Naeem's Blog

The Guardian tells us of a leaked document from the UK government detailing their counter-terrorism strategy on isolating extremists in the Muslim community. The interesting part is where it details on how they qualify extremists:

"People would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan."

And from the looks of it, the defining characteristics are nothing new in this post 9-11 climate in which we find ourselves. Many of these qualifying traits have been used to describe extremists from day one of the war on terror, so its simply more of the same.

However, it does help us to see the long-term agenda in suppressing any form of political Islam. Its clear they wish for us to demarcate between religion and state thereby adopting secularism as an ideology.

And to boot, we mustn't support the defeat of their occupying, imperialistic ways!

What a sweet deal!

Now I don't agree with so much of the methodology adopted by many Islamists who advocate a global caliphate or the Jihadis fighting the US/UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I will never compromise my belief in the principles they are struggling for.

Am I wrong to believe that the majority of Muslims agree with me? The majority wants to live by the laws of the Quran and Sunna. The majority believes in Jihad as an essential component of Islam. The majority believe homosexuality is haram. The majority believe the foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must leave.

Is it too much to ask that they understand the nuance between the majority of Muslims who believe in these basic Islamic principles and the minority who are going about achieving their goals in an unacceptable manner?

So basically, UK is telling us that for us to become accepted members of their society, we have to sell out on some of our basic principles.

No to Jihad, No to Sharia, No to Khilafa, and Yes to Homosexuality.

Yaay! Where do I sign up?

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 always imagined the giraffes as the Hari Krishna's of the animal kingdom - you know, those peace-loving folks in orange togas singing at airports.

These simple animals are strutting around on their long stilt-y legs, minding their own business, peacefully chewing on leaves, looking all dopey and what not.

So you can imagine how disappointed I was when I saw this video:



So violence has even infiltrated the lovable giraffe family?!? The humanity!!!!!

There is a ray of hope here...maybe it's a husband-wife couple duking it out. Notice how in the end, they walk into the sunset together...yep, tell-tale sign of a married couple.

Some things are simply universal.

What? You mean you and your spouse don't bang necks in a clumsy attempt to wrestle the other down when you're arguing? You people are weird.

Recently, I've been having this discussion with a friend on the existence of anti-Semitic sentiments found in the Muslim community.

I'll begin with his points first:

Let us first begin with the proper understanding of the term Anti-Semitism. Basically it's a European phenomenon founded on hatred of Jews solely for their being Jewish. Such sentiments are foreign to the religion of Islam as well as to the historical instances of the Muslim community. Hatred of Jews for their 'Jewish-ness' is nowhere to be found in Islamic history.

Secondly, the more recent trend found in the Muslim community of ill-will towards Jews can be explained by their occupation of the Holy Land and the ensuing oppression of the Palestinian people. Thus, the strong feelings against Jews is not a theological one, but a political one. If the root cause of this hatred were to be addressed, the tension between the two communities would cease to exist and would thus return to the equilibrium that existed for the previous 1400 years.

=======

I countered that while the origins of the term may be as he described, the current-day, common usage has changed and is now come to mean 'any hatred of the Jewish peoples' regardless of the reason. Let us move beyond the etymological roots of the word and focus on the colloquial usage.

As to the root cause being the political tussle between Israelis and Palestinians, how does that explain the constant barrage of hatred towards Jews with regards to their role in the banking sector, control of the media and Hollywood, their conniving role in the American government, and other conspiracy theories. Even if peace were to prevail in the Middle East, the Muslim street would remain abuzz with such nonsensical talk.

Additionally, too many Muslims have used this hatred to twist verses of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet (saw). Where there was never any anti-Semitic sentiment over the first 1400 years of Muslim understanding of the Quran and Sunnah, the past 50 years have introduced such racists ideology such as all Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, they are the killer of prophets, and even the trees and rocks hate the Jews for they will reveal them hiding in the midst of battle (as narrated by our beloved Prophet (saw)).

====

His reply: It is essential that we adhere to the original usage of the term for such hatred of Jews is strictly a Euro-Christian phenomenon. It is an emotion predicated on nothing but the religion of the Jews. The problems of their (Xian) civilization must not be juxtaposed onto our faith community. The ill-will that you (Naeem) speak of does indeed exist, but it cannot be referred to as anti-Semitism. Doing so allows Western commentators to impose this disease onto the Muslim community, which simply has never been the case, past or present.

This sickness of blaming the Jews for various conspiracy theories or hating the Yahud for killing the Palestinians can be called many things, but it must NOT be called anti-Semitism. Muslims must not allow the Christian world to share their collective guilt of hating and oppressing the Jewish people (explicitly founded on their being the killers of Jesus Christ) with the Muslim world.

By so flagrantly accusing the Muslim community of anti-Semitism, you (Naeem) are fanning the flames of the fire begun by the West, who is intent on not only propagating the falsehood that Muslims as a people are anti-Semitical, but that Islam as an ideology is anti-Semitical. And this is the greatest disservice we can do to our very own religion.

Finally, you (Naeem) undermine the significance of the political problem of Israel and Palestine. Muslims the world over have an emotional attachment to that part of the world and to see it so viciously occupied leaves a scar never before seen in our community. I recall Ghandi even having said something to the effect that if the Palestinian problem persists, tensions in the Indian Muslim community will become unbearable. He understood the emotional explosiveness of this issue. Why don't you?

========

I hope I summarized the argument of my friend correctly. If he ever gets the time to read this through and finds my presentation lacking, he is free to chime in with any corrections.

In conclusion, I must agree with his argument against using the term anti-Semitism for it projects a feeling that is simply foreign to the Muslim world. No where in our texts can it be found that Jews are to be hated for simply being Jews. So no matter what ill-will may be found in our community, it must not be called anti-Semitism. Muslims will never be like the Nazis or the KKK.

That being said, we do have a serious problem in our community where too much Jew-bashing takes place. Part of the problem undoubtedly arises from the political situation in Palestine. Part of it comes from our weakened state of mind which leads us to constantly look for conspiracies to explain our failed state. Part of it comes from twisted minds who have twisted teachings of our religion to shed a negative light on the Jewish people.

Those issues must definitely be addressed.

But nowhere can we say that this ill-will comes from anti-Semitic thought in our people or in our religion. That is clearly evident. I hope more Muslims begin to pick up on this nuance, which may be subtle but is very weighty.

There are many essential skills that are slowly fading away into the abyss of the 'old days' that I'm started to get frustrated with all things modern. For example, handwriting skills have basically become a lost art. Kids are learning to text, twitter, and email before they learn the proper form of handwriting.

Fine, you may argue that handwriting is not really that essential.

How many people out there have ever started a fire? Not talking about a fire caused by splashing cooking oil onto the stove while frying eggs, resulting in the kids running for their lives and the wife coming to the rescue (I speak from experience). I'm referring to an actual campfire with logs, matches, and that cool firestarter stuff. Not many, I'm guessing, because there simply is little need nowadays.

Damn you Modernity!

Also, what about the ability to (ahem) attend to your personal needs in an Eastern-style toilet? I'd say that ranks right up there with hunting, starting a fire, and talking to a coconut as skills you need to survive a FedEx plane crash.

Ever since we moved to Saudi Arabia, I can't tell you how many nightmares I've had to endure thanks to my children's misadventures in the flat toilets.

What am I talking about, forget them...I've had too many misadventures MYSELF!

Damn you Modernity!

And let's not forget about eating with your hands. My two older kids make a bigger mess when they eat with their hands than their 18 month old younger sister. Personally, I'm not too bad when it comes to eating with my hands, but I'm nowhere as skilled as my Saudi counterparts. When we get together and eat from a large plate of rice, they'll take a handful, smoothly squeeze it into a small ball, and pop it into their mouths. Then they'll look at me awkwardly contorting my hand and arm to get the rice into my mouth and sympathetically offer me a spoon.

Damn you Modernity!

Hmmm...what other possible reasons can I curse at Modernity?

I've been strongly critical of Obama in past posts (especially of his campaign promises for Hope and Change), so I must maintain balance by applauding him when he does positive.

After years of witnessing Bush deny any wrongdoing on his part, its very refreshing to have a leader stand in front of his nation and say 'I screwed up.' While I will always question the sincerity of career politicians and continuously look for alternative justifications to their altruistic words and deeds, I was delightfully pleased with this sudden burst of humility by a US President.

Good job Obama!

Now please stop wasting time with your stupid stimulus package (which is simply trying to prop up the old economy of consumption, debt, and fat banks) as well as silly issues like executive compensation and deal with the real crisis in the economy and health care.

Oh and while I have your attention, could ya stop senselessly bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan? I can't speak for them, but I'm guessing the locals don't much appreciate US missiles destroying their homes and killing their families.

Not to belabor the point from my previous post, but I wanted to share one more thought on our very telling relationship with groups like the Taliban or Al-Shabab. I'll start by quoting from a Jonathan Lyons piece over at Juan Cole's site:

"Central to this narrative (referring to Huntington's clash of civilization theory) is a series of familiar ideas across the political arena, on the Internet, on talk radio, in the mainstream media, and, all too frequently, in academia. Such notions include: Islam is a religion of violence; ... Muslims are “medieval” and fearful of modernity; Muslims are sexually perverse – either lascivious polygamists, repressive misogynists, or both; and, finally, they are caught up in a jealous rage at the West’s failure to value them or their beliefs.

Today, such assertions still echo: We love liberty, They hate freedom; We are rational, They are not; We are modern, They are medieval; We are good, They are evil."

The West (and Western Muslims who have fallen for their empty rhetoric) needs to constantly prop up and tear down the actions of groups that feed the above stereotypes. It's no coincidence that the exact qualities that Lyons lists above are the qualities that are constantly publicized in media reports demonizing these groups.

They are the Lex Luthor to our Superman. This narrative is so W Bush and we've got to move beyond it. Our analysis must be properly informed and respectfully objective.

For starters, if you want a fresh perspective on the Taliban as they exist in north Pakistan, this Asia Times Online series is a good place to start. The reporter tries to present a balanced view of the situation.

Sadly, too many will find it long and boring. Quick soundbites reporting the closing of girl schools or lashing of criminals are much sexier.