.

On the other hand, Al-Jazeera goes through the top world headlines – the Palestinian in-fighting between Hamas and Fatah over the outdoor prayers, the pending OBL video, Hurricane Felix causing mayhem in Nicaragua, the suicide blast in Algeria, and the Morocco and Sierra Leone elections.

Ten minutes into the Al-Jazeera news, I flip over the CNN and BBC and they’re still talking about the missing girl case.

And to think, this is CNN’s international branch – the one that is supposed to be better than CNN America, which is always busy with Paris Hilton, Michael Vick, and the latest terror scare.

God help you folks living without Al-Jazeera. At least you have the Internet...and my blog. :-)

I'm no fan of HT (Hizbu-Tahrir), ever since their heyday in the early 90's when their minions would subversively crash the MYNA EZ conferences, wreaking havoc in the minds of countless young Muslims.

So in my critique of this NY Times article, I am more offended by the subtle inferences made by the author than the fact that she chose HT as the object of her drive-by smear job.

To start with, the top picture shows the back of a group of scarved sisters with the following caption: "An audience segregated by gender applauded defenders of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic party, during a conference in London."

So the writer Jane Perlez seems to be associating 'segregation by gender' with 'a radical Islamic party'. Nice start.

"An international radical Islamic party...launched a frontal attack on its critics at a carefully stage-managed conference"

Typical objective journalism by our friends over at NY Times. 'Launched a frontal attack'??? Couldn't she find a more nuanced metaphor?

Here's one for her: 'The blood-thirsty Muslims held a political orgy featuring a cut-throat presentation defending their Al-Qaeda-like ideology'

"...that attracted several thousand relatively well-heeled Muslims."

Its important to mention that the audience was not made up of uneducated hooligans and easily dismissible ruffians. Ms. Perlez wants her audience to know that this new group of terrorists are educated, affluent, and very indistinguishable. This will be a recurring theme in her article.

"it was held at the Alexandra Palace, a 19th-century entertainment complex in grand gardens in northern London, and drew a largely professional audience — IT managers, bankers, teachers"

Yup, your co-worker who sports a beard or dons the scarf and shows all signs of normalcy may have been present at the extravagant Alexandra Palace. These rich, yuppie terrorists must be exposed!

"A strictly run cell-based organization, the party does not announce membership numbers."

Hmmm...what other well-known group is 'a strictly run cell-based organization'?

"“If you look at the political structure in the Muslim world, it’s a police state,” said Mohammed Baig, 28, a second-generation British Indian who is an asset manager specializing in corporate governance"

Not sure why his career of choice was important to mention. Oh yeah, I forgot. We're trying to create a new profile for the terrorist next-door – Muslim doctors, engineers, IT managers, bankers, teachers, etc.

"Why did Hizb ut-Tahir not work for the goal of the caliphate in Britain, asked someone in the audience during a question-and-answer session.

“We focus our work where we can get the quickest results,” said Mr. Abuzahra, the academic."

Mr. Abuzahra, the academic.

Very telling last words for a very telling article.

What am I talking about? Just like Muslims the world over are demonized for the mistakes of the few, black athletes too have their black sheep who are overpublicized and overhyped, taking the rest down with them.

I couldn't help but read this article about ESPN's blatant misrepresentation of black athletes and think of the media's equally blatant misrepresentation of Muslims. The parallels are shockingly obvious. While the clear majority of black athletes conform to society's standards and are perfect law-abiding citizens, its the Pacman Jones' and the Randy Moss' that are headlines worthy. Worse yet, the times when black athletes exhibit heroic qualities - Stephon Marbury and Derrick Brooks are two examples profiled in the article - their accomplishments are glossed over and given scant coverage.

Sound familiar?

A quote from an interview with full-time activist, part-time NBA player Etan Thomas builds on my analogy with his reference to the demonization of the 'ENTIRE CULTURE of the NBA' eerily comparable to the indictment of the ENTIRE RELIGION of Islam:

"I see bench clearing brawls in baseball. I've seen them drop the bat, rush the pitcher, and the entire team spill onto the field throwing blows, but it's never blown up in the media the way it is when basketball players get into a fight. In hockey they were actually complaining that there wasn't as many fights as there used to be. But when something happens in basketball, the ENTIRE CULTURE of the NBA is demonized. Then, somehow, they bring hip hop into the discussion, which always seems to happen for some reason, and there is this big problem. And something needs to be done. We become labeled as thugs. That is something that really bothers me, but it is an unfortunate reality that is our present day society."

Can you see the similarities?

I especially like Exhibit E in the article, where the author highlights the usage of the Internet as the latest tool for xenophobic bigots 'to voice their true opinions'.

"Internet anonymity often empowers readers to break free from this "oppressive PC culture" to voice their true opinions on black men in a way that is completely distinct from conversations where white athletes mess up."

I can't begin to count how many sickening comments abusing our dear Prophet (saw) and misquoting the Quran I have read, and not just on typical Islamophobic websites. Indeed, their true colors are being exposed.

What this shows is that the sickness is in the hearts of the people, those feeding the media ratings as well as those commenting on the web, those unwilling to see beyond the superficiality of the news reports and the superficiality of their own selves.

Muslims will do no better to improve their lot by trying to change their beliefs than blacks would do by trying to change their skin color. The problem is not with us. The problem is with those trying to change us by projecting their insecurities onto us.

PS. This is reason #3,452 for boycotting ESPN.

Cross Posted at Muslim Bloggers Alliance

I’ve been reading through many of the news reports as well as the Islamosphere to get a better understanding of what really happened in Islamabad.

I’ve said before that its morally reprehensible and intellectually dishonest for us to make judgments on those labeled as Islamists (as well as any other contentious issue) based solely on one side of the story. Granted its not always easy to tell fact from fiction or truth from propaganda but we must at least hold on formulating an opinion until we hear all sides of the story. Here are some of the lightly reported aspects of the story that I’ve been able to glean from various reports:

1. Very few people actually heard Maulana Abdur-Rasheed Ghazi’s message. Here is a comprehensive speech (sorry but its in Urdu) summarizing all of what he was calling for. His demands made in this speech several months ago could not be considered overly extreme or foreign to the common Pakistani (end corruption and cronyism, cease immoral activities, implement Sharia laws in the court systems, etc.).

2. As tempered as his original message may have been, it was lost during the crisis this past week. As one brother living in Islamabad pointed out to me, it was very odd that Ghazi failed to mention his populist message during the stand-off. It would have seemed an opportune time to do so, with all of the world’s eyes on him.

3. He was constantly in touch with the media via his cell phone and he made it clear that he was not holding any women or children as hostages for the purpose of using them as human shields. According to him, that was part of the government’s smear campaign against him. (Link)

4. He made several capitulating gestures to the government where he was ready to unconditionally surrender and have any cases against him heard in the courts. His proposal also included handing over control of the Lal Masjid/Jamia Hafsa facilities to a third party. However, his stance changed when Ghazi was quoted on Geo TV as saying his mother had been wounded by gunfire. "The government is using full force. This is naked aggression. My martyrdom is certain now." Later he was quoted as saying, "We will not surrender. We will be martyred, but we will not surrender."

5. The day before the storming of the compound, a negotiating team consisting of Pakistani Ulema and former politicians, some of whom are known to be staunch government supporters, met with Ghazi for almost 12 hours in an attempt to end the stand-off peacefully. In fact, the two sides came to an amicable agreement summarized in a draft resolution. However, the Ulema group claimed that the government sabotaged the negotiations and "accused the government of creating a deadlock on the issue at the last moment and foiling all efforts to resolve it in a peaceful way." (Link)

6. Another negotiator, Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz, assigned by the government to hold talks between the military and Ghazi claimed in an interview with Asia Times Online that the arrest of Ghazi’s brother dressed in a burqa was a ploy by the government. Also, referring to an interview with his burqa-clad brother by state-owned PTV, Ghazi explained "He is a prisoner of war. The government had no right to humiliate him by presenting (him) in such way on TV."

7. The existence of foreign militants was another element that was barely mentioned in the news coverage. Although Ghazi flat-out rejected their presence (In the final negotiations before the storming of the compound, one of his conditions was for the media to visit the complex to prove his point there were no major weapons, nor foreigners present with him as claimed by the government. But his proposal was shot down), the military claimed to the contrary, even going so far as to blame the failed talks on Ghazi’s insistence on the foreign militants getting a free passage. That claim by the government was later debunked by the negotiating team "He always asked for guarantees for him as well as for those who were with him inside, but he never mentioned 'foreign militants'," said Maulana Hanif Jalandari. Regardless, it would be interesting to know how much of a factor the presence of foreign militants had in the tough stance taken by the military (and let’s not discount the added pressure from the US in cracking down on these foreign fighters).

8. And lets not forget the political tensions boiling over in the Chief Justice scandal where Musharraf unceremoniously sacked the top judge of the Pakistani court system. To what extent the extreme pressure that Musharraf was feeling from all quarters had a role in his decision to let off some steam on the militants will never be known. But it is worth considering.

I have purposefully avoided repeating the missteps and blunders carried out by Ghazi and Co. The CNN’s and BBC’s have done an adequate job in regurgitating that part of the story. My intent with this post was to present the other side and allow you to make your own judgment about the Lal Masjid tragedy.

Finally, I came across several thoughtful posts that looked at the bigger picture and provide some interesting insight. Umar Lee concluded from this event that a central Islamic authority would have been very useful in keeping such reactionary movements in check. Ali Eteraz posted on the corrupt nature of religious leadership and our need to be more critical of who we regard as our leaders (I must note that I don't agree with his other contentions, but that's for another day). Muslimmatters also provided a good post with some very insightful comments (Sh. Yasir Qadhi gave his thoughts also) on the root causes and the overarching consequences of these types of dilemmas.

You know the feeling by now. It’s a mixture of frustration and fear, apathy and apprehension, sadness and anger, confusion and clarity. It’s the feeling most of us get when we hear about yet another negative incident tainting this pristine religion of ours. And this feeling has become even more volatile in our highly charged environments, so neatly sprinkled with the explosive residue from 9/11, the war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

Every episode, instantly beamed all over the world, either makes us cringe and look for the first person to whom we can apologize or forces us to shake our heads in disbelief at the worldwide ‘conspiracy’ against Islam. In this polarized world of ‘with us or against us’, every episode forces us to choose a side – if we try to rationalize and analyze its situational context, we are branded apologists for extremism and if we criticize the bigotry and hate with which these actions are perpetrated, we are labeled apologists for the West.

We as a nation have become lulled into this oversimplification. We have fallen into the trap of picking sides (or worse, throwing our hands in the air and walking away). Our senses are constantly being bombarded with instant news, forcing us to instantly make a judgment: “No time for analysis, make a decision quick, you with us or against us? How can it be so complicated, we presented the ‘facts’, so what’s it gonna be?”

I say all this because I was genuinely surprised to read Br. Tariq Nelson’s post, “Embarrassed by the lunatic fringe” where I feel he was unfair to himself in feeling an emotion of embarrassment, especially when based on narratives created by those who have an agenda, be it imperialism, TV ratings, war profiteering, or a lust for power.

I refuse to allow them (the ones creating these narratives) to affect my measured evaluation of every situation. I refuse to allow them to lump all the West into one fiery ball of sin. I refuse to allow them to lump all dissidents into one evil group of Islamists. I refuse to feel embarrassed to be a Muslim. I refuse to feel embarrassed to be a Westerner.

Let me give an example of this overly simplified polarization. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fozan, a famous Saudi cleric, recently answered a question about those calling themselves ‘Liberal Muslims’. He stated: