Friday, September 21, 2012

Kuala Lumpur Conference on Rohingyas of Myanmar


An international conference entitled:  "Plight of The Rohingya: Solutions?" was held at Islamic Arts Museum in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 17 September 2012. You can view and listen to the keynote address of PGPF President, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, by clicking here.

The PGPF (Perdana Global Peace Foundation) took a first but resolute step in the arduous journey towards global peace, moves towards the single goal of putting an end to war. Its founder, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, envisages "a serious, active and sustained struggle against war and for peace". Sharing and supporting this agenda are world-prominent professionals, intellectuals, authors, statesmen -- all passionate advocates of international peace. Together, they have signed the Kuala Lumpur Initiative that defines the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War. You can view its video by clicking here.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Australian ABC TV coverage from Arakan state of Burma

A recent report from ABC TV channel of Australia provides some glimpses from inside the Arakan state of Burma. It shows the highly discriminatory attitude of the Myanmar govt. and its aid agencies when it comes to distribution of aid to the victims. Not a single piece of aid was delivered from the government agencies to the Rohingya internally displaced people while there seems no shortage of food and medicine for the Rakhine Maghs. While the Rohingyas are put in detention camps, away from their towns, where they suffer from cholera and other chronic health crises, the Rakhines are allowed to dwell in their homes intact and untouched by the violence and Buddhist monasteries made of brick and cement. What a difference in Buddhist run Myanmar when it comes to treatment of minorities!

My letter to U.S. Senators and Congressmen from the state of Pennsylvania on Suu Kyi's visit to the USA

Dear Congressman/Senator,
I was rather surprised to learn of the decision of the U.S. Congress to bestow its highest honor - the Congressional Medal of Honor to Suu Kyi of Myanmar. Through her silence and equivocation during the latest Rohingya crisis she has proven that she does not deserve such an honor, and that she is not a serious partner for either human rights or democracy. She remains a fanatic and racist Burman Buddhist, very similar to the very regime that she complained about while in house arrest. 

In its entire history, racism and bigotry have defined, and sadly, continue to define Myanmar and there is no place for non-Buddhists in that Buddhist majority country of 56 million people today. 

The so-called reform movement inside Myanmar, initiated by Thein Sein, remains all a part of a very calculated gimmick to lift official bans against Myanmar, which requires hard cash to get out of being the poorest country in the ASEAN. Suu Kyi was released by the civilian-dressed military regime so that she could work as its emissary. And that is what Suu Kyi has been doing to promote Myanmarism - an explosive cocktail of ultra-nationalism and Buddhist religious fanaticism. In this new Myanmarism, there is no place for people of other races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. 

No, Myanmar does not deserve any benefit from our nation.  Minorities like the Rohingya have been declared stateless, courtesy of a racist law - Burma Citizenship Law of 1982. As a result of this national project towards ethnic cleansing, half the 4 million Rohingyas have been pushed out of the country since 1962 who  now live as unwanted refugees in places like Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE. And this in spite of the fact that they were one of the early inhabitants of the land of Arakan since time immemorial, predating Burmese or Tibeto-Burman influx to the soil of Arakan. The other half lives in the living hell inside Myanmar with no right of movement, education, health, safety, employment, property, marriage, religion, etc. The government does not honor any of the 30 rights of the UNDHR when it comes to the Rohingya and other persecuted minorities. It still holds on to the 1982 Citizenship Law and nullifies citizenship of millions simply because they are not Buddhists. It forces slave labor and even kills anyone suspected of being Rohingya. It is no accident that per UN and international agencies, the Rohingyas are considered the worst persecuted people on earth. 

And yet, Suu Kyi is fine with such a marginalization of the Rohingya. What a shameful attitude for someone to be honored with a Nobel Prize for Peace, and now this Congressional Medal of Honor! These awards are becoming jokes like putting a pearl necklace on a swine!

Dear sir, as a result of government cover-ups, we may never know how many Rohingyas were killed during the latest pogrom that started in June of this year by a joint coordinated force of Buddhist mob and security forces. As a result, there is hardly a Rohingya town or village that is intact. They have been destroyed beyond recognition and look like as if they are bomb-ravaged places after a war. Not a single Rohingya place of worship is open; they are mostly burned down and demolished. The Rohingya-owned stores were looted and later gutted to fire. Their homes were burned to ashes, and their paddy fields set on fire - forcing more than 200,000 internally displaced Rohingyas to live without any shelter or roof over their head. Not a single government aid came to them. Worse yet, the local Buddhist Rakhines (including racist monks) obstructed the sale of food and other necessities to these Rohingya victims. 

And yet, the so-called Democracy Icon - Suu Kyi shamelessly did not utter a single word of condemnation against such gross violations of human rights. She is okay with such a savage 1982 law - formed during the dictator Ne Win's era - that nullified citizenship of millions of Rohingya people simply because they are non-Buddhists. Simply put, she is a Buddhist fanatic. She has been sent by the regime to soften the US attitude. 

I would like to urge the U.S. Congress  not to lift  its ban on any trade and commerce with Myanmar until a fundamental change takes place positively impacting the lives of those Rohingya and other minorities, guaranteeing their citizenship as equals and rights and privileges restored and secured. If Suu Kyi is serious about Myanmar's future, let her behave like a leader that shuns racism and bigotry advocating for a change with the 1982 Citizenship Law, thus ensuring rights of the Rohingya people. She can't promote trade with Myanmar when it is still locked up in its savage past of racism and bigotry. For the U.S. to fall for such a gimmick would be utterly foolish!

Regards,
Habib Siddiqui

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Response from the Coca Cola company on questionable investment in Myanmar

After waiting for more than two weeks, someone from the Coca Cola Company responded with the letter below:


Thank you for contacting The Coca-Cola Company, Dr. Siddiqui. 
As a consumer-oriented Company, your feedback is extremely important to us, and you may be assured that your comments have been shared appropriately.
If you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact us again.
Demond
Industry and Consumer Affairs
The Coca-Cola Company
Please use the record number below should you have additional questions.
{ticketno:[8001795433]}

=========================
Now that my comments, originally addressed to the chairman of Coca Cola, are 'assured' of being shared "appropriately", let's see if Coca Cola Company would have the inner wisdom to rethink the matter of investment seriously and eventually decide not to invest in a country where racism and bigotry are official norms. 

More on the anti-Muslim video

Soon after publication of my article "They Just Don't Get It!" in the Eurasia Review, a commentator Durand-Even asked: "Of course right minded people will condemn these film makers. Is the writer suggesting that someone in country A doing something evil or offensive entitles people in other countries to kill or injure third parties who have nothing to do with the offenders. What kind of a civilisation is that?"

Here is my response:

What Mr. Durand-Even has failed to understand is the central theme of the above article -  freedom is not free; there is a price the society pays for some people's evil. We can't expect all to behave rationally. What may be considered First Amendment in the USA and western world could well be looked upon as a tool of abuse, racism, bigotry and intolerance in other parts of the world. They don't have to live by our rule. There may be some, a very tiny group of Timoth McVeighs, who may take up arms to blow up and undo what they feel was wrong. That is how emotionally charged up they can become. To assume that everyone would behave rationally even in the face of serious abuse is insanity; it is not wisdom by any account.

As we know when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by armed rebels, there were other Libyans who fought back and tried to protect and save the life of the diplomats. [See the CNN report from the Consulate Office in Benghazi, shown at 10:33 a.m. EST, USA] No one within the Muslim world is condoning the untimely death of the brilliant diplomat Chris Stevens who was well liked by most Libyans. He simply became an unnecessary casualty of hatred that was sparked by the cyber-terrorist Nakoula and his anti-Muslim crusaders. Without his video release to offend the 1.6 billion Muslims, this tragedy surely could have been avoided. And that is the message I was trying to convey.

There is no denying that a very tiny group of zealots has been trying to bring about a civilization war with the world of Islam. Many in the  mainstream politics (esp. within the Republican Party) are sadly part of that evil plan. They have not given up on their imperial dream or fantasy to secure America (and by default the Judeo-Christian West) as the uncontested hyper power for the 21st century. Thus, when these 'freedom terrorists' create the ground for such anti-Muslim and anti-Islam hatred through their hate speeches, books, movies, etc., the funding source and support almost always can be traced back to those evil politicians. As we have noticed with Nazi-era Germany for hatred against an ethnic or religious community to become part of a national agenda, it requires meticulous planning that is concocted over a long period of time with overt or covert support of many actors within a society to prepare that fertile ground for extermination. The intolerance and hatred spewed by many of the politicians in the post-9/11 era has given the necessary boost to pen-pushing anti-Muslim zealots/terrorists to act as Julius Streichers of America.

So, what I was suggesting in my article was that a red line has to be drawn that ensures that freedom of expression is not abused by the likes of Nakoula who only want to start the war of civilizations. These guys are no better than terrorists. And mind that President Obama had no moral qualms about killing al-Awlaki for he considered the views expressed by the American-born Imam of Yemeni parents unacceptable. Did Obama make a mistake in his decision? If not, why a separate formula when it comes to Nakoula? Why protect him when his crime has already led to the death of at least 9 people across the world, including Ambassador Chris?

The bottom line is: we can't have it both ways! It is high time to find a solution to such abuses that are hurled against a major religion whose adherents comprise nearly a quarter of our human race today. The so-called freedom of expression cannot be used as a justification for offending an entire religious community. Funny that when requested Google declined to pull out the offensive video from the YouTube. However, when it came to the topless pictures of the British princess, the same Google had no problem pulling such personal pictures out from its YouTube. What a double standard! It would be stupid to imagine that the Muslim world is unaware of the case; and there are plenty I could cite to show the despicable hypocrisy on such matters.

Finally, to answer Mr. Durand-Even, the offensive movie was made in the USA by a Coptic American, Nakoula, who lives in California. The USA is protecting him under the pretext of the First Amendment. The offended party, which is the entire Muslim world, finds him guilty. So, the comment made by Mr. Durand-Even fails to capture the reality of the entire episode.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

They Don’t Get It!



There is a Farsi couplet:
Ba Khuda deewana basho
Ba Muhammad hoshyaar
(Meaning: Play madly with God if you wish, but be careful with Muhammad.)
The Muslim world from Senegal to Indonesia is angry over the release of an anti-Muslim film in the YouTube ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad (S). There were protests in at least 23 nations. In the volatile Middle East the angry demonstrators attacked the U.S. embassies in the region. Demonstrators in Iraq chanted, “We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for our Prophet.” In Lebanon, a crowd set fire to a KFC and a Hardee's restaurant in the port city of Tripoli, 50 miles (85 kilometers) north of Beirut, sparking clashes with police. Police then opened fire, killing one of the attackers. In Benghazi (Libya) the attackers killed the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 embassy officials.

The reaction of many Americans to the protests in the Muslim world is utter bewilderment mixed with anger. They feel that those Muslims are ungrateful to the US for delivering them out of tyranny of the likes of Zine bin Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar al-Gaddhafi of Libya. Last Thursday (September 13, 2012) the front page heading in the USA Today read – ‘We hate America’: The USA helped liberate them from the dictators. Now Americans are the enemy once again. The Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was heard saying, “Many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

The fact is: outside the case of Libya, the response of the Obama Administration towards the Arab Springs has been lukewarm at best. While thousands of Syrians continue to be killed by Bashar al-Assad’s murderous Nusayri forces the U.S. government has not done anything meaningful to support the rebels. Truly, if it had cared and imposed only a fraction of the biting sanctions that it helped to impose on Iran – at the behest of the rogue state of Israel -- through the U.N., the Syrian tyrant would have been gone long time ago.

For decades, the successive U.S. governments since the days of President Reagan have been Hosni Mubarak’s greatest benefactor. Even the very tear-gas canisters fired by Mubarak's security forces on the Egyptian crowd demanding democracy in the Tahrir Square had the "made in USA" logos. In 2009, the U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton declared, "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family." President Obama supported the Egyptian dictator up until the very last minute when his downfall became inevitable. As noted in the New York Times, dated February 7, 2011, the Obama administration’s plan was to engineer the ascension of the much hated, loyalist, torturer Omar Suleiman as Mubarak's replacement in the name of "stability".

Thus, when some of the U.S. media depict Egyptian anger towards the U.S. as "ironic" on the ground that it was the U.S. that had freed them and "allowed" them democracy, they must be suffering from selective amnesia.

But more appalling is the utter failure of the U.S. media to educate their audience that words have consequences. People can die for venoms unleashed in the Internet. And they should have known this fact since the publication of the offensive books and films like The Satanic Verses and Submission, respectively.

Muslims take their religion very seriously. To them Muhammad (S), the Prophet of Islam, is not just an ordinary person who got revelation from God, but simply the best of His creation. They don’t utter his name without reciting the salutation - sallal-lahu alayhi wa sallam (meaning: blessings of Allah and peace be upon him). The Muslim testimony of faith “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” is uttered five times daily during the call of prayer (adhan) from the minarets of masajid (mosques) urging Muslims to come and pray to Allah. A Muslim also ends his/her prayer with a supplication to Allah seeking blessing and bounties for the Prophet and his family the same way He had blessed the family of Abraham (Ibrahim alayhis salam). In the Qur’an, the Muslim Holy Scripture, Allah Himself testifies about Muhammad’s (S) perfection of character as a human being. He is the Insan al-Kamil who had combined the characteristics of the Prophets Moses and Jesus (AS). He is the most praised one both in this world and the Hereafter.

After analyzing Prophet Muhammad's (S) life, British Orientalist Stanley Lane-Poole said, "He was the most faithful protector, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence, those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, ‘I have never seen his like either before or after.’ "

Truly, in the annals of human history, no Prophet was as much adored by his followers as Muhammad (S) was. In his poem below, Hassan ibn Thabit (R), a contemporary of the Prophet, captured this sentiment as to how the Companions felt about Muhammad (S):
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)

It is out of this profound sense of love and reverence that Muslims don’t draw any picture of their Prophet (S), which could lead to deification that is absolutely prohibited in Islam.

So, when someone writes highly offensive words and depicts Muhammad (S) in ways that are ludicrous and historically inaccurate it is not difficult to understand that the sentiment of 1.6 billion Muslims is hurt; they feel violated in the worst possible way. They see their faith denigrated by these savages, the cyber terrorists and pen-pushing hate mongers. They are naturally furious with America, which under the pretext of First Amendment right to free expression, protects these hatemongering terrorists that hurt the feelings of Muslims. They feel betrayed when they see that some of these offenders/terrorists, responsible for the death of innocent human beings, are even knighted and rewarded by western governments and institutions. They also see obvious hypocrisy when President Obama had no problem authorizing assassination of American born Anwar al-Awlaki for he considered the latter’s freedom of speech a threat to national security.

As to the identity of the latest culprits pushing for a civilization war between the worlds of Islam and Judeo-Christianity, we are told by the Associated Press journalist Gillian Flaccus, the highly offensive and inflammatory video was made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian who lives in California. It has been promoted by a Christian evangelist Steve Klein whose unabashed and outspoken hatred of Islam has made him a contemptible hate monger. Klein, a Vietnam War veteran, is a failed real estate investor who now works with his wife as  an insurance agent and lives in San Jacinto Mountains about 90 miles southeast of Los Angeles. “Klein founded Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques, and started Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which preaches against Muslims and publishes volumes of anti-Muslim propaganda that Klein distributes. He also has helped train paramilitary militias at the church of Kaweah near Three Rivers, about an hour southeast of Fresno, to prepare for what they believe is a coming holy war with Muslim sleeper cells, according to the law center. His anti-Muslim activities indirectly led him to his affiliation with Nakoula, an Egyptian Christian living outside Los Angeles, who contacted him about making an anti-Muslim movie.”

To heighten the animosity with the Muslim world, Nakoula – who used many pseudonyms including the name Sam Bacile - falsely identified himself as an Israeli Jew and claimed that his produced movie was financed by Jewish money. We are also told that even the actors were duped in this nasty scheme; they did not know that it was a hate movie to denigrate Islam and its Prophet (S).

As I mentioned in my book – Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah: an exposition of his life for inquisitive western readers - (available from Amazon.com) – anti-Islamic polemics is not new and dates back at least to the 7th century C.E. Karen Armstrong tells us that during the Crusades “... biographies of Mohammed by Christians describe the Prophet's sex life in a manner that reveals far more about their own sexual problems than about the facts of the Prophet's life.” Thomas Carlyle (d. 1881) said, “The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man are disgraceful to ourselves only."

And if the past is any barometer to predict the future, the anti-Islamic polemics and hatred will continue to grow for quite some time. Not to be forgotten in this context is the wide support such narratives enjoy amongst many mainstream Christian politicians – the likes of Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich and Giuliani.

I won’t, therefore, be surprised if we later learn that Nakoula’s movie was funded by some of the same Judeo-Christian villains who have been trying to bring about the war of civilizations since at least 9/11.  To them, Bush Jr. has left the war unfinished.

Mindful of the violent reaction to the video, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland emphasized during a briefing for reporters, “The U.S. government has nothing to do with this video.” But that should not be an excuse not to prosecute Nakoula who had triggered the embassy attacks. The western governments must understand that freedom of expression is not free and need not be a vehicle to promote hatred and start civilization wars.

As Patrick Buchanan recently noted, “There are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom their faith is their most priceless possession. They live it. They will die for it. And not a few will kill for it. Others will seize upon real or imagined insults to that faith to excite the crowds to expel us from their world. And some Americans will accommodate them by using books, films, and videos to manifest their contempt of Islam.”

So we have an irreconcilable conflict unless a red line is drawn, which does not allow the likes of Nakoula, Klein, Terry Jones and Robert Spencer to poison our world under the pretext of the First Amendment. They are no better than other terrorists and should be treated as such if we are serious about avoiding a civilization war. Otherwise, Chris Stevens won’t be the only casualty!



Saturday, September 15, 2012

Another unnecessary death in Guantanamo Bay Prison

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni talented poet and devout Muslim, died last week in the Guantanamo Bay Prison. He had been cleared for release under George W. Bush (in December 2006) and under Barack Obama (as a result of the Guantánamo Review Task Force’s deliberations in 2009). His habeas corpus petition had been granted, but, disgracefully, he had not been freed.

As recently noted by investigative journalist, filmmaker, photographer and Guantanamo expert, and author of  the book - The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press) - Andy Worthington, "Instead of being released, Adnan Latif was failed by all three branches of the U.S. government. Obama was content to allow him to rot in Guantánamo, having announced a moratorium on releasing any Yemenis from Guantánamo after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian recruited in Yemen, tried and failed to blow up a plane in December 2009. That ban, which had been put in place largely because of pressure from Congress, was still in place when Latif died. Also to blame are the D.C. Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. Latif’s habeas corpus petition had been granted in July 2010, but then the D.C. Circuit Court moved the goalposts, ordering the lower-court judges to give the government’s supposed evidence — however obviously inadequate — the presumption of accuracy. Latif’s case came before the D.C. Circuit Court in October 2011. Two of the three judges — Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson — reversed his successful habeas petition. Only Judge David Tatel dissented, noting that there was no reason for his colleagues to assume that the government’s intelligence report about Latif, made at the time of his capture, was accurate, as it had been “produced in the fog of war, by a clandestine method that we know almost nothing about.”... Despite that, when the Supreme Court had the opportunity to take back control of the Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas petitions in June this year, through a number of appeals, including one by Latif, they refused."

Worthington writes, "We may never find out exactly what happened to Adnan Latif. On September 8, he was “found unresponsive in his cell” in Camp 5 “and could not be revived,” as the authorities explained in a statement. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service will conduct an inquiry, but it may be inconclusive. To my mind, he was worn out by Guantánamo — so worn out that he died of despair and exhaustion — and those who are to blame are Barack Obama, his advisors, and Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson."

In the Washington Post  David Remes said, “Latif’s death is a tragedy and could have been avoided. This is a man who never should have been brought to Guantánamo. He was fragile physically and psychologically and cried out for treatment.” 

Worthington's wrote, "I hope that Adnan Latif’s death will not have been in vain and that it will lead to renewed pressure on Obama to release the prisoners at Guantánamo who, like Latif, were told — some as long ago as 2004 — that they would be leaving Guantánamo, but who are still held. Otherwise there will be more deaths, more disgrace, and more of the very real sense that the men at Guantánamo are, as George W. Bush intended nearly eight years ago, a subspecies of human being without any rights whatsoever." 

I agree with him wholeheartedly. When our government fails to release victims like Adnan Latif it not only makes a mockery of the Habeas Corpus but also reveals our nation's despicable hypocrisy. We simply can't talk about the things we cherish but we need to walk the talks for all to see that we are serious about those values. 

Students and the Apolitical Sword: The Defeat of Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić by Binoy Kampmark

  “This is not an ordinary election victory; this is an avalanche that has wiped out an authoritarian regime and entire political scene.”- N...