| Islam and the West | |
| 26 Jun 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Iran and Israel: Could Israel’s serious war exercises be simulated rehearsals for an imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? | |
| US OFFICIALS are spot on in interpreting combination of Israeli military and diplomatic activity as “a lot of signalling going on”, no doubt aimed at Iran’s persistent drive to uranium enrichment. Israel’s latest has been serious war exercises that appear to have been simulated rehearsals for an imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, confirming doubts we have expressed in this space time and again over the last half-year.
Going by unfolding developments, it seems a lot will become clear when Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad sit face to face in Paris next month. At the heart of the Golan Heights negotiation is whether or not Syria will willingly disengage with Iran and Lebanese client Hezbollah. Since Iran’s retaliation to any attack, whether from Israel or the United States, will be leveraging Hezbollah and similar groups across the region to hit back at enemy interests, sidelining guerilla outfits is crucial if Israel is to go ahead with the strike. That Israel is willing to barter the captured Heights, something it has shied away from ever since the infamous Six Day War of ’67, is proof enough of how serious its designs are. Clearly, Iran is not backing down from what it sees its legitimate right to produce nuclear energy under NPT mandate, despite three rounds of sanctions as well as serious threats of military strike. Therefore, with the ball in their court, and Bush’s term expiring very soon, Washington and Tel Aviv are not likely to sit idle as Iran replaces traditional Gulf power broker Saudi Arabia to take the director’s seat in the Middle East’s new drama. Another factor crucially bearing down on the final go-ahead for military action must be the American election cycle. Republican candidate McCain is already on board the “bomb, bomb Iran” bandwagon, but if his ratings do not improve and Obama keeps the lead as Bush’s final months draw close, then it seems the outgoing president might well sanction the attack fearing potential US withdrawal from the region in case of a Democratic return to the White House. No matter what American officials tell The New York Times, whatever Israel’s designs, a potential strike will not be unilateral. Washington’s frustration with Teheran is no secret, neither is the protection it provides to Israel for its regional antics. Missing from the bigger picture is a unified Arab voice. It does not take a Middle East analyst to judge who will lose the most when push comes to shove. The Arabs need to make a very clear and very strong show of it. A nuclear Iran is in nobody’s interest, but military action and armed rehearsals with hundreds of aircraft will also not be tolerated. Khaleej Times Online editorial21 June 2008 |
Day / July 22, 2009
Australian Muslims warned on polygamy
| Islamic Sharia Laws | |
| 26 Jun 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Australian Muslims warned on polygamy | |
| June 25, 2008
MUSLIMS living in polygamous marriages have been put on notice by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland. Polygamous marriages do exist among Australian Muslims, a sheikh with the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney has said. But such relationships are illegal under the federal Marriage Act which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. "Everyone should be on notice that the law in Australia is that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,” Mr McClelland told reporters today. "That’s based on a long tradition. "It’s based on the culture of our community and polygamous relationships are entirely inconsistent with that culture and indeed with the law. "Polygamous relationships are and will remain unlawful.” Sheik Khalil Chami yesterday said polygamous marriages should be recognised under law. "Why not change the law?” he asked. Well-known Islamic spokesman Keysar Trad admitted he had once pursued the possibility of marrying a second woman. "I certainly would not have entertained the thought of having a relationship without a religious marriage and I thought the relationship with that person was developing to the stage where we had become too friendly with each other,” Mr Trad told ABC Radio. "Rather than entertain any thoughts of an affair I thought the only decent thing to do was to consider a proper commitment to that person.” Mr McClelland said the debate on polygamous marriages was entirely different to issues surrounding same-sex marriage and discrimination of homosexual couples. "The same-sex law reforms that we’ve introduced remove discrimination. "But we’ve confirmed and reiterated a number of times that the Marriage Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others so a polygamous marriage necessarily offends that definition and we won’t be changing it.” The Daily Telegraph http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23919953-5005941,00.html?from=public_rss |
Does Barack Obama’s faith matter?
| Islam and the West | |
| 26 Jun 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Does Barack Obama’s faith matter? | |
| By Ramzy Baroud
Whether Barack Obama is, or at one point, was a Muslim should be a trivial matter in any tolerant, open society, governed by secular, democratic dictates that apply to all, on equal footage, regardless of race, gender or religion. But, in a society that is taking a turn towards the right, the religious right to be more precise, the matter is anything but inconsequential. According to estimates, there are anywhere between 1.2 billion and 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, eight million of whom are Americans. Islam is the world’s second largest religion and according to various claims is the world’s fastest growing one. But Muslims feel threatened, and for good reason. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Muslim communities have been shamelessly branded as the ‘enemy’ to the point that in mainstream media today, the term ‘patriot’ is juxtaposed with ‘Muslim’ as if the two terms are irreconcilable. The events of 9/11 have indeed politicised faith like no other past event — in a country where faith is already a powerful player in political affairs. Chris Hedges writes: ‘Dominionism, born out of a theology known as Christian reconstructionism, seeks to politicise faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians.’ Under these unfortunate circumstances, Obama’s faith matters and matters greatly. The candidate of the Democratic party is fought harshly on the question of his faith, often accused of being a ‘closet Muslim’ — thus, supposedly, bearing wicked plans to destroy this country from ‘within’. His detractors continue to accentuate the claim, knowing fully that they have an audience, large enough to cause the energetic candidate some trouble along the way. ‘Summarised, available evidence suggests Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practising Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father. At some point, he converted to Christianity,’ concludes rightwing columnist Daniel Pipes, known for his ardent anti-Muslim views, after a long winded analysis. Such commentators seem entirely oblivious to the fact that by digging up the ‘dirt’ of Obama’s past, as a third grader in Indonesia, to ‘prove’ that at one point in his life he was raised a Muslim – thus should be disowned as a candidate of ‘change’ in America — they compromise on the very nature of tolerance that America should be standing for. They, although indirectly, envision their alternative view of the future of America, as one ruled by a religious fundamentalist intolerant group that would fight anyone who fails to adhere to their skewed ideology and preferred physical appearance. Also, considering how race and vote were intrinsically linked in individual party’s contests, one can conclude that being black, and God-forbid a Muslim, are the antithesis of what these narrow-minded, if not fanatical bunch stand for. Obama, of course, is violating the very principles that he tirelessness preaches, by responding to ‘accusations’ of his Muslim heritage as if he warding off an incurable disease. Such claims are being deemed ‘smears’, ‘lies’, and according to a debate on MSNBC, Obama declared that he had been ‘victimised’ by such claims. He has been so tireless and fervent in disproving these so-called ‘smears’ that his very own religious intolerance and racism has been shamelessly disregarded. ‘I’ve been to the same church — the same Christian church — for almost 20 years,’ he told a cheering audience last January. ‘I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible.’ One of the many pieces of literature distributed by his campaign in past months featured ‘photos of Obama praying with the words ‘COMMITTED CHRISTIAN’ in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president ‘guided by his Christian faith’ and includes a quote from him saying, ‘I believe in the power of prayer,’ according to an Associated Press report. Speaking in a Florida Synagogue, Obama tried to assure his Jewish audience that his name Barack has the same Semitic roots as the Hebrew name ‘Baruch’. His supporters contend that the origins of the name are African, not Arabic. Even the clear Arabic roots of Obama’s name are now explained based on ‘African’ and — as of late — ‘Semitic’ roots. Obama was responding to a member of the audience who exclaimed that he would be more comfortable voting for someone named Barry, not Barack. Instead of lashing out at the man’s bigotry, Obama once again, ‘fought off rumours’ this time re-interpreting his own name. As for being a Muslim, Obama has spent so much time, energy and resources to fend of the accusations. His latest venture is FighttheSmears.com; the idea behind the new site is to prove once and for all — among other things — that the man is not a Muslim. And now this: ‘Two Muslim women who attended Barack Obama’s event Monday (June 16) in Detroit were told they couldn’t stand behind the candidate, Politico reported. One was told her head covering was an issue, and another was told by an Obama volunteer that for political reasons they didn’t want Muslims appearing with him on TV,’ reported NPR. Of course, this is anything but an identity crisis for the savvy Harvard educated politician of ‘change.’ Obama must’ve comprehended, and early on, the implicit limits of tolerance in his country, and has decided to concede to the harbingers of racism and bigotry. It remains to be said, that Obama should have unapologetically responded to the speculations on his religion in a respectful manner — needless to say self-respecting as well. How about this for a response: ‘I would have been honoured to be affiliated with the religion of Islam, one that is adhered to by one fourth of humanity, and is the religion of my ancestors and millions of Americans. But I am equally honoured to be a member of a church, to be a Christian, a religion — like all great religions — that has taught me tolerance, peace and equality; principals that I will continue to cherish as long as I live.’ Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle. June 24, 2008 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/ColumnistHomeNew.asp?section=ramzybaroud&col=yes |
Chechnya’s Revival: a reminder of what was wrong in the past and what can be done in a positive way — step by step
| Current affairs | |
| 26 Jun 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Chechnya’s Revival: a reminder of what was wrong in the past and what can be done in a positive way — step by step | |
| By Peter LavelleOver the past few days and weeks, there have been a series of militant attacks in Chechnya. This made news, and this is as it should be. Chechnya is a sore point for all of us who care about human rights, national identity, self-determination and peace. And the Chechnya of today is a reminder of what was wrong in the past and what can be dealt with in the present in a positive way — step by step.
We have just returned from a week’s stay in Chechnya. Many fellow journalists told us beforehand: "Don’t go there. It isn’t safe." We decided otherwise. What spiked our interest was the first annual Chechen international film festival, interestingly called Noah’s Ark. How could a place like Chechnya host such a thing? Isn’t Chechnya a war-torn and miserable destination? The fact is that Chechnya is at a crossroads. Nothing is certain, and making predictions is an exercise in futility. But the facts on the ground are very telling. Chechnya’s capital, Grozny, is almost completely rebuilt. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the center of Grozny is the most modern city in Russia. Sadly, it has to be. Grozny was wiped off the face of the earth during the course of both Chechen wars. Today the same city tells anyone with any interest at all that it proudly exists and that it is becoming prosperous. Seeing is believing, but is it convincing? Chechnya is ruled by one tough son of a gun — President Ramzan Kadyrov. He is the 31-year-old strongman who was elevated to replace his father, the former anti-Moscow militant who changed sides during the second Chechen war. He was assassinated for this change of heart, which probably allows Chechens today to live as they do — autonomously and largely in peace. To Our Readers The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory’s address and telephone number. Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters. Email the Opinion Page Editor During our stay, we were shown what the authorities there wanted us to see. We were duly impressed and very appreciative. We were warmly welcomed and treated well every step of the way. Moscow-funded reconstruction is going on around the clock, literally. A phoenix is truly emerging from the ashes. What the authorities didn’t want us to visit were Grozny’s still-improvised neighborhoods, and they went to great lengths to discourage us from visiting the republic’s mountainous areas — the same places where the small number of militants still challenge Kadyrov’s strong-handed governance in the name of extremist Islam. The rebels’ only hope now is the continuation of Chechnya’s tarnished image abroad. Who would have thought that Chechnya is learning a lot about the importance of good PR? The interest in using modern-day public opinion tactics is forcing the republic to mend its ways. Rebuilding homes and infrastructure is just as important as getting out the right message about the Chechnya of today. Chechnya is not the great success story it wants the world to believe. No PR machine is up to muster to pull off such a feat. But every home that is built or restored speaks volumes of what is really happening. Hope and the belief in the future are returning brick by brick. To maintain the pace of reconstruction, the government on Monday committed itself to a new development program for the republic through 2012. Business has already noted the positive changes in Chechnya. Chinese, Turkish and some European businesses are eyeing Chechnya as an investment opportunity in the energy and manufacturing sectors. The influx of meaningful foreign investment in this North Caucasus republic will be the real litmus test of progress. Meanwhile, security is very tight in Chechnya. The vast majority of the people there only wish to see the current drive for normality to continue. Chechnya is simply an ark looking to dock in a safe port. The current trend gives reason for optimism. Peter Lavelle is anchor of "In Context" on Russia Today, and Olga Tarbeeva is the program’s executive producer. The opinions expressed in this comment are their own. Wednesday, June 25, 2008 The Moscow Times » Issue 3929 » Comment |
Saudi Arabia: Stop Trials for ‘Insulting’ Islam
| Islam and Human Rights | |
| 26 Jun 2008, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Saudi Arabia: Stop Trials for ‘Insulting’ Islam | |
| Charges Violate Precepts of Law, Freedom of Expression New York – Courts in Jeddah should dismiss cases against a Saudi web critic and a Turkish barber charged with “insulting” Islam, an unequivocal violation of freedom of expression protected under international law, Human Rights Watch said today.
Criminalizing speech on grounds that it is insulting might appease some people, but it violates the fundamental human right of free speech. The Saudi government uses these laws primarily to silence its critics. The Saudi man used his website to criticize the religious police while the Turkish barber is accused of cursing the name of God. “Criminalizing speech on grounds that it is insulting might appease some people, but it violates the fundamental human right of free speech,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Saudi government uses these laws primarily to silence its critics.” On May 5, the prosecution service in Jeddah charged Ra’if Badawi with “setting up an electronic site that insults Islam,” and referred the case to court, asking for a five-year prison sentence and a 3 million riyal (US$800,000) fine. Unknown persons have hacked Badawi’s website multiple times, and have published his phone numbers, work address, and a threat on the hacked site: “Oh you retard, you are in the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him. Underline ‘Muhammad’ with a thousand lines before a thousand swords are put above your neck!” Prosecutors have not investigated the hackers or the death threats against Badawi. The prosecution service had detained Badawi in March 2008 for one day to interrogate him about his website, which he uses to detail abuses by the Saudi religious police and to question the predominant interpretation of Islam. After being threatened with arrest for his online activities and receiving personal threats of physical harm, Badawi fled Saudi Arabia two weeks ago. “Saudi assertions of increased freedom of expression ring hollow in light of the systematic silencing of critics who dare to speak their minds publicly,” Whitson said. In a second case, the Mekka appeals court on May 1 upheld Sabri Bogday’s death sentence issued on March 31, 2008 for “cursing the name of God.” Bogday, a Turkish national who had worked in Jeddah for 11 years as a barber, allegedly insulted God during an argument with a Saudi client and an Egyptian neighbor. Bogday, who did not have a lawyer in court, denied cursing God, but the three judges of the lower court regarded the testimony by the Saudi and the Egyptian witnesses as sufficient proof that Bogday had committed the crime of apostasy, or defection from Islam. “The charges, conviction, and sentence against Bogday show the dangers of criminalizing speech on the grounds that it’s offensive,” Whitson said. “There’s no good reason to believe that criminal penalties for insulting God or religion either prevent such insults or restore the alleged damage done to the reputation of religion or God.” Although the existence of blasphemy laws make some forms of insult to religion an offence, human rights bodies have called for their abolition, and as a minimum that they be narrowly defined so they are compatible with international human rights law on free speech. “Cursing God” does not meet this test and should not be a criminal offence, Human Rights Watch said. Saudi Arabia does not have a penal code, and the crimes of “insulting Islam” or “cursing God” are not precisely defined. Prosecutors and judges in Saudi Arabia frequently attach a criminal charge to an act they consider criminal without citing the legal basis for such a charge. International human rights law requires that the law, in particular one establishing criminal offences, be sufficiently precise to enable an individual to regulate his conduct appropriately. International human rights law also protects freedom of expression. The government may only ban limited types of speech such as that which immediately and directly incites violence, but the government may not impose criminal sanctions for the expression of thoughts or opinions, merely because they are deemed offensive. Saudi Arabia frequently convicts persons for alleged insults to religion. Hadi al-Mutif, who belongs to the minority Isma’ili creed in Shia Islam, remains on death row for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad with two words in 1993; a court convicted teacher Muhammad al-Suhaimi in 2004 of insulting religion for his unorthodox views expressed in a classroom; teacher Muhammad al-Harbi was found guilty of blasphemy in 2005; and a different court charged Rabah al-Quwai’i with apostasy for internet writings in 2005. Related Topics: Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch Saudi Arabia: Lift Gag-Order on Rights Campaigner Press Release, October 31, 2006 Saudi Arabia: Al-Qaeda Critic Arrested for ‘Destructive Thoughts Press Release, April 12, 2006 Saudi Arabia: Teachers Silenced on Blasphemy Charges Press Release, November 16, 2005 More of Human Rights Watch’s work on Saudi Arabia Country Page May 13, 2008 |
syedmdasadullah.wordpress.com 