Posts
The question of whether Moammar Gaddafi deserved to die following his Oct. 20 capture and the startling revelations that he may have been sodomized raises troubling issues for Muslims. Do we celebrate the death of a despot or should we set aside our joy to consider that Gaddafi's enemies violated the basic tenants of Islam to kill him?
By focusing on what kind of government Libyans will form ignores the big picture that the manner of Gaddafi's death will likely bring an intense period of tribal warfare.
There is no question that Gaddafi's end was inevitable. He wreaked terror on his people for 42 years. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, supported the Irish Republican Army and he engaged in assassination plots. Even Gaddafi's closest neighbors were not safe. He conspired in 2003 to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah while the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Gaddafi was responsible for killing thousands of Libyans. Vengeance, more than justice, was on the minds of most Libyans.
Yet his death could very well derail Libya's pursuit of a new government that embraces the democratic ideals the international community wants so badly. At the end of the day, tribal politics and vengeance for the flagrant disregard of Islamic principles may dictate the course Libyans take.
Gaddafi belonged to the small, but influential Gadhadhfa tribe. Gaddafi's minister of information, Moussa Ibrahim, who is believed to still be alive, also belongs to Gadhadhfa, which had dominated the Libya's security groups and militias.
Tribal law, more or less, ruled Libya. It matters little whether Gaddafi's tribe condoned or opposed the dictator's treatment of his people. Tribal leaders will use a mix of tribal law, pride and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as very potent reasons to avenge Gaddafi's death. The man responsible for killing Gaddafi was videotaped and his image played worldwide. It is beside the point whether the allegations are true that some individuals sodomized Gaddafi. The hint alone further humiliates a captive at the mercy of his enemies.
Under tribal law, Gadhadhfa leaders will target the people responsible for Gaddafi's rape and death as a matter of honor. Retaliation will follow from other tribes and Libya could fall into chaos.
From a religious standpoint, Islam is specific in its instructions that the elderly and children should not be killed in warfare. Gaddafi was 69 years old. The Holy Qur'an also stipulates:
• Wounded soldiers unfit to fight or not fighting should not be attacked.
• Prisoners of war should not be killed.
• Any person tied up or in captivity should not be killed.
• Corpses of the enemy must not be disgraced or mutilated.
• Corpses of the enemy must be returned.
These aspects in Islam are not lost on the Libyan population, which is 99 percent Muslim, and it furthers the justification in the minds of some Libyans to seek vengeance.
Gaddafi was cunning in his treatment of Libya's tribes. He played on intra-tribal rivalries and often bribed tribal leaders to secure their loyalty. Major tribes such as Zawiya, Zentan, Bani Walid and Obeidat backed the rebels. The Maqarha tribe, with its estimated 1 million members, was pro-Gaddafi. Libya's largest tribe, Warfalla, was a pillar in Gaddafi's regime, but in the waning months of the war waffled over its allegiances between the pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces.
The Gadhadhfa and Maqarha tribes are centered in Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, while Warfalla stretches from Bani Walid to Sirte and on to Tripoli and Benghazi. The three tribes are a powerful combination that before engaging in rebuilding Libya likely will seek out and punish individuals responsible for Gaddafi's humiliating end. Millions of Gaddafi sympathizers, or perhaps more accurately people once sympathetic to Gaddafi but consider themselves pious Muslims, will not sit idle until they deliver justice.
Tribal conflicts at the height of the civil war foreshadowed the climate in a post-Gaddafi Libya.
In Yafran, for example, Mashasshia tribe members who supported the Gaddafi government fled to the mountains after anti-Gaddafi forces burned their homes to the ground. The http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifAmazigh, the Berbers who long suffered under the Gaddafi regime, say they do not want the Mashaashia tribe back. And last month, rebels looted and the destroyed the homes of the pro-Gaddafi Hasoun tribe.
Given these early signs that the civil war threatens to fall into insurgency and tribal warfare, Gaddafi's death all but seals the bloody path these tribes are likely to take before Libya's Transitional National Council can form a lasting government. The transitional government's failure to protect Gaddafi from the very public tribal revenge does not bode well for the immediate future of Libya.
This post was originally published by The Huffington Post.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saudi Women Demonstrate They are Capable of Making Change
To say that Saudi King Abdullah’s decree to give women the right to vote and become Shoura Council members is a historic moment would be an understatement. The women’s suffrage movement is only part of the story.
To celebrate our victory to cast ballots in municipal elections and run for office, we must also acknowledge the Arab Spring and the spilled blood of our Middle East neighbors. Without them, we may still be begging for our rights.
When the King announced earlier this year funding for various projects, Western analysts dismissed his efforts as a cynical ploy to keep Saudi citizens quiet. This attitude ignored King Abdullah’s well-documented support for women’s rights since he assumed the monarchy in 2005. Above all, King Abdullah has remained consistent in his approach to reform, whether through the Ministry of Labor to relax gender segregation rules or to provide more funding for scholarships for women university students studying abroad.
Yet King Abdullah is not blind to the bloodshed in Libya, Syria and Yemen. The impact of the revolutions has been significant. I’m convinced the King likely would have given women the right to vote and Shoura Council membership with or without our neighbors taking to the streets. But certainly there was an urgency to grant these rights now rather than later.
I’m not suggesting the Saudi government feared the tide of revolution spreading to Saudi Arabia. Rather, the government responded to Saudis’ restlessness to pick up the pace of reform. Religious conservatives continue to emotionally blackmail Saudis by preying on their weaknesses to always be good Muslims. That means resist change. The Saudis I know possess intellectual honesty. In our hearts we acknowledge the need for accelerated reforms in a shrinking world where human rights violations can’t easily be swept under the rug. We recognize that moving toward women’s rights at a leisurely pace in the 20th century doesn’t work so well in the 21st century.
The women’s driving movement also brought about change. Although there was no mention of it in the King’s speech, it’s clear the June driving campaigns had a tremendous effect on our future. It’s only a matter of time that women will be behind the wheel. The driving issue isn’t really up to the Saudi government, but Saudi women and their families.
It’s a proud moment for Saudi women to win this victory. However, this isn’t the end. We must have municipal councils that are open to the public, encourage citizen participation, and be responsive to the public’s wants and needs. We are not anywhere near that since we have little transparency in local government. We must also tighten the rules in the electoral process to eliminate cross-district voting. We must also stop efforts to subvert elections with so-called “Golden Lists” that give the religious conservatives voter clout by again exploiting Saudis’ eagerness to elect “good” Muslims.
And while full membership in the Shoura Council exceeded our highest expectations, we must move towards having Shoura Council members elected by the people instead appointed by the government.
In his speech, King Abdullah, said, "Because we refuse to marginalize women in society in all roles that comply with Sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others... to involve women in the Shoura Council as members, starting from the next term."
Sharia is the key here. We have long recognized that Sharia provides rights to women within the context of Islam, but that it never has been implemented fairly and properly. By understanding our true rights under Sharia, women now should educate themselves in politics, the economy and become active in NGOs. This will help build a civil society and prevent religious conservatives from hijacking our happiness by dragging their feet to implement the King’s decrees.
The King took a giant leap forward, but it’s only the first of many steps we must take. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to hop into my car and drive up to Riyadh to apply for Shoura Council membership.
To celebrate our victory to cast ballots in municipal elections and run for office, we must also acknowledge the Arab Spring and the spilled blood of our Middle East neighbors. Without them, we may still be begging for our rights.
When the King announced earlier this year funding for various projects, Western analysts dismissed his efforts as a cynical ploy to keep Saudi citizens quiet. This attitude ignored King Abdullah’s well-documented support for women’s rights since he assumed the monarchy in 2005. Above all, King Abdullah has remained consistent in his approach to reform, whether through the Ministry of Labor to relax gender segregation rules or to provide more funding for scholarships for women university students studying abroad.
Yet King Abdullah is not blind to the bloodshed in Libya, Syria and Yemen. The impact of the revolutions has been significant. I’m convinced the King likely would have given women the right to vote and Shoura Council membership with or without our neighbors taking to the streets. But certainly there was an urgency to grant these rights now rather than later.
I’m not suggesting the Saudi government feared the tide of revolution spreading to Saudi Arabia. Rather, the government responded to Saudis’ restlessness to pick up the pace of reform. Religious conservatives continue to emotionally blackmail Saudis by preying on their weaknesses to always be good Muslims. That means resist change. The Saudis I know possess intellectual honesty. In our hearts we acknowledge the need for accelerated reforms in a shrinking world where human rights violations can’t easily be swept under the rug. We recognize that moving toward women’s rights at a leisurely pace in the 20th century doesn’t work so well in the 21st century.
The women’s driving movement also brought about change. Although there was no mention of it in the King’s speech, it’s clear the June driving campaigns had a tremendous effect on our future. It’s only a matter of time that women will be behind the wheel. The driving issue isn’t really up to the Saudi government, but Saudi women and their families.
It’s a proud moment for Saudi women to win this victory. However, this isn’t the end. We must have municipal councils that are open to the public, encourage citizen participation, and be responsive to the public’s wants and needs. We are not anywhere near that since we have little transparency in local government. We must also tighten the rules in the electoral process to eliminate cross-district voting. We must also stop efforts to subvert elections with so-called “Golden Lists” that give the religious conservatives voter clout by again exploiting Saudis’ eagerness to elect “good” Muslims.
And while full membership in the Shoura Council exceeded our highest expectations, we must move towards having Shoura Council members elected by the people instead appointed by the government.
In his speech, King Abdullah, said, "Because we refuse to marginalize women in society in all roles that comply with Sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others... to involve women in the Shoura Council as members, starting from the next term."
Sharia is the key here. We have long recognized that Sharia provides rights to women within the context of Islam, but that it never has been implemented fairly and properly. By understanding our true rights under Sharia, women now should educate themselves in politics, the economy and become active in NGOs. This will help build a civil society and prevent religious conservatives from hijacking our happiness by dragging their feet to implement the King’s decrees.
The King took a giant leap forward, but it’s only the first of many steps we must take. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to hop into my car and drive up to Riyadh to apply for Shoura Council membership.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
News Flash: American Muslims are Really American
The Pew Research Center came out with a new poll that provides more evidence that American Muslims are, well, American.
While some American political leaders prefer good old-fashioned loyalty oaths and McCarthyesque congressional hearings to determine who is a real American, the Pew Research Center found that 82 percent of the American Muslims polled are “overwhelmingly satisfied” with their lives in the United States. Seventy-nine percent rated their communities as “excellent” or “good.” And to hammer home that idea of extra American goodness, 56 percent of the American Muslims surveyed said they like the “way things are going” in the United States while the only 23 percent of non-Muslims only think so.
Not surprisingly, 49 percent of the Muslims in the United States say they think of themselves as Muslims first. However, before the lunatic fringe blows a gasket, they should take note that Pew also found that 46 percent of American Christians consider themselves Christians first.
No U.S. poll is complete without asking Muslims about Al-Qaeda. Pew found that 81 percent of American Muslims believe suicide bombings and other violent acts against civilians “are never justified.”
The research center also found that nearly half of American Muslims believed that their religious leaders have not done enough to denounce Islamic extremists. Twenty-eight percent of Muslims complained they were “looked at with suspicion” and 22 percent said they were “called offensive names.”
The same day that Pew released the results of its poll, a kerfuffle occurred at a Playland amusement park in Rye, N.Y. when some hijabis belonging to the Muslim American Society of New York were denied access to rides because “headgear” was not permitted. An argument between Muslim women and park operators ensued, bad language was presumably used, and feelings were hurt.
Apparently, the Muslim American Society had 3,000 people at the park to celebrate Eid.
Park officials said headscarves were not allowed on some rides due to safety concerns. Park management provided group members with a list of rides that banned headgear. Park officials then offered banned riders a refund, but somewhere between the ride and the gate entrance a scuffle broke out within the group. Cops rolled in and arrested 15 men and women for making a nuisance of themselves.
I suppose the incident illustrates the sensitivity in the Muslim community about how the general public views American Muslims. As the Pew Research Center pointed out, 28 percent of American Muslims say they are viewed with suspicion. So being ultra-sensitive when denied an amusement park ride because one is wearing the hijab is understandable.
But, really, apparently the Muslim American Society had been at the park at last year’s Eid and had no problems with the park’s headgear policy. This year the group had been told on several occasions about the longstanding policy.
Based on the news reports I’ve read, the blame seems to go to the Muslim American Society for not informing group members of the rules. If the organization planned to bring 3,000 people to the park, perhaps it should have issued the park’s guidelines before boarding the bus to avoid people embarrassing themselves when it was time to get on a ride.
There is often no rhyme or reason for banning hijabis from participating in events or having access to venues. Certainly a continuing concern over discrimination against the hijab remains the inflexibility of sports organizations. And, according to Pew, an estimated 21 percent of American Muslims say they are singled out by airport security. So problems do exist. However, the amusement park incident doesn’t meet the discrimination test.
I have yet to see a statement from the Muslim American Society. But based on the facts at hand, I’d say some folks in the organization simply behaved badly.
While some American political leaders prefer good old-fashioned loyalty oaths and McCarthyesque congressional hearings to determine who is a real American, the Pew Research Center found that 82 percent of the American Muslims polled are “overwhelmingly satisfied” with their lives in the United States. Seventy-nine percent rated their communities as “excellent” or “good.” And to hammer home that idea of extra American goodness, 56 percent of the American Muslims surveyed said they like the “way things are going” in the United States while the only 23 percent of non-Muslims only think so.
Not surprisingly, 49 percent of the Muslims in the United States say they think of themselves as Muslims first. However, before the lunatic fringe blows a gasket, they should take note that Pew also found that 46 percent of American Christians consider themselves Christians first.
No U.S. poll is complete without asking Muslims about Al-Qaeda. Pew found that 81 percent of American Muslims believe suicide bombings and other violent acts against civilians “are never justified.”
The research center also found that nearly half of American Muslims believed that their religious leaders have not done enough to denounce Islamic extremists. Twenty-eight percent of Muslims complained they were “looked at with suspicion” and 22 percent said they were “called offensive names.”
The same day that Pew released the results of its poll, a kerfuffle occurred at a Playland amusement park in Rye, N.Y. when some hijabis belonging to the Muslim American Society of New York were denied access to rides because “headgear” was not permitted. An argument between Muslim women and park operators ensued, bad language was presumably used, and feelings were hurt.
Apparently, the Muslim American Society had 3,000 people at the park to celebrate Eid.
Park officials said headscarves were not allowed on some rides due to safety concerns. Park management provided group members with a list of rides that banned headgear. Park officials then offered banned riders a refund, but somewhere between the ride and the gate entrance a scuffle broke out within the group. Cops rolled in and arrested 15 men and women for making a nuisance of themselves.
I suppose the incident illustrates the sensitivity in the Muslim community about how the general public views American Muslims. As the Pew Research Center pointed out, 28 percent of American Muslims say they are viewed with suspicion. So being ultra-sensitive when denied an amusement park ride because one is wearing the hijab is understandable.
But, really, apparently the Muslim American Society had been at the park at last year’s Eid and had no problems with the park’s headgear policy. This year the group had been told on several occasions about the longstanding policy.
Based on the news reports I’ve read, the blame seems to go to the Muslim American Society for not informing group members of the rules. If the organization planned to bring 3,000 people to the park, perhaps it should have issued the park’s guidelines before boarding the bus to avoid people embarrassing themselves when it was time to get on a ride.
There is often no rhyme or reason for banning hijabis from participating in events or having access to venues. Certainly a continuing concern over discrimination against the hijab remains the inflexibility of sports organizations. And, according to Pew, an estimated 21 percent of American Muslims say they are singled out by airport security. So problems do exist. However, the amusement park incident doesn’t meet the discrimination test.
I have yet to see a statement from the Muslim American Society. But based on the facts at hand, I’d say some folks in the organization simply behaved badly.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The Hijab as a Feminist Statement
The West's zeal to save “oppressed” Muslim women by urging them to discard the veil, whether it is the hijab or the niqab, demonstrates a profound ignorance of Islam and the rights of Muslim women.
We have seen a number of European nations and, to a lesser extent, Australia enact laws that purport to free women from their religion. While some Muslims may view these actions as good intentions gone awry, I see it as a systemic attempt to impose draconian laws that further oppression. As I have stated previously, democratic nations that impose laws restricting Muslim women from wearing the hijab, the burqa or the abaya share much in common with the Taliban by imposing their own interpretation of what is appropriate for Muslim women.
Academic Leila Ahmed goes so far as to call this a new colonialism, and there is much merit in her arguments. British occupiers, she points out, sought to free Egyptian women from the alleged tyranny of Islam at the beginning of the 20th century by encouraging them to unveil. Indeed, for more than 70 years Egyptian women rejected the hijab.
By the 1980s, the hijab emerged as a symbol of Islamic feminism. Specifically, women embraced the hijab as a means to minimize gender bias and force men to see them as equals in the workplace, and not view them as sex objects or simply for their beauty. Muslim women do not want their appearance to influence the conduct of the people around them.
Ahmed recognizes that the hijab is not a symbol of empowerment in some Muslim countries where women have no choices in whether they cover their hair. Yet Ahmed is spot on in stating what Muslim women have been telling the West for more than decades: the hijab is an Islamic feminist statement.
Ahmed has a new book out called A Quiet Revolution. I plan to pick up a copy and I suggest that those readers who prefer to discover an enlightened view of the hijab buy a copy as well.
We have seen a number of European nations and, to a lesser extent, Australia enact laws that purport to free women from their religion. While some Muslims may view these actions as good intentions gone awry, I see it as a systemic attempt to impose draconian laws that further oppression. As I have stated previously, democratic nations that impose laws restricting Muslim women from wearing the hijab, the burqa or the abaya share much in common with the Taliban by imposing their own interpretation of what is appropriate for Muslim women.
Academic Leila Ahmed goes so far as to call this a new colonialism, and there is much merit in her arguments. British occupiers, she points out, sought to free Egyptian women from the alleged tyranny of Islam at the beginning of the 20th century by encouraging them to unveil. Indeed, for more than 70 years Egyptian women rejected the hijab.
By the 1980s, the hijab emerged as a symbol of Islamic feminism. Specifically, women embraced the hijab as a means to minimize gender bias and force men to see them as equals in the workplace, and not view them as sex objects or simply for their beauty. Muslim women do not want their appearance to influence the conduct of the people around them.
Ahmed recognizes that the hijab is not a symbol of empowerment in some Muslim countries where women have no choices in whether they cover their hair. Yet Ahmed is spot on in stating what Muslim women have been telling the West for more than decades: the hijab is an Islamic feminist statement.
Ahmed has a new book out called A Quiet Revolution. I plan to pick up a copy and I suggest that those readers who prefer to discover an enlightened view of the hijab buy a copy as well.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Ramadan Kareem
Ramadan Kareem! Ramadan Mubarak to all my family, friends, acquaintances and colleagues. Ramadan Mubarak to everyone beginning fast today. May Allah bless each and every one of you during this holy month.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Anti-Muslim Website Provides Aid and Comfort to Right-Wing Terrorists
It should come as no surprise that anti-Muslim bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller helped shape the political ideology of right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, the confessed killer of at least 76 people in the bombing in Oslo and the shooting rampage at the nearby island youth retreat.
In his 1,500-page manifesto, Breivik quotes Spencer 64 times. Breivik also suggests that he was the anonymous Norwegian blogger who wrote anti-Muslim posts as Fjordman, who regularly contributed to Spencer's JihadWatch.org website.
Spencer and Geller have distanced themselves from Breivik. There has been increasing blog chatter about Spencer's right-wing extremist influences, but the notoriously thin-skinned Muslim hater is uncharacteristically restrained in his response. His only answer to the growing speculation about his links to Breivik was a July 23 post denouncing the Norwegian and reiterating "our dedication to the defense of free societies and opposition to all vigilantism and violence."
Spencer hides behind the argument that he doesn't advocate violence, but his mocking and abusive rhetoric against Muslims on Jihad Watch prompts hundreds of commenters to fill the gap that Spencer leaves open by suggesting or openly advocating the destruction of mosques, mass deportations of Muslims and wars against Islam. Here's one mild example from a regular Jihad Watch reader commenting on the pending trial of an alleged Muslim extremist: "Burn his ass at the stake. I'll bring the http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifmarshmellows (sic)."
Spencer claims that readers shouldn't construe any comments to his posts, or any of the dozens of his links to hate websites, as an endorsement by Jihad Watch, which has tax-exempt status as a religious education website. However, each link to websites like Geller's Atlas Shrugs or posting comments that suggest execution by immolation, rings of endorsement.
In the July 24 New York Times, former CIA officer Marc Sageman said anti-Muslim writers like Spencer argue "that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam 'is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged.' Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged."
Sageman said such "rhetoric is not cost-free."
This points to the culpability of Spencer and his fellow travelers concerning the Oslo terrorist attacks. Breivik, and only Breivik, is responsible for his actions. However, should be consequences for laying the foundation that helped Breivik reach the conclusion that the mass destruction of life and property was the only answer.
Osama bin Laden was not an active participant in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but he inspired 19 men to wage horrific attack son New York City and the Pentagon in the name of Islam. Jihadist websites worldwide inspire young men and women to wage war against the West. Some websites explicitly advocate violence, while others are more subtle in espousing an extreme ideology that prompts followers to commit violence. Law authorities shut down or block these websites, and may put the owners or website readers under investigation.
The irony is that Spencer's Jihad Watch is emerging as the mirror image of the jihadist websites. He doesn't advocate violence; he just inspires it in his readers. He plants the idea that Muslims deserve special retribution for the ills of society and demands that his readers be vigilant to prevent Muslims from imposing their will. He then stands back and watches someone else do the dirty work, whether its mounting a pig's head on a stick in front of mosque, or, I suppose, killing people with a machine pistol. I see little difference between Spencer and jihadists.
Yet Spencer, who a generation ago would be mimeographing his screeds in the basement of his parents' home, has gained respectability in the mainstream media. The BBC, for example, included his viewpoints in its "Life of Muhammad" (peace be upon him) special. He exercises restraint and minimizes his trademark mocking and smirking in front of the camera for audiences watching the BBC or ABC. He's a little more frothy as a guest on Fox News, but he generally keeps his hate on a leash.
The same can't be said for his website, which attracts a much broader audience with a much nastier tone. And like any true extremist, Spencer is unaffected by the Oslo horrors. He takes a moment to express outrage that the media linked him to Breivik, and then moves on to chronicle the perceived misdeeds of every Muslim that comes under his gaze.
As a journalist, it's repugnant to me to see anyone's right to free speech curbed. Still, I'm conflicted. I have to admit that after reading the noxious postings on Spencer's website I see merit in hate speech legislation. But rather than go to that extreme, I prefer to see Spencer come under the same scrutiny from federal authorities as any jihadist website. After all, they have common goals: Inspire the masses and then sit back and watch the mayhem.
UPDATE: Mr. Spencer responds to a query from a Norwegian journalist with this:
"I have never been in contact with Anders Behring Breivik.
If I was indeed an inspiration for his work, I feel the way the Beatles must have felt when they learned that Charles Manson had committed murder after being inspired by messages he thought he heard in their song lyrics. There were no such messages. Nor is there, for any sane person, any inspiration for harming anyone in my work, which has been consistently dedicated to defending human rights for all people."
Ah, yes. The Beatles, those hateful lads from Liverpool with a well documented history of writing hateful songs. Who would have thunk it?
In his 1,500-page manifesto, Breivik quotes Spencer 64 times. Breivik also suggests that he was the anonymous Norwegian blogger who wrote anti-Muslim posts as Fjordman, who regularly contributed to Spencer's JihadWatch.org website.
Spencer and Geller have distanced themselves from Breivik. There has been increasing blog chatter about Spencer's right-wing extremist influences, but the notoriously thin-skinned Muslim hater is uncharacteristically restrained in his response. His only answer to the growing speculation about his links to Breivik was a July 23 post denouncing the Norwegian and reiterating "our dedication to the defense of free societies and opposition to all vigilantism and violence."
Spencer hides behind the argument that he doesn't advocate violence, but his mocking and abusive rhetoric against Muslims on Jihad Watch prompts hundreds of commenters to fill the gap that Spencer leaves open by suggesting or openly advocating the destruction of mosques, mass deportations of Muslims and wars against Islam. Here's one mild example from a regular Jihad Watch reader commenting on the pending trial of an alleged Muslim extremist: "Burn his ass at the stake. I'll bring the http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifmarshmellows (sic)."
Spencer claims that readers shouldn't construe any comments to his posts, or any of the dozens of his links to hate websites, as an endorsement by Jihad Watch, which has tax-exempt status as a religious education website. However, each link to websites like Geller's Atlas Shrugs or posting comments that suggest execution by immolation, rings of endorsement.
In the July 24 New York Times, former CIA officer Marc Sageman said anti-Muslim writers like Spencer argue "that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam 'is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged.' Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged."
Sageman said such "rhetoric is not cost-free."
This points to the culpability of Spencer and his fellow travelers concerning the Oslo terrorist attacks. Breivik, and only Breivik, is responsible for his actions. However, should be consequences for laying the foundation that helped Breivik reach the conclusion that the mass destruction of life and property was the only answer.
Osama bin Laden was not an active participant in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but he inspired 19 men to wage horrific attack son New York City and the Pentagon in the name of Islam. Jihadist websites worldwide inspire young men and women to wage war against the West. Some websites explicitly advocate violence, while others are more subtle in espousing an extreme ideology that prompts followers to commit violence. Law authorities shut down or block these websites, and may put the owners or website readers under investigation.
The irony is that Spencer's Jihad Watch is emerging as the mirror image of the jihadist websites. He doesn't advocate violence; he just inspires it in his readers. He plants the idea that Muslims deserve special retribution for the ills of society and demands that his readers be vigilant to prevent Muslims from imposing their will. He then stands back and watches someone else do the dirty work, whether its mounting a pig's head on a stick in front of mosque, or, I suppose, killing people with a machine pistol. I see little difference between Spencer and jihadists.
Yet Spencer, who a generation ago would be mimeographing his screeds in the basement of his parents' home, has gained respectability in the mainstream media. The BBC, for example, included his viewpoints in its "Life of Muhammad" (peace be upon him) special. He exercises restraint and minimizes his trademark mocking and smirking in front of the camera for audiences watching the BBC or ABC. He's a little more frothy as a guest on Fox News, but he generally keeps his hate on a leash.
The same can't be said for his website, which attracts a much broader audience with a much nastier tone. And like any true extremist, Spencer is unaffected by the Oslo horrors. He takes a moment to express outrage that the media linked him to Breivik, and then moves on to chronicle the perceived misdeeds of every Muslim that comes under his gaze.
As a journalist, it's repugnant to me to see anyone's right to free speech curbed. Still, I'm conflicted. I have to admit that after reading the noxious postings on Spencer's website I see merit in hate speech legislation. But rather than go to that extreme, I prefer to see Spencer come under the same scrutiny from federal authorities as any jihadist website. After all, they have common goals: Inspire the masses and then sit back and watch the mayhem.
UPDATE: Mr. Spencer responds to a query from a Norwegian journalist with this:
"I have never been in contact with Anders Behring Breivik.
If I was indeed an inspiration for his work, I feel the way the Beatles must have felt when they learned that Charles Manson had committed murder after being inspired by messages he thought he heard in their song lyrics. There were no such messages. Nor is there, for any sane person, any inspiration for harming anyone in my work, which has been consistently dedicated to defending human rights for all people."
Ah, yes. The Beatles, those hateful lads from Liverpool with a well documented history of writing hateful songs. Who would have thunk it?
Friday, July 8, 2011
Mandatory English Courses Come to Saudi Primary Schoolers
For too long the Saudi Ministry of Education gave less than its full attention to requiring primary school students to learn English. When I was a kid the Saudi education system provided me with few tools to master English, so I learned the language mostly on my own.
Beginning with the 2011-2012 academic year, the Ministry of Education will require English-language instruction for Saudi students starting in Grade 4. Khalid Al-Seghayer argues in the Arab News that “there is evidence that students knowing English are more creative, they develop a deeper understanding of cultures, show stronger skills in their own native language, and generally do better in problem-solving and overall academic performance.”
I have a younger brother taking intense English-languages courses in the UK to prepare for undergraduate studies abroad. I have seen amazing results in his command of the language and improvement in his cognitive skills in just a few months. Imagine if he had started when he was 8 years old.
There are thousands of Saudis abroad studying at the best universities because they took the time to study English on their own or had had teachers who influenced them to study the language. These students are part of the fabric of the international community because of their ability to communicate with people of other cultures and nationalities.
The Ministry of Education recognizes the necessity of mastering English. It’s a vital step towards narrowing the differences between cultures and religions. I look forward to see what the next generation of Saudis will bring to world as they acquire these new skills.
Beginning with the 2011-2012 academic year, the Ministry of Education will require English-language instruction for Saudi students starting in Grade 4. Khalid Al-Seghayer argues in the Arab News that “there is evidence that students knowing English are more creative, they develop a deeper understanding of cultures, show stronger skills in their own native language, and generally do better in problem-solving and overall academic performance.”
I have a younger brother taking intense English-languages courses in the UK to prepare for undergraduate studies abroad. I have seen amazing results in his command of the language and improvement in his cognitive skills in just a few months. Imagine if he had started when he was 8 years old.
There are thousands of Saudis abroad studying at the best universities because they took the time to study English on their own or had had teachers who influenced them to study the language. These students are part of the fabric of the international community because of their ability to communicate with people of other cultures and nationalities.
The Ministry of Education recognizes the necessity of mastering English. It’s a vital step towards narrowing the differences between cultures and religions. I look forward to see what the next generation of Saudis will bring to world as they acquire these new skills.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A Sports Organization Gets it Right
You may remember that Atlanta weightlifter and hijabi Kulsoom Abdullah sought a religious exemption to wear a modified uniform to compete in the USA Weightlifting organization's American Open Weightlifting Championship. USA Weightlifting operates under International Weightlifting Federation rules.
USA Weightlifting initially denied her request, but promised to discuss it with the IWF. A few days ago the IWF announced that its changing its rules to accommodate Abdullah.
IWF President Tamas Ajan said: "Weightlifting is an Olympic Sport open for all athletes to participate without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin in accordance with the principles of the Olympic Charter and values. This rule modification has been considered in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion."
Hmm, "in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion." What a novel thought.
FIFA? Care to address this issue?
USA Weightlifting initially denied her request, but promised to discuss it with the IWF. A few days ago the IWF announced that its changing its rules to accommodate Abdullah.
IWF President Tamas Ajan said: "Weightlifting is an Olympic Sport open for all athletes to participate without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin in accordance with the principles of the Olympic Charter and values. This rule modification has been considered in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion."
Hmm, "in the spirit of fairness, equality and inclusion." What a novel thought.
FIFA? Care to address this issue?
The Real Conspiracy Against Saudi Women
You may have read articles on some Arabic-language blogs identifying me as a member of CyberDissidents.org and Movement.org. The blogs allege CyberDissidents and Movement are Zionist-backed groups that use some Saudi women’s rights activists as the puppets of Zionists.
Although CyberDissidents.org lists my name, I am not identified as a member of anything. I am not a member of CyberDissidents, nor do I plan such a membership. My inclusion on the website’s list was done without my permission or consultation. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Internet is aware, we have no control over who publishes our names or what they say about us.
I have made it abundantly clear over the years that I am a patriotic Saudi. I do not seek wholesale changes in the Saudi government, and I certainly don’t want to see the Western concept of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I advocate for women’s rights, but within the context of Islam. That hardly makes me a dissident.
These blogs got their facts wrong, and not only have they put me in harm’s way but other Saudi women who have found themselves on CyberDissidents.org without their knowledge. Most of these Arab blogs hide behind the cloak of anonymity. If there is a conspiracy involving Saudi women with a voice, it starts with these Arabic-language blogs that want to silence women with intimidation.
UPDATE: CyberDissients.org removed my name from the list per my request. An Egyptian blogger who is responsible for the original phony story will not cooperate.
Although CyberDissidents.org lists my name, I am not identified as a member of anything. I am not a member of CyberDissidents, nor do I plan such a membership. My inclusion on the website’s list was done without my permission or consultation. As anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Internet is aware, we have no control over who publishes our names or what they say about us.
I have made it abundantly clear over the years that I am a patriotic Saudi. I do not seek wholesale changes in the Saudi government, and I certainly don’t want to see the Western concept of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I advocate for women’s rights, but within the context of Islam. That hardly makes me a dissident.
These blogs got their facts wrong, and not only have they put me in harm’s way but other Saudi women who have found themselves on CyberDissidents.org without their knowledge. Most of these Arab blogs hide behind the cloak of anonymity. If there is a conspiracy involving Saudi women with a voice, it starts with these Arabic-language blogs that want to silence women with intimidation.
UPDATE: CyberDissients.org removed my name from the list per my request. An Egyptian blogger who is responsible for the original phony story will not cooperate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)