Habib Siddiqui

Living between the two worlds - 2

2012-01-28T19:34:00.000-08:00

My port city of Chittagong, situated on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, in Bangladesh is no longer the town that I grew up with or the city that I left some 34 years ago when I came to North America to pursue higher studies. Chittagong was a sleepy little beautiful town on the edges of vast hilly terrain that stretched throughout the entire district. There were enough roads to commute easily anywhere. The air was fresh and clean. The people were nice, warmhearted and helping, watching out for each other.

I remember that in some of the weekends, which usually meant Friday, my parents would take us all in our family car for picnics in the nearby Chittagong Hill Tracts, or the beautiful Patenga Beach, or the Fauzdarhat Beach, or to some other scenic picnic spots on the hills in and around the town. Those scenic spots were sparsely crowded to enjoy a family outing.

Back in the late 1970s, the city population was below a million. Today, Chittagong cannot be recognized by anyone who had been away from this growing metropolis for a decade or two. It is now one of the fastest growing cities in the world. Although official estimate of the city would put the population at around six million, the actual population is between eight and ten million. While most city roads have widened somewhat in the last three decades, hardly any new road has been built, thus adding to the growing agony of the daily commuters who have grown ten-fold. With all the new imported cars, buses and trucks, let alone single-engine taxis, gridlocks are now a daily nuisance that the city dwellers must live with. The air is polluted and unhealthy.

So, when I visit my parents in Chittagong, I usually prefer not to go anywhere but spend time with them and my siblings. Outside the Foy’s Lake, located close to my parents’ home in the northern part of the city, most of the picnic spots are long gone, having made spaces for the booming real estate business. Even the beaches are so crowded these days that they don’t attract me any more to spend some quiet times when the sun sets into the Bay of Bengal.

Commuting within the city, even meeting family members, is no longer fun. It could take anywhere from half an hour to an hour just to go a mere 3 to 4 miles by car or taxi, depending on the time of the day one is traveling. Dr. Aynul Haque, a businessman friend of mine who is a prominent developer in the city, was lamenting that the country was losing at least 20% of its GDP because of such delays in commuting. In some of the major crossings, and there are plenty of those in any major city including Chittagong, a commuter may end up waiting for 15-20 minutes before the road clears.

Bangladeshi roads, like in many parts of South Asia, are still swamped with rickshaws. It does not take a genius to figure out that if the vehicles, manually pedaled or engine powered, move at different speeds it is the slowest one that would dictate the flow or speed of the traffic. Thus, in most roads and crossings, Chittagong City has its share of problems dealing with the slow-moving rickshaws. Pulling a rickshaw, although a very laborious and tiresome task, is easy to learn for anyone. It does not require any test, conducted by the municipal office, to get a license. And the earning at the end of the day is not bad either. With the ever expanding mechanized ploughing introduced in the agriculture sector, and the shrinking job market in the rural areas, many of the poor (usually landless) peasants have no other alternative but to seek jobs in cities. Once they find a job, they then bring their family members to live in ever expanding shanty towns that dot most cities as eyesores for the local residents.

Zakir Hossain Road that runs in front of my parent’s home is now 65 feet wide. A half century ago, it was a narrow patch of muddy road, where my father could not bring his car into our properties. We had to leave our car, half a mile away, near a Muslim shrine, Goribullah Shah Mazar. We would then either walk or take a rickshaw to come to our properties. But now this very road, connected to Dhaka Trunk Road - connecting the port of Chittagong to the capital city of Dhaka -- is one of the busiest roads in the city. With all the heavy convoys moving from the industrial parts of the city to either the port or the capital city, even in the late hours of the night this road does not sleep. Even to crossover to the other side of the road can be quite hazardous!

Many residents have found out that it actually takes less time to walk to their banks or shops than to take a ride in a car, taxi or rickshaw. Unfortunately for the pedestrians, the footpaths are ever shrinking, thanks to many shoppers and vendors who have made a habit of bringing out their merchandize all the way to the footpaths. The traffic and local police ignore such incursions on public properties. In most cities, the city government is inexcusably dysfunctional providing hardly any service to their tax-payers. Garbage is rarely picked up completely and parts of most roads and footpaths are littered with such dumps, which pushes pedestrians to walk on the edges of busy roads. And then with never ending construction works by the developers or city utility companies, both the roads and the footpaths that run parallel become narrower, thus adding to annoyance of all – drivers and pedestrians alike.

With the ever-expanding middle class, and their preference to own flats or apartments rather than live as tenants, the real estate business is booming. So fast is this change that I often have serious difficulty recognizing the landscape of the city, in spite of the fact that I visit Bangladesh every year!

Bangladesh with an approximate 56,000 square miles area and a population in excess of 150 million, is one of the most densely populated places in our planet. Consequently, land-prices are skyrocketing. It is probably the best investment one can make! (However, holding on to one’s legal properties is not easy!)

When I grew up in the town, Chittagong’s tallest building was below ten storied high, and now there are dozens of taller buildings all across the city. In my neighborhood, our house ‘Aranika’ was once the tallest one – a six storied house. And now there are hundreds of taller houses in our neighborhood in Khulshi. That is how fast Chittagong’s skyline is changing!

During the pre-liberation Pakistan era, Chittagong was the second largest city – a major commercial and industrial centre of the then East Pakistan -- and still it is in the post-liberation Bangladesh era. It was the major port then, and still it has held on to its status. However, with globalization, it has evolved into a globally competitive economic hub. The tax-free Export Processing Zone has attracted many international investors to establish their manufacturing centers near the port. With the Port of Chittagong being expanded and developed, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar (Burma) - the regional neighbors of Bangladesh -- have eyed Chittagong as a future regional transit hub. The port city is seen as crucial to the economic development of landlocked southern Asia including Northeast India, Bhutan, Nepal and parts of Southern China and Myanmar.
=================================================
To be continued>>>

For the first part see the link here.

More on the Demography of Arakan in the pre-colonial period

2012-01-23T09:26:00.000-08:00

What was the proportion of the Rohingya people (the so-called Bengalis, mostly brought forcibly as slaves by the Mugs or Maghs) before the 1784 invasion of Arakan by the Burmans? Here is a link from Major Roberts' account of Arakan from 1777, some 7 years before the invasion, and nearly half a century before the Anglo-Burman war of 1824-26, which clearly shows that roughly three-quarters, or 75%, of the inhabitants of Arakan were the ancestors of Rohingya.

The piece by Major Roberts also show that the Mugs were really a savage people.

Living between the two worlds - 1

2012-01-21T19:10:00.000-08:00

Like many citizens of our world these days, I live between the two worlds. The last month I was away from my adopted country visiting my native home in Bangladesh in South Asia. I still have my parents and siblings living there, and many school-day friends. The journey from Philadelphia takes almost two days to go and another two days to return. I, therefore, found it more appropriate to take this trip, usually a month-long, around December. With the western holidays like the Christmas and New Year’s Eve falling in the last week of December, my vacation time actually becomes five weeks long. It is a dry season with no rainfalls there, and having lived in the West for more than three decades, the winter in Bangladesh is not supposed to be brutal for me. So, every year I visit my native country and last December was no different.

After arriving in the capital city of Dhaka, a megacity of some 16 million people, I decided to take a train ride to reach Chittagong, the second largest city of the country, an ancient port city situated on the Bay of Bengal, where some 8 to 10 million people live. My other options were to take either a plane ride or a bus ride. Everyone cautioned me against taking the bus ride, in spite of all the fancy air-conditioned European buses that provide better comfort than a plane ride. The road condition was horrible and unsafe for such a 6-hour long commute, which can actually take longer than 8 to 10 hours. After flying for almost two days from New York, I was tired of a plane ride, and instead chose a train ride which would give me a chance to see the country better. And I was not disappointed with my choice.

I have been a frequent flyer for many years. Some years ago in one of those rides, I came across an article in an airline magazine which said that if one were to know about a city and how well its municipality works one should look out for the manholes. Why manholes, when there are other more important indicators to understand the state of affairs of a city? Well, nowhere is this indicator more relevant and visible than my native country of Bangladesh where some criminals have found other usefulness with the cover of a manhole. Obviously, a rickshaw or taxi ride to the old part of a town could be hazardous if the rider and the driver are unmindful or unaware of the road hazard.

My habit is to arrive at a station quite early. I would rather wait for an hour than be late, missing my flight, train or bus. The train from Dhaka was to depart from the Kamalapur Station at around 8 a.m. Instead, it left some 30 minutes late, and eventually arriving in my destination almost two hours late. The way the train moved and halted frequently in non-scheduled places it seemed as if its conductor and driver had no rush to be on time. There also appeared to have more riders than the seats available. I was told that the conductors, driver and the rail police have been making illicit money by allowing such riders to ride the train without ticket. They are initially let in to seat in the dining car and an empty bogey that is reserved for offering prayer services and later moved into empty seats as these become available.

Train ride is probably the most sought after ride to reach major cities in south Asia. Not is it only affordable, it is also safer. The train and seats are also kept quite clean. It is not difficult to understand why it is almost impossible to get a ticket unless bought more than a week earlier than the scheduled day of ride. I was told that within minutes such advance tickets are sold, and that for a higher price they can be bought from some illegal vendors, courtesy of corrupt railway officers at the ticket counters.

As the train started pulling out of the capital city of Dhaka, I could see illegal slums built on the railway properties on either side of the rail track. The living conditions there looked so filthy and unhealthy that I doubt if there is any place worse than those slums. And yet, it seemed tens of thousands of migrant workers from remote rural places to the major metropolis had been living there and calling it their homes, almost a permanent home on illegal government properties.

Slums in many major metropolises in the developing world are not a new phenomenon and have been there for decades. The Academy Award winning movie – Slumdog Millionaires – has provided many moviegoers an inside look at life inside a slum in Bombay (Mumbai), probably typical of other slums in South Asia.

As the train whistled past the slum dwellers and like a snake basked into the rural parts of the country, it was too gratifying to see the beauty of the countryside. The success in the agricultural sector was all too visible. There was hardly any spot left uncultivated on either side of the rail track. I could see farmers working in their paddy fields. It was green, yellow and golden all over with sporadic punctuations of rivers, streams and ponds. It is because of the labor of those hardworking farmers that hardly anyone dies of starvation these days in my native country. An agricultural miracle, in deed!

As I recall, during my childhood days whenever I had taken a train ride, and I took many in those days seasonally commuting from my native town in Chittagong, located in the southeast corner of the country, to my school (Rajshahi Cadet College) in Rajshahi, located in the northwestern edge of the country, beggars were a frequent nuisance that the riders had to live with. Any time the train stopped, they would either jump into a bogey or stretch out their hands from the platform asking for money. These days, they are almost invisible. But I could see a new type of beggars. There were some who sought money for their blind or mute classmates.

These intercity trains have their own catering services that provide tea, coffee, snacks and drinks. If one is bored, one can also buy newspapers, magazines, and books. The price, however, was not cheap, at least from a third world economic perspective where the average income is only a fraction of those earned in the West. However, the train passengers seemed quite comfortable spending their money to buy whatever they needed at prices that were not much cheaper than in the West. This again showed that people now have more money to spend and buy things that they desired. So, some level of prosperity must have trickled down to the ordinary masses.

As the train was running late, I frequently asked the conductor to ascertain the time when it would arrive in my destination. Initially, he was not sure either, reflecting on the fact that the train had started late, and his best guess was that it would be late by that time or an hour, maximum. But as the train drifted farther and farther away from its original scheduled time, he had to change his time a few times. Finally, when the train came within about 50 km of my destination, he gave me a time that seemed to hold true. I called my brother-in-law to pick me up from the train station, and he did.

A journey which was to take six hours ended up taking eight hours. But I was glad that I made this train journey rather than taking a very short plane ride. This allowed me to get a better understanding of the country I was born into.

Within a week of my train journey, a new minister – Suranjit Sengupta - with sole responsibilities for the Railway Department was sworn in, who took a train ride and, as in my case, witnessed firsthand the late departure and arrival of the train. I am told since then the service has improved and trains run mostly on time. I hope it is not a temporary thing but continues to alleviate suffering of many passengers who like nothing better than a timely service.

To be continued>>>

Comments on the new regime in Myanmar

2012-01-17T10:29:00.001-08:00

I recently came across Rimond Htoo's piece - Ceasefires won't bring piece. He is absolutely right for a befitting title to his piece. I am also in agreement that "Since Burma is a multi-ethnic country, mere democracy won’t do. Burma needs a system that guarantees the rights and self-determination of every ethnic group." I shall extend this definition to include every minority group - religious and otherwise, which includes the Rohingyas of Arakan.

As I mentioned in some of my earlier articles, Burma or today's Myanmar has been a hopeless case of lies and deception leading to frustration on the part of minorities since its founding after the British colonial masters had left. Promises made by those in power never translated into tangible gains on the ground that could gravitate people towards a federal formula for unity shunning disunity and racism that had always defined race relations inside Burma. So, Rimond Htoo's piece may be what is in store for the Karen and various other minorities, and that would be a sad one - going back to the unfortunate days of death and diaspora.

I hope that such fears are untrue and that the new rulers in Myanmar are different than their predecessors. And that they have learned and become wiser and better. The ball is obviously in their court. If they want to retrace their path to the olden days of oppression and persecution of minorities like the Karen and Rohingya (and others) by kicking the ball into their own goal post, it would be utterly stupid, esp. with so much of support that they enjoy and the goodwill others now have about their new regime. It would be their loss, and no one else's. Under the current wave of new hope and aspirations, the only thing the regime can do is to carry the ball forward and make a winning team by playing together as equals with the same goal or objective. Just as in soccer or with any other game, an winning formula requires building a winning team, and that process starts with dialogue, open negotiations that show what is at stake and how unity of purpose and action can be a winning formula for all. It is surely not dictated by barrel of a gun, and no bullies either.

Again, my hope is that the new regime is different for better. It is neither SPDC nor SLORC, and as such trouble days are over for Burma, and a new dawn offers newer hopes. And thus, the ceasefires made on the ground with Karen and others are meant to be stepping stones before a serious dialogue with various nationalities, ethnicities, races, religions, etc. take place on a common formula of unity in diversity towards a federal government where no single group dominates the government. Ethnic tensions need to be eased so that trust is built within and between all races and minority groups.

On a personal level, I am willing to give the new regime some time to prove its worthiness before we dump it as the same old, rotten, dirty regime, if it proves hypocritical and acts contrary to its promises made. Whatever it is worth, my opinions on Burma's latest development can be read in the New Age. Here is a link: http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/editorial/47088.html

Is the change in Myanmar for real?

2012-01-14T18:07:00.000-08:00

In its latest gesture of amnesties, the military-backed regime of Thein Sein in Myanmar has released many political prisoners. Those freed included veterans of the 1988 student protest movement, monks involved in the 2007 demonstrations and ethnic-minority activists like U Kyaw Min (a member of the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi). Truly, the names of those released read like a who's who of Burma's most prominent political detainees. In a statement broadcast on the TV, President Thein Sein said those released were people who could "play a constructive role in the political process".

The releases came a day after the government had signed a landmark ceasefire with the rebel Karen National Union in Hpa-an, capital of eastern Karen state. The release of all political prisoners has been a long-standing demand of the international community. As a human rights activist who for years has demanded reform inside Burma, I warmly welcome these releases.

My hope is that the new regime is serious about a transformational change that would allow the released politicians and former prisoners of conscience to play a positive role to unite the otherwise fragmented country of many nations, races, ethnicities and religions under a federal formula. For too long, the former military regimes and their ultra-racist supporters have used one community against another, and created an atmosphere where bigotry, racism, xenophobia and hatred ruled supreme. Of special mention is the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law which ensured such state policies of exclusions that would rob millions of Rohingya and other religious and ethnic minorities of their citizenship rights. Forgotten there was the time honored realization that narrow ethno-centric nationalism in a country of diverse races and ethnicities is suicidal.

With the release of ethnic minority leaders like U Kyaw Min of Arakan (alias) Shamsul Anwarul Haque, my hope is that President Thein Sein and his new regime is serious about a genuine reform. Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has welcomed the move as a "positive sign" and so did many international leaders.

When Thein Sein’s Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), a military-backed civilian government, came to power in November 2010, after the country's first elections in 20 years [in which Daw Suu Kyi’s The National League for Democracy (NLD) did not participate], no one was sure which direction the new regime would follow. Many considered the regime change as a sham -- the same old stuff: serving new wine in an old bottle. But soon after coming to power, Thein Sein took reform steps that were meant to show the world that he was serious about a transformational change. He opened dialogue with Suu Kyi and her NLD. He released her from house arrest within a week of coming to power. Last May, the government released some 1500 prisoners, which did not, however, include any prominent politician. Last September, Thein Sein suspended construction of controversial Chinese-funded Myitsone hydroelectric dam, a move which was seen as showing greater openness to public opinion. Then in October, he freed more than 200 political prisoners as part of a general amnesty, and passed new labor laws allowing unions to function.

All such reforms were not lost in the minds of ASEAN leaders who met last November agreeing that Myanmar would chair the grouping in 2014. The award was meant to show that Burma was moving in the right direction with the steps taken thus far and also as a sign of encouragement to keep it up. The pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi soon announced that she would stand for election to parliament, as her party rejoined the political process.

There has been such an unmistakable aura of change in Myanmar that the U.S. President Barack Obama called such the "flickers of progress." Before sending his top diplomat to Myanmar, Obama said, "We want to seize what could be a historic opportunity for progress, and to make it clear that if Burma continues to travel down the road of democratic reform, it can forge a new relationship with the United States of America."

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the country in December and also met with Suu Kyi. This year the British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited the country in which he expressed his strong concern saying, “Minorities like the Rohingya in many cases lack basic civil and political rights.” These and other western leaders hinted that they would help to ease sanctions against the regime if it releases its political prisoners and is serious about reform that would resolve ethnic conflicts around the border regions.

Last month President Thein Sein signed a law allowing peaceful demonstrations for the first time. The NLD re-registered as a political party in advance of by-elections for parliament due to be held early in 2012. In recent weeks, the government has agreed a truce deal with rebels of Shan ethnic group and ordered the military to stop operations against ethnic Kachin rebels.

Now with the release of high ranking political prisoners there is little doubt that Thein Sein is serious about genuine reform in his country. Suu Kyi described the past 12 months as "eventful, energizing and to a certain extent encouraging". And she is right. Myanmar is seemingly taking irreversible baby steps for a viable democracy.

Never before in the last 50 years did we ever see such a ray of hope gleaming in the country that was once Burma. We can pray and hope that Thein Sein is no charlatan change agent but is as genuine as it comes. Sure, there are several steps that need to be taken before Myanmar becomes a country with a functioning democracy where its people would enjoy political and economic freedom like many other citizens of our planet -- the release of all remaining political prisoners; repealing the racist and xenophobic Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 which has resulted in unfathomed discrimination, violations of human rights and forced exodus of millions of its inhabitants to settle for a life of unwanted refugees in neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Thailand; addressing the rights of Burma’s ethnic and religious minorities (especially, the Rohingya, Karen and Shan peoples) and ensuring the fair and independent application of the rule of law for all its inhabitants.

Objective and unbiased researches have amply shown that the Rohingya people are an indigenous group whose ancestry and root to the soil of Arakan state of today’s Myanmar predates the British colonial era. [See, e.g., my book -Muslim Identity and Demography in the Arakan State of Burma, available in the Amazon.com] Accordingly, they had exercised the right of franchise in all elections in the pre- and post-colonial periods, including the SPDC’s 2010 election. And yet, this unfortunate people have been denied citizenship and rendered stateless for a xenophobic law that violates every principle enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The sad plight of the Rohingya people was duly observed by Tomas Ojea Quintana, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, who said, “Despite being in this region for generations, this population is stateless. This population is not recognized by the Government as one of the ethnic groups of the Union of Myanmar and is subject to discrimination…. However the Government allowed them to participate in the referendum on the adoption of the new Constitution…. What is more significant than the possibility to vote for the Constitution of a nation to show that one belongs to the nation? If this population was considered apt to give its views on the adoption of the Constitution, then it should be granted all other privileges, including the citizenship, which recognized ethnic groups, citizens of Myanmar do enjoy in the Union.”

As Thien Sein reforms and changes the old orders yielding place to the new, I wish he is mindful of the views and concerns expressed by dignitaries like Tomas Quintana, and stops discriminatory practices against the Rohingya and other vulnerable minorities, plus restores dialogue with each of the ethnic and religious groups on the principle of unity in diversity.

Only the coming months will show how serious is the new government in Myanmar about its commitment to reform. Let’s hope that Thein Sein will not be like any of his hateful predecessors and will do all that is required to ensure human rights for all and bring glory to Myanmar.

More on Rick Santorum

2012-01-08T07:09:00.000-08:00

In the latest debate in NH, Congressman Ron Paul called Rick Santorum one of the "top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists.” Many of us, who are Pennsylvania residents should not be surprised by such unkind and yet true assessment on Santorum. So disappointed were his constituents that they made sure that he did not represent them on the Senate floor any longer. Consequently, in 2006, he was defeated in a re-election bid by one of the widest margins in national history against Bob Casey, Jr.

Ron Paul said, "He’s a big government, big spending individual. Because, you know, he preached to the fact he wanted a balanced budget amendment but voted to raise the debt [limit] five times. So he is a big government person... And also where did he get — make his living afterwards? I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist on — in Washington, D.C. And he has done quite well.”

Ron Paul's campaign has come out with a new ad in South Carolina, which hits Rick Santorum on his "record of betrayal."

"One serial hypocrite exposed," the ad says, showing clips of Newt Gingrich. "Now another has emerged: Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician. A record of betrayal."

Santorum bashes President Obama as a European-style socialist and preaches fiscal conservatism. Yet in the Senate, he made sure dollars from the socialistic Medicare program went to Puerto Rico on behalf of a hometown firm — United Health Services — that later gave him nearly $400,000 in director’s fees and stock options.

He was among the pay-for-play Republicans who tried to strong-arm lobbyists and say that if you wanted to have influence you had to cough up campaign money. While Karen Santorum was home-schooling their seven children in Virginia, Santorum soaked the Pennsylvania taxpayers to the tune of $100,000 by enrolling the children in a Pennsylvania cyber charter school.

On race issues: In Iowa, Santorum tossed out a line about food stamps that NPR reported this way: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” He later told CNN that he was “pretty confident” that he didn’t say “black.” The only alternative, watching the video clip, is that he said “blah.” He doesn’t want to make blah people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money?

It is high time that guys like Santorum are dumped by Republican voters in the coming primary elections.

Letter of a former Guanatanamo Bay prisoner - a must read

2012-01-08T07:01:00.001-08:00

Mr. Lakhdar Boumediene was the lead plaintiff in Boumediene v. Bush. He was in military custody at Guantánamo Bay from 2002 to 2009. The New York Times has recently posted Mr. BOUMEDIENE's letter. You can read this here.

Bachmann is out, Who’s next?

2012-01-07T13:41:00.000-08:00

The USA is in the early stage of its primary elections to narrow down the number of Republican presidential hopefuls to just one. Michelle Bachmann, the congresswoman from the state of Minnesota, suffered a hard blow with a last-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Wisely, she has ended her campaign, but has not yet endorsed any of her former rivals.

It is good to see that the Republicans in Iowa had dumped Bachmann, a highly polarizing politician since becoming a congresswoman in 2006. Her biting condemnations of Democrats — and of tax increases, big government, the health care law and government spending — and hawkish and pro-Israeli remarks on international affairs show that she would have been a very poor choice for the White House, let alone a dangerous one, if she was ever elected to the highest office in the country.

The field of (serious) Republican candidates now includes only six candidates. They are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. In spite of spending millions in ad campaigns, Romney barely won over Santorum in the Iowa caucuses, thus once again showing that many Republicans are not comfortable with his Mormon religious faith. His moderate stances on gay rights and abortion also concern conservatives. He remains, however, a Republican Party establishment favorite and has lately been endorsed by Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate who had lost his bid against Obama in 2008. It is believed that he will do a better job in New Hampshire, next to the state of Massachusetts where he once was a governor. With his right-leaning conservative talks, pro-Israeli and warmongering remarks on world affairs, he has been courting support within the grass-root Republicans who make up the majority of voters in these primaries.

After a close second finish in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania (PA), is immensely energized in his campaign. Before losing to Bob Casey, Jr. in the PA senate race, he was the third-ranking Senate Republican, one of his party’s fastest-rising stars and a brash favorite among social conservative. He had a staunchly conservative voting record in the Senate, and is a hawk on foreign affairs. He is loathed by liberals and independents and has little chance of winning against Obama, if he was to win the Republican ticket. The best he can hope for is a second spot in the Republican ticket, and that seems to be his strategy.

Rick Perry, the longest serving Governor of the state of Texas, once a favorite amongst both social conservatives and the Tea Party movement, especially the Christian evangelicals, had a very poor performance in the Iowa caucuses. He finished fifth. His awful mumblings in the debates have shown that he is not a presidential material. Although initially rumored to quit the race soon after Iowa results, he has decided to continue his bid. With elections coming into the more conservative southern states (the so-called Bible Belt), e.g., in places like South Carolina, he, with strong southern roots, is hoping for a better result that would catapult him to a frontrunner position once again. If he fails to come in the top in the first couple of southern states, it is widely believed that he would drop out of the race.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker from Georgia, had a dismal fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. He claimed to be “Romney-voted” (much like how the Democratic candidate John Kerry was ‘Swift-voted’ by Bush Jr. supporters in the 2004 presidential election), with a barrage of negative ads against him from Mitt Romney. Before the Iowa results, he was riding high with a front-runner status. He vowed to continue on to New Hampshire. As I noted elsewhere, he has serious character flaws, and is one of his party’s best-known and most polarizing figures. He is a hypocrite, and acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Callista Bisek, then a House staff member and now his wife, while leading impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton for lying about his own sexual transgressions. As we have seen in Iowa, his lack of a well-established association with religious conservatives, and questions about his two divorces, could make him a less favorable candidate amongst some conservative Republicans. With his warmongering mentality, while a chicken-hawk himself, much like Bush Jr., he is a dangerous person to end up in the White House. Even if were to ever succeed in winning his party’s nomination, he has little chance of ever winning the presidential election.

Jon Huntsman, Jr., the former two-term governor from the state of Utah, did not campaign in Iowa and has instead been campaigning strongly in New Hampshire. He has significant foreign policy experience. He speaks Mandarin fluently from his time as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan. He served in diplomatic positions in the two Bush administrations and as ambassador to China under President Obama. On a personal level, he is a moderate on social issues, and immensely popular with many Democrats and independents. With an impressive record overall he could be a formidable contender for a one-to-one race against Obama. However, he is a moderate (and a Mormon), which can hurt his chances winning the Republican ticket in this era of polarization. If he decides later to run as an independent, there is little doubt that he would hurt Obama’s chances of getting reelected badly.

This leaves us with Ron Paul, the senior Congressman from the state of Texas, who has rightly been dubbed as the “intellectual godfather of the Tea Party.” He is a very wise man, a first-rate intellectual, and a good Christian. During his 20 years in Congress, Paul has established himself as an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy, and rightly so. He is widely known for his libertarian positions on a host of political and social issues. He is most popular amongst young voters, especially among college-age voters. Although the Tea Party movement echoes Paul on fiscal issues, some of its Palin-Bachmann like shallow and obtuse folks are very uncomfortable with his so-called isolationist stance on international affairs. Many of these Tea Party conservatives are not on board with his beliefs about scaling back the United States military worldwide. However, outside (probably) Jon Huntsman, Jr., Ron Paul remains the last, best hope for renouncing America’s worst and reclaiming her greatness.

When a patient requires surgery to save it, nothing short of it will do any good. Thanks to the pyrrhic wars started by Bush Jr. and continued by Obama, the USA is now dying! She requires surgery and not a band-aid to save itself. A drastic change is required in the top with fresh new ideas and thinking, and not Obamesque mesmerizing and hypocritical sound-bytes. As I see it, outside Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, Jr., none of the candidates has what it would take to conduct that necessary life-saving surgery in the heart of the USA. Come November while I don’t see myself voting for President Obama, one thing for sure, as an independent, I won’t vote for any of the Republican candidates unless it is either Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, Jr.

It is simply unlikely that either party can hope to win the next election without massive support from the independents. Thus, if the Republican voters are serious about a change in the White House, they better wise up by nominating a candidate that the independent voters won’t mind voting for. Since the next election should also be about the direction the Americans would like their nation to follow in the coming years so as not to hastily embrace the fate of the falling Roman Empire, any urge to go back to the pyrrhic, gung-ho days of Bush would be not only insane, it would be utterly suicidal.

Will the Republican voters take heed as they weed out undesirables like Bachmann?

Character Development by Collective/Public Organizational Activities

2011-12-22T04:11:00.000-08:00

STANWOOD COBB was a Harvard educated historian who lived and taught in Istanbul, Turkey nearly a century ago. In 1914 he published a book, based on his experiences in the Orient. In his book “Islamic Contribution to Civilization”, he writes:
“As I moved among the common people I was particularly struck with their serenity and calm at all times. Along the quai of the Bosphorus, for example, one had an opportunity to see the difference in temperament which set the Muslim trader apart from his competitors. While others were always on the watch for customers, shouting loudly and waving as they saw potential patronage, and often jumping out of their boats in order to induce trade, the Muslim sat in lordly calm, waiting in peace for whatever customer Allah willed to send him. Actually, this attitude was more persuasive to us than the hurry-scurry of the Greek and Armenian boatmen, whom we brushed aside in order to reach the boat of a Turk.

This Muslim attitude of immense calm in the midst of the life of commerce was even more noticeable in the Istanbul bazaars. There many of the rug merchants sat in front of their bazaars in order to entice passers-by. But the Turkish rug dealers sat calmly on a platform in the rear of their bazaars, not deigning to move until you had found a rug you were interested in and asked them its price. It was the custom of the Turk to name a price about twenty-five per cent more than normal, and come down to normal in the course of that bargaining which then was an indispensable element of commercial life in the East. On the other hand, it was the custom of many other rug merchants to name to greenhorns a price three or four times greater than normal. American tourists, having been told that one should always bargain, would take delight in bringing the price down to half the original amount demanded and go away proud of their bargaining skill -- not knowing that they had paid in the end twice the normal value.

The Turks were not only honest as merchants, but they were also honest as servants. It was a common saying among the American missionaries that if one by accident lost an article in a Turkish village, nine times out of ten it would be returned. This was hardly true in other Eastern villages. Common pilfering seems to have been stamped out early in the history of Islam by the very stringent rules enforced against it. I was amazed in a Turkish town, to see a haberdashery stall open to the sidewalk left entirely unguarded on a Friday while the proprietor was attending mosque service.”

My speech is about Building Islamic Attitude, Knowledge and Skills, with emphasis on Character Development by Collective/Public Organizational Activities. How to do this?
There is an African idiom: ‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ It is absolutely true. You cannot expect to raise a good child without contribution from every major element within a society. It all starts with the family, the parents. It is no wonder that our Prophet Muhammad (S) said, “A father cannot give his son anything better than refined manners and fine education.” [al-Hakem]

In the classical work “Bahr al-Fava'id” it is written, “Know that the well-being of children is due to their parents, and their perdition is also due to their parents... The Prophet (S) said, "God curse the father whose child is disobedient," that is, may God's curse be upon that father whose sons are disrespectful.” Also:

“It is related in the [Prophetic] Traditions that on the Morrow of Judgment sons will grasp their father's skirts, and wives the skirts of their husbands, saying, "Lord God, they did not teach us the rules of the Law; therefore we are bound for Hell-fire out of ignorance." For people are destined for Paradise through knowledge and for Hell-fire through ignorance.” - [Bahr al-Fava'id]

As we consider educating our Muslims, we must make sure that they understand why they were created by Allah (SWT). The Qur’an says: “Had it not been for My worship, I would not have created Jinn and man.” As we can see, Ibadah or worship in Islam is not limited to prayer alone, but is a 24/7/365 affair. It is meant to raise God-consciousness, so that a person is aware that even if he or she does not see Allah, He sees him/her.

Let me relate a story from Tadhkirat al-Auliya of Farid al-Din Attar (R):
A certain shaykh [Junayd al-Baghdadi (R)] favored one of his disciples over others because of the latter’s God-consciousness. Other disciples obviously were jealous about the Shaykh’s favoritism.

One day to prove the point, the Shaykh gave each disciple a fowl to kill it in a place where no one could see him. All the disciples returned after killing their fowls, except the favored disciple. The shaykh inquired why he had returned with the live fowl.

The disciple replied, “I could not find a place where Allah would not see me.”
His God-consciousness did not allow him to be heedless of Allah’s presence.
The shaykh then told his other disciples: “Now you know this youth’s real rank; he has attained to the constant remembrance of Allah.” [Devotional Stories: H. Siddiqui]
Our Prophet Muhammad (S) said, “Avoiding sinful acts is the mother of worship (Ummul ibadat).” [Al-Munabbihat]

Knowledge is essential for character building. A Tradition says: it is only the erudite ones who can truly worship Allah in the right way. Imam Abu Hanifa (R) said, “Worshipping without knowledge is like building on dung.” [Islamic Wisdom: Habib Siddiqui]

Muhammad said, “An 'Aalim (learned person) is superior to a worshipper as the full moon is superior to all the stars. The ulama (scholars) are heirs of the prophets and the prophets do not leave any inheritance in the shape of dirhams and dinars (wealth), but they do leave knowledge as their legacy. As such a person who acquires knowledge acquires his full share.” [Abu Dawud and Tirmizi: Abu Darda (RA)]

Hassan al-Basri (R) said, “The ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr.” [Kashf al-Khafa’: Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (R)]

It is this importance of knowledge which made the Muslim Arabs, the followers of Muhammad (S), to become the torchbearers or vanguards of knowledge in an age of darkness radiating light in all directions. They created an Islamic civilization, driven by inquiry and invention, which was to become the envy of the rest of the world for nearly a millennium.

It is this spirit, the unquenched thirst for knowledge, which made Abu Rayhan al-Biruni to ask a question on inheritance law or some other related issue while he was lying on his deathbed. (Abu Rayhan al-Biruni was a great scientist, physicist, astronomer, sociologist, linguist, historian and mathematician whose true worth may never be known. He is considered the father of unified field theory by Nobel Laureate - late Professor Abdus Salam. He lived nearly a thousand years ago and was a contemporary of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazni.)

The jurisprudent was quite amazed that a dying man should show interest in such matters.

Abu Rayhan said, “I should like to ask you: which is better, to die with knowledge or to die without it?”

The man said, “Of course, it is better to know and then die.”

Abu Rayhan said, “That is why I asked my first question.”

Shortly after the jurisprudent had reached his home, the cries of lamentation told him that Abu Rayhan had died. (Murtaza Motahari: Spiritual Discourses)

Unfortunately, the same Islam that was responsible for founding the groundwork for Islamic Civilization, which was to initiate the European Renaissance, is now looked upon as a regressive force in today’s world. By many of our own so-called Muslims, Islam is not looked upon as a comprehensive way of life. By vast majority of our people, Islam, like Christianity, is viewed as a casual thing – a Friday affair that is limited to prayer (salat), fasting (saum), zakat and performing hajj (but the spirit is missing). Islam is often mixed with local non-Islamic culture (identity crisis).

The Muslim world is now a backward nation that is behind every other nation in every human index. It has, sadly, become a society that is at ease with crimes and corruption. Most of its governments are corrupt. Worse yet, they are often repressive governments, which are at war with their own people. They have created a society of sycophants or clients, and not of meritocracy where competency rules. The end result is a Muslim world of zeros!

As to how to build Islamic attitude, knowledge and skills, with emphasis on character development by collective/public organizational activities, let me share something that may help. Here in the USA and Canada, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) has been --
- organizing Jum’aa prayer in US and Canada University campuses
- organizing daily prayers in musallas near the campus
- organizing weekly halaqa
- discussing Qur’an and Sunnah
- discussing issues of relevance
- promoting a Muslim identity in a non-Muslim country
- teaching etiquette and manners
- listening to stories from those who converted to Islam
- encouraging group activities that foster brotherhood
- going together and performing community service
- show that Muslims are people who care about others

This type of activities has allowed many Muslims – indigenous and immigrants alike -- to become role models for the society at large. No wonder, their interaction with the local community has helped to curb negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims.
I believe that our young students here in IIUC can draw some inspirations from these foreign Muslims who are living outside Dar-as-Islam.

Our Prophet (S) said, “As you are, so will you have your leaders.”

My hope is that one day each one of our Muslim nation states will have representative leadership that is honest, just and mindful of their obligations, i.e., enlightened and benevolent leadership that promote meritocracy and competence. And that in not too distant a future, we shall be able to reclaim our lost heritage and become once again the torchbearers of progress and enlightenment in our world that still needs a life-saving deen. And Islam is that deen!

[Speech given at IICU, December 22, 2011]

How to Build Islamic Attitude, Knowledge and Skills?

2011-12-19T04:29:00.000-08:00

THE seventh century which saw the rise of Islam also saw Christian Europe enter the Dark Ages. In the western Europe the invading Goths had almost obliterated the culture and technology of the Romans. In the Eastern Roman Empire, centering in Constantinople, the Church had all but suppressed Greek science and philosophy. India was languishing in a period of stagnation; and China, while blossoming richly in the arts, was almost wholly devoid of science.

It was during this period of decline and stagnation that Muslim Arabs, the followers of Muhammad (S), became the torchbearers or vanguards of knowledge in our world. They created an Islamic civilization, driven by inquiry and invention, which was to become the envy of the rest of the world for nearly a millennium.

It is this spirit, the unquenched thirst for knowledge, which made Abu Rayhan al-Biruni to ask a question on inheritance law or some other related issue while he was lying on his deathbed. (Abu Rayhan al-Biruni was a great scientist, physicist, astronomer, sociologist, linguist, historian and mathematician whose true worth may never be known. He is considered the father of unified field theory by Nobel Laureate - late Professor Abdus Salam. He lived nearly a thousand years ago and was a contemporary of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazni.)

The jurisprudent was quite amazed that a dying man should show interest in such matters.
Abu Rayhan said, “I should like to ask you: which is better, to die with knowledge or to die without it?”
The man said, “Of course, it is better to know and then die.”
Abu Rayhan said, “That is why I asked my first question.”
Shortly after the jurisprudent had reached his home, the cries of lamentation told him that Abu Rayhan had died. (Murtaza Motahari: Spiritual Discourses)

Speaking about the Islamic civilization, Carli Fiorina, the former (highly talented and visionary) CEO of Hewlett Packard, said, “Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration. Its writers created thousands of stories; stories of courage, romance and magic. When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others. While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I'm talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent. Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians.”

Truly, there is a hardly a field that is not indebted to these pioneering children of Islam. Here below is a short list (by no means a comprehensive one) of Muslim scientists from the 8th to the 14th century CE:
• 701 (died) C.E. - Khalid Ibn Yazeed - Alchemy
• 721-803 - Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber) - Alchemy (Great Muslim Alchemist)
• 740 - Al-Asma’i - Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry
• 780 - Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) – Mathematics (Algebra, Calculus) - Astronomy
• 776-868 - ‘Amr ibn Bahr al-Jajiz – Zoology
• 787 - Al Balkhi, Ja'far Ibn Muhammas (Albumasar) - Astronomy
• 796 (died) - Al-Fazari, Ibrahim Ibn Habib - Astronomy
• 800 - Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi - (Alkindus) – Medicine, Philosophy, Physics, Optics
• 815 - Al-Dinawari, Abu-Hanifa Ahmed Ibn Dawood - Mathematics, Linguistics
• 816 - Al Balkhi – Geography (World Map)
• 836 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) - Astronomy, Mechanics, Geometry, Anatomy
• 838-870 - Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari - Medicine, Mathematics
• 852 - Al Battani Abu Abdillah - Mathematics, Astronomy, Engineering
• 857 - Ibn Masawaih You'hanna-Medicine
• 858-929 - Abu Abdullah Al-Battani (Albategnius) - Astronomy, Mathematics
• 860 - Al-Farghani, Abu al-`Abbas (Al-Fraganus) - Astronomy, Civil Engineering
• 864-930 - Al-Razi (Rhazes) - Medicine, Ophthalmology, Chemistry
• 873 (died) - Al-Kindi – Physics, Optics, Metallurgy, Oceanography, Philosophy
• 888 (died) – ‘Abbas ibn Firnas – Mechanics, Planetarium, Artificial Crystals
• 900 (died) - Abu Hamed Al-ustrulabi - Astronomy
• 903-986 - Al-Sufi (Azophi) - Astronomy
• 908 - Thabit Ibn Qurrah-Medicine, Engineering
• 912 (died) - Al-Tamimi Muhammad Ibn Amyal (Attmimi) - Alchemy
• 923 (died) - Al-Nirizi, AlFadl Ibn Ahmed (Altibrizi) - Mathematics, Astronomy
• 930 - Ibn Miskawayh, Ahmed Abu-Ali-Medicine, Alchemy
• 932 - Ahmed Al-Tabari - Medicine
• 934 - al Istakhr II – Geography (World Map)
• 936-1013 - Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) - Surgery, Medicine
• 940-997 – Abu Wafa Muhammad Al-Buzjani - Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry
• 943 - Ibn Hawqal – Geography (World Map)
• 950 - Al Majrett'ti Abu-al Qasim - Astronomy, Alchemy, Mathematics
• 958 (died) – Abul Hasan Ali al-Mas’udi – Geography, History
• 960 (died) - Ibn Wahshiyh, Abu Baker - Alchemy, Botany
• 965-1040 - Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen) - Physics, Optics, Mathematics
• 973-1048 - Abu Rayhan Al-Biruni - Astronomy, Mathematics, History, Linguistics
• 976 - Ibn Abil Ashath - Medicine
• 980-1037 - Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy
• 983 - Ikhwan A-Safa (Assafa) - (Group of Muslim Scientists)
• 1001 - Ibn Wardi – Geography (World Map)
• 1008 (died) - Ibn Yunus - Astronomy, Mathematics
• 1019 - Al-Hasib Alkarji - Mathematics
• 1029-1087 - Al-Zarqali (Arzachel) - Astronomy (Invented Astrolabe)
• 1044 - Omar Al-Khayyam - Mathematics, Astronomy, Poetry
• 1060 (died) - Ali Ibn Ridwan Abu'Hassan Ali - Medicine
• 1077 - Ibn Abi-Sadia Abul Qasim - Medicine
• 1090-1161 - Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) - Surgery, Medicine
• 1095 - Ibn Bajah, Mohammed Ibn Yahya (Avenpace) - Astronomy, Medicine
• 1097 - Ibn Al-Baitar Diauddin (Bitar) - Botany, Medicine, Pharmacology
• 1099 - Al-Idrisi (Dreses) - Geography, Zoology, World Map (First Globe)
• 1110-1185 - Ibn Tufayl, Abubacer Al-Qaysi - Philosophy, Medicine
• 1120 (died) -Al-Tuhra-ee, Al-Husain Ibn Ali - Alchemy, Poem
• 1128 - Ibn Rushd (Averroe's) - Philosophy, Medicine, Astronomy
• 1135 - Ibn Maymun, Musa (Maimonides) - Medicine, Philosophy
• 1140 - Al-Badee Al-Ustralabi - Astronomy, Mathematics
• 1155 (died) - Abdel-al Rahman Al Khazin-Astronomy
• 1162 - Al Baghdadi, Abdel-Lateef Muwaffaq - Medicine, Geography
• 1165 - Ibn A-Rumiyyah Abul'Abbas (Annabati) - Botany
• 1173 - Rasheed Al-Deen Al-Suri - Botany
• 1180 - Al-Samawal - Algebra
• 1184 - Al-Tifashi, Shihabud-Deen (Attifashi) - Metallurgy, Stones
• 1201-1274 - Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi - Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry
• 1203 - Ibn Abi-Usaibi'ah, Muwaffaq Al-Din - Medicine
• 1204 (died) - Al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) - Astronomy
• 1213-1288 - Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui - Anatomy
• 1236 - Kutb Aldeen Al-Shirazi - Astronomy, Geography
• 1248 (died) - Ibn Al-Baitar - Pharmacy, Botany
• 1258 - Ibn Al-Banna (Al Murrakishi), Azdi - Medicine, Mathematics
• 1262 (died) - Al-Hassan Al-Murarakishi - Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography
• 1270 - Abu al-Fath Abd al-Rahman al-Khazini – Physics, Astronomy
• 1273-1331 - Al-Fida (Abdulfeda) - Astronomy, Geography
• 1306 - Ibn Al-Shater Al Dimashqi - Astronomy, Mathematics
• 1320 (died)-Al Farisi Kamalud-deen Abul-Hassan - Astronomy, Physics
• 1341 (died) - Al-Jildaki, Muhammad Ibn Aidamer - Alchemy
• 1351 - Ibn Al-Majdi, Abu Abbas Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematics, Astronomy
• 1359 - Ibn Al-Magdi, Shihab-Udden Ibn Tanbugha - Mathematic, Astronomy
• 1375 (died) - Ibn Shatir – Astronomy
• 1393-1449 – Ulugh Beg – Astronomy
• 1424 - Ghiyath al-Din al Kashani – Numerical Analysis, Computation
(References: Hamed Abdel-Reheem Ead, Professor of Chemistry at Faculty of Science, University of Cairo Giza-Egypt and Director of Science Heritage Center, http://www.frcu.eun.eg/www/universities/html/shc/index.htm; See also the books: 100 Muslim Scientists by Abdur Rahman Sharif, Al-Khoui Pub., N.Y; Muslim Contribution to Science by Muhammad R. Mirza and Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqi, Chicago: Kazi Publications, 1986.)

With such a train of Muslim scholars, it is not difficult to understand why George Sarton said, "The main task of mankind was accomplished by Muslims. The greatest philosopher Al-Farabi was a Muslim; the greatest mathematicians Abul Kamil and Ibrahim Ibn Sinan were Muslims; the greatest geographer and encyclopaedist Al-Masudi was a Muslim; the greatest historian, Al-Tabari was still a Muslim." The Oxford History of Technology sums it up as follows: "There are few major technological innovations between 500 A.D. and 1500 that do not show some traces of the Islamic culture."

History before Islam was a jumble of conjectures, myths and rumors. It was left to the Muslim historians who introduced for the first time the method of matn and sanad tracing the authenticity and integrity of the transmitted reports back to eyewitness accounts. According to the historian Henry Thomas Buckle ‘this practice was not adopted in Europe before 1597 AD.’ Another method: that of historical research and criticism - originated with the celebrated historian Ibn Khaldun. The author of Kashfuz Zunun gives a list of 1300 history books written in Arabic during the first few centuries of Islam. That is no small contribution!

The rise of Muslim rule was dramatic. So also was its decline to the point where in 1492 the Caliph Abdullah abandoned Granada to the conquering Spaniards, "weeping like a woman for what he could not defend like a man."

For the next five centuries while the Islamic civilization declined – politically, economically, socially and culturally, it set all Christendom aglow. Thus, while it has been a dawning of Christian West, it has been a period of doom and gloom for Muslims. It is no wonder that Muslims have become a nation of zeros. When’s the last time you have heard of a Muslim winning the Nobel Prize in science or medicine? How about scientific publications? Unfortunately, you won’t find too many Muslim names in scientific and engineering journals either. Why such a paucity? What excuses do we have?

Some years ago a published UN report on Arab development noted that the Arab world comprising of 22 countries had translated about 330 books annually. That is a pitiful number, only a fifth of the number of the books that (tiny) Greece (alone) translates in a year! (Spain translates an average of 100,000 books annually.) Why such an allergy or aversion from those whose forefathers did not mind translating older works successfully to regain the heritage of antiquity, analyzing, collating, correcting and supplementing substantially the material that was beneficial to mankind? Why is the literacy rate low among Muslims when the first revealed message in the Qur’an is ‘Iqra (meaning: Read)?

How do we get out of this predicament?

Solutions to our present-day predicament:
We must look into our past to search for solutions to our current predicament. How did those desert Arabs of Muhammad’s (S) time, one of the most unlettered people on earth, technologically far inferior to their counterparts in Persia and Byzantine, once become the proud ancestors of Islamic civilization dominating for centuries half the known world? What characteristics defined them? What attitudes did they have? What did they learn and what skills did they acquire?

Before Islam, these desert Arabs were the ignored bunch in history left to live a life of ignominy. The cultural transformation in those desert Arabs was brought about by one man – the most remarkable figure in history - Muhammad (S), the Prophet of Islam. The first word of his prophecy was – Iqra. As he preached pure monotheism in Allah, breaking all artificial barriers between men, he taught his people religious ethics and morality -- to shun falsehood, to be just, to do what is virtuous (ma’ruf) and forbid what is evil (munqar). He taught them accountability for their deeds. He taught them how to live a wholesome noble life, and how to die nobly. Thus, like a good teacher, he molded their character.

The influence of the religion which Muhammad (S) preached to his people did not diminish after his death in 612 CE (11 A.H). On the contrary, it increased year by year through the Qur’an, the sacred book of Islam. Though caliphs came and went, though military commanders were capable or inept, the power of the Qur’an kept the Muslims true to their course and maintained that spirit of unity for which Muhammad (S) had laid the foundations. Racial energies which had been wasted in internecine warfare were turned into channels which led to prosperity and progress.

As the Islamic empire expanded, conquering newer territories, the Muslim rulers offered better social and economic conditions than those which prevailed. In accordance with the teachings of Muhammad (S), the armies of Islam were careful to abuse neither the countryside nor its inhabitants. In fact, the orders later given by the Caliphs Abu Bakr and Ali (RA) regarding merciful treatment of non-combatants were the first humanitarian steps taken in the history of warfare. Arab rule introduced a more stable situation than any previously known in the Middle East. The condition of the peasants was improved by means of new and more democratic land division and less stringent taxation. Many of the conquered peoples enlisted in the armies of Islam, becoming even Muslims to further advance their social standing. Within a few decades from the death of its Prophet (S), the Arab nation ruled from the gates of India to the Straits of Gibraltar. [6]

As noted by historian Stanwood Cobb, this seeming miracle was the result of various factors, some of which have already been discussed. ‘But more than anything else, it was due to the religious zeal which possessed the Muslims.’
The dawn of Islamic culture and technology broke first in the newly founded city of Baghdad, which became the model of an urban civilization that began to spread throughout the Muslim world. Its location on the banks of the Tigris was ideal for Islam's capital city. Profiting by the peace and protection of Islam, merchants traveled safely between India and Egypt, making Baghdad an unrivaled commercial hub. The city grew rapidly. A new and wealthy class of merchants, some of whom attained huge fortunes, came into existence. Their prosperity soon seeped down to even the humblest citizens. The "Kadi", or judge, was available to the lowliest citizen, as in fact even the caliph was at times. A new taxation system, more equitable than that under Roman rule, helped to stabilize the economy. A general exuberance and atmosphere of adventure pervaded the life of Baghdad, which soon came to be known as the land of opportunity, much like what is today promoted in places like the New York City. It was a city that integrated people of all races, creating synergy for greater good for all. Its caliphs were zealous patrons of education and invited scholars from all parts of the world. ‘Persians, Greeks and Armenians jostled elbows with Arabs. Christians and Jews were as welcome as Muslims. These scholars were kept busy translating and codifying works of science from the Greek and Aramaic languages. Their emoluments were generous and their prestige great.’ [6]

Baghdad became the focal center of the world's learning. Its caliphs built modern universities, attracting the most brilliant minds, who would later become the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates of that Islamic civilization. They erected observatories, thus enabling Muslim mathematicians to correctly estimate the circumference of the globe as 25,000 miles. As these Muslim scientists and engineers resurrected the forgotten or neglected sciences, they also expanded them.

Those caliphs were a perfect example of practicability. Their zeal for abstract learning did not lessen their concern for the welfare of the humble peasant, the "man with the hoe", upon whose shoulders has always rested fundamentally the burden of civilization. For they fully realized the importance of the soil and its tillage both as a source of state income and as a means of prosperity and happiness to the masses. Scientific horticulture became a flourishing and progressive practice in all the Muslim caliphates. The whole known world was scoured for new varieties of plants, and the art of irrigation was intelligently utilized to increase production.

In the words of Stanwood Cobb, “Prosperity and culture were not peculiar to the wealthy class alone. For this rapidly growing Islamic civilization was built upon the broad foundations of the welfare of the common people, in accordance with the precepts of the Islamic brotherhood founded by Muhammad (S), upheld by the Koran [Qur’an], and practiced by all the early caliphs. Probably never in previous centuries had the well-being of the masses been so deeply and intelligently considered as it was in all these Islamic caliphates. The new socio-economic pattern in religious and political life gave a dynamic unity to all phases of Muslim activity. The extraordinary rise of the Arabic-Islamic culture cannot be viewed separately from this factor of unity which, beginning on the spiritual plane, reached down to dominate all aspects of secular life.” He continues, “All of these factors combined to create a seemingly more harmonious and universally prosperous economic pattern than had existed before the coming of Islam. A proof of the satisfactory condition of the masses during the first few centuries of Islamic rule is that practically all of the Middle East and Persia, ninety percent of the population of Christian Egypt, and all the peoples of North Africa became Muslims. This they did of their own choice, for conversion was never forced upon the conquered.”

The cultural progress of Baghdad was copied into all other major Muslim cities. In all these Islamic centers libraries and universities were founded, and schools for the common people were established. Learning and scholarship were highly honored. The new common language enabled scholars to move from court to court in search of career opportunities. Thus a constant exchange of ideas stimulated the focal centers of Muslim culture; scientific advances and discoveries were quickly spread from caliphate to caliphate.

The end result was a glorious Islamic civilization that we are so proud of. Throughout the Islamic Empire education, art and science were unified by a common faith, a common language and common customs. Muslim scholars could travel freely between Bukhara and Xinjiang in the east to Cordova in the west. The extent of this Islamic civilization, as well as the progress and achievements of its component parts proved an inspiration to Muslim scholarship and creative arts.

As Baghdad had been the first of many such Islamic centers to arise in glory, so it was the first to fall into that decay. As in the case of Rome, the corruptions of luxury and the selfish grasping of power by rival political elements contributed to her decline. The justice which had characterized the rule of the early caliphs yielded to an inequitable system of taxation and to corrupt government.

As we search answers to our predicament, so must we retrace our roots and dig those values that were responsible for our glorious past and discard or weed out all those that are harmful. History can again make us wise if we know how to read its truths. If we are to learn from Arnold Toynbee [7], here are some lessons from the Islamic civilization:

1. Peace is a necessity for cultural advance.
2. The prosperity of all peoples springs from the soil. Thus, serious attention must be given to agriculture.
3. The spirit of élan or confidence (the ‘can do’ attitude) under which science can flourish. It is always in periods of enthusiasm and zeal that civilization advances most rapidly.
4. Devotion of the people to a common language and religion.
5. Lastly, the establishment of civilizations requires unifying forces. The more unifying the force, the more stable the civilization.
----=----

So where shall we start? What is our game plan? In the following I propose 3 items for transforming our pathetic state.

1. Seeking knowledge
The main reason behind the success of early Muslims rested in their seeking knowledge where it was evident and also from places where it was hidden. In this regard, the attitude that they instilled was a never satiated thirst, which followed the Prophetic Traditions: “A Muslim is never satiated in his quest for good (knowledge) till it ends in paradise.” [Tirmizi: narrated by Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (RA)] “One who treads a path in search of knowledge has his path to Paradise made easy by Allah thereby.” [Muslim: Abu Hurayrah (RA)] “To seek knowledge for one hour at night is better than keeping it (night) awake.” [Darimi: Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA)]

They did not shy away from translating and learning from others in the best of the Prophetic Traditions: “The word of wisdom is [like] the lost property of a wise man. So wherever he finds it, he is entitled to it.” [Tirmizi: Abu Hurayrah (RA)]
When others were hesitant to do experiments to check their hypotheses, they courageously filled the vacuum. In that they were true to the Prophetic dictate: “Knowledge is a treasure house whose keys are queries.” [Mishkat and Abu Na’im: Ali (RA)]

At a personal level, all Muslims must act upon the celebrated hadith of our Prophet Muhammad (S): “The search of knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim.” [1]
He (S) also said, “A learned person is superior to a worshipper as the full moon is superior to all the stars. The scholars are heirs of the prophets and the prophets do not leave any inheritance in the shape of dirhams and dinars, but they do leave knowledge as their legacy. As such a person who acquires knowledge acquires his full share.” [Abu Dawud and Tirmizi] [2]

Sadly, today’s Muslims seek wealth more than they know how to even spend it. In spite of all the wealth that Allah (SWT) has bestowed on us, we have failed to create a single respectable institution of higher learning. Ali (RA) was once asked what was better: wealth or knowledge. He said, “Knowledge is superior to wealth for ten reasons:
• (i) Knowledge is the legacy of the prophets. Wealth is the inheritance of the Pharaohs. Therefore, knowledge is better than wealth.
• (ii) You are to guard your wealth but knowledge guards you. So knowledge is better.
• (iii) A man of wealth has many enemies while a man of knowledge has many friends. Hence knowledge is better.
• (iv) Knowledge is better because it increases with distribution, while wealth decreases by that act.
• (v) Knowledge is better because a learned man is apt to be generous while a wealthy person is apt to be miserly.
• (vi) Knowledge is better because it cannot be stolen while wealth can be stolen.
• (vii) Knowledge is better because time cannot harm knowledge, but wealth rusts in course of time and wears away.
• (viii) Knowledge is better because it is boundless while wealth is limited and you can keep account of it.
• (ix) Knowledge is better because it illuminates the mind while wealth is apt to blacken it.
• (x) Knowledge is better because knowledge induced the humanity in our Prophet to say to Allah, "We worship Thee as we are Your servant," while wealth engendered in Pharaoh and Nimrod the vanity which made them claim Godhead.” [3]

What wisdom! Yet today our people are dispassionate about seeking knowledge. Why? Do they know what Imam Ibn Hazm (R) - the great Spanish Muslim theologian, jurist and poet - said? He said, “If knowledge had no other merit than to make the ignorant fear and respect you, and scholars love and honor you, this would be good enough reason to seek after it… If ignorance had no other fault than to make the ignorant man jealous of knowledgeable men and jubilant at seeing more people like himself, this by itself would be reason enough to oblige us to feel it… If knowledge and the action of devoting oneself to it had no purpose except to free the man who seeks it from the exhausting anxieties and many worries which afflict the mind, that alone would certainly be enough to drive us to seek knowledge.” [4]

I only wish that his remarks would wake our people to seeking and mastering knowledge.

Muslims should also ponder over the statement made by Mu’adh ibn Jabal (RA): “Acquire knowledge for the pleasure of Allah, for learning engenders piety, reverence for one’s Lord and fear of wrongdoing. Seeking knowledge for Allah’s pleasure is an act of worship, studying it is a celebration of God’s glory (lit. Zikr), searching for it is a rewarding struggle (lit. Jihad), teaching it to someone who realizes its worth is a charity (lit. Sadaqa), and applying it in one’s home strengthens family unity and kinship. … Knowledge is a comforting friend in times of loneliness. It is the best companion to a traveler. It is the innermost friend who speaks to you in your privacy. Knowledge is your most effective sword against your foe, and finally, it is your most dignifying raiment in the company of your close comrades.” [Hilyat’ul Awliya Wa Tabaqat’ul Asfiya]

Similarly, Sharafuddin Maneri (R) said, “Knowledge is the fountainhead of all happiness, just as ignorance is the starting point of all wretchedness. Salvation comes from knowledge, destruction from ignorance.” [Maktubat-i Sadi]

The next question we must ask is – what kind of knowledge should we seek? Is it only science/ engineering/ medicine/ technology – in which we lag badly? Or, is it in the area of social sciences? What kinds of skills should we develop? Is it desirable to have a brilliant and yet a Godless psychopath behind a nuclear button? I fear not. We must ensure that our educational system allows for grooming of a conscious human being first before turning him/her into a scientific genius. Scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs must be dictated by Islamic ethics and morality.
As such, we must ensure that our children are raised properly and that they learn from role models of piety, honesty, self-sacrifice and generosity.

2. Quality of leadership and Government patronage:
The quality of leadership on the top matters. In the early days of Islam, Muslim rulers were not only the great patrons of learning they were great scholars themselves. They surrounded themselves with learned men: philosophers, legal experts, traditionalists, theologians, lexicographers, annalists, poets, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, architects and doctors. Scholars held high ranks in their courts.

We must ensure that we have responsive governments that are honest, just and mindful of their obligations, and are held accountable for their deeds. They must ensure good governance, safety of prosperity of our people. They must promote meritocracy and not sycophancy.

Like agriculture, education sector should be prioritized high in the budget so that we can build world-class institutions of higher learning.
Many a times our students can’t apply the skills/knowledge that they learned in schools. The brightest minds naturally are draining out of their respective countries, only to settle (with very few exceptions) in more prosperous western countries, where they can apply their talents and skills appositely. Unless we can stop this ‘brain-drain’ phenomenon we will never be able to catch up with more developed and prosperous nations. The post-World War II technological success and ensuing prosperity in the USA owes mostly to its brilliant immigrant scientists and engineers.

Let me again quote here from Carli Fiorina, who said, “Leaders like Suleiman [the magnificent] contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership. And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population - that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. This kind of enlightened leadership - leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage - led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.”

Would our leaders take heed and amend their actions? If they can’t attract their expatriates to return, let alone outsiders, can they at least stop brain-drain phenomena by retaining the best? Are they committed to creating a society which gravitates good ones, and filters out the bad ones?

While our governments surely have an obligation towards patronizing academic institutions from primary to tertiary levels, our wealthy ones should not be oblivious of their own duties towards creating prestigious private institutions like the Stanford University. There, too, quality of education must take precedence over profit motivation. In today’s America, outside UC Berkeley, all the top 10 schools are private universities. We need our Warren Buffets and Bill Gates to step forward to pay their dues to our societies which have enriched them.

3. Going beyond the expected:
As I hinted above, Muslims are far behind in every field of learning. Simply going with the flow or doing just the bare minimum is simply not sufficient to close this widening gap, especially in the area of technology. If they are going at a speed of a bike, we must try to go at a speed of a motor car; if they are going at a speed of motor car, we must try to go at a speed of an airplane to close this gap. Simply speaking, our strategy ought to be - going beyond the normal call of duty, doing extra things. To elucidate this point, let me here close with a story from our Prophet’s time.

Talha bin 'Ubaidullah narrated that a man from Najd with unkempt hair came to Allah's Apostle and we heard his loud voice but could not understand what he was saying, till he came near and then we came to know that he was asking about Islam. Allah's Apostle said, "You have to offer prayers perfectly five times in a day and night (24 hours)." The man asked, "Is there any more (praying)?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, but if you want to offer the Nawafil prayers (you can)." Allah's Apostle further said to him: "You have to observe fasts during the month of Ramad, an." The man asked, "Is there any more fasting?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, but if you want to observe the Nawafil fasts (you can.)" Then Allah's Apostle further said to him, "You have to pay the Zakat (obligatory charity)." The man asked, "Is there any thing other than the Zakat for me to pay?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, unless you want to give alms of your own." And then that man retreated saying, "By Allah! I will neither do less nor more than this." Allah's Apostle said, "If what he said is true, then he will be successful (i.e. he will be granted Paradise)."

Here in this hadith lies the formula for rejuvenating the Muslim nation. May we be guided to reclaim our lost heritage! [8]

Notes:
]1]. See hadith collections by Imams Ibn Majah and Baihaqi.
[2]. Consult this author’s books – Islamic Wisdom and Wisdom of Mankind – for many such hadiths and sayings of learned men of Islam.
[3]. Hilyat’ul Awliya wa Tabaqatul Asfiya by Imam Abu Na’im al-Asfahani (R).
[4]. Imam Ibn Hajm, “Al-Akhlaq wa’l Siyar" – Morality and Behaviour, published in "In Pursuit of Virtue" by M. Abu Laylah, Ta-Ha Publishers 1990.
[5]. ibid.
[6] Stanwood Cobb, Islamic Contributions to Civilization (1963).
[7] Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilization on Trial, Oxford.
[8] Habib Siddiqui, Seeking Knowledge: Our National Imperative, Muslim World Almanac (2008), http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=596589.
Bibliography:
World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Chronology of Science & Discovery - by Isaac Asimov
Introduction to the History of Science - by George Sarton
History of the intellectual development of Europe - by John William Draper
The making of humanity - by Robert Briffault
Decline and Fall of Roman Empire - by Edward Gibbon
Legacy of Islam - by Sir Thomas W. Arnold and Alfred Guillaume
The Miracle of Islamic Science - by Dr. K Ajram
The Arabian Connection: A Consiparcy Against Humanity - by Kasem Khaleel
Muslim History: 570-1950 C.E. - by Akram Zahoor

Two must-read articles in the New York Times

2011-11-21T07:33:00.000-08:00

Two highly informative articles can be viewed in the New York Times. One is about how China can defeat America, written by one of the most prominent intellectuals of China: Yan Xuetong, the author of “Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power,” who is a professor of political science and dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University. The other is about Obama's Torture policy by Eric Lewis who is a partner at Lewis Baach PLLC in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/opinion/how-china-can-defeat-america.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/tortures-future/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

All those Republican Candidates – can they be taken seriously?

2011-11-20T18:27:00.001-08:00

The American public likes to be entertained and this is the time of the year, thanks to the presidential hopefuls, when they are getting more than their share of entertainment. Just watch the Republican debates on the TV, or listen to their silly talks on the radio, or read their comments or views on a plethora of issues, you are sure to get plenty of entertainment. Sometimes they appear too stupid and vague to be taken seriously for such a lofty position. Consider, for instance, Herman Cain, the black Republican candidate. On his recent campaign stop in Miami, Cain took some time to try some Latino cuisine, and offend a few Latinos along the way. After biting into a croqueta at Miami's famed Versailles Cafe, Cain asks, "How do you say delicious in Cuban?" Cuban, as many know, is not a language. In Spanish, however, delicious is delicioso.

Sometimes these presidential candidates are stumbling and mumbling Jacks like any other Joe, Dick and Harry. Sometimes they are full of hypocrisy and hyperbole.

Mindful of the low favorable rating for the current Congress (9%) among the American voters, all of these Republican candidates would have us believe that they are outsiders to politics at the Capitol Hill and, if elected to the highest position, would reduce the national debt by shutting down huge parts of the government. None of them, outside Ron Paul, of course, wants to reduce the size of the ever-expanding Department of Homeland Security, let alone the Department of Defense. That would make them appear unpatriotic! Rick Perry wants to close two or possibly three departments; Michele Bachmann would close the E.P.A. and repeal its regulations; and Matt Romney would scrap a health care system virtually identical to the one he created in Massachusetts. But the worst of these candidates – the most deceptive of the bunch -- is Newt Gingrich who epitomizes hypocrisy. He is an immoral and unscrupulous person who pretends to be the elderly Republican statesman with ‘brains’. He has benefited lavishly from the very spendthrift cronyism that he attacks.

In recent months Gingrich has been harshly critical of those who have worked with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For instance, in an October debate of the Republican presidential candidates, he suggested that Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) should be jailed for his association with “a lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac.” Interestingly, for roughly six years, Newt Gingrich worked closely with high-level officials at the government-sponsored mortgage company Freddie Mac. As a highly paid consultant, he coached them on how to win over the conservative politicians, who consider their company an anathema, spoke to their political action committee and offered general advice as they worked to stave off various threats to Freddie Mac’s survival. As recently reported in the Bloomberg News he earned $1.6 million to $1.8 million, in an on-and-off relationship from 1999 to 2008, with the mortgage company that has since been taken over by the federal government. The payments were far more than had previously been known, or previously acknowledged by Gingrich.

When Gingrich was questioned, he tried to play down the report, saying that he did not know exactly how much he was paid, and that Freddie Mac was but one company that enlisted his firm, the Gingrich Group. When asked about a $300,000-per-year, two-year contract in 2006 and 2007, Mr. Gingrich said he had acted as an “historian.” The real reason he was hired, as company officials make clear, was to act as a liaison to conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Freddie wasn’t spending $25,000 to $35,000 a month for years to have somebody give them history lessons on what would have happened in 1945 if Japan had won,” one former official said.

It is very typical of Newt Gingrich to pretend that he despises lobbying groups whom he calls “the Washington culture of consultants” while simultaneously enriching himself by trading on his influence in Washington. As a matter of fact, he has been one of its better-paid members. Last Friday, The Washington Post reported that one of his think tanks collected $37 million over the last eight years from health care companies and insurers that wanted to be close to a prominent Republican.

In recent weeks the Republican candidates are giving us some ideas as to where they stand on a plethora of issues. In an interview on November 13 with ‘Meet the Press’ David Gregory, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) repeated her claim that the Iraq should pay America for the ‘privilege’ of having their nation invaded and occupied for most of the last decade — and then doubled down by calling for Iraq to pay millions of dollars for each American killed in that country. She said: "It’s over 800 billion dollars that we have expended [in Iraq]. I believe that Iraq should pay us back for the money that we spent, and I believe that Iraq should pay the families that lost a loved one several million dollars per life, I think at minimum."

Has Bachmann lost her mind? Is she aware that Iraq did not ask to be invaded by the United States, and that the Iraqi people have wanted American forces out of their country for a very long time. Estimates on the number of Iraqi civilian casualties due to our presence in Iraq vary depending on who is counting. According to local Iraqis, the total death is in excess of one million. Whatever the number is there is little question that tens of thousands more Iraqis would still be alive today if not for Bush’s criminal decision to invade their country.

So who should compensate whom? As noted by many commentators, Bachmann is a sick old lady behaving like a hawk knowing that she has no chance of becoming the frontrunner within the conservative Republican voters. It is all about trying to become relevant again in the poll. Funny that she talks about compensation for the death of American soldiers while suffering from a selective amnesia about the Iraqi victims! How about the death of those one million Iraqis? What would be a fair price for the USA to pay the family members of those unarmed Iraqi civilian victims killed in the war?

The USA, if Bachmann wants to be fair, using her formula, will have to pay 200 times the sum that she is demanding of Iraq. How about paying $160 trillion to Iraq to compensate for killing its 1 million plus civilians? Is Bachmann willing to write that cheque for the USA? If not, she should shut up!

With two prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American economy is in the ruins. But don’t tell this to these Republican presidential hopefuls. Outside Ron Paul and John Huntsman, Jr., they all want to engage the economically-weak nation into yet another war – this time with Iran.

We thought that our politicians had learned something worthy from what went wrong with Bush Jr.'s presidency – the war crimes, the tortures, the abuses and the culture of deception, which put the entire nation look so bad in the eyes of people of the rest of the world. Each of these amnesic and brain-dead Republican politicians, minus Ron Paul and John Huntsman, are trying to prove that they have learned very little from the moral calamities of the administration of George W. Bush.

In a recent TV debate in South Carolina, Herman Cain (a sexual pervert who as executive of a pizza chain was accused of groping women) and Michele Bachmann said they would approve water-boarding of prisoners to extract information. When probed, they denied, of course, that water-boarding is torture, even though it has been classified as such since the Spanish Inquisition. On the other hand, Representative Ron Paul, probably the best of the bunch, said water-boarding is not only torture, it is illegal, immoral, uncivilized and has no practical advantages. Former Governor and diplomat Jon Huntsman Jr. eloquently pointed out that water-boarding and other forms of torture diminish the nation’s standing in the world.

It is worth noting here that Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in 2008, and himself a victim of torture as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, and surely a real moral authority on the issue, has always maintained that “Water-boarding is torture.” But none of the prudent comments are going to put a damper on the sick minds of his party candidates. Outside Ron Paul and John Huntsman Jr., and of course Cain and Bachmann, the rest don’t seem to have the backbone to even voice an opinion on the subject. They are unaware that water-boarding is banned by the United States Army Field Manual. They also chooses to ignore the testimony of top military officers like General David Petraeus (who now runs the C.I.A.) that such forms of torture are not only useless for gathering reliable intelligence but are detrimental to the security of American forces and the nation’s reputation.

Mitt Romney is a great disappointment in Republican politics. He has no moral compass, and appears and sounds more like a short-sighted career politician than a serious statesman ready to lead a nation. Recently, he claimed that if he were elected president Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, and that if Obama were reelected Iran will have one. He wants to drop bomb on Iran and/or encourage Israel, the rogue state, to do the ultimate crime that would surely trigger a massive war in the entire region. He forgets that Iran is not either Afghanistan or Iraq. Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, approves clandestine missions to kill Iranian scientists.

As empty as Mr. Romney’s remarks were about Iran, his refusal to renounce water-boarding is disturbing, and inexcusable. People deserve better from presidential candidates, and not some theatrics and idiotic behavior.

Funny that these warmongers and morally bankrupt politicians talk about American exceptionalism! Is water-boarding a symbol of American exceptionalism and is it going to raise our moral standing in the world? Is it a value that we can all cherish and export? If these rogue politicians believe that their arrogance, irrational behavior and stupidity are the traits of American exceptionalism then we are better off without them. They deserve themselves and not us.

The Arab League Must Bring Down the Assad Regime

2011-11-12T17:26:00.000-08:00

As usual the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad has made a travesty of its promises. It was only a week ago before Eid-ul-Adha that the tyrannical regime had promised to abide by an Arab League proposal to halt all violence, release all detainees, withdraw all armed elements from populated areas and allow unfettered access to journalists and to Arab League monitors. But the violence in Syria has not stopped. More than 60 people have been killed by military and security forces, including at least 19 on Sunday that marked the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

According to the Local Coordination Committees of Syria, a network of opposition activists, Assad’s security forces shot dead 25 people, including two children, across Syria on Wednesday. The network provided some details of Wednesday's violence: in Homs, Haitham Al-Bawab, kidnapped from work Tuesday, was found with obvious torture marks; in Daraa-Jasim, pharmacist Basil Ibrahim Al-Qowaider was arrested for aiding the wounded; and near Idlib, Abdo Akram Shaqouqa, born in 1988, was killed by two bullets in the chest and neck. The day before, another 18 people were killed, the network said.

The United Nations estimates that more than 3,500 Syrians have been killed since the government crackdown on protesters started in mid-March. And yet, the Arab League and the UN are doing nothing to stop the Syrian monster.

Last Saturday the Arab League held meeting in its Cairo Headquarters. While dozens of protesters chanted and carried placards reading "Freedom for the Syrian people" demanding Bashar al-Assad's removal, the Arab League voted to suspend Syria in four days and warned the regime could face sanctions if it does not end its bloody crackdown against anti-government protesters. Eighteen countries agreed to the suspension, which was scheduled to take effect on Wednesday in a significant escalation of international pressure on the Syrian government. Syria, Lebanon and Yemen voted against it, and Iraq abstained. The anti-Syria protesters were joined by demonstrators from Yemen, protesting violent government crackdowns in their country.
Explaining the Arab League decision, Qatar's Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim said that the 22-member league will monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a meeting on Wednesday in the Moroccan capital Rabat. "This decision reflects a lack of foreign intervention," he said. "The Arab League has been calling on Syria to stop the violence for four months and it hasn't happened."

So, why give Assad’s pariah regime additional time to kill more people and prevent biting actions from being implemented? Bin Jassim suggested that Arab League members withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus but left that up to the individual countries. The fact is such political gestures or threats won’t put a dent in Syrian regime’s tyrannical character.

The reluctance of the Arab League to impose sanctions against one of its rogue member is simply inexcusable. It is foolish to assume that the Syrian regime would all on a sudden change its repressive ways and honor its promises. Like Israel, the other pariah state in the region, the Syrian Ba’athist regime has learned the time-buying tactics rather too well to its advantage. It won’t bring about the desired fundamental change demanded by its people.

What is needed are biting sanctions against the regime, including war crime charges filed at the International Criminal Court against the members of the Assad’s government, followed immediately by military actions, if push comes to shove, that would allow regime change to take place, thus creating the environment for the formation of a representative government. With all those killings, Assad has lost all credibility to rule Syria any more. He must be brought down one way or another.
The reluctance of the Arab League to punish the Assad regime unearths the fact – an ugly one -- that in spite of the popular changes brought into Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in recent months, there are still too many of those anti-people regimes that make up the League’s roster. Punishing one of their fellow buddies for crimes against people is like throwing rocks in one’s own house of glasses!

But whether they like to punish Assad or not, the leaders of the Arab League ought to know that the old days of doing business with foreign patrons protecting them are now gone. If the puppet Mubarak could not be protected by his powerful masters – the USA, Israel and the EU -- what is the likelihood of survival of criminal regimes like those of Assad that is guilty of committing war crimes against its civilians? The Arab masses of the 2011 are different. They are not afraid to die for more noble causes.

As I noted many times before, the UN Security Council and the NATO are unreliable and hypocritical when it comes to the Muslim world and cannot be trusted with anything. They don’t have any moral compass to guide their actions and come to the aid of anyone unless they can profit from their involvement. In all fairness, Gaddafi was a saint compared to both Hafez Assad (now dead) and Bashar Assad, and yet, there seems to be a different litmus test for toppling the younger tyrant ruling Syria. The western reluctance can be explained by one word – oil; Syria is not Libya with billions of barrels oil reserves; every other excuse is superficial. It is not surprising, therefore, that the NATO has ruled out the kind of military intervention that helped topple Gaddafi. The economic sanctions from the western countries have not been severe enough to collapse the Syrian economy. And as noted elsewhere, such sanctions will not lead to the collapse of an unpopular regime.

The Syrian people will need more than empty sound bytes and sanctions to topple their ruthless regime. They need moral and material support to bring about the desired change, much like what has happened with Libya.

When the Arab League foreign ministers meet again on Wednesday, they should eject Syria and urge the United Nations Security Council to condemn Bashar Assad and impose international sanctions against the regime. They must come to the aid of ordinary Syrian people and the Syrian opposition the same way that they came to the aid of the Libyan people. Anything short of this would be viewed as treason by the Arab people -- much like what their protesters chanted in last Saturday’s meeting "Arab leaders are garbage". If these leaders desire respect, they must earn it by not only coming to the aid of the Syrian people but must also do what is right for their own people. They must reflect on the fact that they would die one day and have to account for all their worldly deeds, including their failure to come to the aid of the oppressed people. Let them be guided by the Prophet Muhammad’s (S) teachings rather than short-term worldly benefits that push one to an eternal life of damnation.

On its part, the Syrian opposition needs to translate its campaign into a coherent vision of governance after Assad and what that will mean for their people – the majority Sunnis and other minorities (including the Nusayris).

If the United States and Europe are serious about genuine freedom, they should help topple the Assad regime. At a minimum, they should push the UN Security Council to bring about war crime charges against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Turkey, Syria’s neighbor to the north, has an important role, too. Mindful of Syria’s harmful potential influence to exploit the Kurdish problem, the Turkish government, thus far, has avoided confrontation with the Syrian regime. But it should know that it is in Turkey’s best interest and the interest of the region to ratchet up economic and political pressure so that change happens sooner, before violence spreads.
A regime change in Syria is a much desired one not only for its people but the entire region. The world community has a moral duty to help the Syrian people in their struggle for human rights.

A regime that has no moral qualms about killing unarmed Muslim worshippers – old and young - on the Day of Eid (when violence is considered absolutely haram or forbidden) has no credibility to rule over its Muslim population. It must be brought down. The Arab League cannot, therefore, shy away from its historical role, nor can others who care about life, liberty and dignity.

Comments on Biblical Controversy with the Qur’anic Narrative on Abraham's Son who was meant for sacrifice

2011-11-05T17:52:00.000-07:00

According to Islamic Traditions, it was Isma'il (AS), the first son of Ibrahim (AS), who was meant for sacrifice and not Ishaq (Isaac) (AS). The Biblical narratives differ with the Qur’anic version suggesting, instead, that it was Isaac – the second son of Ibrahim (AS), born through Sarah, who was meant for the sacrifice. Genesis (chapter 22) says: "Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love…" The problem with this verse is that Isaac was not Abraham's only son. Before Isaac was born, there was Ishmael. Is it possible some zealous scribe had replaced the word Ishmael with Isaac into the verse?

Since the Qur’anic story about sacrifice did not specifically mention Isma’il (AS) by name, some Jews and Christians have suggested that the lad meant for sacrifice was Isaac. However, if one follows the sequence of verses it becomes clear that Ishaq (AS) was not meant in the Qur’anic story. In regard to the verse, "So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son," Imam Ibn Kathir (R) states in his tafsir (exegesis): "And this son is Isma’il (AS) for he is the first son whose good news was brought to Ibrahim (AS). He is older than Ishaq (AS), according to both Muslims and the Ahl-e-kitab (People of the Book – Jews and Christians). It is even said in their Scripture that Isma’il (AS) was born when Ibrahim was 86 years old and Ishaq (AS) was born when Ibrahim (AS) was 99. Moreover, their scripture states that Allah ordered Ibrahim (AS) to sacrifice his only son and in another version his firstborn. And, at this spot, they inserted falsely the name of Ishaq (AS) against the text of their very Scripture. The reason they inserted Ishaq (AS) is that he is their father whereas Isma’il (AS) is the father of the Arabs. They added Ishaq (AS) out of envy and brushed away ‘only son’ by saying that Isma’il (AS) and his mother had already been to Makkah. This is a fanciful explanation since we never say ‘only son’ except to a person who has no more than one son. Moreover, the firstborn has got a special place [in the heart of his father] that is not given to the following children and the order to sacrifice him is, therefore, a greater test… Moreover, God's Book (the Qur’an) is a witness, and points to the fact that it is Isma’il (AS) because it said that the son who was patient and that he is the sacrificed. Only afterwards, He (Allah) said: ‘And We gave him the good news of Ishaq, a prophet, one of the Righteous’ (37:112) and when the Angels brought the good news of Ishaq to Ibrahim they said: ‘Fear not,’ and they gave him the ‘glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge.’ And [Allah] the Most High said: ‘We gave her [Sarah] glad tidings of Ishaq, and after him, of Yaqub (Jacob)" (11:71) -- meaning that in the lifetime of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac will beget a child that he will call Yaqub implying that Ishaq will have a progeny. We have already explained why it is not possible that Ishaq be sacrificed while still a child, i.e., because God promised them [Ibrahim and Sarah] that he [Ishaq] will have a progeny. On the other hand, Isma’il was described as forbearing and he fits that description."

As can be seen from above narrative, Imam Ibn Kathir nullifies the Judeo-Christian argument by simply making the point that Ibrahim (AS) was given the good news about the birth of Ishaq (AS) who would go on to father Yaqub (AS). Thus, it was not Ishaq (AS), but Isma’il (AS) who was meant for sacrifice.

Eid-ul-Ad’ha and the Merit of Hajj

2011-11-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

The 10th day of Dhu’l Hijjah in the Muslim calendar is the day of Hajj - Eid al-Ad'ha or Yawm al-Nahr -- when the pilgrims in Makkah sacrifice halal animals following one of the oldest traditions of mankind, dating back to the time of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) Alayhis Salam (meaning: peace be upon him).

In an earlier article ‘The Soul of Hajj’ I mentioned about the rituals of the hajj and how it is tied up with the events in Ibrahim’s (AS) life. He was childless with his first wife Sarah. Then he took Hagar (Hajera) as his second wife. Through her, he became father of Isma’il (Ishmael) (AS) at a very advanced age. Soon after the child was born, he was commanded by Allah to settle the infant with his mother Hajera in the valley of Makkah. After some years, as the Qur’an says, “And when his son was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So look, what thinkest thou?” (37:102)

To this question, Isma’il (AS), then only a young boy, replied, “O my father! Do that which you are commanded. Allah willing, you shall find me of the steadfast." (37:102)
What a remarkable reply from the son of Ibrahim (AS)! Like the Rock of Gibraltar, Isma’il (AS) said that he was ready to be sacrificed. It is probably this characteristic which earned him the title ‘the forbearing son’ (Ghulamin Halim) in the Qur’an. The Qur’an continues the story, “Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face, We called unto him: O Abraham: You have already fulfilled the vision. Lo! Thus do We reward the good. Lo! That verily was a clear test. Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim." (37:103-107)
Ibrahim (AS) didn’t have to sacrifice his son. Instead, he was asked to sacrifice a ram, which had been sent to him, as ransom for Isma’il (AS). Unlike the false-gods of polytheism, Allah, the One True God, is not bloodthirsty. He just wanted to check where Ibrahim (AS) stood in relation to his uncompromising devotion to and love for Allah; was he capable of overcoming his personal feelings of love and compassion for his son to please Allah. A lesson was taught by Allah – from now on there would be no human sacrifice in the altar of God. Sacrifice of a halal (e.g., camel, cow, lamb, and goat) animal for eating and distributing among the poor is a sufficient substitute.

Hajj (Pilgrimage) is one of the pillars of Islam. According to Imam al-Ghazali Rahmatullah alayh (May Allah have mercy on him), one of the greatest savants in Islam, hajj is the act of worship of a lifetime, the seal of all that is commanded, the perfection of Islam and the completion of religion. Concerning it the Prophet Muhammad Sallal-lahu alayhi wa sal-lam (meaning: the blessing of God and peace be upon him) said, "Whoever dies without, having performed the Pilgrimage let him die, if he wish, either a Jew or a Christian." It is quite obvious that Hajj has an exalted status with¬out which religion is lacking in perfection.

There are numerous merits of hajj. Allah said [to Ibrahim (AS)], "And proclaim unto mankind the Pil¬grimage. They will come to thee on foot, and on every lean camel, coming by every distant tract" (Qur’an 22:27). Qatada (R), one of the pious Muslims of the first century of Islam, said, "When Allah the Most High commanded Ibrahim (AS) to proclaim unto man¬kind the Pilgrimage, he proclaimed, ‘O People, God the Most High has built a House; go to it on Pilgrimage.’ God the Most High said, ‘That they may witness [its] benefits for them’ [Qur’an 22:28].” It was [once] said, "The business is during the season [of Pilgrimage], and the reward is in the hereafter."

The Prophet (S) said, "Whoever per¬forms Pilgrimage to the House without foul talk or iniquity is free from sin as [he was] on the day his mother bore him." And the Prophet (S) also said, "Satan has never been seen as to be more mean, or humiliated, or miserable or vexed than on the day of ‘Arafat." That is solely because of what he sees of the revelation of the mercy and forbearance of God toward grave sins. Thus it is said, "There are some sins which are expiated, only by the standing on Mount ‘Arafat." Imam Jafar al-Sadiq Ibn Muhammad (R) has attributed this saying to Muhammad (S).

The Prophet (S) said, "Whoever sets out on the Greater or Lesser Pilgrimage and dies [before completing the Pilgrimage], will until the Day of Resurrection be awarded with the award of a pilgrim. And whoever dies in one of the two shrines will not be exposed [to Judgment] or made to give an account. To him it will be said, "Enter into Paradise," And the Prophet (S) said, "One Pilgrimage which is accepted [in the sight of God] is better than the whole world and what is in it; a Pilgrimage which is accepted [in God's sight] has no reward but Paradise."

And Muhammad (S) also said, "Those who go on the Greater or lesser Pilgrimage are a delegation of God Almighty and His visitors. If they ask [something] of Him, He grants [it] to them; if they beg His forgiveness, He forgives them; if they voice their supplication, it is granted to them; and if they intercede [on behalf of anyone], their intercession is granted." A saying of the Prophet (S) transmitted by members of his household declares: "The most sinful man is the one who, though standing on 'Arafat, thought that God has not forgiven him."

Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (Radi Allahu Anhu: May Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (S) ¬said, "Everyday one hundred and twenty mercies descend on this House [the Ka'ba]; of these, sixty are for those who circumambulate [it], forty for those who [merely] pray [before it], and twenty for those who [merely] gaze [at it]." In another Prophetic tradition, it says: "Circumambulate the House often for it is among the most important things that you will find on your record on the Day of Resurrection, and [it is, moreover,] the most delightful deed you will find."

One of the early pious Muslims said, "If the day of 'Arafat coin¬cides with Friday, all the people [who have stood] at 'Arafat are pardoned [of their sins]. Such [a day] is the most excellent of days in this [earth¬ly] life; it was on such [a day] that the Prophet (S) performed his farewell pilgrimage, and he was stan¬ding [at 'Arafat] when the, [following] words of God Almighty were revealed [to Him]: "This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion." [Qur’an 5: 4] The people of the Book said, "Had this verse been revealed to us, we would have made it a feast day." 'Umar (RA) said, "I testify that it was revealed to the Apostle of God [Muhammad (S)] on a day of two feasts: the Day of 'Arafat and the Day of Gathering [i.e. Friday], when he was standing at 'Arafat." The Prophet (S) said, "O God, forgive the pilgrim and the man for whom the pilgrim asks forgiveness."

`Ali Ibn Muwaffaq (R) is reported to have said, "I performed the Pilgrimage one year, and when it was the night of 'Arafat I slept in the Mosque of al-Khaif at Mina. I saw in dream as though two angels clothed in green came down from the sky. Then one of them called to the other, 'O slave of God’, and he [the other Angel] replied, ‘Here I am [Lab¬bayka], O slave of God'. The former continued, 'Do you know how many performed pilgrimage to the house of our Lord the Most High this year?' ‘I do not know’, he [the second Angel] answered. 'Six hundred thousand have performed the pilgrimage to the House of our Lord', the other said, ‘but do you know how many of them were accepted?' He said, 'No.’ ‘Six persons’, the other replied. Then they ascended into the air and disappeared from me, and I woke up in fright. I was very much distressed and my condition great¬ly disturbed. Then I said [to myself], ‘If the pilgrimage of [only] six persons has been accepted where am I among the six?’ Then, after I had left ‘Arafat I stayed for a while at Mash’ar al-Haram, and I began to meditate upon the multitude of people [who attended that year's pilgrim¬age as compared to] the small number whom were accepted. I fell asleep, and all of a sudden there were [before me] the two figures having des¬cended [again] in their [same] form. And one of them called the other repeating the same words [as before]. Then he said, 'Do you know what decision has our Lord made this night?’ ‘No’, the other said. He said, 'He has given everyone of the six a hundred thousand.' Then, I woke up with such rejoicing as cannot be described."

May Allah allow us to perform Hajj, the largest annual gathering of people on Earth, and chant: Labayk Allahuma Labayk. Labayk. La shareeka laka Labayk. Innal hamda wan-nimata laka wal mulk. La shareeka Lak (meaning: Here I am at your service, Oh Lord, here I am - here I am. No partner do You have. Here I am. Truly, the praise and the favor are Yours, and the dominion. No partner do You have.)
Happy Eid. Eid Mubarak.

Adibashi and Adhibashi Issue of Bangladesh

2011-11-04T17:06:00.001-07:00

Like many countries of our world, especially in South and South-east Asia, Bangladesh has her share of ethnic minorities. There are some 14 ethnic minorities that live in Bangladesh. They are known as Chakma, Marma (Mogh), Larma, Jummas, Tippra, Murong, Panko, Kyong, Mro, Tangchangya, Bomang, Lushai, Kuki, Khumi etc.

In recent years some foreign NGOs and their local agents have been involved in anti-Bangladesh campaigns that are aimed at undermining the sovereignty of the country. Since 1975, the Indian government has been playing a very dubious role by aiding some of the secessionist movements inside Bangladesh, a process which never stopped even in good times with more friendlier governments. Regretably, their anti-Bangladesh campaigns are also aided by paid local agents inside Bangladesh.

As reported in a prominent daily of Dhaka on March 20, 2010, Subir Bnowmick, BBC representative of Kolkata, India, wrote in his book titled ‘Troubled Periphery Crisis of Indian North East’ that India is interested to separate the CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) from Bangladesh. It is worthmentioning here that CHT borders both India and Burma and is home to many ethnic minorities. Captain Sachin Karmaker, International Secretary of Minority Congress Party, wrote a letter to the Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of America on July 27, 2007 to help them to establishing a separate homeland for ethnic minorities in the CHT, as reported on August 25, 2009.

None of these is a good news for Bangladesh and its 150 million people who enjoy equal status irrespective of their ethnic, religious and tribal origins. There are protected quotas for these ethnic minorities to ensure that even when they don't qualify on competive tests, jobs or positions, a segment of these ethnic minorities are represented.

As I and other more renowned researchers have long shown through our meticulous research works on minority issues of the region, the settlement of the tribal people of the CHT was rather a recent development, dating back only a couple of centuries ago. Marmas or Arakanese Moghs, e.g., came to the CHT in 1784 when Arakan was conquered by Burman king Bodaw Paya. At that time, two thirds of the Arakanese population (approx. 200,000), both Rohingya Muslims/Hindus and Rakhine Maghs (Buddhists) of Arakan fled to Chittagong and its hilly districts. While a section of these peoples (mostly Rakhines) would later return to Arakan after the British East India Company had conquered the territory in 1826 after the first Anglo-Burma War (1824-26), a vast majority continued to live inside Chittagong Division of British Bengal. Chakmas were a nomadic people that moved to and from between the porous borders. There is no record of their presence before the late 17th century when one of their chieftains (Shermonta Khan), being defeated by an Arakanese king, fled Arakan and took refuge in the CHT. Bomang tribe also settled in the CHT during the seventeenth century. Murong, Mro, Kyong, Panko and Kukhi came here about 200 to 300 years ago.

Similar is the case of settlements of some tribal people such as Khasia and Monipuri who live in Sylhet, Garo living in Mymensingh, Santals, Orang and Mundas living in northern districts of Rajshahi, Dinajpur, Bogra and Rangpur. They are not aboriginals. They came here about 100 to 200 years ago during the British regime to work at tea gardens and cultivation. Santals came from Choto Nagpur of India for ‘indigo’ cultivation during the British era.

Lest I be misunderstood, the aboriginals are the groups of human race “who have been residing in a place from time immemorial… they are the true sons of the soil…" (Morgan, An introduction to Anthropology, 1972). As recently reiterated by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina the tribal people of the CHT are not indigenous people, nor are the other minority ethnic groups now living inside Bangladesh. They are not aborigines or Adibashis under any pretext. Unlike Burma, Bangladesh's consitituion guarantees equal rights to all its people - indigenous or not. As citizens of the country, a Chakma or a Marma has as much rights as any Bangali (Bengali). So, all the fuss about adibashi and adhibashi is disingenuous and is aimed at creating a rift between all those that call Bangladesh their home.

As also noted in a recent posting in the Weekly Holiday by A.M.K. Chowdhury, all the tribal people living in the CHT came from Tibbet, Arakan and Myanmar. They cannot be recognized as indigenous people. They are ethnic minorities by any definition.

I fully endorses Bangladesh Government's position on the ethnic minorities of Bangladesh. I also strongly condemn the divisive policy of the Indian government and their paid agents, and foreign and local NGOs who are trying to undermine the sovereignty of Bangladesh.

Rohingya - Rakhine -- Debate or Dialogue between thinking persons?

2011-11-04T07:55:00.000-07:00

From the responses we have seen thus far, it is quite obvious that the extreme racists and bigots within the Rakhine Buddhist community are running out of wits after my recent posting of the Rohingya Identity and Demography in the British Era. There I showed that the Rohingya people, far from the Rakhine unsubstantiated claims, are an indigenous group of the Arakan State of Burma who had settled there from time immemorial, and hundreds of years before the ancestors of today's Rakhines settled. Having analyzed the demographic data of the English colonial period, I also pointed out that the so-called influx to Arakan during the British era actually had more to do with the Rakhine population than any other ethnic/religious group, and that the growth within the Rohingya Muslim community was a natural one.

Unfortunately, as we have noticed time and again, the racists within the Burmese and Arakanese Rakhine communities are uncomfortable to consider any other possibility beyond their own myths which challenge such absurd chauvinism. Prejudice dies hard!

Consider, e.g., the case of racist Aye Chan who says he is 'tired of arguing' with us. His entire thesis is built around showing that nowhere within the British records the name Rohingya appeared, and as such, by default, Rohingya is a dead horse. He is unwilling to accept the characterization of Rohingyas under Muslim/Mohamadan/Musulman categories. Were the Rakhines categorized as Rakhines by the British? Are Aye Chan and his ilk aware of the two books written by British army officers: (i) BURMESE OUTPOST by Anthony Irwin, published by Collins in 1945, and (ii) DEFEAT INTO VICTORY by Field Marshal Viscount Slim (considered one of the best books written by a military general on World War II) published in 1956? In these two books the authors mentioned Muslims of Arakan as ‘Mussulman Arakanese’ or 'Araknese Mohammedans' or simply as 'Arakanese' and the Buddhists as ‘Maughs’. [See below for actual citations from these books.]
(As can be seen even the name Rakhine did not appear in those books to describe the Maghs of Arakan.)

Unless, one is willing to accept that colonizers had their own ways of and rationalization for categorizing people, which may not totally agree with those of the colonized, there is little one can do to educate that moron. Look at the Spanish Conquistadors that came to colonize the Philippines where they came across indigenous Muslims who practiced Islam, similar to the practice of the Spanish (Moor) Muslims. To these new invaders, thus, the Filipino Muslims came to be named as Moors and later Moro Muslims. In the Dutch colonization of South Africa, the Indian community was put under the category of 'colored' people. They were not called Indian South Africans. Here in the USA, while there is no record of African-American heritage (as to where they were plucked out of), we may know a White person with his precise European heritage. Thus, governors Cuomo (father and son) of New York State of the USA are known as Italian-Americans. Within the conquered people in the USA and Canada, the natives were called Red Indians and later Native Indians, while those people never called themselves as such and were actually divided on many matters, language, religion, etc. Does such categorization by the English/French colonizers change the mere fact that Cherokees lived in the Americas before the Europeans subdued them? If today, the Cherokees would rather like to self-identify by their heritage - the Cherokee name - who can deny that right to them? Only an utterly extreme racist with no brains, and full of hatred and chauvinism, would deny that right.

And there are plenty of such examples in our world that we can cite about the Rohingya case. Will that educate a half-educated person when he refuses to grow up as a thinking man?

And still within many good hearted and well-meaning Rohingya Diaspora there is a call for having a debate with such obscene racists within the Rakhine commmunity. Here below I share my views on the question of a debate:

1. I prefer dialogue or discussion than a debate unless the latter can be held under a neutral venue and moderated/administered by an unbiased person. Still, since debate has everything to do with winning, even by ridiculing the other side's shallow (?) views, at the end it leaves behind a bad taste amongst the participants and their respective adherents, further widening the gap between the opposing parties. Hardly, debate has brought differing peoples together for a common cause. As such, if the objective is to let the other party know where each party stands, a discussion/sharing of info/dialogue is often a more prudent approach. In these days of information superhighway we can achieve this without a confrontational debate by sharing our writings/postings, and asking/answering probing or poignant questions/points for elaboration. So, e.g., when Aye Chan says "we are lying about Rohingya", we want to ask "show us where we lied" (just as Dr Bahar had done in his note to Aye Chan). Such a dialogue with an opposing side can be more fruitful than wasting people's time and money to organize a debate with a racist. If still money and time are no problems a better way to spend such would be to hold our own seminars to educate folks on the either side to learn/share without allowing racists like Aye Chan to get a free ride at our cost. As I stated before, if he is all serious about a debate with us, let him organize it (without spending our money), and we shall be glad to take him up anywhere in the globe (of course, outside Burma). He cannot have a free ride at our cost!

2. A frame of reference is very important for any such info sharing including a debate. Without such, the exercise may become a mindless one. If, e.g., demography in the post-1826 era is the issue, let's make it clear in the beginning and that way the history of who came earlier to Arakan is not a debating issue to bite upon. As the tens of articles and books have been written, including those by Syed Ashraf Alam, AFK Jilani, BaShin, Nurul Islam - UK and Ctg., Abid Bahar and many others - if anyone is interested to learn the truth on the Rohingya issues of our time there are plenty to educate oneself with. On the other hand, if one is close-minded, no words of mouth in a debate/discussion/dialogue would do any good as it has failed to even educate one from written words. At the most they can create doubt and that too, only under non-threatening environment possible outside a debate.

3. The more important question, therefore, is - what we gain and what we lose from such an interaction with a known racist like Aye Chan? If it is a zero-sum activity, we should shun any such temptation. Do we really expect Aye Chan to all on a sudden change his mind by participating in a debate with us, something that he could have been enlightened on his own through our writings? I seriously doubt that possibility.

4. What is value-adding for our purpose? Can we find moderate elements within the Rakhaing to accept or consider our side of the history, and share our findings so that he/she can start the groundwork within his/her community for a paradigm shift away from racism and hatred toward inclusion and acceptance? If we don't have any moderate Rakhine intellectual or politician or opinion maker, we would better serve the cause of the Rohingya by reaching out to moderate Burmans who can start that process of reconciliation or paradigm shift. If that also looks rather bleak, we may have to do what other such threatened minorities in the world have done, which would include knocking on the doors of power brokers in the global scene. For that we can study the history of newly emerged countries like East Timor and South Sudan, as a starting point. How lucky we shall be there, given the fact that what was possible for those territories may not excite xian overlords of our time when it comes to Arakan, that is closer to the Chinese domain of influence? Allah knows the best! But it is the last option we shall be left with minus the two earlier options.

Our best approach, IMHO, is to reach out to democratic minded Burmese that are open-minded and are willing to giving it a try towards federalism and democracy, which are based on universal values and laws. The inclusion of Rohingya in Burma would be a win-win formula for the divided country, while the exclusion can only make it worse - not only morally but also economically. Our time served there to promote the Rohingya cause would be more fruitful than wasting time with Aye Chan. Who is Aye Chan anyway? He is a dishonest academic, a provocateur and a charlatan trying to masquerade as an intellectual for his racist extremist section of the people. Even if he were to accept Rohingya citizenship does he have any influence to repeal the racist 1982 Citizenship Law of Burma? I don't think so. Guys like him are used as pimps and prostitutes by illiberal undemocratic regimes to further their draconian measures, and then left to their repulsive, evil, pitiful selves.

5. What we truly need from our leadership is a strategy to repeal that Citizenship Law that is hemmed with short-term tactical moves that would InshaAllah allow the Rohingya people of Burma to live as a free people that is equal with other citizens of Burma. Inclusion not rejection. May Allah help us all in that endeavor.

End Notes:
1. Slim writes -
In page 147:
"......this exodus was followed by a bitter internecine struggle for land and power between the Arakanese and Maugh, two sections of the population. The Maughs got the worst of it and many were driven across the Naf River to take shelter in territory still held by us, there to make yet another refugee problem. Faction fights among the victorious Arakanese then became the order of the day, until the Japanese, pushing up to Buthidaung, resorted some sort of uneasy peace."

In page 148:

".....It later extended its activities to include minor raiding operations, and frequently fought successful actions with Japanese patrols and detachments, but in July 1942 an attempt to bolster up the Arakanese in our area by issuing fire arms of various sorts was judged premature and abandoned."

In page 238;

"....The porters of this column were Araknese Mohammedans and Maughs. All droped their loads and the Arakanese made off into the jungles, but the Maughs, two hundreds of them, prefered wisely to be captured rather than have their throats cut by the local Arakanese as they attempted to escape. "

2. BURMESE OUTPOST: Author Anthony Irwin writes (for example)

In page 11 PREFATORY DICTIONARY
Maughs .. Arakanese Buddhists who inhabit the Southern half of Arakan and some extent Kaladan. (This is a definition the of the word Mugh given by him.)

In Pages 22-23
"...As the area then occupied by us was almost entirely Mussulman country, it was from the followers of Mohammed that we drew most of our "Scouts" and Agents. The Arakan before the war had been occupied over its entire length by both Mussulman and Maughs. Then in 1941 the two sects set to and fought. The result of this "war" was roughly that the Maugh took over the Southern half of the country and the Mussulman the Northern.......". "The immediate result to us was that it seperated the two peoples into two distinct araes of influence, and it is on these areas that we have to base our whole system of intelligence, and the Jap likewise, for the uses or tries to use the aughs in the same way as we use the Mussulmen, but fortunately not to the same effect. Added to the fact that the Mussulmen are the most trustworthy and in my opinion the more courageous, is the point that at the moment the Jap has had to fight in an area the Northern section of which is entirely Moslem."

"....I sometimes wonder if any other people in like circumstances can tell the same story of loyalty and patience as can these Mussulman Arakanese."

In page 65:
Abdul Salaam, Mussulman Arakanese headman.

Col. Gaddafi’s Death – lessons for dictators?

2011-10-30T09:36:00.000-07:00

Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi died on October 20 on the way to a hospital in Misrata. An autopsy determined that he had bullet wounds to his chest and head. Apparently, he was killed by a Libyan captor with the rebel forces that had toppled his regime. It was not the kind of death he imagined to embrace during the 42 years of his rule before the revolution. Surely, he was a marked man since the days of President Reagan. He had too many foes – mostly foreign – who hated him for a plethora of reasons. But never before the Libyan Revolution had he any inkling that one day his fellow countryman would be his executioner shooting the final bullet to end his life.

It was a sad demise of one of the most enduring rulers of our time who refused to call it quits. Gaddafi was captured alive hiding in a drainpipe outside his hometown of Sirte. He was roughed up, bruised, taunted and hounded before his death. It was not a pleasant picture, all captured by cell phone videos, to see him dragged out by his hair while he pleaded not to shoot him.

Like too many of his predecessors who had refused to read the writings on the walls, Gaddafi was defiant to his brutal end. When he fled Tripoli, he threatened to turn his country into a ‘volcano of lava and flame.’ He called the rebels ‘rats.’ Never did he know that he would end up hiding like a rat holed up in a drainpipe before being captured by the rebels.

When Gaddafi captured power in September of 1969 through a military coup by deposing King Idris – an ascetic, benevolent and reluctant ruler -- he promised deliverance. He had Allah’s gift, the sweet oil, the best quality crude oil containing the least amount of sulfur – buried under the sand, to honor that promise. He nationalized oil wealth and sent students abroad for higher education, and we are told that he provided -- free education, housing and healthcare to his people plus interest-free loans, free energy bills and $50,000 housing money for newly wed couples – benefits which are unheard of in our time in any country (including Saudi Arabia). In an age when the capitalist governments in Europe, North America and Israel were strengthening the dictatorial regimes and racist colonizing enterprises throughout the world, his was a dissenting voice. Actually, more than a voice! He was the greatest benefactor to Nelson Mandela’s ANC (in apartheid South Africa) and many such liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. He supported the rights of the Native Americans, obviously causing much ire and tension with Washington. He wanted an Africa that is free from the tyranny of the West so that its people would attain self-sufficiency without western exploitation, interference and influence. He wanted an African Union that would be at least as strong economically as the EU, the USA and Canada are, away from the dictates and curses of the loans borrowed from the World Bank and the IMF.

And yet, something definitely went wrong. Vilification from the West was the least of Gaddafi’s troubles. He came to be seen by many within his own people, not just the dissident voices in the West, as a Utopian leader who had failed his people in meeting their true aspirations to live and prosper in a free Libya. They despised his (and his sons’) spendthrift attitude with national wealth, the lavish lifestyle of his children, the lavish parties where he (and his sons) gave away exotic gifts, jewelries and valuables worth millions of dollars to visiting dignitaries like Condi Rice while they felt such could have been spent wisely for more worthy causes within the country. In his long rule, in essence, they have become sorry spectators to their own destiny. To them the government handouts and free-this-and-that were not as important as some other unmet needs. They wanted a more participative and representative government of, by and for all people - democracy. They felt that he had hacked away the old social order (let alone the political order), annulled their rights to private property and, worst of all, had created a police state that was full of informers, cronies and sycophants. They felt terrorized by their own government. Libya, to them, had transformed itself into a big prison, where their ‘Brother Leader’ had become a dictator with dynastic aspirations for his sons. They wanted freedom of expression so that their unheard or muffled voices could be heard. They craved for freedom to organize and replacement of the imposed mumbo-jumbo system of government, or lack thereof, which was modeled after his Green Book.

While Gaddafi’s ill-spent money could flatter and shut the mouths of greedy western politicians and create a messiah persona in much of sub-Saharan Africa, his misfortune kicked in after the success of the revolution, the so-called Arab Spring, in the next-door Tunisia and Egypt. With the fall of those two tyrants, the Libyan people felt destiny was in their hands to change the course of history in their own country. They conquered fear and rose up in rebellion. The city of Ben Ghazi fell first and the rest is history!

It is said that the death of a democratic leader is a fanfare when he dies in power and a private matter long after his retirement, but the death of a tyrant is always a political act that reflects the character of his power. If a tyrant dies peacefully in his bed in the full resplendence of his rule, his death is a theater of that power; it is his greatest achievement. If a tyrant is executed while crying for mercy in the dust, then that, too, is a reflection of the nature of a fallen regime and the reaction of an oppressed people. To many of his victims inside Libya, Gaddafi was a tyrant, let alone a dictator, who deserved what he got and to many of his admirers outside, he was the last revolutionary who stood up against the bullies and exploits of the West and died a martyr.
Gaddafi should have resigned soon after the protests had begun. But like all dictators, instead of relenting power, he chose the barrels of rifles and guns to decide the fate of his regime. And in all likelihood, he could have survived like the murderous regime in Bahrain, if he had BIG friends in the West and the Arab League. He even used the bogeyman of Islam to neutralize his western foes that have been second-guessing the Arab Spring at every turn, including the on-going revolution in Syria, let alone the failed one in Bahrain. And sure enough, the Obama Administration was reluctant to get involved (at least in the early phase of the revolution). However, the Arab League was a different matter. It despised his personality and thus decried his threat of bloodbath and welcomed a military operation to protect the besieged people of Libya. The NATO forces, long viewed in that part of the world as morally bankrupt and utterly opportunistic, aided the rebel forces by dropping bombs after a measured calculation, and a right one, which I must add, that they have more to gain than lose by supporting the rebel forces.

As the regime crumbled and one city after another fell to the victorious rebel forces, including Tripoli, it was a question of time when and where Gaddafi would be found. After all, he had all the chances to negotiate his surrender or flee the country like Zine Ben Ali of Tunisia. But he refused to do either, and would rather die a ‘martyr.’ He chose his own fate knowingly! And that final curtain on Gaddafi was unceremoniously drawn when he was captured in his hometown and shot to death. He is now buried in an unmarked grave in the Sahara desert. What a gory and tragic end!

I wish the rebels who captured Gaddafi had acted like Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin the Great) and not Julius Caesar. While Saladin (May Allah be pleased with him) showed magnanimity to his vanquished enemies – the Crusaders in 1187 CE when he had liberated Jerusalem, Caesar, conqueror of the Gauls in the Siege of Alesia, lost the moral benefit of his victory by humiliating his foe Vercingetorix by showing him off like a winning trophy before having him strangled in 46 BCE. The National Transitional Council, mindful of international outcry, has stated that any violation of human rights will be investigated and that whoever is responsible for Gaddafi's killing will be judged and given a fair trial.

As noted recently in the New York Times, the guns in Libya have barely quieted, but a new invasion force is already plotting its own landing on the shores of Libya. They are the western security, construction and infrastructure companies that see profit-making opportunities. They are abuzz about the business potential of a country with huge needs and the oil to pay for them, plus the competitive advantage of Libyan gratitude toward the United States and its NATO partners. We should not be surprised! But Libyans should be smart enough to not let their hard earned revolution hijacked by these new invaders.

Muslim Identity and Demography in Arakan - concluding part

2011-10-22T23:02:00.000-07:00

Part 4: The Demography Controversy

Khin Maung Saw provides a highly distorted rendition of the 1784 invasion of Arakan and tries to justify the brutal occupation by the racist and bigot Burman King Bodaw Paya by saying that it was all about reformation of the Buddhist Monk's order. To him, all those who fled were only 50,000. And obviously, to him, these were Rakhines (and no Rohingyas). Likewise, the Rohingya factor starts with British control of Arakan, esp. as he puts it, after 1886, as if they simply did not exist before the British colonization. He writes, "Arakan was very under-populated at that time. Therefore, the British brought tens of thousands of Chittagonian Bengali Muslims into Arakan. The Arakanese (Rakhaings) have to bear the burdens of these aliens until today. These aliens tried and are still trying to Islamize Arakan (if not the whole of Burma) by all means."

Obviously, such a narrative belies history, esp. the multi-cultural reality of Arakan during the Mrauk-U dynasty, preceding Bodaw Paya's invasion. As we have noted elsewhere, during the 40-year Burmese tyrannical rule (1784-1824) of Arakan, tens of thousands of Arakanese of all faiths were massacred. The conquering Burmese forces demolished mosques, temples and shrines and stole the treasures of Arakan (including the Mahamuni statue). They conscripted and enslaved many, some of whom died out of fatigue and hunger while the living ones were settled at other parts of Burma. Some 20,000 inhabitants were taken as prisoners to Ava. By 1798, Bodaw’s repeated demand for forced slave labor (e.g., to build pagodas) and conscript service and the atrocity of his forces plus the rapacity of his local representatives had forced two-thirds of the inhabitants - Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist alike – to take refuge in Chittagong (Bengal). As noted by Farooque Ahmed, a researcher at the JNU, just the number of Muslim refugees to Bengal might have been 200,000. What is worse: during the next four decades of Burman colonization of Arakan, everything that was materially and culturally Islamic was meticulously razed to the ground.

According to G.E. Harvey, “Arakan had never been populous, and now it became a desert; the towns were deserted and overgrown with jungle, and there was nothing more to be seen but ‘utter destruction … morass, pestilence and death.’” Khin Maung Saw’s attempt to whitewash the blood-soaked history of his idol, Bodaw Paya, is simply ludicrous, if not criminal and evil. He may like to re-read the historical account of this Buddhist monster, and learn why the Arakanese enthusiastically collaborated with the East India Company to get rid of the Burmans.

As we have noted earlier, the number of Muslims who lived in Mrohaung, the capital, during Mrauk-U kingdom was rather large, probably half the population. It is not difficult to surmise that the Muslim population could have grown to well over 300,000 in 1784 before the Burman invasion of Arakan, just from the Muslim soldiers alone that had settled there after restoring Narameikhla to the throne in 1430.

It is well known from demographic studies within Bangladesh that most of those fleeing refugees – mostly Muslim (and some Hindu) Rohingyas and Rakhine Buddhists - never returned, even when the British allowed such immigration after it had captured Arakan after the first Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-26. They assimilated within Bengal, esp. Chittagong and Chittagong Hill Tract Districts. For example, the ‘Rohai’, comprising nearly half the population in southern Chittagong, trace their origin to Arakan, and as citizens of Bangladesh, have no desire to return to Arakan after more than two centuries. Similarly many Rakhine Buddhists are now citizens of Bangladesh. If the descendants of Arakan who had fled to Chittagong during Bodaw Paya’s invasion of the territory, can become citizens of Bangladesh, K.M. Saw’s claim that the Rohingyas in Arakan are the aliens and that they don’t deserve Burmese citizenship show his utterly repugnant chauvinistic attitude that is at odds with scores of international laws governing basic human rights.

We have also seen throughout history that a persecuted people, no matter how horrible the living condition is even under the worst of the circumstances minus annihilation, don’t want to leave their ancestral homes. Many would prefer to endure their sufferings than opt out into a life of refugee. Thus, it is conceivable that in spite of the Burman savagery, many Arakanese Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists continued to live inside Arakan, and many would move to and fro through the porous borders as they felt either secure or insecure.

We are, therefore, not surprised to read Francis Buchanan’s eye-witness account who was a surgeon in 1795 to the British Embassy in Ava, the Burmese capital. He wrote about three dialects spoken: “The first is that spoken by the Mohammedans [Muslims], who have long settled in Arakan and who call themselves Roanigya [Rohingya] or native of Arakan.” In stark contrast to the propaganda of the Buddhist racists in today’s Burma, Buchanan clearly identifies the Rohingya people as the natives of Arakan. [K.M. Saw, e.g., tries to mischievously downplay this with his silly explanations, which are so ludicrous that one can clearly see that he was running out of his tricks.] How could the Rohingya be a product of the British colonization when Britain did not even move into the territory until 1824-6, nearly a quarter century after Buchanan’s account?

To account for Muslim factor in Arakan, Saw shoots onto his own foot by quoting R.B. Smart, the deputy assistant commissioner of Akyab: “Since1879, immigration has taken place on a much larger scale, and the descendants of the slaves are resident for the most part in the Kyauktaw and Myohaung [Mrohaung] townships. Maungdaw Township has been overrun by Chittagonian immigrants. Butheedaung is not far behind and new arrivals will be found in almost every part of the district."

Who are these ‘slaves’ that Smart talks about, if they are not the ancestors of today's Rohingyas? So, surely, before 1886, there were already those Kalas in the territory. How did they originate? Did they originate during the British rule, starting at 1824? Surely, not! Can anyone deny the fact that they were a legacy of the Magh-Portuguese piracy, so evident during much of the 17th and the 18th centuries, when at least 3,000 Bengalis were taken as captives per year, many of whom were forced to work as slaves in Arakan? According to Arthur Phayre, based on the Travelogue of Friar Manrique, the slave population accounted for 15% of the total population of Arakan.

It is not difficult to also understand that under the new political reality of Arakan with the East India Company (EIC) in power, some of the descendants of the Arakanese refugees that had settled in the nearby EIC-controlled Bengal would be allured to settle back in their ancestral land, and that they would prefer to settle in places like Maungdaw and Buthidaung, which are closest to Teknaf, the southern tip of Chittagong in Bengal. That way, if things did not work out for them they could return to Chittagong with much ease.

The new colonizers depended on taxation and land-revenue; and rice export was an important trade in those days. However, with only 740 square miles of the fertile land cultivable in 1871, rice export was accounting for 105,894 Pounds Sterling (less than 10% of the total sea-borne trade of Arakan, amounting to 1.35 million Pounds Sterling). More cultivable land in Arakan meant more land revenue and more income for the British government.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the population in Arakan grew to 173,000 in 1831, 248,000 in 1839, 461,136 in 1871 and 762,102 in 1901. For the total population in Arakan to grow to those numbers it would have required yearly annual growth rates of 11.59%, 7.24%, 3.46%, and 2.74% within the first 5, 13, 45 and 75 years, respectively, since 1826. Since the first two growth rates (until 1839) cannot be explained away from natural growth, one must look at huge influx or migration from outside to Arakan as the key contributor to understand the phenomena.

K.M. Saw shares the table below about the demography in Akyab (the first 4 columns).
Races 1871 1901 1911 1871- % 1901-% 1911-%
Mahomedan 58255 154887 178647 21.05 32.16 33.71
Burmese 4632 35751 92185 1.67 7.42 17.40
Arakanese 171612 230649 209432 62.02 47.89 39.52
Shan 334 80 59 0.12 0.02 0.01
Hill 38577 35489 34020 13.94 7.37 6.42
Others 606 1355 1146 0.22 0.28 0.22
Total 276691 481666 529943 100 100 100

The above table from Burma Gazeteer, Akyab District (p. 86), clearly shows that there were at least 58,000 Rohingyas, who had identified themselves as Muslims, back in 1871, challenging, thus, Saw’s disingenuous claim that they were a product of the late 19th century British immigration policy for rice cultivation, and railway construction, etc. The Muslim population in the Akyab district should not come as a surprise given the fact that soon after the annexation of Arakan by the East India Company (EIC) in 1826, Mr. Paton, the British official who was the Controller of the Civil Affairs in Arakan, prepared an official report in which he mentioned that the total population of Arakan did not exceed 100,000 of which 60,000 were Maghs (Arakanese Buddhists) and 30,000 (Rohingya) Muslims. Here again, in contrast to Saw’s devious claims, there were already 30,000 Rohingyas living inside Arakan back in 1826. They could not have been planted by the EIC.

As the other three columns in the table above show from my calculation, the Muslim population within the district, which was 21% in 1871, became 33.7% in 1911, i.e., after 40 years. During the same period, Burmese population had jumped from 1.67% to 17.4%. Is this growth reasonable for both these population groups? What could also explain the negative growth rates amongst the Arakanese and Hilly people between 1901 and 1911?

A comparison of the population data in 1871 for the Akyab District vis-à-vis the Arakan Division shows that nearly 60% of the Division’s population lived inside the Akyab District, which had transformed itself from a fishing village in 1826 to a fast-growing town. As noted by the Imperial Gazeteer of India, nearly half the Muslim population of the province lived within the Akyab District, their total number could have been well over 100,000 (or at least 97,092) in 1871, thereby constituting nearly a quarter of the total population of 461,136 (per Britannica). The Muslim proportion in 1901 and 1911 census data is close to Mr. Paton’s report, albeit nearly three-quarter of a century later!

Assuming 62% share of the total population, the Rakhine population inside Arakan could have been at least 286,010 in 1871. It would take the Muslim (Rohingya) and Buddhist (Rakhine) population to grow annually by 2.64% and 3.53%, respectively, to reach those figures of 1871.

It must, however, be pointed out that owing partly to cultural norms of being celibate and/or marrying late, the fertility rate (~ 1%) amongst Buddhists has always been lower than Muslims and Hindus. The figure of 3.53% for the Rakhine Buddhist population is simply untenable by any measure, and could not have been possible without external factors like immigration from outside the territory. On the other hand, as we shall see below, the annual growth rate of 2.64% (between 1826 and 1871) amongst the Rohingya Muslims is not unrealistic at all. Even in this age of family planning (21st century), the yearly population growth rate amongst Muslims is about 2%, and figures as high as 3% are not too uncommon.

Amongst the racist elements within the Rakhine and Burmese Buddhist communities, much fuss has been made about the so-called influx of Muslim peasants from Chittagong. Given the EIC’s prime desire to increase its coffer, it is natural that it encouraged migration to Arakan of the descendants of the former refugees who had settled in Chittagong. Jacques Leider’s research does point out that “The major interest of the East India Company in Arakan lay in the extension of rice cultivation in the Kaladan and Lemro Valleys. This plan succeeded because the scores of Bengal Muslim labourers who had been imported from Chittagong in the middle of the nineteenth century, Akyab, the new capital, had indeed become a major port of export of rice for Europe.” One can notice that Leider mentions scores, and not thousands, of these laborers from Bengal. Such a small influx obviously did not alter the size of Muslim proportion. It is also possible that these seasonal migrant workers returned to Muslim-majority Bengal.

The sudden rise in population within the first few years of British occupation strongly suggests that there were more such ‘immigrants’ from within the Arakanese Buddhist population than any other community. For instance, there were extra 73,000 individuals in Arakan just within the first five years of British occupation, suggesting very strongly that they were recent immigrants from outside, notably from Bengal. Within the next eight years, another 75,000 individuals had added to the list of which probably 60,000 had moved from other places (the remainder being natural growth). As the law and order condition inside Arakan improved, especially after the second and third Anglo-Burmese wars, many other descendants of former refugees moved into Arakan.

As can be seen from the table below the annual growth rate of 7.8% between 1871 and 1911, esp. 10% between 1901 and 1911, amongst the Burmese population cannot be explained through natural process of procreation, and must have been influenced by external factors like migration to Arakan. The positive economic environment in Akyab must have contributed to such an influx of the Burmese people moving into the district. One can also notice that many Arakanese Buddhists had moved away to other places between 1901 and 1911. Thus, it is no accident that their percentage fell to 39.52% of the population in 1911 from being 47.9% in 1901. Could they have migrated to Chittagong Division? Since the 10% increase within the Burmese community seems unreasonable, is it possible that many of the Rakhines had identified them as Burmese and not as Arakanese Buddhists? Whatever may be the real answer, suffice it to say that the huge gain within the Burmese population (56,434) and loss (21,217) within the Rakhine population in 1901-1911 cannot be explained away without considerations or possibilities of such external factors. So is the case with the Hilly and Shan peoples of Arakan.

Races 1871 1901 1911 1871- % 1901-% 1911-% % Growth Rate 1871-1901) % Growth Rate 1901-1911) % Growth Rate 1871-1911)
Mahomedan 58255 154887 178647 21.05 32.16 33.71 3.313 1.437 2.841
Burmese 4632 35751 92185 1.67 7.42 17.40 7.049 9.935 7.764
Arakanese 171612 230649 209432 62.02 47.89 39.52 0.990 -0.960 0.499
Shan 334 80 59 0.12 0.02 0.01 -4.652 -2.999 -4.241
Hill 38577 35489 34020 13.94 7.37 6.42 -0.278 -0.422 -0.314
Others 606 1355 1146 0.22 0.28 0.22 2.719 -1.661 1.606
Total 276691 481666 529943 100 100 100 1.865 0.960 1.638

Interestingly, while Khin Maung Saw cries foul about the declining Arakanese (Rakhine) and Hilly population -- becoming only 45.94% (=39.52+6.42) of the total population in Akyab in 1911, he pretends to suffer from selective amnesia about why there was the loss of 21,217 individuals amongst the Rakhines between 1901 and 1911. His silence about the loss of Hilly people whose numbers had steadily declined by 4557 from 1871 to 1911 (and 1469 between 1901 and 1911) is also strange. Only a half-educated intellectual fraud could ignore such obvious signs!

In the same period (1901-11) the Rohingya Muslim population in Akyab had only increased its share from 32.16% to 33.71%, which can be explained by 1.437% annual growth rate within the community. And this rate is only half the yearly growth rate common amongst Muslim population, and may suggest that some of the residents of the district could have moved elsewhere (including to the Chittagong Division).

As already hinted, amongst many third world countries with a sizable Muslim population the yearly growth rate of 3% or higher is not uncommon. Consider the case of Pakistan (erstwhile West Pakistan prior to 16 December 1971) whose population grew 5-fold from a mere 34 million in 1951, shortly after the partition of India, to 170 million in 2010 (i.e. in six decades). Between 1951 and 1972, when it ceded Bangladesh, the yearly growth rate was 3.2%. Thanks to the family planning program, this rate has significantly come down to 2.5% in the period between 1972 and 2010.

1951 1961 1972 1981 1998 2010 % Growth Rate 1951-1972) % Growth Rate 1951-1961) % Growth Rate 1972-2010) % Growth Rate 1951-2010)
Bangladesh 42 50.84 75 142.3 2.800 1.928 1.700 2.090
Pakistan 34 43 66 87 132 170 3.209 2.376 2.521 2.765

For our purpose here, we need not go all the way westward to Pakistan, but can compare the growth rate of Muslims inside Arakan to that in nearby Bangladesh. As can be seen from the above table, Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) had a 2.8% yearly growth rate between 1951 and 1972. Thanks again to the family planning program, this rate has significantly come down to 1.7% in the period between 1972 and 2010.

From the above analysis, it is quite obvious that the growth rate among the Muslims in Akyab (2.841%) between 1871 and 1911 is at par with the trends shown in Bangladesh (2.8%). Thus, all the fuss about massive migration of Muslims from Chittagong or Bangladesh to Arakan during the British rule is not only wrong and baseless, it is racist, to say the least.

Even if we are to assume the conservative estimate of 2.8% growth rate amongst Rohingya Muslims since 1826, it is not difficult to estimate that their number could have grown to at least 313,716 in Arakan by 1911. The Rohingya population in Akyab District, per Saw’s table, would have then comprised only 57% of their total population inside Arakan.

So far from the utterly false claims of racist elements within the Rakhine community, the likes of Khin Maung Saw, Aye Kyaw and Aye Chan, the growth within the Rohingya Muslim community of Arakan was an organic one – a natural one, which had nothing to do with so-called influx or migration from British Bengal or Chittagong. On the other hand, much of the early increase in Rakhine and Burmese population to Akyab and Arakan do clearly show that it was due to external factors like migration.

As every student of historiography knows the borders in those days were much porous, thus facilitating population movement. It is, similarly, not far-fetched to suggest that the many of those lost from Arakan census account of 1911, could well have migrated to places like Chittagong Hill Tract and Cox’s Bazar (southern Chittagong) in today’s Bangladesh.

Conclusion:
In the above analysis of British-era demography of Arakan, in contradistinction to K. M. Saw’s bloated and unsubstantiated claims that while “Arakan was a colonie d'exploitation to the British, but to the Chittagonian Bengalis, Arakan became a colonie de peuplement” what one actually notices is a clear racist campaign by a half-educated Burmese/Arakanese Buddhist extremist who has no knowledge of demography. Unfortunately, Saw is not alone and there are many within his ethnic community that thrives on selling poison pills of racism and bigotry against the Rohingyas of Burma.

As we have noticed, the so-called influx to Arakan was caused by the Rakhines and not Rohingyas (or so-called Chittagonians from Bangladesh). The Rakhines of Arakan should be thankful that the Burmese government has not applied its highly racist and bigotry-ridden litmus test towards citizenship against them, many of whose ancestors had moved into the territory of Arakan from Bengal during the British rule. Their accusation against the Rohingyas of Arakan -- who are the true Bhumi Putras (the indigenous children of the soil) -- is like that of a criminal who accuses its victims.

Regrettably, xenophobia, sponsored by the Burmese government and aided by Rakhaing ultra-nationalists, has caused forced exodus of 1.5 million Rohingya Muslims to seek refuge outside Burma, internal displacement of at least a million, and death of another 50,000. Rohingyas are denied each and every right guaranteed under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Extra-judicial killing and summery executions, humiliating movement restriction, denial of education, job and healthcare, rape of women, arrest and torture, forced labor, forced relocation, confiscation of moveable and immoveable properties, religious sacrileges, etc., are regular occurrences in Arakan, making the Rohingya people an endangered people of our time who require special protection under international laws.

As regional specialists like the distinguished historian - Professor David Ludden of the New York University (and previously with the Ivy League school - U Penn), have repeatedly shown through the massive scholarly works that bear their names – rather than having one singular origin, South Asia and South-East Asia have always included many peoples and cultures which had different points of origin and departures and followed distinctive historical trajectories. What is promoted by ultra-nationalist, narrow-minded revisionists, pseudo-historians as the single tree of their culture, rooted in their racial and religious myths, is actually more like a vast forest of many cultures filled with countless trees of various sizes, shades, ages, colors and types, constantly cross-breeding to fertilize one another. The profusion of cultures blurs the boundaries of the forest. The so-called cultural boundaries of our time are more like an artifact of modern national cultures than an accurate reflection of pre-modern conditions.

Will the revisionist historians and charlatan scholars of Burma reflect upon this fact and amend their ways to make a more inclusive world in our time?

It is high time that the government of Burma repeal its utterly criminal, morally indefensible, repugnant and inhuman Citizenship Law that has denied the right of citizenship and belonging to the millions of Rohingyas of Arakan, who are the true children of the soil.
************ Concluded *********
[My book - The Forgotten Rohingya: Their Struggle for Human Rights in Burma – is available from Amazon.com]

The Muslim Factor in Arakan, Burma

2011-10-09T09:43:00.000-07:00

Muslim Identity and Demography in Arakan
Part 3. The Muslim Factor in Arakan

Just as it happened throughout the coastal territories from the Arabian Peninsula to the Barbary Coast and the shores of Gibraltar and Iberian Peninsula (and beyond) via Alexandria, Tripoli and Tunis to the west, and to the shores of Mozambique (originally Musa-bin-Baik) via Zanzibar and Mombasa to the south, and to the lower Gangetic Delta (Bangladesh) and beyond (to the Strait of Malacca) via the Malabar Coast of India to the east, the maritime trade route in the India Ocean in those days (pre-dating European colonization) used to be controlled by the Arab/Persian Muslims. As they traded they also created pockets of settlements, and interacting with and marrying into the local populace, which slowly changed the local customs and culture.

After the rapid expansion of Islam in the 7th century, according to Dr. Moshe Yegar, “Colonies of Muslims, both Arab and Persian, spread all along the sea trade routes… As early as the middle of the 8th century, a sizable Muslim concentration could be found in along the southern coast of China, in the commercial ports of southern India, and Southeast Asia…. Merchants brought silk, spices, perfumes, lumber, porcelain, silver and gold articles, precious jewels, jewelry, and so forth from these countries, and some of the trade made its way to Europe.” “Because sailing ships were dependent on monsoon winds and seasons, it was essential for Arabs and other Muslim traders,” writes Yegar, “to set up domiciles in ports that were located in the heart of local communities. Muslim settlements spread rapidly in Asian port cities as Muslim merchants became vital to the economy of the local communities.”

The local inhabitants of Arakan, as noted in the British Burma Gazetteer (1957), had interactions with the so-called Mohammedans – the ‘Moor Arab Muslims’ (merchants/traders), dating at least to the time of Mahataing Sandya (8th century CE). As to the Muslim settlements in Arakan, the renowned scholars of the early 20th century, Professor Enamul Haq and Abdul Karim Shahitya Visarad wrote in 1935: “The Muslim influence in Roshang [Mrohang: the capital of Arakan during the Mrauk-U kingdom] and modern Chattagram [Chittagong] has been noticeable from ancient times. The Arab traders established trade link with the East Indies in the eighth and ninth century AD. During this time Chittagong, the lone seaport of East India, became the resting place and colony of the Arabs. We know from the accounts of the ancient Arab travelers and geologists including Sulaiman (living in 851 AD), Abu Jaidul Hasan (contemporary of Sulaiman), Ibnu Khuradba (died 912 AD), Al-Masudi (died 956 AD), Ibnu Howkal (wrote his travelogue in 976 AD), Al-Idrisi (born last half of 11th century) that the Arab traders became active in the area between Arakan and the eastern bank of the Meghna River [in today’s Bangladesh]. We can also learn about this from the Roshang national history: when Roshang King, Maha Taing Chandra (788 – 810 AD) was ruling in the 9th century, some ship wrecked Muslim traders were washed ashore on ‘Ronbee’ or ‘Ramree’ Island. When they were taken to the Arakanese king, the king ordered them to live in the village (countryside) in his country. Other historians also recognized the fact that Islam and its influence developed in Arakan in the 9th and 10th century AD.” [Explanatory notes within the parentheses [ ] are mine. It is worth noting that in the dialect prevalent in Chittagong and Arakan the vocal sounds ‘Ha’ and ‘Sha’ are interchangeable. Thus the words Roshang and Rohang are interchangeable. – H.S.]

R.B. Smart writes in the British Burma Gazetteer as follows: “The local histories relate that in the ninth century several ships were wrecked on Ramree Island and the Mussalman crews sent to Arakan and placed in villages there. They differ but little from the Arakanese except in their religion and in the social customs which their religion directs, in the writing they use Burmese, but amongst themselves employ colloquially the language of their ancestors.”

As noted by renowned historian Professor Abdul Karim, “The important point to be noticed about these shipwrecked Muslims is that they have stuck to their religion, i.e. Islam and Islamic social customs. Though they used Burmese language and also adopted other local customs, they have retained the language of their ancestors (probably with mixture of local words) in dealing among themselves. Another point to be noted is that the Arab shipwrecked Muslims have retained their religion, language and social customs for more than a thousand years.”

These shipwrecked Arab Muslims became the nucleus of the Muslim population of Arakan; later other Muslims from Arabia, Persia and other countries entered into Arakan.

Dr. Moshe Yegar says, “Beginning with their arrival in the Bay of Bengal, the earliest Muslim merchant ships also called at the ports of Arakan and Burma proper… Muslim influence in Arakan was of great cultural and political importance. In effect, Arakan was the beachhead for Muslim penetration into other parts of Burma even if it never achieved the same degree of importance it did in Arakan. As a result of close land and sea contacts maintained between the two countries, Muslims played a key role in the history of the Kingdom of Arakan.”

It is no accident that Akyab (today’s Sittwe, the capital of Arakan state of Burma, situated on the south-eastern bank of the Naaf River) is a Farsi name, as are so many other towns and villages named, and how over the centuries most of these local inhabitants along the coastal towns and villages, tired of a corrupt form of their ancestral region, would convert to Islam. And this happened centuries before Muslim rulers governed some of those territories.

Professor Enamul Haq and Abdul Karim Shahitya Visarad wrote: “The Arabic influence increased to such a large extent in Chittagong during mid-10th century AD that a small Muslim kingdom was established in this region, and the ruler of the kingdom was called ‘Sultan’. Possibly the area from the east bank of the Meghna River to the Naaf was under this ‘Sultan’. We can know about the presence of this ‘Sultan’ in the Roshang [Mrohang, the capital Arakan during the Mrauk-U dynasty] national history. In 953 AD Roshang King, Sulataing Chandra (951- 957 AD) crossed his border into Bangla (Bengal) and defeated the ‘Thuratan’ (Arakanese corrupt form of Sultan), and as a symbol of victory setup a stone victory pillar at a place called ‘Chaikta-gong’ and returned home at the request of the courtiers and friends. This Chaik-ta-gong was the last border of his victory, since according to Roshang national history – ‘Chaik-ta-gong’ means ‘war should not be raised’. Many surmise that the modem name of Chittagong district originated from Chaik-ta-gong.”

If the story of Arakanese king -- mentioned in its Chronicles -- moving into Chittagong can be believed, in southern Bangladesh, especially in Chittagong, not only was there a Muslim community present but also a Muslim Sultanate ruling there in the 10th century. It may explain why Dr. Than Tun, the former Rector of Mandalay University and Professor of History at the Rangoon University, believed that the kings mentioned in the Inscription might have been Rohingyas, who lived in the eastern part of the Naaf River. He writes, “In the Kyaukza or stone inscription of 1442, it was written that some Muslim kings of Arakan were the friends of king of Ava.”

In their masterpiece, Arakan Rajshavay Bangla Shahitya, Professor Enamul Haq and Abdul Karim Shahitya Visarad continued, “In this way the religion of Islam spread and the Muslim influence slowly extended from the eastern bank of the Meghna to Roshang Kingdom in the 8th and 9th centuries. From the travelogues of the Egyptian traveler to India, Ibn Batuta (14th century AD) and from the accounts of the Portuguese pirates in the 16th century, the influence of the ‘Moors’ or Arabs was waxing till then. So it is evident that long before the Muslim race was established in Bengal in the 13th century, Islam reached to this remote region of Bengal. A conclusion may easily be drawn that after the establishment in Bengal, Islam further spread in the region. That is why Bengali literature was for the first time cultivated among the Muslim of the region. Since the 15th century onwards the Muslims of this region began to engage themselves in the study of Bengali, that is, began to write books in Bengali, of which we have lots of proofs.”

The Muslim saints, the Sufis, who came in hundreds to the shores of Bay of Bengal had a fabulous influence in proselytizing the local inhabitants to Islam. The Arakanese chronicle gives reference to the traveling of Sufis in that country at the time of the king Anawarhta (1044-1077 CE) during Pagan period. Even, a Russian merchant, Athanasius Nitikin, who traveled in the East (1470), mentions regarding activities of some Muslim Sufis of Pegu. The Merchant pictured Pegu as "no inconsiderable port, inhabited by Indian dervishes. The products derived from thence are manik, akhut, kyrpuk, which are sold by the dervishes.” As noted by Dr. Mohammed Ali Chowdhury, these dervishes were Muslims, and probably of Arab descent, and that at that time some Muslims (from nearby Muslim India) had settled in those places.

As it happened throughout history, wherever Muslims went and settled, they were able to proselytize the local people. The simplicity of their faith, views about salvation, egalitarian characteristics and ease of practice, and their ethos - morals, values, dealings, manners and customs -- had a profound effect on the local population to gravitate them to the faith of these strangers, the newcomers, away from the degenerative form of their own religion that they had endured. These migrant Muslims married into the local populace and parented children.

In his book, The Essential History of Burma, historian U Kyi writes, “The superior morality of those devout Muslims attracted large number of people towards Islam who embraced it en masse.”

This essential piece of history of the Muslims of the coastal regions of today’s Bangladesh and Arakan state of Burma is simply ignored by chauvinist elements within the Rakhine and Burmese community. They cannot imagine Islam amongst the ordinary masses without rulers being of the same faith. They also forget that Islam from its very inception has been a simple practical religion, away from the curses of racism, supremacist concepts and caste system that so overwhelmingly dominated the then Buddhist and Hindu culture. While the temples, statues, mandirs and pagodas were built with gold and precious ornaments, and monks and priests held the demigod status enjoying the benefits of the vast material resources that were endowed to them for their upkeep, ordinary people went hungry and poor, and were forced to lead a life of begging and eternal servitude. It is no accident of history either that vast majority of people in places like Malaysia, southern Philippines and Indonesia, where no Muslim army went, would one day become Muslims and abandon their ancestral religions.

The restoration of the deposed king Narameikhla (Mong Saw Mwan) to the throne of Arakan by the Muslim Sultan Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah of Bengal, thus ushering in the Mrauk-U dynasty (1430-1784 CE), is a turning point in the history of Arakan. From this time onward, many of its rulers, indebted to the Muslim Sultan adopted Muslim names (and may even have converted to Islam), a practice that would continue for the next two centuries, until 1638 CE. It is worth noting here that when Narameikhla was dethroned in 1404 CE by the Burman forces, he chose to flee to Muslim Bengal instead of either the Buddhist-ruled Tripura or the Hindu-ruled territories of India.

When the king Naramikhla reached the capital, he was widely acclaimed by his people. He was aided by two contingents of 50,000 Muslim soldiers (first under General Wali Khan and later under Sandi Khan) many of whom later settled in Arakan. They became his advisers and ministers making sure that the territory was not lost again to the Burmans.

The first thing Naramikhla did after regaining his throne was to transfer the capital from Launggyet to Mrohaung, which in the hands of Bengali poets and people became Roshang (Rohang). Those Muslims established the Sandi Khan Mosque in Mrohaung. Their descendants, as noted by the Bengali poets of the 17th century, held high positions during the Mrauk-U dynasty. During the successive centuries the Muslim population in Arakan grew in large numbers as a result of inter-marriage, immigration and conversion. [In my travels around the Diaspora communities, I have come across many of the descendants of those soldiers who came and settled in Arakan during Narameikhla’s time. As Anthony Irwin had noted some 70 years ago, these Muslims look quite different than average Bangladeshis; many of them have distinct Arab and Persian touch about them; many even have Mongoloid touch.]

As a vassal state of the Muslim Sultanate to the west, Arakan adopted the superior Muslim culture from the west in its courts, and minted coins with Arabic inscription of the Muslim article of faith (kalima). In this way, Arakan remained subordinate to Bengal until 1531. Interestingly, however, as noted above, its kings continued using Muslim titles even after they were liberated from dependency on the sultans of Bengal. As to the reason behind this practice, Dr. Yegar writes, “[T]hey were influenced by the fact that many of their subjects had become Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims served in prestigious positions in the royal administration despite its being Buddhist.” In Rakhine Maha Razwin (Great History of Arakan), Tha Thun Aung describes mass conversion of many Arakanese to Islam in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Because of her geographical proximity with the south-eastern parts of Bengal, Arakan developed both political and cultural ties with its neighbor to the north-west. Major Muslim settlements developed along the rivers of Lemru, Mingen, Kaladan, Mayu and Naaf. Its courts and royalties patronized Bengali literature. Some of the best known classical Bengali poets (Alaol, Dawlat Qazi and Mardan) came from Arakan. Its capital city essentially became the breeding ground for Bengali literature in the 17th century. This Mrauk-U period also came to be known as the ‘Golden Age’ in the history of Arakan.

It is also worth mentioning here that as a result of rather lax administrative control of Chittagong by the Mughal and Afghan rulers, and the intermittent rebellion by the Sultans of Bengal against the central government in Delhi, the territory was lost to Arakan between 1580 and 1666 CE. So the ties between Chittagong and Arakan were no less striking than those visible today in places like Texas and California with Mexico.

In their masterpiece work "Arakan Rajsabhay Bangala Shahitya,” Abdul Karim Shahitya Visarad and Dr. Enamul Haq wrote, "The way Bangali flourished in the court of the 17th century Arakan, nothing of that sort is found in its [Bengal’s] own soil. It is surprising that during the exile of Bengali language in Arakan, it was greatly appreciated by the Muslim courtiers of the Arakanese kings and the Muslim poets of East Bengal, especially those of the [greater] Chittagong Division.”

These scholars further wrote, “The study of Bengali literature that the Muslim initiated reached perfection under the aegis of the courtiers of the Roshang kings. It is needless to say that the Kings’ Court of Roshang got filled up with Muslim influence long before this. From the beginning of the 15th century AD the Kings’ Court of Roshang by luck was compelled to heartily receive the Muslim influence…
…. [T]he powerful intrusion of the Muslim influence that penetrated into the Kings’ Court of Roshang in the fifteenth century AD grew all the more in the following centuries. This influence gradually grew so strong that it reached the highest point in the seventeenth century. The Bengali literature in this century shows the full picture of the Muslim influence in the King’s Court of Roshang.”

How can this piece of history about flourishing Bengali literature and the presence of Muslim courtiers and subjects in Arakan be ignored by any objective analyst?
Nor should one forget that when the Mughal Prince Shah Shuja, the Governor of Bengal (1639-59), chose to take asylum in 1660 CE instead of submitting to the authority of Aurangzeb – the new Mughal Emperor, he chose Arakan, which already had many high ranking Muslims serving the king of Arakan. He was accompanied by his family members and retinues, which included hundreds of bodyguards. Upon arrival, however, the Mughal Prince was betrayed by the Arakanese king Sanda Sudamma. While there are competing accounts as to what had ultimately happened to the fate of the Prince, including one account that suggests that Shah Shuja and his family members were treacherously murdered (and another that suggests that he was able to flee to Manipur with some of his retinues), there is little doubt that many of his guards who were attacked savagely by the Maghs of Arakan fled to the nearby jungle. Some of the surviving guards were later made royal archers and bodyguards serving the Arakanese king. Their descendants, known as the Kamans or Kamanchis (bowman), are to be found settled mostly in Rambree Island. Some of the followers of Shah Shuja escaped the persecution of Maghs and crossed to Burma. The king of Ava settled them in Ramethin, Shwebo, Maydu and Meiktila. Their descendants can be found today in these places.

There was yet another kind of interaction between the Kingdom of Arakan with its eastern neighbor Bengal, beginning in the 17th century, when gaining strength, the kings of Arakan would allow the plunder of Bengal, and Bengali captives – tens of thousands - would be brought to work as slaves in Arakan. When the Portuguese moved to the Bay of Bengal, they were allowed to set up their military posts in Arakan. In return, the Portuguese aided the Rakhine Maghs in their piracy in Bengal, terrorizing its people and harassing the Mughal forces. The joint Magh-Portuguese marauding expeditions into Bengal continued well after they were routed out of Chittagong in 1666 by Shaista Khan, the Mughal Viceroy (Subedar) of Bengal and his son General Bujurg Umid Khan. Taking captives, most of whom were Muslims, forcing them into slavery was an important part of those raids.

Friar Manrique, a Portuguese priest who visited Bengal and Arakan and who spent six years in the Augustinian Church at Dianga (Deang, near Chittagong town), was himself a witness to such Magh-Portuguese piratical raids. He wrote, “They usually made there general attacks three or four times in the year, irrespective of minor raids which went on most of the year, so that during the five years I spent in the kingdom of Arracan, some eighteen thousand people came to the ports of Dianga and Angarcale.”
As can be seen from Manrique’s account, the number of those captives was not small, and was in excess of 3,000 per year, and continued for well over a century of piracy.

This is further evidenced by the fact that when the Chittagong fort fell into the hands of the Mughals, 10,000 Bengali (both Muslim and Hindu) captives got liberty and they went to their homes. While the Portuguese pirates sold their captives and/or forcibly baptized them into Christianity, the Magh pirates forced theirs into slave labors in the paddy fields along the Kaladan River (the river was named after these Kalas). So these captives also helped in increasing the Muslim population of Arakan. The descendants of these captives mostly reside now in Kyauktaw and Mrohaung Townships of Arakan.

According to historian Professor Abdul Karim, “In the 17th century the Muslims thronged the capital Mrohaung and they were present in the miniature courts of ministers and other great Muslim officers of the kingdom. An idea of their presence is available in the writings of Muslim poets like Alaol who wrote that people from various countries and belonging to various groups came to Arakan to be under the care of Arakanese king. The Portuguese Padre Fray Sebastien Manrique visited Arakan and stayed for some time; he was also present in the coronation ceremony of the Arakanese king held on 23 January 1635. He gives a description of the coronation procession and says that of the several contingents of army that took part in the coronation, one contingent wholly comprised of Muslim soldiers, let by a Muslim officer called Lashkar Wazir. The leader rode on Iraqi horse, and the contingent comprised of six hundred soldiers. In other contingent, led by Arakanese commanders also there were Muslim soldiers. This evidence of Sebastien Manrique combined with the fact that there were several Muslim ministers in Arakan gives a good picture of the presence of the Muslim in Arakan in the 17th century. The influence of the Muslim officers over the king of Arakan is also evident from the episodes mentioned by Sebastien Manrique.”

The Muslims of Arakan, therefore, are an amalgam of new migrants - Shaikhs, Syeds, Qazis, Mollahs, Alims, Fakirs, Arabs, Rumis (Turks), Moghuls, Pathans - from various parts of the Muslim world that settled during and before the Mrauk-U dynasty, including the captives (the so-called Kolas) brought in from various parts of Bengal and India, and the indigenous Muslims (the children of Bhumiputras who had converted to Islam over the centuries). They created the genesis of what we call the Rohingya Muslims. To put it succinctly: the Rohingya Muslims are the descendants of the indigenous 'Kalas' that either converted or mixed with the Muslim settlers/travelers/Sufis (including Arab/Persian merchants, traders) to the region, the non-returning soldiers who came to restore Narameikhla to the throne of Arakan, the unwilling captives and others that called Arakan their ancestral home. Hence, the Rohingya Muslims are not an ethnic group, which developed from one tribal group affiliation or single racial stock, but are an ethnic group that developed from different stocks of people.

As already demonstrated, the conversion of these indigenous people to Islam has been no different than what has happened throughout history in the last 14 centuries along the coastal regions from Mozambique to Malacca. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Rohingyas of Arakan while having some similarities in matters of physical features, and borrowing religious, linguistic and cultural heritage with their neighbors to the west would develop their own distinct identity, albeit a hybrid or mosaic one. They are neither Chittagonians nor are they Bengalis [Bangladeshis].

The Rohingya Muslims - the ‘Musulman Arakanese’ - as Anthony Irwin noted, ‘are quite unlike any other product of India or Burma that I have seen.’ Similarly, Moshe Yeager noted, “There is very little common – except common religion – between the Rohingyas of Arakan and the Indian Muslims of Rangoon or Burmese Muslims…”

While their ancestral territory would later be colonized by the Tibeto-Burman Buddhists - the ancestors of today’s Rakhines - whose cultural ties have been towards the east, it is the strength of their group character that the Rohingyas of Arakan were able to retain their linguistic and genealogical ties to the soil. After all, the Rakhines are genetically, culturally and linguistically closer to the Burmans (of Burma). On the other hand, as Dr. Yegar noted ‘the Rohingyas preserved their own heritage from the impact of the Buddhist environment, not only as far as their religion is concerned, but also in … their culture.’

As the children of the indigenous people of Arakan, the Rohingyas have as much right, if not more, as the Rakhine Buddhists, to identify themselves with the name that they prefer to describe them. If the late-coming Tibeto-Burman admixture has no problem in calling itself the Rakhaing of Arakan, no outsider (and surely not its abuser) has any right to either define the Rohingya maliciously or deny the same privilege in self-identifying itself.

To call these indigenous people of Arakan -- who identify themselves as the Rohingyas in Burma – “unwanted guests” is like calling the Native Americans unwanted refugees who had settled in America after the Europeans. As much as no massacre of yesteryears and ghettoization of the Native Americans today in designated American Indian Reservation camps can obliterate their genuine right, place, history and identity, no propaganda and government or non-government sponsored pogroms can erase the rightful identity of the Rohingya people of Burma. They are the children of the soil of Arakan.
============-=================
To be continued .............

Analysis of Muslim Identity and Demography in Arakan - parts 1 and 2

2011-10-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

1. Introduction: The Rohingya Identity and Hatemongering by Rakhine Racists

Khin Maung Saw’s article “Islamization of Burma through Chittagonian Bengalis as Rohingya Refugees” is a revisionist attempt by a deranged chauvinist Magh to rewrite the history of the Muslims of Arakan. Racism and bigotry are written all over the article. In this post-9/11 era of hatemongering and Islamophobia, it is not difficult to understand his evil mindset that steered him to concoct such an absurd idea that the Rohingya Muslims are working towards Islamization of Myanmar (Burma). Forget about the fact that Burma is a military-ruled country with no democracy, how could a mere 2 to 3 million people impose the dictates of their faith on a nation of 50 million, especially when they are denied all basic rights – of movement, assembly, marriage, education, jobs, etc.? One has to be either mentally unstable or very high in mind-altering drugs to hallucinate such a ludicrous idea!

As already recognized by scores of international organizations and human rights groups, including the US government and the UN, the legitimate rights of the Rohingyas of Arakan state of Burma towards equal rights and citizenship in their ancestral home cannot be throttled by hateful propaganda of anyone, and surely not by the paid agents of the rogue regime that have not given up on their divide-and-conquer policy to weaken genuine democratic aspirations of the people of Burma. And what better tactic than to stoke the fear of Islamization of the country by a persecuted minority that has already been brutalized and marginalized! Denied every right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these unfortunate Rohingya people, pushed to settle for an uncertain life of either statelessness or refugees, inside or outside Burma, must now defend their honor and dignity against hateful and bigotry-ridden campaigns by their fellow countrymen – the racist Rakhine/Maghs of Arakan!

Racism and bigotry cannot come any worse than what thus far has been showcased by these evil children of Arakanese (and by default, Burmese) racism! It is sad to see that Saw who has been living in Germany has not learned anything from its past history of xenophobia. He had the choice to either reject or espouse the failed model of Nazi fascism that has had wrecked so much havoc and brought so much pain, shame and unbearable misery to its people. Instead of siding with the persecuted Rohingyas, he chose the hated monsters of the Nazi era as his model. One can only feel repulsed by such an evil choice.

Thus, it is not surprising to discover the unmistakable similarities of his fascist onslaught against the persecuted Rohingyas with those of the Jews of Nazi-era Germany. Like his other pseudo-historian peers - Aye Kyaw and Aye Chan (two unabashed fascists, by any account), his pattern of onslaught against the Rohingya people is borrowed from the hateful works of convicted war criminals like Julius Streicher of the Nazi era. One only has to change the terms ‘Jew’ to Chittagonian Bengali/Muslim or Rohingya, ‘Judenstaat’ to Islamization, and ‘Germany’ to Burma (Myanmar) to see the obvious similarity of their hate campaign.

These demented and paranoid Theravada Buddhists of Arakan, often masquerading as intellectual voices of their community, are no democrats and surely not liberals. They are, in fact, closet fascists. If allowed to come to power or sway policy decisions, they will, in all likelihood, borrow the pages from the hated (German) SS manual and repeat the heinous crimes of their fellow coreligionists in Cambodia. It is no accident that Saw’s mentor Aye Kyaw wrote the infamous 1982 Burma Citizenship Law that provided the blueprint for denying citizenship rights of the Rohingya people – the other dominant ethnic group of Arakan. It was done with a calculated precision to not only rob the properties of the Rohingya but also to uproot them en masse from the soil of Arakan, their ancestral home. It’s an utterly devious and devilish conspiracy.

Surely, these Buddhists of Arakan give a bad name to their religion and the non-violent founder of their faith. Their malicious words and acts of unfathomable bigotry, racism, aggression against and oppression of the Rohingya people show that they are misfits to the civilized world, especially in the 21st century when people have learned to live amicably burying their age-old prejudice. Indubitably, multi-culture, integration and pluralism -- a reality in most parts of our world today -- are alien concepts to them, and as such, are an anathema to everything that they stand for or crave for their fractured country along the ethnic line.

Forgotten there is the time-honored realization that Burma is a country that has many races, ethnicities and religions. It is a country of many nations. It is not a country either of or for any particular group – be they are the majority Bamar (Burman), the minority Shan, Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Rohingya, Rakhine, Mon, Karen, Chinese, Indians, or whatever. Racism runs deep and acts like the Krazy glue holding members of each of these discernible groups together in their own domain, while it acts like a double-edged knife cutting through the fabric of the Burmese society, justifying hostility against disparate groups that have nothing in common either in language or in religion.

The only way this country of many nations can survive and evolve into a civilized state is not through the brutal and savage arms of injustice, denial, xenophobia, abuse and oppression of the minorities but a federal democratic framework that genuinely protects all ensuring their human rights and equality without any discrimination. This means, the Rohingyas of Arakan should have the same rights as enjoyed by a Rakhine; the Karens have the same rights as enjoyed by a Bamar, and so on and so forth for all the races, tribes, ethnicities, and groups.

As much as the spiteful non-Muslim promoters of ‘Islamization of Europe’ and ‘Islamization of America’ have failed to bring about mass-scale onslaught against minority Muslims living in the West, and, instead, have unearthed their own unfathomable bigotry and racism, and the often-ignored but dirty little secret about the criminality of the homegrown terrorists and white hate-groups, the fascists of Arakan and Burma are doomed to failure with their fear-tactic of using boogeyman of ‘Islamization of Burma.’ Their disinformation campaign has also unearthed their true hideous selves.

2. Analysis: The Land and the Indigenous People of Arakan:

To incite violence and bigotry against Rohingya Muslims of Arakan, Khin Maung Saw does not waste any time. He starts with a picture of a Muslim congregational prayer on the front page, followed by a photo of some soldiers (or possibly guerillas) sitting on the ground. The connotation is quite obvious. However, such fear-mongering tactics will not succeed and would only lay bare the hideous character of their accusers, as it did in Norway. After all, of all the various communities that call Arakan their home, it is the Rakhine Maghs of Burma that have continued to practice violence; they want a ‘free’ Arakan away from the no less monstrous military brutes of Burma, while still purporting to retain its racist, non-democratic and fascist character that does not allow integration and multi-culture.

In his prologue Saw mentions the story of an ‘ungrateful’ camel that had dislodged its master from the tent. He does not duck the connotation by stating that the Rohingyas of Burma are like that camel in the story that are trying to dislodge the ‘owner’ of the tent. By ‘owner’, he obviously means his own race - the Rakhine Magh.

Fact is, however, opposed to this make-belief fictional story put forth by the chauvinist Rakhine: the Rohingyas are neither the guests of Arakan nor are they trying to dislodge anyone. Far from the false Rakhine propaganda of being the outsiders who had settled in Arakan during the British rule of Arakan -- a persistent theme in the propaganda materials of Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan, Khin Maung Saw and other ultra-chauvinist racists of Arakan -- the existence of the Rohingya in the soil of Arakan predates the Magh influx to the territory from Tibet and other parts of Burma.

As credible research work by unbiased historians and researchers have amply shown, these Rohingyas, derogatorily called the Kalas (by the racist Maghs of Arakan), are the descendants of the indigenous people of Arakan – the true Bhumiputras (adibashis) -- of the land.

Separated to the north by the high hills and deep forests of the Chin State and to the east by the almost insurmountable Arakan Yoma mountain range which divides the Arakan coastal area from the rest of Burma, the region came to be known as the land of the ‘Kala Mukh’ (Land of the ‘Black Faces’), inhabited by these dark brown-colored Indians who had much in common with the people (today’s Bangladeshis, or more particularly Chittagonians) living on the north-western side of the Naaf River, along the adjoining coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal. The resemblance was not limited to physical features like skin color, shape of head and nose alone, but also in shared culture and beliefs. They thrived on rice cultivation on the fertile planes and the abundant supply of fish in the nearby rivers, streams and the Bay of Bengal. The one-mile wide Naaf River was no barrier to sustain family and cultural ties between these sea-faring people living on either side of the river. Arakan’s northern part Mayu, as noted by Dr. Moshe Yegar, can be seen as ‘an almost direct continuation of eastern Bengal’ [Bangladesh].

The Arakan Mountain range also served as a barrier inhibiting Burmese invasions, and allowing Arakan to develop as a separate political entity. As also concurred by all historians the influx of the Sino-Tibetans (with Mongoloid features) in Arakan, resembling today’s Rakhine stock, did not happen until after the collapse of the Vaisali kingdom in the 10th century CE.

What happened to the region in the centuries before and after this invasion? As evidenced by numerous archeological finds, it is obvious that the Hindu colonists, fuelled by their need for trade and commerce, gold and silver, first colonized the region in the early 1st century CE. According to Dr. Emil Forchhammer, a Swiss Professor of Pali at Rangoon College, and Superintendent of the newly founded Archaeological Survey (1881): “The earliest dawn of the history of Arakan reveals the base of the hills, which divide the lowest courses of the Kaladan and Lemro rivers, inhabited by sojourners from India… Their subjects are divided into the four castes of the older Hindu communities…”

By the 3rd century (CE), the coastal region of Kala Mukh (Arakan) had been settled with the colonists dominating and coexisting warily with the indigenous people. In the sites of major habitation Sanskrit became the written language of the ruling class, and the religious beliefs were those prevalent at that time in south-Asia (or Indian sub-continent). The Hindu kings that ruled the coastal territories of Chittagong also ruled the crescent of Arakan. Presumably, the indigenous people of Arakan, much like their brothers and sisters living to the north-west of the Naaf River in (today’s) Chittagong, practiced some loose form of Hinduism.
The second phase of Indianization of Arakan occurred between the 4th and the 6th century CE, by which time the colonists had established their kingdom, and named their capital Vaishali. As a port city, Vaishali was in contact with Samatat (the planes of lower Bangladesh) and other parts of India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Historically, these early rulers came to be known as the Chandras and controlled the territories as far north as Chittagong.

The Anand Chandra Inscription, which contains 65 verses (71 and a half lines) and now sited at the Shitthaung pagoda, provides some information about these early rulers. Interestingly, neither the name of the kingdom or the two premier cities – Dhanyavati and Vaishali – is mentioned. This 11-foot high monolith, unique in entire Burma, has three of its four faces inscribed in a Nagari script, which is closely allied to those of Bengali and north-eastern India. As noted rightly by Noel Singer had it not been for Professor E.H. Johnston of Balliol College, Oxford, who translated the Sanskrit script and the Indian epigraphists before him, the contents of the Inscription which remained inaccessible for well over a thousand years would never have been known.

The script on the panel on the east face is believed by Johnston to be the oldest. According to Pamela Gutman it was similar to the type of script used in Bengal (Bangladesh) during the early 6th century CE. As to the panel on the north face, Johnston mentioned that several smaller inscriptions in Bengali characters had been added in the 10th century. Gutman however felt that the principal text in this section is of the mid-11th century CE. The panel on the west face, which is reasonably preserved, is believed by Gutman to be of the earlier part of the 8th century. This priceless document not only lists the personalities of each monarch but also some of the major events of every reign.

So who is this Ananda Chandra? In verse 64, it clearly says that he was a descendant of the Saiva-Andhra monarchs [presumably of Banga or Bangladesh] whose kingdom was located between the Godavari and Krishna Rivers of Bengal, and close to the Bay of Bengal. The founder of this new dynasty was Vajra Sakti who reigned circa 649-665 CE. His successor was Sri Dharma Vijaya, who reigned from circa 665-701. As noted by Singer, and much in contrast to Rakhine claims, Dharma Vijaya was not a Theravada Buddhist, but probably a Mahayanist. The next in line was Narendra Vijaya who reigned from circa 701 to 704 CE. The next to rule was Sri Dharma Chandra, who reigned from 704 to 720 CE. He was the father of Ananda Chandra who was a munificent patron of Mahayana Buddhism and Hindu institutions.

As can be clearly seen from the above brief review, the rulers that ruled Arakan, in centuries before the Sino-Tibetan invasion, were of Indian descent, as were the people (the so-called Kalas) who lived there. They had much in common with Banga, or today’s Bangladesh.

So what happened to those indigenous people after the invasion of Arakan in 957 CE by the Sino-Tibetan race? We have absolutely no historic evidence to suggest that they were exterminated. It is not difficult to understand that while the kingdom had changed hands, a majority of those indigenous people (the ‘Kalas’) continued on with their lives as usual, paying taxes (e.g., in grains) to their new rulers, as they had done before to the previous rulers. Some perhaps changed their faith to Buddhism, while many retained their ancestral religion. Theravada Buddhism, imported mostly from Sri Lanka, took centuries to take its root in Arakan, gradually replacing the Mahayanist Buddhism of the latter Vaisali rulers.

It is also important to note that many of the Sinhalese Buddhists, who later came as monks and settlers to Arakan, were the descendants of Bengali Buddhists who had fled the country as a result of internecine wars that took place between the forces of Hinduism and Buddhism in nearby Bengal in the centuries before Islam came to the region. As Buddhism was almost wiped out in Bengal by the Hindu rulers and the Brahmin clergy, it found a safe haven in Sri Lanka where it flourished. And who would have thought that centuries later those Singhalese Buddhists (with a remarkable facial similarity with the people of Bengal), the progenies of fleeing Buddhists from Bengal, would one day become the harbinger of the new faith - Theravada Buddhism -- in Arakan and rest of Burma?

While the previous Vaishali rulers looked westward, the newer Sino-Tibetan rulers looked eastward, thus allowing mixing of its race with Burman people of today’s Myanmar proper. Over the centuries, two communities emerged – one the indigenous with Indian (Bengali/Arakanese) features (the forefathers of today’s Rohingya Hindus and Muslims) and the other, the new-comer with Mongoloid features (the forefathers of today’s Rakhine Buddhists). It is not difficult to also conclude that in those days of porous borders across land and sea there were migration of other races and religions to this region. Buddhist monks, e.g., came from Sri Lanka bringing in their Theravada Buddhism, as did others, slowly changing the culture of the people living there.

It is simply regrettable to notice how today’s ultra-chauvinist Rakhine and Burman intelligentsia with tunnel-vision refuses to widen their knowledge of the ‘other’ people, Hindus and Muslims, who share the same territory. Anything Indian/Bengali/Chittagonian is usually looked down and frowned upon. It is pure racism at its worst.

==== to be continued ======

The 66th UN General Assembly Session and Obama’s Deplorable Tactics

2011-10-01T09:38:00.000-07:00

Last month the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the U.S. President Obama all spoke at the U.N. While for the first time in years, Abbas behaved and spoke like a leader, taking proactive measures instead of waiting for someone else to call the shots, it is hard to decide whose speech was worse: Netanyahu’s or Obama’s. Obama’s read like an appeal to Jewish voters to finance and reelect him in the next election and Netanyahu’s read like a pep rally to the Likud Central Committee.

In the post-Arafat era, President Abbas has more often than not behaved like a yes-man for the U.S., as if too unsure or too uncomfortable about speaking out against the mindless zero-sum activities that seem to be the only things that either the U.S. or the Israeli government cared about. But on Friday, September 23, he found his lost voice and assumed the title the Palestinian people have long waited for. He transformed himself to becoming their leader, their hero, in relaying their voice. It was long overdue.

In the 66th session of the General Assembly, President Abbas said, “It is a moment of truth; and my people are waiting to hear the answer of the world. Will it allow Israel to continue its occupation, the only occupation in the world? Will it allow Israel to remain a State above the law and accountability?” “There are either those that believe that we are not wanted in the Middle East or (those that believe) that there is a missing State that needs to be established immediately.”

He thanked the states that had supported the Palestinian struggle and had recognized the State of Palestine, and those that had upgraded Palestine’s representation in their capitals. He also thanked the U.N. Secretary-General for stating that the Palestinian State should have been created years ago; such support made the Palestinians feel that they were being listened to and that their tragedy was not being ignored. It also reinforced their hope for justice.

President Abbas then informed the Assembly that he had submitted to the Secretary-General an application for admission of Palestine, on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital, as a full United Nations member. “I call upon Mr. Secretary-General to expedite transmittal of our request to the Security Council, and I call upon the distinguished members of the Security Council to vote in favor of our full membership. I also appeal to the states that have not yet recognized the State of Palestine to do so,” he said. The world’s support for that was a “victory for truth, freedom, justice, law and international legitimacy” and was the greatest contribution to peacemaking in the Holy Land. In closing, he said: “I have come here today with a message from a courageous and proud people: Palestine is being reborn.” He implored everyone to stand with it.
In his speech, President Obama said that “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.” He also made it crystal clear that Washington will veto any Palestinian application to the U.N. Security Council for statehood. Not once did he refer to illegal Jewish “settlements” on Palestinian lands, nor did he even use the word “occupied” — or any derivative of that word in his long speech. Nor was there a word about the plight of the still besieged population of Gaza, or about the “1967 borders” as being the basis for any eventual two-state solution. Obama is truly becoming a joke of our time!

Honestly speaking, Obama does not surprise me any more. Since becoming the President of the USA, he has largely forgotten what got him elected and put him into the White House. It was to usher in a ‘change’ for the better from the dark days of GW Bush. To those who voted for Obama, Bush was a villain, an utterly evil man with a crusading zeal, who had deliberately lied and took the country into two unnecessary wars, thereby bankrupting it. Obama was supposed to be the ‘good’ guy restoring America’s honor and dignity. But Bush, whether one either loathes or loves him, was no hypocrite; at least people knew what to expect of him. But the same cannot be said of Obama. The latter has become the greatest disappointment of our time.

As I write, the Obama administration has assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan -- two of its own citizens, thus behaving like any of the hated authoritarian regimes of our time. By acting as the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and (finally now the) executioner – all at the same time – his administration has violated the Fifth Amendment, which forbids the U.S. federal government from depriving any person -- not just American citizens -- of life without due process of law. Commenting on the assassination, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, said, "Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." Paul noted the different treatment afforded the Oklahoma bomber. "What would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, and they were pretty certain he had done it. They went and put him through the courts, and then they executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

As is clear from his murderous activities overseas, Obama is not a man of peace! The Nobel Committee should do us all a favor by admitting its mistake and recall its Peace prize which they bestowed to this undeserving person.

In his Cairo speech two years ago, President Obama displayed some awareness of the Palestinian distress; but that was before he was enslaved by the U.S. pro-Israel lobby. Commenting on Obama’s speech at the UN, Hanan Ashrawi, a veteran Palestinian stateswoman, told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, “Listening to him, you would think it was the Palestinians who occupy Israel,” noting what even The New York Times suggested seemed to be the “hypocritical” nature of Obama’s enthusiasm for Arab democracy movements. “He presented a double standard when he disassociated the Arabs’ fight for their freedom in the region from the Palestinian freedom fighters, who deal with the occupation for 63 years,” she said. “What we heard is precisely why we are going to the U.N.,” she added.

By siding so brazenly with Netanyahu and against the Palestinian bid for statehood, Obama has put the final nail in the coffin of America’s status as a superpower, thus, forfeiting Washington’s 20-year exclusivity as broker of the clearly broken “peace process” between the two parties.

As Uri Avnery has recently observed, “Obama treated the two sides as if they were equal in strength — Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians and Israelis. But of the two, it is the Israelis — only they — who suffer and have suffered. Persecution. Exile. Holocaust. An Israeli child threatened by rockets. Surrounded by the hatred of Arab children. So sad. No occupation. No settlements. No June 1967 borders. No Naqba. No Palestinian children killed or frightened.”

This in spite of the fact that 6,430 Palestinians including 1,463 Palestinian children were killed by the Israelis since September 29, 2000! In the same period, more than 45,000 Palestinians have been injured, 5,554 Palestinians imprisoned and 24,813 Palestinian homes have been destroyed by the Israelis. The tolls on the Israeli side are zero home destroyed and one prisoner held (by Hamas). In the same period, Israel has built 236 Jewish-only settlements and outposts illegally on confiscated land. Obviously, none of these facts mattered to Obama.

The Arab Spring may have been America’s last chance to recover its tarnished standing in the Middle East. Obama stayed with Mubarak until it was too late; ‘crying Iranian wolves’, he sided with the murderous regime in Bahrain; he came to the aid of the rebels in Libya against Gaddafi but chose to ignore the plight of the Syrian people against their murderous tyrant Bashar al-Asad. Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. As Uri Avnery has put it, “No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the U.S. has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.”

And what a difference a year can make! Last year, Obama in his speech to the United Nations was full of promise and determination to advance Palestinian statehood through negotiations with Israel. He said in the UN General Assembly: “Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine – one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity... And we can come back here, next year, as we have for the last sixty, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances….Or, we can say that this time will be different – that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire. This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”

Ironically, in his speech last year, Obama reminded us about one of the first actions of the UN General Assembly, which was to adopt a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. “That Declaration begins by stating that, “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,” Obama said.
By promising to deny that very right to the Palestinian people, what message is Obama conveying to the world now? Can one conceive of freedom, justice and peace for the world without beginning with freedom, justice, and peace in the lives of individual human beings? By standing up against universal values, Obama has unmasked the immoral character of his administration. He foolishly thinks that such immoral stands -- and there are plenty to cite -- would get him reelected in 2012. Why would the pro-Israelis vote for him when they would have the likes of Rick Perry and other Christian fundamentalist nuts within the opposition to vote for? What Obama needed was a moral leadership to salvage his pathetic record, and not the deplorable hypocrisy or the pro-Israeli appeasements with which he has come to be associated with. His flip-flop actions have erased the support within the non-partisan center that he needs to get reelected.

Whether or not President Obama wields the butcher’s knife with his own hand, no one is under any delusion that his speech at the UN has killed the peace process. With such a support from Washington, it was no surprise that last Tuesday Israel announced 1,100 new housing units in east Jerusalem outside Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.
Israel is a pariah state, a fact once again demonstrated through the thunderous ovation that Abbas enjoyed (compared to Netanyahu) during his historic speech at the UN General Assembly. Its goal has been to expand its borders by swallowing up the West Bank and to make life so miserable for the Palestinian people that they will have no option but to leave. Lack of mobility restricts Palestinian livelihood. And the diversion of water into the Israeli settlements robs them of a basic necessity of their life. These are crimes against humanity. But in this age of information, she has been using endless zero-sum ‘peace talks’ as covers to complete her illegal annexation policy.

President Obama should reflect upon the fact that if the U.S. government vetoes Palestine’s bid for recognition by the U.N., it would be against America’s own declaration of independence which says that if people are denied equal rights and representative government, they have the right to resist their oppressors. It is a terrible hypocrisy of the Obama administration when it denies the rights to the Palestinian people that it cherishes at home and preaches abroad.
One can only pity Obama who lost the moral compass of what is right and what is wrong!

Debate with a known Rakhine Racist?

2011-09-15T06:37:00.000-07:00

I was asked about my views about debating with a known racist. Here below are my views on this subject:

A debate in a hall or media outlet is all about counterpoints raised by each participant about his/her position on a given subject with the sole aim of winning it. The question is does such an agenda - a debate with a Rakhine racist -- help the Rohingya cause vis-a-vis their accusers, who are racists and bigots? Aye Chan is a half-educated Rakhine with a PhD degree from a third-rate university who now teaches in a 4th rate university in Japan. He uses his laughable credential to masquerade as a Rakhine intellectual. But if one studies his work, there is nothing intellectually enlightening in his work other than his 'discoveries' about how the names Arakan and Akyab had originated, how the Rohingya people are a legacy of the British Occupation period, and how the current Rohingyas are infiltrators from Chittagong who are trying to take over Arakan and introduce the Taliban-brand of Islam on everyone. These are all false propaganda made with the single objective of uprooting the Rohingya people from their ancestral home in Arakan. One has to pity such ludicrous claims from a person who likes to claim himself as an intellectual. He is a pin-head charlatan, but dangerous enough to seed hatred to divide our world.

Before the mongoloid featured Tibeto-Burman savages moved into the crescent of Arakan, the indigenous people were brown-colored people, derogatorily termed 'Kalas' by the invaders. These indigenous people had everything in common with the people living on the other side of the Naaf river, and nothing to do and common with the wild people that lived on the forests to the north-east and the savages east of the Arakan Yoma mountain range.

If we recall Yoma is the Sanskrit word for what in Bengali is called Jom (devil, death or bad spirit). That is how it was named by the indigenous people because of the savages that lived there and the regions beyond to the north and east. Fearful of those savages, these indigenous people lived along the coastal areas, and thrived on rice cultivation grown in the plane land and the abundant supply of fish found in the sea, rivers, streams and ponds that they dug. These indigenous 'Kalas' mixing with the latter Muslim settlers/travelers/Sufis (including Arab/Persian merchants, traders, soldiers who came to restore Narameikhla to the Arakan throne, and others) created the genesis of today's Rohingya. The conversion of the 'Kalas' to Islam is no different than what has happened throughout history in the last 14 centuries along the coastal regions from Mozambique to Malacca. To call these indigenous people unwanted guests is like calling the Native Indians of America as refugees who had settled after the Europeans. So much for Aye Chan's pseudo-scholarship!

An intellectual is endowed with intellect having the power of understanding; having capacity for the higher forms of knowledge or thought; characterized by intelligence or mental capacity. Does Aye Chan possess any of these traits? I have failed to find any in his. He is a provocateur to tense relationship between two major groups in Arakan. Who benefits from such trash racism? It is the forces of divide and rule. Is he an agent for the hated Myanmar government? I won't be surprised to discover the under-table deals he has made with the regime.

A true intellectual concerned about his homeland should understand what is wrong with his native country and its people so as to find ways that would provide direction for upliftment, and getting out of the current sad state. Do you see anything remotely connected with this line of actions from Aye Chan or his peers? I have not. As I have repeatedly said he is like a cancer that spreads racism and bigotry in the fabric of Arakan eventually killing/weakening the nation. It is not the future any conscientious Arakanese Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist would like to see. But the Rakhine side has no wise intellectual and only the reincarnations of convicted Nazi criminals like Julius Streicher in the likes of Aye Chan, Aye Kyaw and Khin Maung Saw, and their ilk, who sell the tablet of hatred packaged as the boogeyman of 'Islamization of Arakan by the Rohingya'. They are essentially fascists.

Sharing a dais with a fascist is not something that is either noble or wise. It would give credibility to hatred. The best one can get is: call it a draw; and nothing better. It would be a shouting match and unruly. In his so-called invitation to debate the Rohingya issue, Aye Chan is craving for publicity, and wants to get a free audience at a high cost to the Rohingya, who must organize and pay for the meeting, with no burden unto him or his group for free publicity of hatred. Such debates require a strong neutral moderator to conduct it in a civic way, none of which one can guarantee to find. If Aye Chan is serious about a debate, let him organize such an event with invitation made to the Rohingya people to debate him or his ilk in a civic forum that is moderated neutrally by a university professor of repute. I would have no problem endorsing such a move.

As I shared in an earlier note, what is needed is propagating the Rohingya view widely by all the avenues that are out there, including popularizing and sharing the correct analyses and views on the Rohingya that many of us have written, or available sources from unbiased scholars. There are quite a few good works on this subject that should be made available to policy makers in each country.

Finally again, I won't support wasting money or resources to give a voice to racism and bigotry, so typical of the likes of Aye Chan. He is a fascist intellectual for his chauvinist people, and is not an honorable person possessing integrity, analytical thinking, and wisdom that we should give publicity to. What we need is: refutation of every false propaganda that he makes so that truth prevails, and people have the ability to discern truth from his false campaigns.

Aye Chan's Selective Amnesia – a brief analysis

2011-09-14T16:14:00.000-07:00

Aye Chan is a Rakhine racist and bigot who has made a profession out of distorting history of Muslims of Arakan. His latest article "Burma’s Western Border as Reported by the Diplomatic Correspondence (1947 – 1975)" is another such evil attempt to justify aggression and oppression against the Rohingya Muslims of Arakan (and Burma). In his twisted logic he shows his selective amnesia about the crimes of his own racist group while being all agog about the so-called secession movement of the Rohingyas in the dying days of the British rule in South Asia.

Aye Chan's latest disingenuous attempt to revise history should not surprise anyone that is well acquainted with the history of partition of British India and emergence of Burma as a free nation. During that period, many activists of the freedom movement felt that it was not what they had bargained for with the leaders of the dying British Colonial administration. Even the Arakanese people wanted a state of their own away from the control of the Burmans. Muslims of Kashmir wanted to be part of Pakistan, a matter that was left unresolved because while the territory had some 80-90% Muslims, its ruler was a Hindu. So was the case with princely state of Hyderabad, ruled by Muslim nobility over Hindu majority.

In the then East Pakistan no one knew for a short period after 14-15 August 1947, whether Sylhet and Karimganj, two places with huge Muslim population would become part of Pakistan or became part of India. The same goes for other territories all along the boundaries that we see today. Boundary demarcation was not clear. Some border towns had one day the Indian flag raised, only to be replaced by the Pakistani flag next day, or week, and vice versa. So, if the Rohingya Muslim people of Northern Arakan, where it is overwhelmingly Muslim, had desired during the independence of Pakistan and Burma to be connected with fellow Muslims in East Pakistan, because of their cultural ties, was it totally out of line? I doubt that.
Even the Rakhines did not want to be part of Burma. There were insurgencies, communist and nationalist alike, raging everywhere inside Burma. From the 1950s, there was a growing movement for secession and restoration of independence of Arakan. In part to appease this sentiment, in 1974, the socialist government under General Ne Win constituted Rakhine State from Arakan Division giving at least nominal acknowledgment of the regional majority of the Rakhine people. This was an unfortunate and ill-conceived decision, planting the seeds of racism in a divided country along ethnic lines that would complicate the relationship between the two major ethnic groups, Rakhines and Rohingyas. Islamic separatists calling themselves the Mujahid also carried out a rebellion to create an Islamic state in the regions bordering Chittagong/Cox's Bazar (of the then East Pakistan). Now to blame the Rohingyas for their piece of struggle, while hiding crimes of the Rakhine insurgency, is insincere and racist to the core. It is not analysis but paralysis of independent and unbiased thinking! As the dust settled, which by the way did take some years with all those killings of founding leaders of Burma, the disparate people of Burma have learned to live with the new reality of military autocracy. But Burma still remains a fractured country of nations where racism runs deep and wisdom a rarity, even amongst its intellectuals.

Today's Rohingya people have no desire for a separate homeland of their own, if their basic human rights can be protected. But if they continue to be treated as outsiders, infiltrators, and all the false xenophobic, or rather racist, epithets thrown at them by their hateful accusers, then it is high time for the conscience minded people of our planet to demand a change with such an attitude that forces these indigenous people of Arakan to live a life of statelessness inside Burma, or of unwanted refugees outside.

Historically, the people of Arakan and Chittagong were the same people living along the coastal shorelines of the Bay of Bengal. The River Naaf which now separates Burma from Bangladesh was not a physical barrier to these indigenous people. People of this joint landmass lived for centuries together before they became part of either the Muslim Sultanate or Buddhist Rule.

The indigenous people, the true Bhumiputras (adibashis), were these brown-colored (Indian featured) people whose descendants now live in northern Arakan (whom we know as the Rohingyas) and Chittagong/Cox's Bazar districts of today's Bangladesh (known as the Chittagonians). Their racial similarity was mostly because of that connected shoreline, away from the Arakan Yoma mountain range that had separated this crescent on the Bay of Bengal from the thrust of savages coming from the north and the east. Their dialect was also same (originating from Sanskrit, which later evolved into Bangla) until much later in history, when the Muslim ruled Chittagong absorbed lots of Farsi and Arabic terms in their vocabulary, as a result of Sultanate and Mughal rule of Bengal.

It took the late 10th century for this landmass of Arakan, then ruled by Hindu kings, to come under the possession of the Tibeto-Burman Buddhist invaders from the north. While the northern territories of Chittagong survived from the takeover, it took a few centuries, until the Mrauk-U dynasty to cement this relationship between the two sides of the Naaf River. Nurtured by the new rulers who were indebted to the Bengal Sultan who had restored Narameikhla back to power in 1430, Mrohaung (sounding Rohang or Roshang - in Bengali), the capital city, became the literary center of Bengali literature. From then on, the cultural link between the two sides was only punctuated during the Burman invasion of Arakan in 1784, when tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims and Hindus, and Rakhine Buddhists were killed and enslaved. Many fled to Chittagong and settled there. During the British occupation, dating back to 1824, some of the children and grandchildren of these exiles returned to cultivate the land that had become desolate. Many however, chose to remain in Chittagong, as is well recorded and documented to this date.

The obnoxious claim that the Rohingyas are a product of British occupation period, or of even later time, or geopolitics of the region, is absolutely false. It is ludicrous and aimed at denying basic rights of citizenship to these people. Not only is this 1982 Citizenship Law in Burma (interestingly written by Rakhine racists like Aye Kyaw, himself a naturalized American, living in NY city) at variance with all laws of our civilized world, it is downright criminal, and must be altered, thus allowing restoring rights of this unfortunate people, and many other races and ethnicities (including the Karen).

Even on another level, when we consider that it took less than a decade for many of these Rakhine exiles, now comfortably living as naturalized citizens in their adopted countries - USA, Germany, Canada, Japan and other parts of Europe, it is really bizarre to see them advocating for denial of citizenship rights to the Rohingya people. How long should they wait? Even if one were to accept the Rakhine version of false propaganda that the Rohingyas had infiltrated the territory in the mid-19th century, is not these 100 plus years sufficient?

Funny that these hostile racists and bigots of the Rakhine community claim that they are democratic minded and would love to see a federal state where democracy runs supreme! Their provocative statements, and the lies that they propagate, and the hatred that they spew, inciting violence against minority, only go on to show that they are fascists, and nothing else.

Aye Chan, who works for the Kanda University of International Studies in Japan, gives a bad name to scholarship and critical analytical thinking. His racist and bigotry-ridden writings that provoke his ethnic Rakhine group and the hated Myanmar military regime to justify their inhuman crimes against the Rohingyas of Burma show that he is also a disgrace to the Kanda University and the civilized world who has learned to move on burying their age old hatred and build a better society for our human race. Shame on Aye Chan and his peers and patrons!

Bush's Invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 - Was it Avoidable?

2011-09-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

As I maintained in many of my posts the U.S. War against Afghanistan surely could have been avoided if the Bush Administration was serious. Instead, from the very outset, flanked by war-criminals-to-be, it wanted to embark on a different course. Just as pundits today would agree that even if 9/11 did not happen, Bush and his warmongers - Cheney and Rumsfeld - were well prepared to strike Iraq to complete the unfinished task of Bush Sr., the same is the case with Afghanistan. The Bush administration had no interest in peacefully resolving the OBL factor.

In an exclusive interview, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban's last foreign minister, tells Al-Jazeera that the Taliban government, which then controlled Afghanistan, made several proposals to the United States to present the al-Qaeda leader for trial for his involvement in plots targeting U.S. facilities during the 1990s.

"Even before the (9/11) attacks, our Islamic emirate had tried -- through various proposals -- to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)," Muttawakil says.

"But the U.S. showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had not relations with the U.S., no agreement of any sort. They did not recognize our government."

Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials. It quotes Grenier as saying Washington considered the offers a "ploy." "Another idea was that [bin Laden] would be brought to trial before a group of Ulema [religious scholars] in Afghanistan," Grenier is quoted as saying. "No one in the U.S. government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial."

For a reading of the interview with the then Taliban Foreign Minister read here.

Now look what has happened. America is in debts to the tune of some 18 trillion dollars, where those uncalled for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, factor large. Bush and his criminal partners in crime saw war as a means to prosperity for their friends in oil and defense industry, while still hoping that some would even trickle down to ordinary Americans. None of those Satanic wishes has turned into reality. Two wars were launched, which surely could have been avoided, if Bush was serious.

Is it that difficult to picture how our world would have been minus those wars?

The 10th Anniversary of 9/11 – America’s Pyrrhic Experience

2011-09-10T20:29:00.000-07:00

This Sunday is the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which, by any account, was a momentous event in American history. In the post-World War II period, never before has the USA suffered such a massive loss in human lives and properties. The total cost to the USA has been estimated by the New York Times at a whopping $3.3 trillion, including $55 billion from the loss of lives and materials. While not all of the costs have been borne by the government — and some are still to come — this total equals one-fifth of the current national debt.

Here is the breakdown of the estimates. In 2002, the New York City comptroller's office estimated the cost of replacing destroyed and damaged property at $26 billion. And another $29 billion was estimated for the value of life and injury. The estimates of the economic impact of the attacks ranged from about $40 billion to $122 billion in a group of studies led by the CREATE Homeland Security Center at the prestigious University of Southern California. John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark G. Stewart, an Australian engineer, have estimated the increase in spending of $589 billion for homeland security and non-war-related national intelligence since 2001. The estimate of total war funding by the Congressional Research Service including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as medical care for veterans, is $1649 billion. The estimate of war funding from 2012 to 2016 and the cost of caring for veterans over the next 40 years is $867 billion (of which $55 and $223 billion are expected to be spent for Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively).

We are also told that the total cost on the al-Qaeda side to bring this massive loss to the USA was less than half a million dollars. That is, the USA has spent about $7 million for every dollar Al Qaeda spent planning and executing the attacks on 9/11. Knowing that only a tiny fraction of the $3.3 trillion cost figure to America owes it to the loss of lives and properties suffered as a result of the attack, it is high time to ask was George W. Bush’s decision to launch the two pyrrhic wars justifiable?

The wars are still raging. As a mater of fact August 2011 has been the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the conflict began nearly 10 years ago with 66 US troops dead this month. This includes the deadliest attack on US forces since the beginning of the conflict, when 30 US service members, including 17 Navy SEALS, were killed when Taliban forces shot down their helicopter.

What is worse: there are unconfirmed reports that al-Qaeda is again seeking to harm Americans and in particular, target New York and Washington to avenge for the death of their martyred leader! Acutely aware of these factors, law enforcement around the country had already increased security measures at airports, nuclear plants, train stations and other important places. The latest threat has also prompted the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad to boost their vigilance in preparation for the anniversary.

In the nearly 10 years since 9/11 a lot of money has been spent in America on reducing the risk of another major terrorist attack. It is clearly time to compare the cost of security measures with the benefits as tallied in lives saved and damages averted. A security measure, as rightly noted in their study by Mueller and Stewart, is cost-effective when the benefit of the measure outweighs the costs of providing it. The benefit of a security measure = (probability of a successful attack) x (losses sustained in the successful attack) x (reduction in risk). The "probability of a successful attack" is the likelihood a successful terrorist attack will take place if no new security measures are put in place, and "reduction in risk" is the effectiveness of the new measures to foil, deter, disrupt, or protect against a terrorist attack. The same equation can be used to calculate how many attacks will have to take place to justify the expenditure.

Mueller and Stewart assumed that the total reduction in risk was 95%, and also applied the 2010 foiled attack in New York City to cost effectiveness equation. In 2010, a vigilant Muslim street vendor working in New York City largely averted a terrorism attack by a vehicle bomber in Times Square. Had the bomber been successful he might have caused a dozen fatalities with loss of life and property damage worth $100 million. The result was that for the counter terrorism spending since 9/11 to be fully justified, homeland security would have had to deter, prevent, foil or protect against 1667 Times Square style attacks a year, or more than four a day.

Mueller and Stewart, similarly, evaluated the 2005 attacks on underground trains and a bus in London that killed 52 people and injured many hundreds of commuters and passers by. The losses from such attacks would not exceed $5 billion. In their estimate, for enhanced security measures to be cost-effective for attacks of that magnitude, their rate of occurrence without those enhanced measures would have had to exceed 30 a year. If one posits that such an attack is thwarted once a year -- a conservative threat-likelihood by any measure -- the ratio of benefit to cost is a meager 0.03 meaning that spending $1 buys only 3¢ of benefits. For a terrorist of the magnitude of 9/11 costing $200 billion, the enhanced expenditures would be cost-effective only if that sort of attack would have occurred more than once a year.

Bottom line: the frequency and severity of terrorist attacks are so low that the benefits of enhanced counter terrorism expenditures of a trillion dollars since 9/11 are not justifiable by any rational and accepted standard of cost-benefit analysis. As the authors of the study noted, instead of saving lives, extravagant homeland security spending is, in a sense, costing lives. In the past month over 320 people were killed by tornadoes in the US, and yet there are studies that show $200 million spent subsidizing the purchase of tornado shelters for mobile home owners could have saved 30 lives during the life of the shelters. These are guaranteed lives saved for a modest government investment. There are other examples ranging from air bags to smoke alarms to pharmaceuticals known to save many lives. The authors opine that diverting even a small proportion of homeland security spending to such measures could save many lives at a fraction of the cost.

These findings are not much different from the conclusions reached by other studies conducted earlier. Virginia Tech public policy professor Patrick Roberts wrote in the Review of Policy Research in 2005, the creation of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was "an example of the triumph of symbolic and distributive policies over more straightforward attempts to address the real problems of homeland security."

When the DHS was formed, it absorbed 22 disparate agencies, cramming them into a single, 230,000-person mega-bureaucracy. Without a clear overall strategy, the grant money DHS was responsible for allocating went out to states regardless of their needs. Huge defense contractors took advantage of the easy funding to pitch untested products. "It opened a floodgate of money for private industry to sell scanners and other devices," said Charles Perrow, a Yale sociology professor who has called the creation of DHS "The Disaster After 9/11."

In 2006, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee identified 32 DHS contracts "collectively worth $34.3 billion that have been plagued by waste, abuse, or mismanagement" during the first five years after 9/11. In 2008, the House Committee on Homeland Security listed $15 billion in failed contracts since the department's founding.

The USA is on a high alert now. This yearly ‘al-Qaeda fear factor’ is costing the USA today billions of dollars, pushing it more and more into a debtor country. Unless corrective actions are taken, the USA cannot avoid the fate embraced by King Pyrrhus of Epirus in 279-280 BCE: ‘one more such victory would utterly undo him.’

Is the US government ready to learn from history and amend its ways to avoid a repeat of 9/11?

The blessed Night of Power

2011-08-28T11:14:00.000-07:00

The blessed month of Ramadan is coming to an end. The first one-third of the month was for seeking mercy, the middle one-third for forgiveness and the last one-third for salvation from the Fire of Hell. In the last part of this month lies hidden the Night of Power or Decree (Laylatul Qadr) about which Allah says in the Qur’an:
The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. (97:3)

As to the reason behind revelation of this powerful verse of the Qur’an, Imam as-Suyuti (rahmatullahi alayh) mentions in his book "Lubaabun Nuqool" that once Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, meaning - may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) [herein after abbreviated as (S)], mentioned about the story of a person from among the Children of Israel who had strived (jihad fi-sabilillah) in the path of Allah for 1000 months. Upon hearing this, the Sahabah (companions) were astonished and at the same time they became very despondent on the basis that how will they ever be able to accomplish such a feat (after all, very few live that long to be able to engage oneself in jihad for 83 years and 4 months). So Allah revealed this noble verse as a solace to the believers. The followers of Muhammad (S) don’t have to match what that pious Israelite had done; only a fully engaged worship of one night in the Night of Power (Laylatul Qadr) – would be equivalent in merit.

A similar story is mentioned in another Hadith: there was a pious man from the Children of Israel who used to be engaged in the worship of Allah from the evening till the following morning, and then be engaged in the jihad fi-sabilillah from the morning till the evening. He did this continuously for a thousand months. So Allah revealed this verse stating that the worship in this night alone is better than the thousand months which the person had spent in worship and jihad.

So, the question arises when is this Night of Power? The answer is provided by Prophet Muhammad (S) who said: “Seek it in the last ten; and if one of you is too weak or unable then let him not allow that to make him miss the final seven.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Although to encourage worship amongst believers, this Night has not been pinpointed, a more common understanding amongst Muslims is that it falls on an odd night (23rd, 25th, 27th or 29th), and possibly the 27th of Ramadan.

Because of its merit, the Prophet (S) used to exert himself greatly during Laylatul-Qadr. He would spend the nights in worship. The Prophet (S) said: “Whoever stands (in prayer) in Laylatul Qadr out of Iman (faith) and seeking reward then his previous sins are forgiven.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Given the fact that the people of the Book (e.g., Children of Israel and Christians) don’t have anything remotely close to this blessing, Muslims feel highly blessed by God because of unfathomable merits of this blessed night which comes every year during the month of Ramadan – the Muslim month of fasting. It is, thus, not surprising to witness that many pious Muslims spend the entire night of the last 7 to 10 days of Ramadan awake -- praying, reciting the Qur'an and giving away charity (specially in disbursing their zakat and sadqah) hoping to earn the merit of good deeds of 1000 months.

On a comparable matter, it is worth noting that the Jewish Jubilee (Hebrew Yov-el) year - preeminently a time of joy, the year of remission or universal pardon - is the year at the end of seven cycles of Sabbatical years (Hebrew Shmita). And according to the Bible it came once every fifty years: “You shall sanctify the 50th year and proclaim freedom throughout the land for all its inhabitants; it shall be the Jubilee year for you, you shall return each person to his ancestral heritage and you shall return each to his family. It shall be a Jubilee Year for you - the 50th year - you shall not sow, you shall not harvest its after-growth and you shall not pick what was set aside of it for yourself. For it is a Jubilee Year, it shall be holy to you; from the field you eat its crop." (Leviticus 25:10-13)

Basically, these verses indicate that the Jubilee required all debts between ALL people (Jews and gentiles alike) to be annulled (although the practice was limited amongst the Jews only). Also, any Jew that sold his or herself into slavery is to be released, whether they worked the amount of time they promised, or not.
Rashi, an eleventh century (CE) Jewish scholar, pointed out that the world Jubilee was related to the Hebrew word for "ram," alluding to the fact that the Jubilee year was proclaimed by the blast of a ram's horn. Nachmanides, another great Jewish scholar, added that the word Jubilee was also related to the Hebrew word which means "to move around." Thus, all Jews who had sold themselves into slavery, or were shackled (so to speak) by debt, were to be released from their bonds on the Jubilee year and were to be given the freedom to move around freely.

According to the rabbinical sources, the origination of the counting of the Jubilee Year did not quite start with the time when the Children of Israel had entered the Holy Land (under Joshua), but rather after they finished conquering the Holy Land and after apportioning it to each family, which was 1288 BCE (Ref: Maimonides - Laws of Shmita and Jubilee 10:2). The first Jubilee was forty-nine years later.

Although the Sanhedrin was in charge of counting the years and ensuring its accuracy, and ensuring that the Jewish nation was notified of the Jubilee year's arrival by the blast of the shofar at the end of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 25:8 and Numbers 35:4), there is absolutely no credible historical evidence suggesting that it was observed religiously every fifty years in the centuries shortly before the advent of Jesus. The latter evidences even suggest that it might have been observed every hundred years during the time of Jesus, son of Mary.

For example, the apocryphal book – Gospel of Barnabas – puts these words in the mouth of Jesus, saying: “I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah, sent of God to all the world; for whom God hath made the world. And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place.” (Chapter 82)

As to the identity of this Messiah, the Jesus of the Gospel of Barnabas, is quite explicit, when asked by a priest, answering: "The name of the Messiah is admirable [Ar. Muhammad], for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Muhammad; for your sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make you a present, insomuch that whoever shall bless you shall be blessed, and whoever shall curse you shall be accursed. When I shall send you into the world I shall send you as my Messenger of salvation, and your word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but your faith shall never fail." Muhammad is his blessed name." Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: "O God send us your Messenger: O Muhammad, come quickly for the salvation of the world!" (Chapter 97)

In chapter 84, the Jesus of Gospel of Barnabas after completing one of the midnight prayers reportedly said, "Let us give thanks to God because he has given to us this night great mercy; for that he has made to come back the time that needs must pass in the night, in that we have made prayer in union with the Messenger of God. And I have heard his voice." The disciples rejoiced greatly at hearing this…”
Is it possible that the aforementioned night is the Laylatul Qadr – the Night of Power, mentioned in the Qur’an? And God knows the best!
====-====

Whatever may be the controversy surrounding the authenticity of each of the gospels – canonical and apocryphal – now attributed to the disciples – real or self-styled – of Jesus, son of Mary, the Qur’an – the Last Testament of God to mankind - is rather unambiguous about the merit of Laylatul Qadr. This night, thus, remains the most sought-after night amongst the faithful Muslims.

As the end of the blessed month of Ramadan approaches, let us remind ourselves with the wise advice of Abul Abbas al-Sabti (may Allah have mercy on him): "The secret of Fasting is that you are hungry. When you are hungry you remember the one who is always hungry and know the strength of the fire of hunger that afflicts him, so that you become charitable towards him. Thus, if you deny yourself food but have no compassion for the hungry and your Fasting does not cause this idea to occur to you, you have not [truly] Fasted and have not understood the intended meaning of the Fast." [Al-Tashawwuf ila rijal al-tasawwuf wa akhbar Abil Abbas al-Sabti: Yusuf ibn al-Zayyat al-Tadili]

According to ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (may Allah be pleased with him), a Companion, the Prophet Muhammad (S) used to say upon entering this month of Ramadan: "O Allah, greet and save me for Ramadan; greet and save Ramadan; greet and save Ramadan on my behalf, and grant me its acceptance (Allahumma sallimnee li ramadana wa sallim ramadana wa sallimhu minnee mutaqabbilan)."

May Allah accept our fasting and save us for this and the next Ramadan. Amin.

I wish you all a happy Eid.

Disturbing Evangelical Trends in Politics of America

2011-08-25T10:14:00.000-07:00

An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus is establishing a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role.

The International Apostolic and Prophetic Movement was named the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, by its leading architect, C. Peter Wagner. Rachel Tabachnick has been researching and writing about this movement. She says although the movement is larger than the network of apostles organized by Wagner, and not all those connected with the movement describe themselves as part of Wagner's NAR, the apostles and prophets of the movement have an identifiable ideology that separates them from other Evangelicals.

Two ministries in the movement, The Call, led by Lou Engle, and the International House of Prayer, led by Mike Bickle, helped organize Rick Perry's recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared on stage.

The Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2005 while praying for Jesus to protect her from the spirit of witchcraft is also part of this movement.

For details, please, read the NPR's transcript of the interview conducted in the Fresh Air by Terry Gross with Rachel Tabachnick on August 24.

Essence of Ramadan

2011-08-21T12:55:00.000-07:00

Muslims throughout the world are now observing Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting in accordance with the dictates of the Qur’an – the Muslim Holy Scripture, in which they are commanded by Allah:
O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may (learn) self-restraint (Taqwa). (2:183)

The word "Ramadan" comes from the Arabic root word for "parched thirst" and "sun-baked ground." Through fasting, a Muslim experiences hunger and thirst, and sympathizes with those in the world who have little to eat and drink every day. It teaches him/her to be charitable. Through increased charity, Muslims develop feelings of generosity and good-will toward others.

As is clear from the above Qur’anic verse, the essence of fasting is learning Taqwa, which is more than self-restraint (translated above). It is God-consciousness which endows the person (the Muttaqi) to be aware of the presence of Allah in every moment of his/her life.

As to the characteristics of a Muttaqi, the Qur’an says:
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards east or west; but it is righteousness - to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the muttaqoon. (2:177)
In his famous book Kimiya-e Sa’dat, Imam al-Ghazzali (r) tells the story of a certain Shaykh [Junayd al-Baghdadi (r)] who favored one of his disciples over others because of the latter’s God-consciousness. Other disciples obviously were jealous about the Shaykh’s favoritism. One day to prove the point, the Shaykh gave each disciple a fowl to kill it in a place where no one could see him. All the disciples returned after killing their fowls, except the favored disciple. The Shaykh inquired why he had returned with the live fowl. The disciple replied, “I could not find a place where Allah would not see me.” His God-consciousness (Taqwa) did not allow him to be heedless of Allah’s presence. The Shaykh then told his other disciples: “Now you know this youth’s real rank; he has attained to the constant remembrance of Allah.”

Fasting increases devotion, and brings a Muslim closer to the Creator. It creates the recognition that everything we have in this life is a blessing from Him. It teaches self-control or -restraint, and thereby, good manners, good speech, and good habits.
Fasting during Ramadan is one of the major pillars of Islam, and this is also noted in the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (S) [blessings of Allah and peace be upon him] who said: “Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): (1) To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle; (2) to establish the prayers; (3) to pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity); (4) to perform Hajj (i.e. Pilgrimage to Makkah); (5) to observe fast during the month of Ramadan.” [Bukhari: (narrated by) Abdullah Ibn 'Umar]
While fasting is an obligation for all able-bodied persons who are not traveling or sick, it is also clear from some other verses of the Qur’an and numerous sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (S) that fasting is not restricted to the month of Ramadan, and can be observed voluntarily at other times. The Prophet (S) used to fast on Mondays and Thursdays almost on a regular basis. Fasting a certain number of days (or offering charity or sacrifice) can be an expiation for missing out (or unintentionally breaking) some religious obligations of either Hajj or ‘Umra (Qur’an 2:196, 5:96), and for forgetting or breaking one’s oaths or promises (Qur’an 5:89).

Great merits and rewards – both physical and spiritual – can be drawn from fasting. As noted by Dr. Shahid Athar, M.D., “The physiological effect of fasting includes lowering of blood sugar, lowering of cholesterol and lowering of the systolic blood pressure. In fact, Ramadan fasting would be an ideal recommendation for the treatment of mild to moderate, stable, non-insulin diabetes, obesity, and essential hypertension.”

As stated in the Qur’an, Allah promises forgiveness and vast reward for a fasting person:

Lo! Muslim men and women (who submit to Allah), and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who speak the truth and women who speak the truth, and men who persevere (in righteousness) and women who persevere, and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard (their modesty), and men who remember Allah much and women who remember - Allah hath prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward. (33:35)

In a well-known hadith, Muhammad (S) said, “Allah, the Almighty and Master of Honor, says: ‘All actions of a person are for himself, except the case of his fasting which is exclusively for Me and I shall pay (recompense) for him for the same.’ The fast is a shield (against vice and the fire of Hell). Therefore when anyone of you is fasting he should abstain from loose talk and avoid verbosity and noisy exchange of words.” [Bukhari and Muslim: Abu Hurayrah]

And when one combines such meritorious deeds like prayer, fasting and charity (three of the five pillars of Islam) during the month of Ramadan, which is described as a month of blessing when the Qur’an was revealed, Allah promises immense rewards. Muhammad (S), Allah's Apostle said: "Whoever establishes prayers during the nights of Ramadan faithfully out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah's rewards (not for showing off), all his past sins will be forgiven." [Bukhari: Abu Hurayrah]

To a Muslim, it is this state of God-consciousness, attainable through fasting -- for surely, the evils of the nafs (ego, evil-self, etc.) cannot be tamed without this, which is learned in the blessed month of Ramadan. It is at this stage that a person truly becomes Allah’s servant (‘abd) for whom He says in the Qur’an:

When My servants ask thee (Muhammad) concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way. (2: 186)

Alas, today’s Muslims are a far cry from those who follow the dictates of the Qur’an. They may like to listen to the advice of Ibrahim ibn Adham (r), a great saint of Islam, when he was asked, "Allahu ta'ala declares: 'O My human creatures! Ask Me! I will accept, I will give!’ Nonetheless, we ask but He does not give?"

Ibrahim (r) said: "You entreat Allahu ta'ala, but you do not obey Him. You know His Prophet (S), but you do not follow him. You read the Qur'an al-Karim, but you do not follow the way it prescribes. You utilize Allah ta'ala's blessings, but you do not thank Him. You know that Paradise is for those who worship, but you do not make preparations for it. You know that He has created Hell for the disobedient, but you do not fear it. You see what happened to your fathers and grandfathers, but you do not take a warning. You do not see your own defects, and you search for defects in others. Such people must be thankful, since it does not rain stones on them, since they do not sink into the earth, and since it does not rain fire from the sky! What else could they want? Would not this suffice as a recompense for their prayers?" [Ithbat an-Nubuwwat]

On another occasion, somebody asked the Ibrahim ibn Adham (r) for advice. He said: “If you accept six things, nothing you do will harm you. These six things are:
1) When you intend to commit a sin, do not eat the food He gives. Does it befit you to eat His food and to disobey Him?
2) When you want to rebel against Him, go out of His Domain. Does it befit you to be in His Domain and to be in rebellion against Him?
3) When you want to disobey Him, do not sin where He sees you. Sin where He does not see you! It is simply unbecoming to be in His Domain, to eat His food and then to sin where He sees you!
4) When the Angel of Death comes to take away your soul, ask him to wait till you repent. You cannot turn that angel back! Repent before he comes, while you have the chance at this very hour, for the Angel of Death comes unexpectedly!
5) When the two angels Munkar and Nakir come to question you in the grave, turn them back. Do not let them test you!”
“It is impossible,” said the person who asked for his advice.
Ibrahim (r) said, "Then prepare your answers now!"
6) On the Day of Resurrection, when Allah ta'ala declares: "Sinners, go to Hell!" say that you will not!
The person said, "Nobody will listen to me," and then repented; he did not disavow his sense of penitence up until death. There is a Divine effect in the words of a saint. [Islamic Wisdom]

May this Ramadan lay the foundation stone to the path of Taqwa!

Bangladesh’s Political Insanity?

2011-08-13T14:45:00.000-07:00

In recent days, the Economist of the U.K. seems to have taken more than a casual interest about the sad state of politics inside Bangladesh, which has been a nasty partisan one with an illiberal democracy for the last two decades. While such an interest may be a boon to stir a healthy debate about the health of a failing democracy, I was not too happy with the partisan tone of the analyst who wrote on August 13 under the pseudonym Banyan. It is absurd to take such pieces seriously when we even don't know who has written the piece.

The politics in Bangladesh has been abused by those in power with a winner-takes-all attitude. This trend was neither started by the ruling Awami League when in 2008 it swept to power in a landslide, nor will it probably end with its fall. The ruling party never learns how to compromise and build consensus across the aisle on the parliament floor. It carries out partisan policies and takes draconian measures, all aimed at marginalizing its opposition, hoping that such would ensure its victory in the next election, only to find that they are rejected by its electorate. This is the most important lesson which the leaders of Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), often accused of entertaining dynastic ideas, have foolishly tried to be oblivious of. There is a name for such an attitude. I call it insanity!

True to Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s remark more than half a century ago that “What Bengal (comprising of today’s Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal in India) thinks today, India thinks tomorrow,” the Bangladeshi people are probably the most politically conscious of all the people living in South Asia. They have never made a mistake when they went to the polls to disrobe a political party while replacing it by another. They were not wrong when they voted for the Jukto Front in 1954 and the Awami League in 1970 as part of what was once East Pakistan. Minus the military period of 1975-91, nor were they wrong in any election held ever since December 16 of 1971, when Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation. They were not wrong when in 1946 they overwhelmingly voted for Pakistan in what was then British India. There were not wrong either in December of 2008 when they voted for the coalition led by Mrs Hasina Wazed of the Awami League.

Unfortunately, this piece of essential history, that has defined much of the Bangladeshi character, its sense of intellectual superiority and political correctness, is often forgotten by the new leaders that came to power since 1975.

If today’s leaders of major political parties had respected their electorate and learned that bitter lesson that Bangladeshi people don't like the aspiring Pharaohs, Nawabs and princes, the arrogant snobs and the extremist zealots, the thugs and robbers that spoil and steal their wealth, we would have been spared of this insanity and it could have been a big plus for the failing health of democracy in Bangladesh. If they had learned that ‘the politics of Bengal is in reality the economics of Bengal’, they probably would have cared more for improving the economy rather than coming up with chauvinistic political agendas and narratives that have brought nothing good but harmed the economy of the country through mindless strikes and counter-strikes.

And probably, there has never been a better time in the last two decades to changing this paradigm than after the election of December 2008, dubbed my most outside experts as the fairest poll in the country’s four-decade history. There was that wave of national optimism that the newly sworn Prime Minister would use her party’s popularity to strengthen democratic institutions and pursue national reconciliation, putting an end to a vicious cycle of nasty politics between the Awami League and its major rival, the BNP. But that hope seems to be scuttled by allegations that she had used the huge mandate for partisan advantage. Her opponents say that she has been more interested in sanctifying her late father’s (Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman -- who was the founder of the country) image and solidifying her party’s position than real changes that are necessary to either change Bangladesh from an illiberal democracy to a liberal democracy or improve her economy from its 7 percent GDP growth rate to a healthier double digit one.

There is no denying that power is abused in every illiberal democracy, let alone autocratic, anti-people regimes of our planet. It is this abuse at the top which leads to unfathomable corruption and crime spreading like a virus in every public sector. And, in this regard, Bangladesh has plenty of examples with filthy rich politicians, their beneficiaries and benefactors. She has her share of ‘untouchable’ ‘princes’, a few ‘disposable’ godfathers, and many sycophants. Thus, when the erstwhile military-controlled Caretaker Government came into power in 2007, putting some of these thugs behind the prison cells, people started celebrating and dreaming once again (much like the independence day celebration of 1971) that their days of sad past living under the thugs and criminals were over. It only took few months to have the rude awakening that ‘whoever goes to Lanka becomes a Ravana.’ The caretaker government was no saint!

Bangladesh’s history is, therefore, a sad tragicomedy played by political actors who come and go through the swing door of politics, never to learn from its bloody past that has witnessed so many assassinations. As my sagacious father would say it would require seven layers of soil to be exchanged before anything good to come out of this unfortunate land! A sad commentary, and yet, probably a correct one, for an unfortunate people!

Politics and, more correctly, the political leaders have betrayed the Bangladeshi people too long by choking their legitimate aspirations to live in a crimeless and corruption-less society. They forget about accountability for their misdeeds, which is a corner stone of democracy. Thus, when swept out of power, they cry foul with new government inquiries and ensuing legal actions, which may put them behind the prison walls. When in power, they seem to fancy that this day of hardship would never visit them. What a selective amnesia!

No one should ever think that they are above the law. I have no sympathy for criminals and corrupt guys. The government owes its people the simple task of ensuring checks and balances by prosecuting them in a free trial. The process ought to be fair and transparent and cannot be seen partisan-like where the ruling party’s thugs dodge the long arms of the law and justice while their counterparts in the opposition are prosecuted. The opposition leaders simply cannot cry foul when their kith and kin and buddies are charged for money-laundering and other crimes.

The Economist writer Banyan’s claims about the reasons behind the troubles with Dr. Yunus are too childish to be taken seriously. Dr. Yunus, in spite of all the great things he has been doing globally, is, however, not above criticism. He has been accused of making some mistakes as to how he ran the Grameen Bank. His poverty-alleviation micro-finance program has had many detractors, including economists like Professor Anu Muhammad, who had tried to paint him as a viper that has been “sucking blood from the poor borrowers.” In spite of his quite visible Mandela-like humility, he has been accused of having a big ego that has come to conflict with others vying for the same media spotlight. But to claim that the current troubles of Dr. Yunus owe solely to popularity contest with Sk. Hasina and her slain father is simply too ludicrous!

Sk. Mujib was a towering figure in the politics of Bangladesh, and as shown in the 2004 poll (when BNP was in power), conducted on the worldwide listeners of BBC's Bengali radio service, was voted the "Greatest Bengali of All Time" beating Rabindranath Tagore, another Nobel laureate, and others. It is doubtful that Dr Yunus or anyone in our time would be able to eclipse that image of the Bangabandhu.

Banyan is seemingly against the current War Tribunal in Bangladesh and finds witch-hunting in government's efforts to try the alleged criminals. He forgets that the ruling party had a mandate to close this sad chapter of Bangladesh by trying those accused of committing one of the worst crimes of our time, which has killed some 3 hundred thousand Bangladeshis. (Note: while no serious effort has been taken inside Bangladesh to count the number of those killed during the War of Liberation, some recent research findings do suggest that the actual figure was well below 3 million - the commonly accepted figure in Bangladesh.) During that sad chapter the roles of some politicians now belonging to the opposition was anything but humanly. They were monsters, torturing and killing their fellow Bangladeshis like rats and mosquitoes. One of the accused in the trial personally led a torture cell in his father's residence. I personally know of a few victims, who were students then that were tortured by him mercilessly. He himself killed an elderly Bangladeshi in an execution style murder in 1971.

One would have thought that there was no place for such killers in Bangladeshi politics, especially in a party that was formed by a freedom fighter. Sadly, his criminal prowess, instead of making him a pariah, a persona non grata, simply endeared him to the BNP leadership. He was made a ranking member of the party and bestowed a state ministerial rank. And, this, in spite of his vulgar and trashy talks, some lobbed against his own boss! On a personal note, he abused his power to grab our properties in Khulshi, Chittagong. Land-grabbing and murder of innocent human beings are no small matter. One cannot but wonder what message Mrs Zia was delivering to our people when she allowed such murderers to join her party and become ministers!

Accusations have been made in the Economist that the War Tribunal proceedings in Bangladesh are not fair. I am not aware of any war tribunal that has not been accused of being imperfect. Even the Nuremburg Trial has not been spared of such accusations and has been called 'politically motivated' since it was carried out by the opponents of the Nazis. As to the shoddy trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1962 in Israel, the least said the better. And yet, in spite of such accusations, no one would dispute that each of these trials was able to do justice.

I don't see why today Bangladesh Government would fail to carry out its national obligation by trying the alleged war criminals fairly. As I wrote last year, such trials should never be abused for witch-hunting the opposition, and I am assured that the Commission’s office is not abused. The defenders would have all means to defend themselves against the charges. As to the treatment of the accused, I am also told that they are treated humanly, and much better treated than what the USA and the UK governments had done with their shoddy trials of suspected terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11. Let's face it, compared to how those suspects like KSM and others in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan are treated, the suspected war criminals in Bangladesh are getting a five-star celebrity treatment!

What Banyan forgets is that our world needs more, and not less, of war tribunals so that no one, not even Bush and Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney, can dodge their accountability for crimes against humanity. [It is good to hear the recent courageous verdict by Judge Hamilton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who refused to grant former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others immunity from lawsuits which “would amount to an extraordinary abdication of our (U.S.) government’s checks and balances that preserve Americans’ liberty.” The case is important because it makes clear — for the first time — that government officials can be held accountable for the intentional mistreatment of American citizens, even if that conduct happens in a war zone. (Sadly, there remains no accountability for the abuse, and torture, of foreigners by American jailers and interrogators, which Mr. Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush personally sanctioned.)]

Banyan tries to make fun of the use of 'sir' for the current Prime Minister. Is Banyan aware of the fact that many successful female CEO's don't like the term 'madam' for them, and insist that they be addressed as 'sir'? Banyon may like to check out with Pepsi Co.'s CEO - Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi.

Banyan's article has distorted some facts. No one has been prosecuted for criticizing the amended constitution. Opposition leaders have simply been warned as they threatened to throw away the constitution and thus implicitly encourage unconstitutional means to take over power. Violence is not the way to solve anything, and surely not a constitutional problem. There is a place for such a debate. It is the Parliament. That is where the BNP and other opposition party members ought to debate.

As noted above, the article in the Economist does little good to steer a healthy debate about politics in Bangladesh and for curbing its nasty partisan politics.

Democracy is worthless without a viable opposition. The majority rule need not be a winner-takes-all process which marginalizes opposition. The leaders in Bangladeshi politics ought to show more maturity and compromise. The two decades that they have ruled Bangladesh alternately as prime ministers should have been sufficient to move forward and grow up. A healthy, respectable dialogue between the political leaders with a firm commitment towards good governance, checks and balances, accountability and respect for the rule of law can be the starting point, if they truly care about building a viable, thriving, healthy democracy in Bangladesh. They can either embrace the lessons of history or choose to end in its dustbin. The choice is surely theirs to get out of political insanity.

Terrorism in Norway – How to avoid it in the future?

2011-08-01T07:45:00.000-07:00

If Australia is the ‘land down under,’ then surely Norway is the ‘land up above’ with the sun never completely descending beneath the horizon in areas north of the Arctic Circle during the summer months of May-July (and hence the more common name ‘Land of the Midnight Sun’).

Norway has a history of active pacifism that while being anti-war has never meant being apolitical. During the World Wars (WW) I and II, the country maintained a neutral stance. And yet, during the WW I it suffered heavy losses to its shipping, and was occupied for five years by the Third Reich during the WW II. In 1949, partly due to its failure to maintain its traditional policy of neutrality in the war, Norway became a founding member of the NATO and the UN.

It is this activism in international affairs, which catapulted Norway to take a leading role in hosting the Oslo Accords (1993) towards resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Accords affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within the Occupied Territories through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which “permanent status negotiations” would commence - no later than May 1996 - in order to reach a final agreement based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and 338, an integral part of the whole peace process. As we all know by now, Israel, through a series of terrorist and criminal activities (namely, the massacre of praying Palestinians in Masjid Ibrahimi in Hebron by a Zionist terrorist Baruch Goldstein, criminal blockades and the illegal settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories), sabotaged the true intent and purpose of the Accords. It was this implosion of hatred of the ‘other’ people which ultimately led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, a signatory to the peace Accords, by another Zionist terrorist.

In recent months, while the Obama Administration of the USA has been trying to blackmail the Palestinian people, threatening to Veto their cause in the UN, Norway and its progressive leadership have been reclaiming its global leadership by endorsing their “perfectly legitimate” aspirations to live as a free nation. “We will consider very carefully the proposed text that’s to be put forward by the Palestinians in the coming weeks,” said Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas beside him at a press conference. Stoere however left little doubt about his inclination. “I don’t think that any Palestinians or anybody around the world are in doubt that Norway supports Palestinians’ right to statehood,” he said. “That has to be accompanied by a process of negotiation, which at the moment is stalling.”

He and Abbas signed a document upgrading the Palestinian Authority’s representative in Norway to ambassadorial rank, as several other European nations have done.
It is probably this aspiring moral leadership role in the global arena, which triggered the latest carnage what was to become Norway’s worst calamity in the post WW II era. On Friday July 22, Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year old son of a Norwegian diplomat, planted a car bomb at a government building in Oslo, which killed eight, before driving to the island of Utoya, northwest of the capital, to shoot another 69 people dead and injure countless more at a Labour Party youth camp. The victims were all Norwegians including children of the immigrants. Breivik was later arrested by the Norwegian police, and confessed to the mass slaughter.
Published reports, including Breivik’s own Internet postings, show that he was a fundamentalist Christian-Zionist zealot who had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam, and was poisoned by the hateful blogs and writings of pro-Israeli, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim provocateurs in America, Europe and India. In his 1500-page manifesto he wrote that he acquired some 8,000 e-mail addresses of “cultural conservatives” not just across Europe but North America, Australia, South Africa, Armenia, Israel, and India – ensuring scrutiny of anti-Muslim groups far beyond Europe.

Breivik’s primary goal was to remove Muslims from Europe. But his manifesto calls for a military cooperation with Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain Islam. He referenced India dozens of times. He lists the websites of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the NVO (National Volunteers’ Organisation), the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) and the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) as resources for further information about his bigotry. He included a five-page paper written by a man named Shrinandan Vyas -- a Hindutvadi extremist provocateur dedicated to distorting history and seeding anti-Muslim hatred (and, thus, providing the intellectual basis for the BJP’s politics of hatred and bigotry), who had falsely accused Muslims of committing genocide in the Hindu Kush. [As I have shown some years ago, the name Hindu Kush predates the emergence of Muslims into the territory.] He applauds Hindu groups who “do not tolerate the current injustice and often riot and attack Muslims when things get out of control.” “It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical,” he wrote.

Breivik frequently posted his comments in several Norwegian internet sites, including the www.document.no, which is run by Hans Rustad, an extremist pro-Zionist Jew who warns against ‘Islamisation’ of Europe by Muslims. [As noted elsewhere by Gilad Atzmon, Islamophobes like Hans Rustad and Harry Place of the UK won’t criticize the Jewish Lobbies, the Lord Levy’s or the Russian Oligarchs’ disastrous impact on ‘Western culture’ or on ‘democratic values’ any time soon.] Breivik has said that the Dutch Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, the third-largest in the Netherlands and an informal member of the ruling coalition, is the only “true” conservative party in Europe. He also wrote approvingly of Stop Islamization of Europe and Pamela Geller, leader of its sister organization in the USA, who has been a leading figure in efforts to block the so-called Ground Zero mosque.

It is also obvious that Breivik did not operate in the vacuum and had a support group. His manifesto says he is among 12 “knights” fighting within a dozen regions in Europe and the US, but not India. His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch website, 64 times, and cited other Western writers like Mark Steyn who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.

Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among websites. Pamela Geller runs Atlas Shrugs. The Gates of Vienna is a blog that owes its name to the siege of Vienna in 1683 by Muslims who, the blog says in its head note, ‘seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.’ This was echoed in the title Breivik chose for his manifesto: ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence.’ He chose that year, the 400th anniversary of the siege, as the target for the triumph of Christian forces in the European civil war he called for to drive out Islamic influence.

How real is that ‘threat’ from Muslims in Europe, especially in Breivik’s native country? The Muslim population in Europe is approximately 4 percent, and may not rise above 6 percent by the next decade and level out thereafter. According to EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, of the 498 terrorist incidents in 2006, only 1 was accused of Muslims. The data for subsequent years (2007-2010) are 4, 0, 1 and 3 out of 583, 515, 294, and 249, respectively. That is, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups.

Norway has a population of 4.92 million of which nearly 4.04 million (82 %) are ethnic Norwegians, a figure that has steadily decreased since the late 20th century. [Currently there are more than 4 million Norwegian Americans living inside the USA.] Of the remaining 18 % population, 600,922 (12.2%) are either immigrants or Norwegians born to immigrant parents, and 282,082 (5.7%) have at least one ethnic Norwegian parent (including foreign born). Of this non-Norwegian immigrant community 48% is from other European countries (namely, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Russia and Lithuania). The Asians (including Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Turks), Africans, and others (people from the Americas and Oceania) comprise only 4.26%, 1.5% and 0.62%, respectively, of the total population. The Muslim population is estimated to be 100,000, or roughly 2% of the total population, or 11% of the non-Norwegian community living in Norway. It is simply absurd to believe that such a meager number, mostly engaged in low-paying menial jobs in Norway, would destroy the Norwegian culture in what has been wrongly dubbed in 2009 as ‘stealth Islamization’ by Siv Jensen, the leader of the Progressive Party.

To understand Breivik’s terrorism, we must, thus, look into the selection of his targets. Much like the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an anti-government militant, Breivik targeted government buildings in Oslo. He also targeted a youth camp that had held “BOIKOTT ISRAEL” sign. Why? It is not difficult to connect the dots here. To understand his ideology of hatred that enticed him to terrorism, we have to look into his manifesto that provides ample of clues with citations from anti-Muslim bloggers.

Automatic weapons and potent bombs allow the deranged and begrudged to slaughter scores of innocents in mere seconds. There are several examples of such mayhems at the University of Texas in 1966 (14 killed), Columbine High School in 1999 (13 killed), Virginia Tech in 2007 (32 killed), and Bath School disaster of 1927 in which an angry school board member blew up 38 children and 6 adults in Michigan. We also forget that most threats and violence tend to emerge from within a society and not from outside it. M.K. Gandhi, John F. Kennedy, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, King Faysal, Anwar el-Sadat, Indira Gandhi and Yitzhak Rabin were all assassinated by their fellow countrymen, and not by outsiders.

In the past two decades, much attention has been paid to extremist groups within the world Muslim community, while the potential terrorism from local rightwing extremist groups was ignored. Consequently, just about every ‘expert’ -- conservative chatterer with a blog or a Twitter account rushed to blame ‘Islamic jihadists’ for the bombing and gun massacre in Norway only to be proven wrong later. Just as in Norway, rightwing extremism could easily happen anywhere in our world. The Hutaree, an extremist Christian militia in Michigan accused last year of plotting to kill police officers and planting bombs at their funerals, had an arsenal of weapons larger than all the Muslim plotters charged in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks combined.

A Norwegian citizen with Norwegian parents slaughtered some 77 of his countrymen (which included teenagers) whom he considered in his twisted logic as traitors for supporting multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation). Its government must now answer: why it didn’t pay more attention to the threat of domestic terrorism, especially given the fact that, according to Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto, he spent a decade planning his attacks. And why did it take police so long to respond to the shootings at the summer camp?

A more important issue is the growing intolerance across Europe for Muslims and other immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Inflammatory political rhetoric is increasingly tolerated not just in Holland, Denmark and France, but across all of Europe and America. Even Asiatic countries like India, Israel, Burma, Thailand and the Philippines are not free from such hateful messages. Look at the sheer number of anti-Muslim books, movies, TV dramas and websites that emerged in the post-9/11 era! And anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic parties are getting stronger notably in northern European countries that have long had liberal immigration policies.

While individuals are responsible for their actions, there is no denying about the harmful influence of hateful provocateurs which mold their beliefs and justify their criminal actions. For years, many morally bankrupt and utterly corrupt politicians have had nothing better to offer their constituents other than distributing anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant pills. Hatred sells, as it did in Hitler’s Germany. As there were once Julius Streicher and Der Stürmer in Germany (1923-45), so are there now hate-mongers and psychopaths like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly of the radio and TV journalism in the USA, let alone thousands of pen-pushing anti-Muslim bigots like Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter who sell their poison pills to divide our world into hateful camps. Look at the shameful statements made by mainstream Republican politicians with respect to the mosque controversy in Lower Manhattan. Outside the Mayor Bloomberg of New York City hardly any politician had the moral bites to decry such bigotry. This xenophobia is even packaged, promoted and propagated by Rupert Murdoch’s media empire and other anti-Muslim right-wing tabloids.

There are think-tanks, dedicated to promoting hatred and bigotry against Muslims. Nor should one forget about the impact of Jerusalem Summit in packaging hatred to the rest of the world.

In the 1980s, Jean-Marie le Pen of the French National Front, at the time a marginal politician, was one of the first to vituperate against the risk of Islamicization. Today, Islam as ‘the internal and external enemy’ is a staple of European political discourse. Anti-Muslim sentiment has now passed the dinner-table test to become socially acceptable. What message is the public getting out of such unambiguous displays of intolerance? In Europe, even mainstream politicians have sown doubts about the ability or willingness of Europe to absorb newcomers. At a security conference in Munich Feb. 5, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain closed ranks with French and German leaders saying the ‘doctrine of multiculturalism’ has failed in a Britain that encourages ‘different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.’ Multiculturalism ‘has failed, utterly failed, Mrs. Merkel said last October amid a national debate sparked by a racially loaded bestseller written by German bank official Thilo Sarrazin that criticized Arabs. Last summer French leader Nicolas Sarkozy said multiculturalism was dead as the French cracked down on immigrants and Gypsies.

I wonder if these politicians understand the difference between assimilation and integration or multiculturalism! What they truly want is not integration but blind, robotic assimilation, bereft of discernible cultural values that define one’s humanity and diversity. So to an intellectual midget like Sarkozy, it is the abandonment of the burqa and niqab that defines integration into the French society, and not the much-needed reforms that are essential for integrating Muslims.
There are many third generation Turks and Algerians living in Germany and France, respectively, who are still not integrated into those societies, treated as being outsiders. Unless one’s parents are ethnic French or German, the roads to employment and upward social mobility are often nil for these grandchildren of immigrants from Asia and Africa. Consequently, they are forced to live in the ghettos or poor neighborhoods where public sector is dysfunctional. They routinely face bitter discrimination and witness monumental hypocrisy with almost everything. Unfortunately, when rioting exploded in France’s heavily-immigrant ghettos, many conservative pundits and politicians refused to see the obvious and dismissed claims that the violence had something to do with poverty, unemployment, and exclusion. No, what mattered is that the rioters were Muslims. And then blame it on failure of multiculturalism!

If these western governments had invested in human capital, creation of jobs and ensured equal opportunities, there won’t have been any problem integrating pale-, brown- and dark-skinned immigrants and their children and grandchildren, irrespective of whether or not they are Muslims.

Hatemongering provocateurs, who are no better than terrorists, have long been selling their poison pills of Eurabia - how Muslims soon will take over Europe, if they are not checked. The neocon ideologue Daniel Pipes discovered Jihad in the 2005 riots of France! Similarly, Mark Steyn wrote, “As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought.” In 2006, Steyn expanded his delusional paranoia into the book America Alone. As you can guess, it was a huge hit, a New York Times bestseller, amongst many delusional readers. Not surprisingly, the dim-witted former president George W. Bush is a fan. In Republican and Tea Party circles, Steyn’s vision of an enfeebled, infertile Europe overrun by fecund, violent Muslims is almost a truism. But to his dismay, no such ‘Eurabian civil war’ has been started by ‘wide-eyed’ Muslim ‘Jihadists.’ Instead, what we find is the terrorism of brain-washed white Europeans. For people like Steyn, that is more than enough. Tell a true story, treat it as typical (and not an exception) and then draw a scary conclusion. This is the standard operating procedure of alarmists like Steyn.

It is high time that these provocateurs, who have brainwashed terrorists like Breivik, denounce Breivik’s evil and apologize to Muslims. They simply cannot skirt off their responsibility for his heinous crime. The western government agencies need to investigate the activities of groups like the Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, Stop Islamization of Europe (and America), and Jerusalem Summit that promote bigotry and xenophobia, and offer the justification for terrorism. They must also follow the trail of money that comes to these hate groups.

In a society where anti-Islamic xenophobic sentiments and open bigotry are tolerated, there will be hateful zealots who would feel legitimized in taking criminal measures. The government must make it clear that there is no room for such chauvinism in this age. They must also know that political opportunism, by tying knots with groups that are openly racists and bigots, much like what has happened in places like Israel and Denmark, is not a viable option and can actually do more harm than good.

As I have noted many times, Europe has never been able to shelve its innate Fascistic leaning that has defined much of its history. It is no accident that there are too many far right parties that draw upon two distinct constituencies. The first is a core of hardline racist bigots who are willing crusaders for neo-Nazi Fascism. These bigots, however, have been joined by a swathe of new supporters (the second group) whose hostility toward immigrants, minorities and Muslims is shaped less by old-fashioned racism than by a newfangled sense of fear and insecurity. They are dissatisfied with their lives, anxious about the future and distrustful of any authority figure. As noted by some area experts, there is little that can be done to sway the opinions of the hardline racists. This does not mean pandering to their prejudices. It means, to the contrary, challenging those prejudices openly and robustly. It means, for instance, challenging their false idea that immigration is responsible for the lack of jobs and housing, or that lower immigration would mean a lower crime rate, or that Western societies are becoming “Islamized.”

Truly, the western governments should have an open and honest debate about why immigration is important for their very survival in this age. It may be a great idea that when their leaders visit New York for attending the UN sessions that they should opt for taking a ride in a taxicab, driven by a naturalized citizen of the USA, to places like Queens in New York City and Edison in New Jersey to get a flavor of what multiculturalism truly means.

As noted by the erudite Shaykh Abdal Qadir, every year on November 11, the masses gather around the Cenotaph in London for the sacred silence. On the Cenotaph is carved the new creed of humanism: “One day we will understand.”

It is time for the Europeans to recognize the new realities of our time – globalization and multiculturalism. Embrace them right or be left out in the dustbin of history!

The Israeli ‘Democracy’ – an oxymoron concept

2011-07-24T15:51:00.000-07:00

As I have noted many times Israel gives a bad name to democracy. In spite of all its pretensions, it has always been an apartheid state with rules and laws that discriminate people based on religion and ethnicity. Israel's 'equality under law' simply doesn't apply to Palestinians, even to juveniles. According to a report published last week by B'Tselem (the Israeli human rights group), just one Palestinian juvenile defendant out of 835 was acquitted of stone-throwing over the past six years. (That is like 0.1 percent! Even the murderers in the USA have a much better statistics on getting acquitted!) The others were convicted, mostly through plea bargains. About 60 percent of the convicted minors served prison terms of four months or more. Among those who served sentences of a few days and up to two months in prison were 19 defendants who were 12 to 13 years old.

It should be noted here that the Palestinian juveniles are not the only ones throwing rocks. The Israelis do throw, too, against the Palestinians, and sometimes against their own security forces. But when was the last time you read or heard about an Israeli juvenile or adult put behind the prison for rock-throwing against Palestinians? The violent Israeli youth who attacked soldiers and policemen who had been sent at the government's behest to Gaza and the northern West Bank to evacuate settlements six years ago did not have to wait long before their sentences were mitigated. As noted in a recent Haaretz editorial, Israel's pretension to be a country in which equality under the law prevails appears ridiculous in the face of the other justice system that applies to juveniles that are not Palestinian.

The Arab citizens of the state of Israel are routinely discriminated in everything from the housing permits and share of water and natural resources to the wages earned, and from job opportunities to jail sentences. This discriminatory practice is not just limited to the leading rabbis who routinely call on their followers not to hire Arabs for work, but also to the government sector. Last week, Israel’s Civil Service Commission's annual report on employment of Arabs in the service, unveiled the fact that only 7.52 percent of Israel's 62,719 civil-service employees are Arabs. This figure is far below the Arab citizens' 20-percent representation in the population as a whole. More disturbingly, most of those employed in civil service are in the lower echelons of the job. The proportion of Arabs in the top three pay grades of the service is below 1.5 percent. Arab women are massively underrepresented, constituting less than 3 percent of civil-service employees.

Recently the government of Israel passed a politically opportunistic and antidemocratic law that is sure to transform Israel’s legal code into an alarmingly dictatorial document. The Boycott Law, approved in a 47-to-38 vote by the Knesset, effectively bans any public call for a boycott — economic, cultural or academic — against Israel or its West Bank settlements, making such action a punishable offense. This law would enable Israeli citizens to bring civil suits against people and organizations instigating such boycotts, and subject violators to monetary penalties. Companies and organizations supporting a boycott could be barred from bidding on government contracts. Nonprofit groups could lose tax benefits. The NGO probes bill will investigate the funding sources and activities of leftist NGOs deemed by Israeli hardliners as harmful to Israel. This McCarthite bill will allow Knesset members to serve as both investigators and prosecutors, and also judges.

It is obvious that Israel’s ultra-conservative and racist government is determined to catapult the state into an era in which gagging people becomes accepted legal practice. It also aims to crush a growing push by Palestinians and their international supporters for boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions against Israel. Since last year, many Israeli artists and intellectuals, as well international artists, have canceled performances and programs in Israel and the West Bank to protest the illegal settlements. The advocates said the law was needed to prevent efforts to “delegitimize” Israel. Why should anyone be concerned about delegitimization of Israel, if it was a true democracy and not a fake one since no country can be delegitimized if it holds true to its democratic principles?

Anastasia Michaeli, an MK from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu, speaking of herself and her many party colleagues born in the former U.S.S.R., declared that the NGO probe bill "shows how patriotic we are." Like her communist ancestors in the days of Lenin, she and her Soviet expatriate colleagues are obviously more ‘patriotic’ than the indigenous people for the ‘good’ of the nation!

There is no shortage of ghosts of Joseph McCarthy in the ruling coalition. Danny Danon, who is a member of the ruling party and an MK, has been the guests of the loonies of the American right - Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck - during their visits to Israel. He got a law passed: Security prisoners who have been pardoned and have committed any sort of offense will be returned to prison without trial. He also called for throwing Balad MK Hanin Zuabi in prison, with or without trial. As for the Palestinians who are already there, he has demanded the cessation of their visits and "benefits.” So much chatter for the Middle East’s ‘only democracy!’

Well, in spite of such monumental failings with democracy, the state of Israel still enjoys much support within the Christian evangelicals who believe that their selfish support for the apartheid state will expedite the second coming of Jesus Christ. For the last few years they have been hosting an annual event in Washington D.C. This year is no different.

Over 5000 Christians, mainly Evangelicals, gathered this week at the Convention Center in Washington D.C. for the annual conference of the organization CUFI (Christians United For Israel). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Christian Zionist conference via satellite, telling them to support Israel. Michael Oren, Ambassador to the U.S., compared the participants' support of Israel to British military officer Orde Wingate’s training of Jewish paramilitary units before the establishment of the State of Israel. News commentator Glenn Beck worked the audience into a frenzy calling upon the conference attendees to declare that they, too, are Jewish. He exhorted, "Let us declare 'I am a Jew’.” Pastor John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, told the audience, many of whom were waving both Israeli and American flags, “We gathered here with one message: Israel today, Israel tomorrow, and Israel forever.” "If the US Administration forces Israel to divide Jerusalem – God will turn his back to the United States of America. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is watching America," Hagee continued.

For the Zionist heirs of Jabotinsky and Begin, the founding dream has been two-fold: First, a vision of Israel as an authentic democracy; second, doing everything possible to see to it that the West Bank and East Jerusalem remain in Israeli hands forever (as part of Jewish ‘real estate’ handed over by God). As noted by many area experts, however, Israel cannot be a democracy and a Jewish state at the same time when it refuses to return to the 1967 border. And this is where a serious debate is necessary for the world Jewry. Already many progressive minded Jews – living both inside and outside the apartheid state -- are refusing to accept the utterly suicidal and wickedly chauvinistic narratives scripted by their chauvinist friends inside Israel and the vultures and hyenas of the Christian Zionism waiting in the fringe.

A J Street poll published last Thursday shows that 57% of U.S. Jews back a Middle East peace plan based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed-upon land swaps, while 43% oppose such a move. According to the poll, 83% of the American Jews support a U.S.-brokered solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while 70% want the administration to offer a peace plan that proposes set borders and security arrangements. J Street’s poll, which was conducted in mid-July among 800 American Jews, showed nearly a third in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state in the UN, while another 18% who are hesitant of American recognition.

Suffice it to say that the tides are changing, hopefully, for the right reason.

What about Kashmir?

2011-07-17T07:47:00.000-07:00

Last week, the UN welcomed South Sudan as its latest member. For nearly half a century the Christian missionaries have championed the cause of the south Sudanese, mostly animist and Christian, to break into pieces the largest African republic. Their efforts paid off when President George W. Bush elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda after coming to office in 2000. In 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede. An American-backed treaty set the stage for a referendum in January in which more than 98 percent of southerners voted for independence. Last Saturday the southerners officially proclaimed their independence.

For the last 63 years, the Palestinians have also been seeking independence – much like the south Sudanese. So have the Kashmiri people for the last 64 years. And their plight continues, in spite of the repeated promises made by India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to hold a plebiscite on the question of Kashmir’s accession to either India or Pakistan!

Jammu and Kashmir, the northwestern region of the Indian sub-continent, has a population that is predominantly Muslim. For nearly five hundred years since 1349, Kashmir was ruled by Muslim rulers. In 1819, however, the region came under the oppressive rule of a Sikh ruler who imposed unbearable taxes and many anti-Islamic laws, including banning of cow slaughter, closing down of mosques and stopping the call to prayer (adhan).

With the collapse of the Mughal and Afghan rule, and after the First Anglo-Sikh War of 1845, Kashmir was first ceded by the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, and shortly after sold by the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh (a Dogra Hindu), Raja of Jammu, who thereafter was given the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. The Dogras administered the region under the British tutelage, a process that was to continue until 1947 when India and Pakistan were partitioned off from British India.
In the British census of India of 1941, Kashmir registered a Muslim majority population of 77%, a Hindu population of 20% and a sparse population of Buddhists and Sikhs comprising the remaining 3%. In the 1901 Census of the British India the population of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu was 2,905,578. Of these 2,154,695 were Muslims (74.16%), 689,073 Hindus (23.72%), 25,828 Sikhs, and 35,047 Buddhists.

For almost a century a small Hindu elite had ruled over a vast and impoverished Muslim peasantry, who were abused like slaves. Much like East Bengal (today’s Bangladesh), these Hindu absentee landowners (of Jammu and Kashmir) extracted unbearable taxes and revenues from the local Muslim peasantry. Driven into docility by chronic indebtedness to Hindu landlords and loan-sharks or moneylenders, the Muslim peasants had no political rights. Prem Nath Bazaz, a Kashmiri Hindu journalist, wrote in 1941: “The poverty of the Muslim masses is appalling. ... Most are landless laborers, working as serfs for absentee [Hindu] landlords ... Almost the whole brunt of official corruption is borne by the Muslim masses.” [Kashmir: roots of conflict, paths to peace by Sumantra Bose]

When the British Raj decided on partitioning its crown jewel into Pakistan and India it left the status of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (similar to the Muslim ruled Hyderabad) unresolved in spite of its overwhelming Muslim population. After rumors spread that the Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, in October 1947 Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir, intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 25 October 1947 that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.

According to Burton Stein, a scholar on India, "Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August [1947]. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars." [History of India]

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices, but since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never carried out by India, relations between India and Pakistan soured. The rest is history!

In a broadcast to the nation on 3 November 1947, Nehru said, "We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it." That statement was later collaborated by his letter No. 368, dated 21 November 1947, addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan, in which Nehru said, "I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations."

In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1947, Nehru said, "In order to establish our bonafide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people."
In his many letters and declarations, Nehru often cited the “request” of Kashmir’s Hindu Maharaja’s government towards “Kashmir’s accession to India,” which was accepted by his government. However, later, Nehru did send Indian army to occupy princely states of Hyderabad and Junagarh against the wishes of their Muslim rulers who had decided to join Pakistan. So much for the empty promises and wishes or requests of the ruled and rulers! As we all know by now, none of those promises made by Nehru or those who came to power after him honored the international obligations promised to the Kashmiri people and the rest of the world.

Over time the Indian government has increasingly relied on military presence and a curtailment of civil liberties to achieve its aims in Indian Occupied Kashmir, which is to prolong its illegitimate occupation of the territory by hook or crook. People there have no political rights. Sham and rigged elections are held to support the ongoing occupation by the Indian government. It is not difficult to understand, how people’s agony and frustration have given rise to armed insurgency movements against India, which has stationed nearly 700,000 of its troops in the disputed territory. These troops have engaged in widespread humanitarian abuses and have engaged in extra-judicial killings - often for entertainment against boredom. The "Armed Forces Special Powers Act" grants the military, wide powers of arrest, the right to shoot to kill, and to occupy or destroy property in counterinsurgency operations. Published reports suggest that at least 40,000 Kashmiri Muslims were murdered by the Indian occupation forces. A 2005 study conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières also found that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world, with 11.6% of respondents reporting that they had been victims of sexual abuse by Indian forces.

Since 2000 the ‘insurgency’ has become far less violent and has instead taken on the form of peaceful protests and marches. Certain groups have also chosen to lay down their arms and look for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. And yet such Gandhian non-violence movement has not generated any kind of change of heart from the Indian government. Even peaceful activists like Arundhati Roy are harassed by the government on sedition charges for so-called anti-Indian speeches and writings. In her speech, Roy rightfully claimed that Jammu & Kashmir valley had never been integral part of India and that it is a historical fact. She pleaded with Indian government to abide by the wishes of Kashmiri people.

There is no alternative to resolving this most agonizing of conflicts of our time without allowing the people of the disputed territory to decide their fate in conformity with the original pledges made by the Indian government, under the UN supervision, much like what has happened with South Sudan. Unfortunately, like the other ‘democracy’ - Israel, after 64 years the Indian government is much stronger today both economically and militarily, thanks to the billions of dollars poured from outside. And with the support it enjoys within the ‘Amen Corner’ of the Capitol House, the Pentagon and the White House, it is in no hurry to do what is right. Like Israel, with America’s foreign and defense policy so much skewed in its favor, it fancies that time is on its side and it can use every trick to delay holding the plebiscite in the occupied territories.

The poor Kashmiris, unfortunately, don’t have a powerful partner that the south Sudanese had to redress their grievances and must learn the ugly truth that there is too much hypocrisy in our world and the difference between a democracy and an autocracy is often an elusive one. It is easy to get rid of an undemocratic monster than a ‘democratic’ demon that uses the veneer of democracy to oppress a minority and confuse others.

My Response to Geert Wilders

2011-07-04T06:56:00.001-07:00

In his website, Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, posted an article – My message to Muslims, which deserve some response. Here below is my response to him.

Mr. Wilders,
In your message to Muslims you mentioned about your unpleasant experience visiting Egypt in 1982 as an 18-year old almost penniless student. Any wise person would have advised you not to undertake such a journey into a foreign land when you can’t speak the language of the people you visited and don’t have any local guide or acquaintance to help you, let alone being penniless. It was a stupid decision. And yet, as your first impression you were ‘overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.’ Doesn’t it say a lot about the defining character of these warm-hearted people who in spite of their dire poverty and living under one of the worst despots of our time made you feel so welcome?

You were surprised to see how frightened people had felt when it was announced that the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was coming to visit Sharm el-Sheikh. Is it difficult to understand how this western puppet was perceived in his country? You wrote, “It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants…” Mubarak was a tyrant who did not follow the dictates of the Qur’an. If he had, he should have known that tyranny is one of the worst sins in Islam. [See my books - Islamic Wisdom, and Wisdom of Mankind - for many citations on this subject.] And yet, like a brain-dead moron who has learning disabilities, you equated the attitude of the Egyptian people towards Mubarak with those of ”the 7th century Arabs … in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts’ (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).” Bravo! What a discovery!

You may like to read my book – Muhammad: the Messenger of Allah – An Exposition of His Life for Curious Western Readers – (available in the Amazon.com) to judge how Muhammad’s (S) contemporary Arabs felt about him. The poem below from poet Hassan ibn Thabit (R), an erstwhile ardent enemy of Islam, is sufficient to belie your allegations.
By God, no woman has conceived and given birth
To one like the Apostle, the Prophet and guide of his people;
Nor has God created among his creatures
One more faithful to his sojourner or his promise
Than he who was the source of light,
Blessed in his deeds, just and upright. (Sirat Rasulallah by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq)
As a diehard friend of Israel, you should know that one of the great Rabbis once advised a charlatan: “Don’t get too excited about the Talmud unless you are a believing Jew who leads a kosher life.” Any student of the tafsir and tawil (interpretation) of the Qur’an would likewise tell you that the Qur’anic verses are not to be cherry picked to suit one’s whims. They have a Speaker, an audience, time, place and context.

The verse 8:12 was revealed in the context of the Battle of Badr when the pagan (Mushriq) Arabs from Makkah came to attack the nascent community of believers in the outskirts of Madinah. In the said verse, Allah inspires the Angels saying: “When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

The verse 8:60, cited by you, likewise is all about making necessary preparations to defend against the attack of enemies. If it had not been for the defense of the faith put up by those early Muslims, there would not have been any Muslim today. The verse 33:26 and the preceding ones are about the Battle of Khunduq when a section of Jews living in Madinah violated their treaty of peaceful coexistence with Muslims and committed treason by aiding the Arab Mushriqs. It reads: “And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts.” They were punished for their treason.

Your reference to verse 59:12 again shows your dismal ignorance. It says, “If they are expelled, never will they go out with them; and if they are attacked (in fight), they will never help them; and if they do help them, they will turn their backs; so they will receive no help.” Here Allah is talking about the hypocrites amongst the Muslims who aligned themselves with the enemies of Islam. If a fight broke out, these hypocrites true to their innate nature would even abandon their clients.

So, I fail to see the connection of those verses in relation to how Egyptian Muslims felt about their tyrant ruler – Mubarak, who behaved like the Pharaoh. They were terrorized by Mubarak, much like how the German Jews must have felt about the visit of Hitler and his Nazi henchmen to their towns.

During your visit to Cairo, you found the city dirty and its inhabitants poor compared to Israel. Your instincts told you that ‘it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.’ Comparing any Israeli city with a mega city like Cairo that is inhabited by more than ten million people is silly and naive. In spite of all the wealth that America enjoys, a visit to any major city, including my own one in Philadelphia, would show gaping holes of poverty, crime and filth. There are places you won’t like to walk into and then there are places you would rather avoid driving through even during the daytime. There are many homeless people here in the USA that sleep on the footpaths and who eat out of trash cans near restaurants and grocery stores. Never mind the high unemployment situation these days, even in the early 1980s while living in California I noticed such sad incidents first hand. If these be the reality inside the most prosperous nation on earth, do these failings speak about American culture or some other more obvious indicators? I am sure Holland is not immune from such problems either.

If you are thinking about the economic aid that Egypt receives from the USA, you ought to know that the annual aid is equivalent to a per capita share of a meager $2.60 (2009) in a country with a Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of $5,400 (in 2008). That is less than 0.05 percent. In contrast, the per capita share that Israel received from the USA – governmental and non-governmental - is more than a hundred times. While ordinary Egyptians remained jobless and hungry, the puppet regime of Mubarak was selling natural gas to Israel at less than a fair market price, let alone charging too little for use of the Suez Canal. It was simply too convenient to have this brutal and anti-people dictator stay in power, a process that was to continue for nearly three decades, thanks to the material support provided by Israel and other western governments. It does not take a genius to understand why ordinary Egyptians felt betrayed by the so-called bastions of democracy. Yes, there was that ‘conspiracy’ to keep Mubarak in power.

You mentioned that as a dirt poor traveler, you drank untreated water which caused diarrhea. You went to a hostel and rented a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. You complain about the miserable state of the hostel, but forget that at that paltry sum, you should have considered yourself lucky to have found a roof over your head. I doubt if you could rent any space in 1982 for that cheap price in Holland. You audaciously complain: “Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?”

One can only pity a foolish penniless traveler like you who goes to visit a foreign country and then complains about his miserable condition! Granted that Egypt has not ‘progressed’ much, but can you honestly say that under similar conditions a visitor to your native Holland would have received better service? Whom are you kidding?
===-===

Mr. Wilders, for Egypt’s lack of ‘progress’, whatever that means, you lashed out at Muslims by quoting Winston Churchill, a British soldier and war correspondent for the British Raj who later became Great Britain’s Prime Minister. You quote Churchill as saying, “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it… No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Haiti is one of the poorest countries in our planet, and this, in spite of her unmistakable Christian culture. Is Christianity to be blamed for her lack of progress? How about Ethiopia, Central African Republic, the Solomon Islands, Zimbabwe, Liberia and Congo – six of the ten poorest countries in the world - all with Christian majority population?

Well, such bigotry ridden words from the mouth of the foremost colonist of his time should not surprise anyone. Lest we forget, it was Churchill who as the Prime Minister starved millions of Indians to death in the Bengal famine of 1943. He brought this holocaust – arguably the first and the worst of the 20th century - upon these people and yet had a selective amnesia not to mention anything about this monumental crime in his self-serving six-volume memoir ”The Second World War” for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. (According to Dr. Gideon Polya some 6 to 7 million people died in the province of Bengal and her contiguous provinces as a result of the famine that lasted from 1942 to 1945.)

The ‘man-made’ famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj. In her book “Churchill’s Secret War”, Madhusree Mukerjee, like a good problem-solving engineer, uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering. Analysis of World War II cabinet meetings, forgotten ministry records and personal archives show that some of India’s grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn’t experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government’s attitude to India ‘negligent, hostile and contemptuous.’ “It wasn’t a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort,” Mukerjee wrote. “The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn’t because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British,” she added.

Churchill was a racist and a bigot. He derided Gandhi as a ‘half-naked holy man’ and once told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion (Hinduism).” The famine was their (Indians) own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for ‘breeding like rabbits.’

In spite of his hostile remarks against Muslims, it is well known amongst researchers that Churchill favored Islam over Hinduism. “Winston’s racist hatred was due to his loving the empire in the way a jealous husband loves his trophy wife: he would rather destroy it than let it go,” wrote Mukerjee.

As I have stated elsewhere these European colonizers – Dutch, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Russians and Italians – were inherently racists and bigots, as are today’s Zionists in Israel. The life of colonized people did not matter to them. By the way, in India, that famine of 1943 was not the only one that was man-made to punish her people. Mention must also be made of the Bengal Famine of 1769-1779 in which 10 million people were starved to death in a very systematic way, which was nothing short of genocide, by the English colonial administration. That was 1 in 3 amongst the population of 30 million dead – planned and executed with the intent of containing any future rebellion from able-bodied Bengalis. As noted by Amaresh Misra in his book “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” an estimated 10 million people died in British reprisals for the 1857 Indian rebellion. Another 700,000 people of Orissa died in the famine of 1866.

So the hostile and unkind statement of a racist and bigot colonist against the colonized people should not be the litmus test by which the latter should be evaluated.
====-===

Mr. Wilders, you say that you do not hate Muslims, but feel saddened by ‘how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.’ What a ludicrous claim! What was the status of Arabs before Islam? Did Islam exalt them or rob them of their dignity when these Arabs became the torchbearers of knowledge, when your ancestors in Europe led a savage life?

To support your thesis, you mention the 2002 fire accident in Saudi Arabia where some 15 school children died. Obviously the action of the Saudi guard who refused to let these girls leave the school campus because they had not worn their headscarves is wrong and simply inexcusable. However, when you take this worst example to denigrate the faith of 1.6 billion human beings, it is not analysis, but shows paralysis of your intelligence.

You say that “girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:17).” There you go again! You cherry-pick a verse from the Qur’an to suit your evil thesis that ‘Islam is inhumane’. If you had studied the verse well, you would have known that this verse has everything to do with the Mushriqs of Arabia who not only didn’t like female children but would even bury them alive. In contrast, Muhammad (S), the father of 4 daughters himself, elevated the status of women giving them property rights, something that was unheard of in those days. There are numerous Prophetic Traditions on the treatment of women which you can read from my books. I shall quote below just three to prove you wrong.

Muhammad (S) said, “One who brings up two girls right from their childhood till their maturity will appear on the Day of Judgment attached to me like two fingers of hand (entering paradise).” [Muslim: Anas (R)]

Muhammad (S) said, “O Allah, I declare sinful any failure to safeguard the rights of two weak ones, namely, orphans and women.” [Nasa’i: Abu Shuraih Khuwalid ibn ‘Amr al-Khuza’i (R)]

A man came to the Prophet (S) and asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which person of all people is best entitled to kind treatment and the good companionship from me?’ He (S) answered: ‘Your mother.’ The man asked: ‘And then?’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ (The man asked again:) ‘And after her?’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ (The man asked:) ‘And after that?’ He said: ‘Your father.’ [Bukhari and Muslim: Abu Hurayrah (R)]

As to your other comments about your personal beliefs or unbelief, and preference for an anthropomorphic God, I won’t waste my time trying to dissuade you. Suffice it to say that you have an abysmal ignorance of and unfathomable hostility towards Islam. You need to educate yourself from the proper sources and not from some intellectual frauds who tied their knots with the devil. Let me share with you some basic concepts about Islam, starting with monotheism:
“All praise belongs to God who has no equal and no peer and Who is far sublime to bear any similarity to His creatures.
He (God) was before anything came into existence and will remain after everything has come to an end.
As His (God's) Being is Eternal, therefore, no time could be imagined to say that He existed since then, similarly no period could be assigned for duration of His Existence.
To assign a place to Him (God) by considering Him within or over a place means to subject Him to the limitations of space and to allot Him an importance secondary to space, it also means to believe that some place can exist outside the sphere of His Omnipresence.
He (God) was seeing even when there was no created thing to see. He is One and Alone, because He has no companion who could keep His company or whose absence He would miss.
He is One but not a numerical unity which can be mathematically and logically subdivided.
He (God) did not originate His creatures to strengthen His Kingdom or to arm Himself against the change of circumstances, or defend Himself against His rivals and enemies.
Bringing into existence of the Universes has neither tired Him (God), nor origination of the nature has exhausted Him, neither He felt helplessness and deficiency in having complete control over His creatures, nor He ever had any uncertainty about the program of creation; He never doubted about His decisions.
He (God) has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being, yet He has not prevented them from realizing His presence.
He (God) knew the very details of everything before He brought everyone of them into existence.
He (God) has not incarnated Himself into His creatures, and it cannot be said that He is part of the Universe or things created by Him; neither He is far away from His creation nor is He aloof from it without having control over it.
God has never left any human being without guidance and education from His Prophets, without a Holy Book, without conclusive, effective and certain proof of His Godhood and without a clear and bright path to His Realm.
When God created mankind He was not in need of their obedience and prayers, neither was He nervous of their disobedience. Because disobedience or insubordination of men cannot harm Him, similarly obedience of obedient people cannot do Him any good. He is beyond the reach of harm and benefit.” [Nahjul Balagha: Ali (R)]
“The first step of religion is to accept, understand and realize God as the Lord; the perfection of understanding lies in conviction and confirmation, and the true way of conviction is to sincerely believe that there is no God but He. The correct form of belief in His Unity is to realize that He is absolutely pure and above nature that nothing can be added to or subtracted from His Being. That is, one should realize that there is no difference between His Person and His attributes, and His attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His attributes to be other than His Person has actually forsaken the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality. Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in parts.
“Islam means obedience to God. Obedience to God means having sincere faith in Him. Such a faith means to believe in His power. A belief in His power means recognizing and accepting His Majesty. Acceptance of His Majesty means fulfilling the obligations laid down by Him. And fulfillment of obligations means action.
“It is a religion whose followers compete with and try to surpass each other in goodness and virtue. Confirmation of truth and justice are its ways, enlightenment of humanity is its chief object, to expect and to face death boldly and nobly is one of the main items of its teachings. This world is the place where Islam wants to prepare you for high positions in Hereafter, therefore, the Day of Reckoning will be the day when its true followers will surpass others and heaven will be their reward.” [Nahjul Balagha: Ali (R)]

Mr. Wilders, your comments about Muhammad (S) are untrue and show your deep-seated prejudice. Read the Bible, esp. the book of Numbers (Ch. 31), to understand the treatment of the conquered people by the Old Testament Prophets. As I’ve said earlier, Islam could not have survived without the sacrifice of and active resistance from its noble defenders against their foes. Have you heard about Bilal ibn Rabah, Sumayya, Khabbab bin al-Aratt, and Habib ibn Zayd al-Ansari? If you have not, read my book – The Book of Devotional Stories, Islamic Book Trust, Malaysia.

Muhammad (S) and his followers were persecuted and forced to migrate. When attacked they fought back and won the battle of both might and mind. And yet, when he conquered his city of birth, he forgave his enemies. Why show such compassion against enemies, if he wasn’t merciful? You won’t be able to show me a single example of such nobility from the past and the present. In all those battles that Muhammad (S) led, the total death count was miniscule compared to those killed by religious followers of Moses (AS) amongst the children of Israel for their idolatry. And as any Christian evangelist would tell you there won’t be too many surviving after Jesus returns. It would be an era of mass slaughter, beginning with the Jews. If Muhammad (S) is a mass murderer, what epithets do you have in store for Moses (AS), let alone Jesus (AS) – the son of Mary?

Are you also aware of the fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus (AS), was only 12 to 14 years old when Joseph the carpenter who was 90 years old married her? In contrast, A’isha bint Abu Bakr (R) was 19 years old when Muhammad (S) consummated the marriage with her. If Muhammad (S) is a pedophile, what about St. Joseph, and how about the Biblical Prophets? Were they child molesters? Was Jesus a homosexual, too, as hinted by early fathers of Christianity (see also: Gospels according to Mark 14:49-52 and John 13:23)?

You say that Islam is opposed to freedom. Freedom to do what – harm and insult others – something that you have mastered, or colonize, kill and plunder vast territories of Asia, Africa and Latin America – something that the Dutch and other western governments committed to enrich them? Islam says that God has given inborn disposition to human minds to shape themselves either towards good or towards evil. [Nahjul Balagha] Man is, therefore, not compelled by determinism (jabr). He is also not given absolute freedom (qadar) to defy the laws of nature. But the matter is a via media between the two.

You say that Muslims are a fatalistic people. It is a wrong reading of their attitude. As believers they know that nothing happens without God’s will. Thus, they use the phrase InshaAllah. Are you aware of the Epistle of James 4:15, where it says that people should remember that they never know what tomorrow will bring, and 'Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”'? Is this statement in the so-called NT any different than what is contained in the Surat Al Kahf (18):24: "And never say of anything, 'I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except (with the saying): 'If God wills!' And remember your Lord when you forget...'"? So, why this silly accusation against Muslims?

Your ignorance is simply pathetic. You may like to read my lecture on ‘Islam and Co-existence’ at the interfaith meeting at Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Also, read my article – What I didn’t say and Missionary Myopia – in response to chauvinistic comments made by some fundamentalist Christian Islamophobes.

You said that ‘most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals.’ Not true. Islam is opposed to extremism. Muslims have been raising their voices against extremists of all kinds – Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Just visit The American Muslim website to view how wrong you are.

As a pin-headed racist and a bigot, you can claim whatever you like, but surely you are no lover of freedom and liberty. Your obscene xenophobia has shown that you are a curse to humanity, even to your own people. The people with wisdom already see in you a Dutch reincarnation of Hitler against its Muslim inhabitants. You, surely, suffer from extreme prejudice, dementia, paranoia and hallucination and need a check with a good psychiatrist to treat your mental health. The sooner the better!

By the way, I don’t hate you, but hate your evil activities that divide our world into hateful camps. That is not the future that is desirable to any sane human being.

Missionary Conspiracy with Nuba Mountains of Sudan

2011-06-30T06:04:00.001-07:00

Today, I read an article by Nicolas Kristof in the NY Times where he mentions about new signs of trouble in the Nuba Mountains area of Sudan where the Samaritan Purse, the Christian missionary group that is led by Franklin Graham, is involved. Here are my comments I just sent to Kristof in his blog:

Samaritan Purse is a Christian missionary group with declared agenda to turn Africa into a continent of Christianity. For years, it has worked with minority Christians to stir trouble against non-Christian regimes. Reports from Africa has shown that these Christian evangelical groups have provided arms and dollars to Christians to create Christian enclaves in those countries. And probably nowhere is this strategy more vivid than Sudan where the group was able to win referendum for the southern Sudanese Christians away from their majority Sudanese Muslims.

I am, thus, concerned about the development in the Nuba mountains where the new allegations have emerged about government's strong arm tactics. How true are such assertions? My contacts within Khartoum say that it is part of a massive propaganda by the separatist Christians in the Nuba territory who seem to be encouraged by the events in Southern Sudan for independence, and are used by hostile Christian missionary groups to further divide the country.

It is really disgusting to see Kristof being pulled into this game where he advocates for a group like Samaritan Purse that has a very bad history of deceit, conspiracy and ignoble missionary tactics that only create instability and divide our world into hateful camps. Shame on Kristof to fall for such a missionary ploy and their agents in the Nuba mountains!

The Dutch Sham Trial of Geert Wilders

2011-06-26T17:09:00.001-07:00

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who heads the fascist-leaning Party for Freedom (PVV), has gained much notoriety -- and deservingly so -- in the western world for his hate speeches inciting violence, discrimination, racism, bigotry and xenophobia against immigrants, in general, and the Muslim community, in particular. In the post-9/11 era of Islamophobia, he has often acted as its lead pit bull in Europe savagely attacking Islam and Muslims with his depraved and hateful statements and messages. He has called for banning of the Qur’an, comparing it with Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He has also produced the hate-filled documentary film Fitna, which since its release in 2008 has been promoted and distributed by Ruder Finn, the same PR firm that was instrumental in crafting the public relations campaign for its long-time client Philip Morris (now Altria) that disputed the evidence that tobacco smoking is hazardous to health.

Thanks to his pro-Israeli and rabidly Islamophobic supporters like Robert Spencer, Itamar Marcus, Daniel Pipes, Shlomo Sharan and John David Lewis, Wilders and Ruder Finn were able to show the hate film in many parts of the world, beginning with a conference in December of 2008 entitled "Facing Jihad" that was organized at the Begin Center in Jerusalem.

Protests from the Muslim and immigrant communities (Nederlands bekent kleur) resulted in cases filed against Wilders. Attempts to prosecute Wilders under Dutch anti-hate speech laws in June 2008 were, however, dropped, with the public prosecution stating that Wilders’s comments contributed to the debate on Islam in Dutch society. The office released a statement reading: "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable. Freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

The Muslim and immigrant victims appealed against the prosecution's decision to not pursue the case and on 21 January 2009, a three-judge court of appeal ordered the Dutch Public Prosecution Service to try Wilders. He was charged with five counts - group insult, inciting hatred against Muslims because of their religion, inciting discrimination against Muslims because of their religion, inciting hatred against non-western immigrants and Moroccans because of their race, and inciting discrimination against non-western immigrants and Moroccans because of their race.

The judges in the first trial were removed after a perceived bias against Wilders, and a retrial started in February 2011. The Public Prosecutor’s office, which initially had refused to prosecute Wilders, made a mockery of the retrial process by arguing that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts. So, just as expected of a sham process, on 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges, with Judge Marcel van Oosten noting that his statements, although "gross and denigrating," had not given rise to hatred against Muslims, and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate." The judge however noted that Wilders’s statements were on the edge of legal acceptability.

“I am delighted with this ruling,” said Geert Wilders. “It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and resistance against Islamisation is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.” What a ludicrous claim to act as the champion of free speech from the same guy who calls for a ban on the Qur’an!

Comparing a religious Scripture that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism. Unfortunately, by acquitting Wilders the Dutch court has set the precedence that it is kosher to treat its nearly a million Muslim inhabitants who believe in the Qur’an like the Nazis, and that an all-out war against them would be justified. The Dutch court also forgot that there is a fine line between what is free speech and insult of an entire religious community. As noted by author Ian Buruma free speech is never that absolute; even in the USA, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.

If Wilders had confined his demented and offensive remarks against Muslims who use violent means to stop free speech, most of us would have no problem. But he refuses to make that distinction and wants to denigrate Islam and crucify its founder (probably posthumously!). Like his utterly evil and spiteful pro-Israeli Islamophobic peers on this side of the Atlantic - Gingrich, Palin, Pipes, Spencer and many other bigots -- he sells fear and is a Christian reincarnation of Julius Streicher of the Nazi era. As a terrorist provocateur he wants his Muslim and immigrant victims to react to his nasty insults and then claim that they are a threat to his liberal – no scratch it and call it what it has truly become – the illiberal, Dutch society.

Gerard Spong, a lawyer instrumental in getting the case heard, expressed his disappointment with the verdict, seeing the judge's ruling based on "public context" as vague. Theo de Roos, professor of law at the Tilburg University, saw the case as a precedent for ethnic incitement in Dutch law – only actual threats could be any longer seen as being prohibited. Els Lucas, a lawyer for the collection of Dutch rights groups, said that they planned to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights or the UN's Human Rights Committee.

What a sad day for Europe, the self-styled birthplace of liberty, when it acquits one of its worst sons who terrorizes millions of law-abiding immigrants! What a mockery of justice in the name of freedom of speech when a flamboyant fashion designer John Galliano is fired by the fashion giant Christian Dior and is put on trial for making anti-Semitic comments against three Jews while drunk in a Paris café, while a right-wing politician with so much power to harm a minority community is acquitted of more damning remarks and insults hurled against an entire faith! Through the sham trial process once again Europe has shown its true ugly color, its unfathomable bigotry, racism and hatred of the ‘other’ people. Muslims can’t expect fairness from the children of Gehazi!

Will the Dutch society ever shed its innate racism, xenophobia and naked hypocrisy, and evolve into true human beings away from its savage history that has known nothing but violence against, and plunder, colonization and exploitation of the ‘other’ people that look different? The sad commentary is: with the ever growing support base for the racists and bigots within the Dutch society, we may never see that difference in our lifetime!

Caste system of Kerala

2011-06-20T10:09:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks, I have been getting some messages from Mr. Perumal, the founding president of a Kerala based human rights group: OHIROS that wants to weed out caste system. Here below is my suggestion to him:

Salam (Peace). I was impressed with your website which is trying to weed out the curse of the caste system. As you and I know too well, caste system is the worst form of perennial slavery the world has ever known. It forces people to be enslaved not only in this earthly life but also in the afterlife (if you especially believe in reincarnation). This caste system was introduced by the Aryan invaders to the south Asian landmass, east of the HIndukush mountain range. The process resulted in the development of the most oppressive system ever known to mankind - the caste system in which the conquered people were relegated to the lowest of the low position, the Sudra - the untouchables, while the invaders claimed self-styled the Brahmin and Kshatriya status among their priestly and warrior classes with all the privileges guaranteed. As like any racist system, the caste system also ensured that there won't be any so-called contamination of the bloodline by inter-caste marriages. It was a total package of subjugation and oppression of the powerless.

The entire caste system had nothing divine or holy about it, for it was all based on racist theology, invented by Aryan invaders and their ilk.

Islam, the Satya Dharma, came as a solution to this imposed caste system by ensuring brotherhood of human beings where there is no difference between people on the grounds of all man-made artificial criteria like the lineage, wealth, birthright, color, caste, language. The only difference is an earned one by virtue of nobility of actions or deeds. It is something to really ponder about how Muhammad - the Prophet of Arabia, was able to weed out racism from the caste-ridden Arabian society. You may like to read an excellent review of his life from Professor Ramakrishna Rao.

Thus, while I openly welcome your noble effort to correct the flaws within the caste system that has over the centuries defined Hindu society, I cannot but sustain serious doubts whether you can find the desired solution without breaking this false house of glass. An outside in view may help you better to see how reprehensible the caste system is, and that when the patient is crying out for life-saving surgery no halfway measures would do any good.

Shariah-phobia in America

2011-06-18T23:23:00.000-07:00

Are Muslim Americans trying to impose a Taliban-style Shariah law in the USA? Seemingly, the answer is ‘yes’, if you are a Republican politician. The idea that America is this close to having her constitution replaced by the Muslim Scripture – the Qur’an - used to be a fringe notion in the post-9/11 era of Islamophobia that was packaged, promoted and propagated by malicious “Islamist watchdog” bloggers, neocon pundits with some think tanks and pen-pushing zealots. But nowadays that absurd idea has inched closer to the mainstream, thanks to our Republican politicians. Truly, outside Ron Paul of Texas, I don’t know of any serious Republican politician who has not tried to bank on this ‘menace.’

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, is the lead dog in this evil campaign. Last year, in his speech at the American Enterprise Institute (a neocon think tank) where he is a senior fellow, Gingrich said, “The fight against Shariah and the maddrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth… One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Shariah as a replacement for American law.”

Gingrich is a morally decadent person with a history of corruption and adultery, and has obvious reasons for opposing the Shariah or God’s Law that could find him guilty for violating some of the Ten Commandments like ‘Thou shall not commit adultery’ and ‘thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife’ and, thus, punished in this world, let alone his wretched state in the afterworld.

But what about other Republican politicians? Are they, too, equally depraved, corrupt or morally bankrupt? Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum don’t agree on everything, but they all concur that we must stop Shariah law from being imposed upon America. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, refers to Shariah as ‘an existential threat’ to the United States. During last year’s Senate race in Nevada, GOP candidate Sharon Angle blithely asserted that Dearborn, as well as a small town in Texas, currently operate under Shariah law. And Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann used the occasion of Osama bin Laden’s death to tie the terrorist mastermind to the word: ‘It is my hope that this is the beginning of the end of Shariah-compliant terrorism.’ The GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain, the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, declared in March that he would not appoint a Muslim to a Cabinet position or judgeship because ‘there is this attempt to gradually ease Shariah law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government.’

Most of these bigots have no clue what Shariah is, why it is a problem and where in the Qur’an to find it. God’s Commandments in the Qur’an are not much different from those of the Torah (see below).

1. ‘So know that there is no god but Allah.’ (Qur’an 47:19) ‘Thou shalt have none other gods before me.’ (Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7)
2. ‘O my Lord! make this city one of peace and security: and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols.’ (Qur’an 14:35) ‘Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God...’ (Exodus 20:4-6, Deuteronomy 5:8-10)
3. ‘And make not Allah’s (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things.’ (Qur’an 2:224) ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.’ (Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11)
4. ‘O ye who believe! When the call is heard for the prayer of the day of congregation, haste unto remembrance of Allah and leave your trading. That is better for you if ye did but know.’ (Qur’an 62:9) ‘Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.’ (Exodus 20:8, Deuteronomy 5:12)
5. ‘Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.’ (Qur’an 17:23) ‘Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.’ (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16)
6. ‘… whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.’ (Qur’an 5:32) ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17)
7. ‘Slay not your children, fearing a fall to poverty, We shall provide for them and for you. Lo! the slaying of them is great sin. Nor come nigh to adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way. ’ (Qur’an 17:31-32) ‘Neither shalt thou commit adultery.’ (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18)
8. ‘O Prophet! … they will not associate in worship any other thing whatever with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery (or fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey thee in any just matter…’ (Qur’an 60: 12) ‘Neither shalt thou steal.’ (Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:19)
9. ‘…Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah Knoweth all that ye do.’ (Qur’an 2:283) ‘Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20)
10. ‘And strain not thine eyes toward that which We cause some wedded pairs among them to enjoy, the flower of the life of the world, that We may try them thereby. The provision of thy Lord is better and more lasting.’ (Qur’an 20:131) ‘Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.’ (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21)

Gingrich’s call for a federal law banning Shariah has gone unheeded so far. But at the local level, nearly two dozen states have introduced or passed laws in the past two years to ban the use of Shariah in court cases. The sponsor of an Oklahoma measure banning Shariah approved by voters last fall described it as “a pre-emptive strike.” Gerald Allen, the Alabama state senator who sponsored a bill banning Shariah, when asked for a definition, could not say what it was. “I don’t have my file in front of me,” he told reporters. “I wish I could answer you better.” In Tennessee, lawmakers sought to make following Shariah a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison — until they learned that their effort would essentially make it illegal to be Muslim in their state.

Anti-Muslim, conservative think-tanker Frank Gaffney declared preposterously last year that “Americans across this country are struggling to understand the true nature of the threat we face from Shariah. They are entitled to straight talk about the extent to which it is being insinuated, promoted, and legitimated not only in mosques but by banks, academic institutions, and government agencies.” Like his buddies in the hate camp, he singles out Islam as the one religion that cannot be accommodated in any of these institutions. It is based on the scare-mongering notion that once a court allows a financial institute to offer Shariah-compliant financing, it won’t take too long for an imam in a mosque to be allowed to flog an adulterer and an adulteress with a hundred stripes. (Qur’an 24:2)

Other Islamophobes, like the conservative Center for Security Policy, assert that all Muslims are bound to work to establish an Islamic state in the U.S. But if this assertion is true — and the very allegation that every Muslim in America is a national security threat — should not Dearborn, the Detroit suburb, which is home to the largest community of Arabs in the U.S., have seen the Islamic theocracy movement creeping in? After all, Muslims first moved to Dearborn nearly a century ago to work in the factories of the Ford motor company! And yet after five or six generations, Dearborn’s Muslims have not sought to see the city run in accordance with the Shariah.

So, why this vicious accusation labeled against Muslim Americans? Are these politicians, who cry ‘Shariah’, engaged in one of the oldest and dirtiest political traditions — xenophobic demagoguery? Are they throwing around a word simply because it scares some voters, much like what the Nazis, in particular, did against the Jews of Germany and what the Christians, in general, did against Jews throughout history?

These demagogues forget that American courts are governed by American law, which has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). As noted last year by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court. Every day Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces, and business disputes. “In fact, according to the Beth Din of America,” wrote Silow-Carroll, “Jewish law does not allow a Jew to be a plaintiff in a secular court without first obtaining permission from a Jewish court. Permitting people to settle their disputes in their own religious courts is not a ‘replacement’ of American law, but a time-honored expression of religious freedom and accommodation.” If this be the reality, why a different yardstick for Muslims when they don’t have even an equivalent of the Jewish Beth Din in America?

Never mind that most Muslim countries do not enforce the Shariah laws of punishment prescribed in the Qur’an, what is so striking about Gingrich and the other Sharia-phobes is their lack of faith in the Constitution, the American legal system, and the American people themselves.

As Amy Sullivan recently noted in the USA Today, the anti-communist Red Scare of the 1950s made broad use of guilt by innuendo and warnings about shadowy conspiracies. She suggested, “If GOP candidates insist they are not doing the same thing to ordinary Muslims, they can prove it by explaining what they believe sharia is and whether they’re prepared to ban the consideration of all religious codes from civil arbitration. Anything less is simply fear mongering.”

The far right is long on fear mongering and short on providing supportive evidence. ‘Shariah’ has become their code word and symbol to exploit American voters’ fears and engage in Islam- and Muslim-bashing without any push-back because nobody, including most of the candidates, knows what it is. They scare ordinary Americans with their monster, and then they want to take credit for saving the people from their own creation.

It’s no surprise that two candidates could not resist playing the “Muslim card” in the recent GOP debate. Herman Cain insisted, “There have been instances in New Jersey and Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia Law.”
Cain wants to question Muslims about their commitment to the Constitution ‘to make sure we have people committed to the Constitution working for this country.’ But he wouldn’t do the same with Christians or Jews! Newt Gingrich could not afford to be left behind, and said: “I’m in favor of saying to people, ‘If you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration,’ period.”

As a Muslim American, I would like to ask these Republican politicians: when did Bush’s Global War on Terror become a war on American Muslims? Didn’t GW Bush himself say on September 17, 2001: “America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country?” “And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect,” said Bush.

In closing, let me echo what Professor John Esposito wrote in his recent Washington Post article: “To those Republicans who continue to stoke the flames of fear and bigotry to attract media attention and benefit their own political careers, it’s time to call a spade a spade, a bigot a bigot and stop those who would resurrect the intolerance of the past and add Muslims to a long list of groups that has included Jews, African Americans, World War II Japanese Americans and others who have been victims of religious discrimination and racism.”

If the Republican politicians don’t stop this hateful campaign against Muslim Americans, no Muslim would ever vote for them, and not even their cronies that once campaigned for Bush.

Syria's Bashar al-Assad Must Be Brought Down

2011-06-12T14:25:00.000-07:00

Islamic history is replete with stories of benevolent Caliphs who respected learned scholars and were cognizant of their accountability before people and God in the two worlds. Take for instance the well-known story of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (R), the Umayyad ruler. When he was appointed caliph, he summoned Salem ibn Abdullah, Raja' ibn Hayat and Muhammad ibn Ka'b – three great personalities of the early decades of Islam (Tabi’un or the successors).

"I have been afflicted with this trial. What am I to do, for I know this high office to be a trial, even though men count it for a blessing?" - He asked.
They advised, "If you wish tomorrow to escape from God's punishment, look upon aged Muslims (your subjects) as though each one were your father, and regard youthful Muslims as your brothers, Muslim children as your own sons, treating them in all respects as one does one's father, brother, and son." [Tadhkirat al-Auliya']

Consider also the case of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid. When he sought advice from Fudayl ibn 'Iyadh (R) - an ascetic follower of Imam Abu Hanifah (R) - the latter said: "[Consider] The lands of Islam as your own house, and their inhabitants as your family. Visit your father, honor thy brother, and be good to your son. I fear that your handsome face will be sorely tried by the fire of Hell. Fear Allah, and obey His command. And be watchful and prudent; for on the Day of Resurrection Allah will question you concerning every single Muslim, and He will exact justice from you in respect of every one. If one night an old woman has gone to sleep in a house without provisions, she will pluck your skirt on that Day and will give evidence against you." [Tadhkirat al-Auliya]

When the caliph had learned that Shaqiq al-Balkhi (R), a great ascetic of his time, had reached Baghdad on his way to Makkah for pilgrimage he summoned him and said, ‘Counsel me.’
“Then listen,” Shaqiq proceeded, “Allah the Almighty has set you in the place of Abu Bakr the trusty, and requires trustiness from you as from him. He has set you in the place of Umar the discriminator, and requires from you as from him discrimination between truth and falsehood. He has set you in the place of Uthman of the ‘two lights’, and requires from you as from him modesty and nobility. He has set you in the place of Ali the well-approved, and requires from you as from him knowledge and justice.”
“Say more,” Harun cried.
“God has a created a lodging-place called Hell,” Shaqiq said. “He has appointed you its doorkeeper, and has equipped you with three things – wealth, sword and whip. ‘With these three things,’ He commands, ‘keep the people away from Hell.’ If any man comes to you in need, do not grudge him money. If any man opposes God’s commandment, school him with this whip. If any man slays another, exact retaliation on him lawfully with this sword. If you do not do these things, you will be the leader of those that enter Hell.”
“Say more,” Harun repeated.
“You are the fountain, and your agents are the rivulets,” said Shaqiq. “If the fountain is bright, it is not impaired by the darkness of the rivulets. But if the fountain is dark, what hope is there that the rivulets will be bright?”

One time, Ibn Semaak Waa’iz (R) was in the presence of Caliph Harun Al-Rashid. During the course of the discussion, the caliph became thirsty. He asked for water. When water was brought and he was about to drink it, Ibn Semaak (R) said, “Amirul Mumineen, wait first; tell me if you are very thirsty and you are not given water, how much are you prepared to pay for a glass of water?”
The caliph replied, “In that state I will give half of my kingdom for a glass of water.” Ibn Semaak (R) told him to drink the water. Thereafter he enquired, “If this water remains in your stomach and there is no way for it to come out so that you are in danger of perishing, what will you pay for it to come out?”
The caliph replied, “I will give the remainder of my kingdom.”
Ibn Semaak (R) said, “Amirul Mumineen, understand then the value of this gulp (draught) of water which you drink and a few drops of urine. Then why do you boast about your kingdom. Treat everybody equally.”

Muslim rulers today, especially in the Arab World, behave as if they don't have any accountability for their misrule and bad deeds. They surely can't comprehend what had made Amirul Mumineen Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), one of the best rulers in the Muslim history, to say, "Should a lost goat die in the Shat al-‘Arab I tend to think that Allah, the Most Exalted, will question me about it on the Day of Judgment." [Hilyat’ul Awliya wa Tabaqatul Asfiya: Abu Na’im al-Asfahani]

They are also unmindful of the Prophet Muhammad's (S) stern warning: "If you wish, I could tell you about leadership and what it is. Firstly, it is blame; secondly, it is regret; and thirdly, it is punishment on the Day of Resurrection – except for one who is just." [Tabaraani in al-Kabeer; Saheeh al-Jaami’]

Look at Bashar al-Assad who is the president of Syria. He is a despot and the son of a despot (Hafez al-Assad) who killed some 40,000 Muslims three decades ago. Since succeeding his father in 2000, Bashar sought to nourish a reputation as a reform-minded, forward-looking leader in a region full of aging autocrats and monarchs. But he soon proved to be more of the same, and probably more ruthless with a pattern of empty promises, nasty oratory and bloody tactics. When the Syrian people protested against his tyranny, he responded by killing thousands and detaining tens of thousands, forcing hundreds of military officers into retirement, cracking down on hard-won freedoms and censoring publications. Syria’s state propaganda machine lately said that more than 120 security officers were killed in northern rebel town of Jisr al-Shughu by “armed gangs.” Local residents, however, disputed that account and said that fighting erupted last week between army units loyal to the Assad regime and a group of soldiers who defected and refused to fire on civilians.

A spokesman for the Local Coordinating Committee in Syria, an umbrella group organizing protests and documenting the crackdown, said there was also a heavy security presence in the provincial capital, Idlib City, which was also surrounded by checkpoints. People are being stopped at the checkpoints in Idlib and other cities and detained for questioning; they are not allowed to pass or leave any province.

At least 5,000 armed troops loyal to the president converged in the country’s restive northwest on Thursday as hundreds of residents fled across the border into Turkey, heightening fears of a budding refugee crisis and a widening crackdown on dissent. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the Syrian government's actions an "atrocity", while reiterating that Turkey will keep its borders open to Syrian refugees.

Is Bashar al-Assad of Syria any better than Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi of Libya? Surely not. And yet, why such a silence to condemn this ruthless murderer from Syria? Why are the NATO and EC silent? Why is the OIC silent? The International Court of Justice wants to try Gaddafi for his crimes against his own people. Fine! How about this monster Bashar? Is he being protected by the western leaders for the same fear that they felt about Egypt in relation to the emerging power of the Muslim Brotherhood? If that concern is the deciding factor, then such a hypocritical attitude should not come as a surprise to anyone keenly observing western meddling in the region for the last 100 years since the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate. It is, after all, their conspiracy, their evil schemes, their artificial geographical divides, their patronage of politically opportunistic groups, clans and sects, which were forced upon the vast majority of Arabs of the region who had to live under the neo-Pharaohs, neo-Nimrods and neo-Hamans in the post colonial era. The Arab revolution is about changing that colonial experiment.

Syria like many parts of the Arab world came to existence out of the belly of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Its Nusayri (often wrongly attributed as the Alawite) sect, considered a heretical group within Islam, was soon able to hobnob with the French colonial authority and secure important positions within the various administrative organs of the colonial establishment. So, it did not take too long for them to capture power and halt the revolving doors of politics that had seen 14 rulers come and go in a quarter century soon after their colonial masters had left. And in that process transformed the state into a republican monarchy of fear, extortion and repression!

Like all autocratic regimes, they knew the formula of staying in power too well: by rewarding a small group of loyal supporters, often composed of key military officers, senior civil servants and family members or clansmen (here, all from the Nusayri sect). A central responsibility of these loyalists was to suppress opposition to the regime. Since to carry out this messy, unpleasant task required being rewarded handsomely, the autocrats ensured a continuing flow of benefits to their cronies. To these autocrats their cronies came first, and the people last. As long as their cronies are assured of reliable access to lavish benefits, protest will be severely suppressed. It has been a win-win formula for the Assad family and his cronies within the small minority Nusayri sect that controlled every vital position within the government since 1967. In essence, they created a tyranny of the minority over the vast majority Sunni Muslims.

As I stated earlier, for an eliminationist leader mass murder of an opposing group that is ‘different’ is an easy exercise. The majority Sunni Muslims who live in Syria are too different from the heretic ruling class of Syria that had misruled the country for the last 44 years. In their fall, the Nusayris see the loss of their privileged status. So, they don’t have any bites of conscience - the human weaknesses or traits that define our humanity - in exterminating the Sunni majority – the unarmed Syrian protesters.

As we have seen throughout history, repressive regimes eventually fall when its lifeline is cut off. Often times, it is money that acts as that glue holding together the falling regime. When that source becomes scarce, leaders can’t pay their cronies, leaving no one to stop the people if they rebel. According to New York University Professors Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith, this is precisely what happened during the Russian and French revolutions and the collapse of communist rule in Eastern Europe, and the fall of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. In a recent NY Times article, they write, “Today’s threat to Bashar al-Assad’s rule in Syria can be seen in much the same light. With a projected 2011 deficit of approximately 7 percent of G.D.P., declining oil revenue and high unemployment among the young, Mr. Assad faces the perfect conditions for revolution. He may be cracking heads today, but we are confident that either he will eventually enact modest reforms or someone will step into his shoes and do so.”

As I see it, however, reforms by a hated ruler are not a viable option. Through his crimes against the Syrian people, Bashar has disqualified himself for any reformation task. He and his tyrannical regime must be toppled down by all means possible.

This Week's GPS - wrong choice in the discussion forum

2011-06-12T10:22:00.000-07:00

I am very disappointed with Fareed Zakaria's invitation of Ann Coulter to his GPS show. Ann Coulter is a hateful, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-minority kind of divisive media personality who earns her livelihood by all the inhuman traits that she espouses. Fox is for those bigots and racists, and not CNN. By giving Ann the opportunity to appear in the CNN's much liked GPS program, Fareed and his producer have shown poor judgment. No conscientious person should openly welcome a highly polarizing, nasty commentator like Ann who has been promoting hateful camps on either side of the ocean.

Through her idiotic comments, Ann has once again shown that she is an irresponsible commentator and the GPS would have been better served without her presence in this week's program.

The Anthony Weiner Case - my thoughts

2011-06-08T06:31:00.000-07:00

As the Congressman Anthony Weiner incident showed social media is increasingly bringing out the hidden dark side in one's life. The embarrassing thoughts are now shared in the open as if they are okay. Little do these social media exploiters realize that this medium is "social" and open, and can be ruinous to a married person's life, and surely, politically Waterloo for a politician.

I am glad that Tony Weiner sounded genuinely repentant and confessed that his was a stupid thing to do. Such textings and photos are never kosher for anyone, esp. for someone like Weiner who's in his mid-40s and married to a very beautiful and dignified lady. It would be an uphill struggle for him to earn back the respect of his wife. I wish him all the luck there. Also, he should apologize to each of the recipients of his sex-text messages and amend his ways once and for all time. And it won't come easy. He may like to read my book - Wisdom of Mankind, chapter 3 to find remedies for his sickness. Truly, some Islamic/Jewish teachings may immensely help him in this troubling time to avoid falling back to the human frailty.

More absurd is the call from congressmen like Eric Kantor asking Weiner to resign. Lest we forget it was only two years ago when Rep. Kantor said that Mark Sanford, then a governor of South Carolina, should NOT resign when Sanford had an adulterous relationship with a lady living in Argentina. Republican senator John Anson of Nevada had a more problematic and sinful adulterous relationship with an aide's wife. And yet, in this case, too, Kantor said that he should not have resigned. It was up to their constituents to decide their fate.

But now when democratic Rep. Weiner does not have an adulterous relationship, in spite of his stupidity and immoral activities in the social media, Kantor has a change of heart. He wants Weiner's resignation. What hypocrisy! It is like throwing stones from a glass house. It is clear that since Weiner is a Democrat, even smaller failings are unacceptable. However, if more sinful activities are done by a Republican, it is kosher. Shame on Republican politicians that have a different yardstick on anything.

Shame on Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs

2011-06-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

Recently Ratko Mladic, the Serbian general, responsible for leading its genocidal campaign against the Bosnian Muslims was captured by the intelligence members of the Serbian government. It is difficult to imagine that Ratko, the Serbian Killer Rat, would have dodged arrest for this long, almost 16 years, without cooperation from the Serbian government and its supporters within the Serbian enclaves of Bosnia. Before his arrest, he was not in any disguise. But where is the outrage about Serbian duplicity, its protection -- all these years for one of the worst mass murderers of our time? Ratko is treated like a celebrity and a star in Serbia. What a shame for Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs!

In her recently published article in the NY Times, Natasha Kandic, a human rights activist from Belgrade, writes:
"But I am not so sure that Serbia has given up on Mr. Mladic and his fellow generals, who prosecuted a genocidal war in Bosnia. The sympathy that state officials and the news media expressed for Mr. Mladic last week is yet another mark of shame on all of us. The deputy prosecutor offered him strawberries. His wish to be visited by the health minister and the president of Parliament was granted, as was his request to visit his daughter’s grave. The Serbian public was constantly updated on his diet in jail, and we all learned that Mr. Mladic flew to The Hague in the suit he’d worn at his son’s wedding. He was treated as a star.

Such adulation of murderers is dangerous in a region where the wounds of war have not yet healed. Nationalism is still strong in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Montenegro, and sometimes even stronger than it was during the wars that tore Yugoslavia apart in the 1990s...
In the eyes of the Bosnian political establishment and victims’ families, justice for the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing will be served only if Serbia and Bosnian Serb leaders acknowledge their role in the genocide. Yet Bosnian Serb leaders still deny it took place and demand that more Bosnian Muslim leaders face war crimes trials, too...
And in Montenegro, a court ruled that the policemen who handed over Muslim refugees to Bosnian Serb forces in May 1992 weren’t guilty of a war crime — a slap in the face to victims’ families.

The region desperately needs an honest debate about the past. It is the only way to recognize all victims and to stop the lies we tell about ourselves and about others."

Will the Serbians ever have the moral courage it takes to wash away the stain of the past once and for all?

All these hoopla about the war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh

2011-06-06T09:30:00.000-07:00

Recently, the debate around the trial of suspected war criminals of Bangladesh's liberation war period has become quite hot with arguments for and against about the fairness of the court and justice system in Bangladesh to try such sensitive cases. Afshan Chowdhury's piece on this issue has appeared in the bdnews24.com.

Some of the remarks of Mr. Chowdhury are unfortunate.

He says, quoting others, Bangladesh is not capable of conducting war crimes trial. Fine, which country is? Did the accused get their fair share in Guantanamo Bay or NY trials of Dr. Aafia Siddique? Truly, I am not aware of any group outside the ICJ in the Hague that can try such cases neutrally. And yet, as we all know, even the USA govt. does not trust it, and thus, has not approved its legality.

It is true that BD’s legal system is a flawed one. And as a member of a victimized family that had fought land-grabbing schemes of Saqa Chowdhury and his gang in Chittagong, we know how flawed it is to incriminate land-grabbing cartels or syndicates! But what is the solution? Should we stop seeking justice when we are victimized by those criminals that demolished ten homes in our family premises, uprooted 16 tenant families, and harassed my family members in Khushi in 2005 during the BNP rule?

In spite of lot of good jobs done by the HRW in the human rights sector, I am sorry to say that its opposition to the trial of suspected war criminals of 1971 is simply not right. More hypocritical is the attitude of the USA government. It is like kettle calling the pot black! I would like to know why OBL was not tried and instead killed as an assassination target? What is HRW doing about hundreds of innocent prisoners rotting in the USA-controlled prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq? Are the drone attacks justifiable and legally right while trial of suspected war criminals in BD wrong? What is the agenda of HRW and many such NGOs that seem more interested about disintegration of Bangladesh along ethnic or tribal lines?

Let’s face it. We live in an imperfect world with faulty justice system everywhere. The advocates challenging the legality of the war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh can do us all a favor by showing real examples where justice is color-religion blind and not unfair on sensitive matters like the war crimes, terrorism, etc. Whom are they trying to protect – a murderer and pathological liar like Saqa?

The Coming Water Crisis

2011-06-06T08:27:00.000-07:00

Nearly 71% of our earth is covered with water of which only 2.5% is fresh water, and the remainder 97.5% is salt water. Of this fresh water nearly 70% (or 1.75% of total water) is frozen in the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland. The remainder 0.75% of the total water is perhaps the world’s most important resource that is found in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, underground aquifers and other sources.

Water demand is increasing rapidly worldwide. Of the fresh water consumed by humans, nearly 70%is used to produce food. In Asia, e.g., 86% total water withdrawal is in the agriculture sector. Fresh water is also consumed for household, municipal and industrial uses. As the world population rises, while water consumption per capita increases with urbanization and the rapid development of manufacturing industries, the fresh water supplies are increasingly becoming smaller with contaminated lakes, rivers, groundwater aquifers and reservoirs.

Large parts of the world are running out of water. A paper presented by the World Bank entitled “The Aftermath of Current Situation in the Absence of Work” concluded that Yemen will run out of water in the period between 2020 and 2050. Sana — the capital of Yemen — is likely to be the first capital city to completely run dry in a few years. In parts of Pakistan and India, groundwater levels are falling so rapidly that from 10% to 20% of agricultural production is under threat. Some 60% of China’s 669 cities are already short of water and the current record drought in several of China’s region is directly linked to their problems with water scarcity. In northern China, rivers now run dry in their lower reaches for much of the year. The Yellow River, the so-called birthplace of Chinese civilization, is so polluted it can no longer supply drinking water.

The division of the river basin water has created friction among the countries of South Asia, and among their states and provinces. The Indus River Basin has been an area of conflict between India and Pakistan for about four decades. Spanning 1,800 miles, the river and its tributaries together make up one of the largest irrigation canals in the world. Dams and canals built in order to provide hydropower and irrigation have dried up stretches of the Indus River. India and Bangladesh have also dispute over the Ganges/Padma and Teesta Rivers water and India is resorting to water theft there as well. Nepal and Bangladesh are also victims of India’s water thievery. India had dispute with Bangladesh over Farakka Barrage, with Nepal over Mahakali River and with Pakistan over 1960 Indus Water Treaty. As I have noted elsewhere, the damns and barrages built inside India on many of the common rivers have made navigation inside Bangladesh during the dry seasons almost impossible.

India is busy building dams on all rivers flowing into Pakistan from occupied Kashmir to regain control of water of western rivers in violation of Indus Water Treaty. This is being done to render Pakistan’s link-canal system redundant, destroy agriculture of Pakistan which is its mainstay, and turn Pakistan into a desert. India has plans to construct 62 dams/hydro-electric units on the Chenab and Jhelum Rivers, which would render these rivers dry by 2014. Using its clout in Afghanistan, India has succeeded in convincing Karzai regime to build a dam on River Kabul and set up Kama Hydroelectric Project She has offered technical assistance for the proposed project, which will have serious repercussions on the water flow in the Indus River.

China has built some 20 dams on the eight great Tibetan rivers while some 40 more are planned or proposed for construction in coming years. China also admitted that she is building a dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River, which will rise to 3,260 meters, thus making it the highest dam in the world. The river originates in Tibet, but then flows into India and Bangladesh where it is called Brahmaputra and Jamuna, respectively, and is a major water source for millions of people. Recently, the Chinese government has taken on a grand, ambitious and $62 billion expensive project called the South-North Water Diversion Project to divert at least six trillion gallons of water each year hundreds of miles from the other great Chinese river, the Yangtze, to slake the thirst of the north China plain and its 440 million people.

Ethiopia is building three dams, two of them large and one controversial, for environmental reasons. Of these, the Great Millennium Dam, along the Nile River about 25 miles from the Sudan border, will cost nearly $5 billion. The dam will section off a larger portion of the Nile than is used now by Ethiopia, and will have a devastating effect on Egypt. The new Egyptian government has instructed its military to prepare for any eventuality regarding a crucial water dispute with neighboring Ethiopia.

Violent incidents over wells and springs take place periodically in Yemen, and the long-running civil war in Darfur owes partly to the chronic scarcity of water in western Sudan. The Six-day War in the Middle East in 1967 similarly was partly prompted by Jordan’s proposal to divert the Jordan River in response to Israel’s siphoning off of water from the Sea of Galilee all the way to the Negev Desert. And water remains a divisive issue between Israel and its neighbors to this day. Israel extracts about 65% of the upper Jordan, leaving the occupied West Bank dependent on a brackish trickle and a mountain aquifer, access to which Israel also controls. In 2004 the average Israeli had a daily allowance of 290 liters of domestic water, while the average Palestinian less than 70.

International river basins extend across the borders of 145 countries, and some rivers flow through several countries. The Congo, Niger, Nile, Rhine and Zambezi are each shared among 9 to 11 countries, and 19 countries share the Danube basin. The 1569 mile long Ganges/Padma River is shared by both India and Bangladesh. The longer Brahmaputra River is shared between China, India and Bangladesh. Adding to the complications is the fact that some countries, especially in Africa and south Asia, rely on several rivers, e.g., 22 rise in Guinea. Some 280 aquifers also cross borders. Consider also the fact that many of Bangladesh’s 250 rivers originate from the Himalayas and run through India before flushing out to the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean. Bangladeshi scientists estimated that even a 10 to 20% reduction in the water flow to the country could dry out great areas for much of the year.

As global food prices rise and exporters reduce shipments of commodities, countries that rely on imported grain are panicking. Countries like South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home. These land grabs shrink the food supply in famine-prone African nations and anger local farmers, who see their governments selling their ancestral lands to foreigners. The land grabs to the south also pose a grave threat to Africa’s newest democracy, Egypt, in her ability to put bread on the table because all of her grain is either imported or produced with water from the Nile River, which flows north through Ethiopia and Sudan before reaching Egypt.

The Nile Waters Agreement, which Egypt and Sudan signed in 1959, gave Egypt 75% of the river’s flow, 25% to Sudan and none to Ethiopia. This situation is changing abruptly as wealthy foreign governments and international agri-businesses snatch up large swaths of arable land along the Upper Nile. While these deals are typically described as land acquisitions, they are also, in effect, water acquisitions.

Just as wars over oil played a major role in 20th-century history, there is growing evidence that many 21st century conflicts will be fought over water. In "Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power and Civilization,” journalist Steven Solomon argues that water is surpassing oil as the world’s scarcest critical resource.

From Turkey, the southern bastion of NATO, down to South Africa, and from China and Indonesia in the east to Mauritania in the west, most of the countries of Asia and Africa are worrying today about how they will satisfy the needs of their burgeoning industries, or find drinking water for the extra millions born each year, not to mention agriculture, the main cause of depleting water resources in the region. According to Solomon our world is divided into water haves and have-nots. China, Egypt and Pakistan are just a few countries facing critical water issues in the 21st century.

Water is irreplaceable and its use in the past century grew twice as fast as world population. Solomon writes, “We’re going to have to find a way to use the existing water resources in a far, far more productive manner than we ever did before, because there’s simply not enough.” That control and manipulation of water resources should be a pivotal axis of power and human achievement throughout history is hardly surprising. Water has always been man’s most indispensable natural resource, and one endowed with special, seemingly magical powers of physical transformation derived from its unique thermodynamic properties and extraordinary roles in earth’s geological and biological processes.

Through the centuries, societies have struggled politically, militarily, and economically to control the world’s water wealth: to erect cities around it, to transport goods upon it, to harness its latent energy in various forms, to utilize it as a vital input of agriculture and industry, and to extract political advantage from it. Solomon says: “Every era has been shaped by its response to the great water challenge of its time. And so it is unfolding—on an epic scale—today. An impending global crisis of freshwater scarcity is fast emerging as a defining fulcrum of world politics and human civilization. For the first time in history, modern society’s unquenchable thirst, industrial technological capabilities, and sheer population growth from 6 to 9 billion is significantly outstripping the sustainable supply of fresh, clean water available from nature using current practices and technologies.”

Freshwater is an Achilles’ heel of fast-growing giants China and India, which both face imminent tipping points from unsustainable water practices that will determine whether they lose their ability to feed themselves and cause their industrial expansions to prematurely sputter. “The lesson of history is that in the tumultuous adjustment that surely lies ahead, those societies that find the most innovative responses to the crisis are most likely to come out as winners, while the others will fall behind. Civilization will be shaped as well by water’s inextricable, deep interdependencies with energy, food, and climate change… By grasping the lessons of water’s pivotal role on our destiny, we will be better prepared to cope with the crisis about to engulf us all,” writes Solomon.

But has our generation grasped those lessons that are so critical for our survival? Basic human needs for water should be fully acknowledged as a top international priority. Basic ecosystem water needs should be identified and met. Our irrigation systems remain very inefficient, wasting as much as 60% of the total water pumped before it reaches the intended crop. If need be, we also have to alter our food habits into growing crops that require less water. Water conservation through better planning, management, and technologies offers great promise to minimizing water usage in household, agricultural and industrial sectors. As noted by Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and the author of “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse,” for the sake of peace and future development cooperation, the nations of the Nile River Basin should come together to ban land grabs by foreign governments and agri-business firms. Since there is no precedent for this, international help in negotiating such a ban would likely be necessary to make it a reality. Finally, serious water-related conflicts should be resolved through formal negotiations.

Sadly, few agreements have been reached about how the water should be shared; most of those agreements are seen as unjust: upstream countries believe that they should control the flow of the rivers, taking what they like, if they can get away with it. Thus, it is not too surprising to hear India’s whining about Chinese thievery of Brahmaputra water, while she herself is stealing water from Bangladesh on some other rivers that originate from India.

In his lecture at the Geneva conference on Environment and Quality of Life in June 1994, Adel Darwish said, “International law is not clear on the right of upstream countries to control either surface or ground water.” It is also not clear on the shared water courses, rivers or cross border aquifers. That situation, regrettably, has not improved an iota.

The non-clarity of international law remains a matter of grave concern. There are few, if any, precedents that the UN international law commission or the International court of justice could be cited to establish some rules to arbitrate on water sharing; but so far no country has volunteered to do so.

If we want to avoid wars of the future, culminating from water, international laws must be formulated that pledge survival of the lower riparian, downstream countries through equitable share of the common water. Dams and barrages that can alter the vital ecosystem and take away the means of livelihood of the affected people should also be banned on common international rivers. No people should ever have to live with the curse of the dams and barrages like the Farakka (and the proposed Tipaimukh Dam) that kills people!

Is there any truth to Obama's allegations about Iran's Nuclear Program?

2011-06-03T19:59:00.000-07:00

I have written a few times about Iran's nuclear program stating, with supporting evidences, that it is a peaceful one. On the other hand, there are many pro-Israeli propagandists have been suggesting that Iran is close to making her bombs, and all the nonsense imaginable that comes easy with loonies. Obviously, they want to drag the USA into another costly war that would surely write her obituary. As much as the USA was wrong during moron Bush's time with all those false claims about Iraq's WMDs, there is absolutely no truth to Iran's nuclear bombs.

Recently Seymour Hersh, probably the best known investigative journalist in our planet, writes about the issue in the New Yorker magazine, and shows that there is no truth to all the silly and dangerous accusations made by the Obama Administration, the Israelis and their 'Amen Corner' in the Capitol Hill. He writes, "There’s a large body of evidence, however, including some of America’s most highly classified intelligence assessments, suggesting that the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago—allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state’s military capacities and intentions. The two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003."

You can read the piece by clicking here.

For a thorough analysis: for and against the issue, you can read the book: Iran (Current Controversies), where my article can be found in chapter 1.

The Palestinian Question

2011-05-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

Thomas Friedman is an op/ed columnist who regularly writes for the New York Times. He has been an unabashed supporter and promoter of the Israeli cause, and thus, his past writings had often been so biased in favor of Israel that they never helped us to find solutions beyond the current impasse.

In one of his latest op/ed columns, Tom proposes that Palestinians hold non-violent processions to force the Netanyahu government to come to the negotiation table. He imagines that such non-violent protests would make the big difference in the heart and minds of the Israelis.

This proposal belies the truth. Before the years of Intifadah, the Palestinian people have tried such options in the past, but to no avail. He ought to know that the Gandhian marches simply don’t work with regimes that are racists and bigots, who put no value to the lives of the ‘other’ people. This is why the Gandhian non-violent protests have failed not only inside the Indian Occupied Kashmir but also in the Occupied Territories of Palestine. When such monstrous, lethal actions are supported by a religious scripture – the Bible, it becomes easier and kosher to kill and maim the ‘other’ people without feeling any remorse or moral bites for their savagery.

Israel is a settler, colonial enterprise, which came into existence by displacing the indigenous Palestinians. Force was used to curb the newer frontiers, and build the settlements in occupied territories. It is difficult for expansionist leaders of Israel to stop that process, which they found so useful to push their agenda. Thus, the methods suggested by Tom would not work, and it never did. As I have written before, Hamas did not appear in vacuum. It evolved out of the realization that non-violent means – the protest marches, slogans and endless negotiations -- simply did not bear the desired fruit with the Israelis. They saw the time-buying hypocritical tactics of the Israeli leaders very loud and clear. They felt that they had a moral duty to challenge the daily harassment, murder and injustice committed by the Zionist regime.

But as we know better, Hamas’s tactics of firing homemade rockets and missiles is stupid. It is short-sighted and won’t work either. The apartheid state of Israel is too strong militarily to be harmed by such childish ploys. Its racist leaders have no sympathy for the lives of ordinary Palestinians, and as such, for every slingshot from an amateur Palestinian the Israeli leaders don’t mind killing hundreds on the Palestinian side.

That is why a new strategy is needed which can find an honorable solution to both the parties – the indigenous Palestinians and the settler Jews and their children and grandchildren that grew up there. It is obvious that the settler Jews will not volunteer to pack their baggage and depart from the occupied territories. The Palestinians can’t force them out either. They have to share their territories with the Israelis. So, both the parties must compromise.

The best option, therefore, lies in either a single state that is democratic with equal rights guaranteed for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, or a two-state formula that is based on the pre-1967 borders where the territories of the West Bank and Gaza would comprise the state of Palestine. As much as the Government of Israel has allowed all these decades the immigration of Jews all across the globe into the occupied territories, any realistic formula must also allow the Palestinian refugees and their family members to return. If the single state option is the chosen option, the rights enjoyed by a Jew cannot be denied to a Palestinian Arab. The character of the state also has to become truly democratic where democracy is not just limited to the voting process for the Palestinian people, as is the case today with the Israeli Arabs who are discriminated and marginalized on all accounts. The holy city of Jerusalem (Al Quds), in that case, can become the capital of the new state. In a two-state formula, Jerusalem, however, has to be shared between the two peoples (if necessary, under the UN supervision), ensuring the rights of each religious community – Jewish, Muslim and Christian – to worship freely at its holy sites.

The status quo is unsustainable for both the parties to the conflict. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation that forces the indigenous Palestinians to either live behind the apartheid walls in mini-Bantustans or get evicted en masse. As we have seen throughout history, any person of dignity, robbed of its basic human rights, would be compelled to oppose that apartheid system. The spirit of freedom is in our DNA. As the Israeli leader Yehud Barak once said had he been a Palestinian he would have chosen terrorism. That is the reality faced 24/7/365 by every Palestinian today!

Since 1967, the Israeli leaders have used negotiations as part of a delaying tactics to deny statehood to the Palestinian people. Armed to the teeth with all the latest weapons of mass destruction and billions of dollars of annual handouts from the USA and the western governments, these eliminationist leaders of the pariah state have been too conceited to make an honorable deal with the Palestinian leadership. Worse still, they chose to shut their eyes to the reality of the apartheid state that they created ruling millions of Palestinians who are entitled to neither a vote nor a country. Only an arrogant fool can afford to be so oblivious or unconcerned about the demographic future.

Washington is much to be blamed for this Israeli attitude. As I see it, Israeli leaders have some of the most powerful supporters within the western capitals, especially, in Washington, D.C., who have never failed to reward them for their illegal settlements and murderous activities. Look at the 29 standing ovations that Netanyahu recently received during his uncompromising speech at the Capitol Hill, in front of the members of the both the houses of Congress. I don’t recall any U.S. president ever getting that many standing ovations in Congress. There was no partisanship, no bickering in support of one of the worst white collar genocidal maniacs of our time! Netanyahu knows very well that the Capitol Hill is his ‘Amen Corner,’ which, on his government’s behalf, can challenge any initiative coming from the White House. And he is absolutely right!

This understanding has been at the heart of the failure of every U.S. mediated effort to finding a peaceful resolution of the crisis. This has allowed the Israeli leaders to ignore the pleas for a negotiated settlement of the problem in an equitable way, even when such proposals and pleas came from none other than the president of the USA.

In his May 19 speech at the U.S. State Department, President Obama said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” He said they should leave aside for now more deeply emotional questions like the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, which he suggested could be dealt with after border and security issues. To allay fear of the Israeli public, he even suggested a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. Never mind the questions: why should the future independent Palestine state be non-militarized when Israel has nuclear bombs in her possession, and have not more Palestinians died of Israeli aggression than the reverse case.

Because of all the hoopla generated by his speech, Mr. Obama saw it fit to explain the phrase ‘mutually agreed swaps,’ in his speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference 2011: “By definition, it means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. … It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides.”

In spite of such appeasing words from Obama, look at the responses he got from the Democratic and Republican politicians. “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” said Mitt Romney. Tim Pawlenty wrongly said Mr. Obama had called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, which he called “a disaster waiting to happen.” Rick Santorum said Mr. Obama “just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.” Representative Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, a former presidential candidate, said Mr. Obama had “betrayed Israel.” The worst line came from Representative Allen West of Florida, who somehow believes Mr. Obama wants to keep Jews away from the Western Wall and wants to see “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader from the Democratic Party, said that no one outside of the talks should urge the terms of negotiation, clearly repudiating the president’s attempts to do just that. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, and other Democrats have made similar statements.

As a recent editorial in the New York Times said, pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade. “Most Republicans know full well that Mr. Obama is not calling on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. He said those borders, which define the West Bank and Gaza, would be the starting point for talks about land swaps.”

In his address to Congress, Netanyahu rejected the idea of sharing Jerusalem saying that Israel would never return to the “indefensible” pre-1967 boundaries. We should not be surprised. This Sunday Fareed Zakaria of CNN showed an old video clip of a forum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where 33 years ago the young Netanyahu said, “I think the United States should oppose the creation of a Palestinian state for several reasons, the first one being that it is unjust to demand the creation of a 22nd Arab state and a second Palestinian state at the expense of the only Jewish state. There is no right to establish the second one on my doorstep, which will threaten my existence. There is no right whatsoever.” It is obvious that Netanyahu has not changed a bit. He simply doesn't want a deal. He always has a new objection, a new problem, a new delaying tactic because, at core, he has never believed that the Palestinians should have a state.

I am, therefore, not so hopeful about the prospect of a peaceful resolution in our time. Blaming Hamas for the current impasse won’t solve the problem either. Through its approval of the pre-1967 border, in essence, Hamas has already recognized Israel within that border. That should be enough to stop this charade against it that it doesn’t recognize the state of Israel. Deplorable and insane as their tactics may be in relation to firing home made rockets, they feel like a cat which has been cornered. When a cat is corned with no way out, it knows that the only way for it to get out of that corner and run away is to attack; otherwise, it would be harmed.

The international community is tired of the stalemate and an endless negotiation process that never produces an outcome. It must demand the western governments stop their support of the illegal expansionist agenda of the Israeli leaders by denying the rogue state all material and other forms of support. Only then Israel would be forced to compromise and a peaceful solution would emerge. On its part, if the Israeli public is serious about peace, it must dump leaders like Netanyahu who have nothing but the same old uncompromising messages. The time is running out for Israel.

This is the time for bold ideas to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel did not seize it during his recent visit to the USA. In his address to Congress, he showed — once again — that he has no serious intention for the kind of compromises that are necessary to create a two-state solution and guarantee both Palestinians their long-denied state and Israel’s long-term security. President Obama has also appeared too wishy-washy, a biased pro-Israeli politician who is not unmindful of the influence of the Jewish Lobby. His administration has been too generous and too soft on Israel, while being too harsh about the choices made by the Palestinian people. He has no problem inviting a mass murderer to the White House but has all the chastisement reserved for the Palestinian leadership for its desire to close its ranks and unite for a common cause of statehood. Worse still, he doesn’t appear to have a strategy for reviving negotiations. He simply can’t be trusted as a reliable mediator of the crisis. Truly, the Palestinian people are no better off with his support and won’t be any worse off without his support.

A recently leaked WikiLeaks document revealed how weak the Palestinian leadership has been. There Saeb Erekat is heard complaining to Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell: “Nineteen years of promises and you haven’t made up your minds what you want to do with us…We delivered on our road map obligations. Even Yuval Diskin (director of Israel’s internal security service) raises his hat on security. But no, they can’t even give a six-month freeze to give me a fig leaf…” All that the U.S. government was interested in, Erekat continued, “PR, quick news, and we’re cost free”, ending up with the appeal, “What good am I if I’m the joke of my wife, if I'm so weak?”

I hope and believe that the Palestinian people and its leadership have learned their lessons well. After years of waiting and betrayal, they have decided the right course of action: Ask the United Nations in September to recognize their state. The measure may not get them what they want, and the United States will veto it when it gets to the Security Council. But still, it is better than the current stalemate, and seems to be the only logical thing to do for the Palestinian people. Let the world know who is on the right side of history and who is not.

Tom Friedman’s ‘Lessons from the Tahrir Square’

2011-05-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

Since publication of Friedman's book 'The World is Flat' I have developed a habit of browsing his articles in the NYT. Tom is an unabashed supporter and promoter of the Israeli cause, which does not help find a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Thanks to the protesters in the Tahrir Square, it is good to see that he is having some second thoughts these days about the zero-sum diplomatic activities to resolve the issue.

In his latest op/ed column in the New York Times, Tom proposes that Palestinians hold non-violent processions to force Netanyahu to come to the negotiation table. This statement belies truth. The Palestinian people have tried such options in the past, but to no avail. Gandhian marches simply don't work with regimes that are racists and bigots, who put no value to the lives of the 'other' people. When such actions are supported by scripture, it becomes kosher to kill and maim the 'other' people without any moral bites. Peaceful protests, therefore, didn't and don't work in places like in the Occupied Palestine and Occupied Kashmir. If Tom were to objectively look at his suggestions, he would find that these simply won't work.

Israel is a settler, colonial enterprise, which came about by displacing the indigenous Palestinians. Force was used to curb the newer frontiers, and build the settlements in occupied territories. It is difficult for expansionist leaders of Israel to stop that process, which they found so useful to push their agenda. Thus, the methods suggested by Tom would not work, and it never did. As I wrote elsewhere the Hamas kind of activities did not happen overnight. It evolved out of the fact that non-violent means simply did not bear fruit. As it is also obvious, their tactics of firing homemade rockets or missiles won't work either. That is where a new strategy is needed which can find an honorable solution. It is obvious that Israelis will not choose all on a sudden to depart from their illegal occupation of the land. The Palestinians have to share their territories with the Israelis. So, both the parties must compromise.

The best option therefore lies in either a single state that is democratic with equal rights for both the Israelis and Palestinians, or two-state formula based on the pre-1967 borders, which allow for return of the evicted Palestinians from their homes in the wars since 1948. The current status cannot allow for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic in character. As Tom has stated elsewhere Israel cannot afford to be both at the same time. The tactics of the Israeli leaders since 1967 has been that of an ostrich, or Mubarak, who tried to ignore the writings on the walls. Only a fool can afford to be so oblivious or unconcerned about the future.

The problem I see is Israeli leaders have some of the most powerful supporters within the western capitals, who reward them for their illegal settlements and murderous activities. This allows Israeli leaders to ignore the pleas for a negotiated settlement of the problem in an equitable way. When our western governments stop their support of the expansionist agenda of the Israel by denying it all material and other forms of support, Israel would be forced to compromise and a peaceful solution would emerge. Everything else is only hypocritical and deceitful means to buy time.

I, therefore, am not so hopeful about the prospect of a peaceful resolution in either Tom's or my time. Blaming Hamas won't solve the problem. By stating that it is okay with pre-1967 border, in essence, it has recognized Israel within the pre-1967 border. That should be enough to stop this charade against it that it doesn’t recognize Israel. Deplorable and insane as their tactics may be, they feel like a cat which has been cornered. When a cat is corned with no way out, it knows that the only way for it to get out of that corner and run away is to attack. Otherwise, it would be harmed. As the Israeli leader Yehud Barak once said had he been a Palestinian he would have chosen terrorism. That is the reality faced 24/7/365 by every Palestinian.
Those who truly care about human rights ought to look outside the box to seriously analyze and find measures to stop this great curse of our time.