Archives: Articles

Dear Chandra,

I have been an activist since I was a teenager, and yet, the night of April 28 in the Pauley Ballroom of UC Berkeley will surely stand out as one of the most remarkable activist achievements I have ever witnessed.

And I am grateful that you were there, represented by thousand of green stickers: each with a name, a place, an identity.

While the senate at UC San Diego sent a similar proposal to a committee for further study, divestment proponents at Berkeley failed by just one vote to reverse a presidential veto of their original overwhelming vote to divest. The members of Berkeley’s Students for Justice in Palestine wanted UC to divest from 2 companies that profit from killing and harming of civilians as part of Israel’s occupation. Yes, companies that make money from death. From control. From destruction. They needed 14 votes out of 20 to overturn the veto. Despite truly heroic efforts on the part of countless students, including such impressive student senators, in the end they had 13 votes. The 14th abstained.

And yet, if you ask the question, after weeks of multiple hearings and votes, Who really won here?, the numbers speak for themselves:

Nearly 30 hours of hearings and testimony with standing room only audiences and in some cases, people flying in from other parts of the country to testify, others sending video or being Skyped in from Palestine and Gaza.

The support of some 100 professors, over 40 student groups, 5 Nobel Laureates, 9 Israeli peace groups, 263 community Jews in one ad plus 40 pages and growing of notable Jewish endorsements, some 8,000 JVP supporters like you from around the globe who in just 5 days created a sea of visible support.

At this last and final hearing alone, there were 500 people, standing room only.

A speaker asked the supporters of divestment to stand up: nearly 80% stood.

A senator announced that 62% of that night’s registered speakers were pro-divest, while 38% were against.

After everything, 13 of 20 senators at one of the United States’ leading academic institutions stood clearly on the side of divestment.

And that’s why so many left with a feeling of both anger and jubilation. But more than anything, determination.

If the theme of the all-night hearing in mid April-at which a final vote was tabled- was that there was every bit as much, if not more Jewish support for divestment as against it on the UC campus, the narrative running through April 28th’s all-night session was that this is about the Palestinian story, Palestinian resilience, Palestinian humanity and one day, in their quest for justice and full equality, Palestinian victory.

Imagine hours and hours of testimony from Palestinian and Arab student after student, each standing in front of a microphone and hundreds to tell their story- stories of broken bones, destroyed homes, arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Stories of bombs through living room windows, and strips searches at checkpoints. Stories of not being able to learn because schools are closed down for years at a time.  Stories that until now seemed to have been banished from the public square because the mere fact of their telling, and in so doing asserting the full beauty and humanity of the teller, has been taken as a threat.

But not on this night. Not for these hours. Not in this room.

Unless they physically plugged their ears and closed their eyes, there was not one person in that room who was not forever changed by hearing those students. Not the 80% who supported divestment. And not the 20% who didn’t.

Many of you personally helped make the room a sea of green of support.  In just 5 days, over 8,000 people from all over the country, many from all over the world, said, “we stand with you.” We printed out thousands of stickers and they became like trading cards as people poured over your names and statements. “Oh look, David is a rabbinical student from Philadelphia. Dina is a Muslim teacher from New York. Let me wear Izak, a Quaker from Boston. No, wait, I’m wearing the Zeyde (grandfather) from Atlanta.” I saw more than one Palestinian student wearing a green sticker on her heart as she stood at the microphone, showing the most remarkable kind of courage. The kind required to tell your most painful family story, a story of death and heartbreak, without knowing it would actually be heard by those in front of you. But I know she was supported in telling her story by the massive visible support you showed her. We all felt it.

There are so many lessons to be learned from these past weeks, from what started as a nonviolent call for Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) from Palestinians in 2005, moved to US campuses like Hampshire and University of Michigan at Dearborn, and is now just beginning to spread across the country.

Divestment is a tactic meant to build a movement for justice and equality, not an end unto itself. The outcome of the vote became far less important than the way the fight for the bill electrified the campus, the community, and thousands of people all over the world. It’s impossible to convey the life changing and movement-building impact of this experience.

Take Emily Carlton, an ASUC senator who sponsored the bill. She spoke eloquently of starting out as a “privileged white, mainstream” sorority member who first became educated about the issue when SJP students came to lobby her, but who then found an entirely new community of friends in a world she never before knew existed. One in which Muslim, Arab, Jewish, Christian, and other students blend easily as classmates, as friends, as activists. Her life, she said, will never be the same- and she is just one person.

In the coming weeks, we will share the lessons learned, some in our own words, many in the words of UC students, staff and alum.

But first let me tell you how the night ended.

By the final vote, it was close to 5am. Still dark out.

When the vote was announced, the room silently received the news. Supporters placed the green stickers on our mouths to protest the fact that in the end, just a few votes had blocked the will of the majority of students. A student senator stood up and told everyone to put one hand on their heart on the other in the air, symbolically holding seeds in their fist with which we would all spread the movement outside and across the community, the country, the world.

So here is one seed.

The supporters silently filed out to Sproul Plaza, where the original Free Speech movement began.

Hundred remained outside, talking, chanting, singing, laughing, hugging, crying.

Yes, students were angry, but they were exhilarated. They understood they had done something remarkable. That in so many ways, life would never be the same.

It was the end of a long year, but the beginning of a new stage of the movement.

And I am so grateful that you were all there in the room with us.

It’s clear now. It is only a matter of time until we are all able to recognize each other’s full humanity, and thereby reclaim our own.

Cecilie Surasky,

Jewish Voice for Peace

Humankind were one community, then God sent prophets as bearers of good news and as warners and revealed with them the Book with the truth that it [the Book] might judge between humankind concerning that in which they differed. And only those to whom the book was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had been given them, through mutual hatred and rivalry&127;(Koran 2:213)

According to the Koran, as has been the case in the history of all the prophets (Koran 25:30-33), Muslims have fallen victim to inventions against, the word of God, the Koran. These inventions have distorted the way that God sent down via all the prophets. The message that God has been sending down has been the same all throughout history, same in every way (Koran42:13). Even though the Koran says in well over 15 places, that it is explained in detail, Tafseel (Koran 6:114 etc.), and contains a full explanation of whatever is needed by a believer (Koran 16:89), and should be enough, Kaafi, for them (Koran 29:51), and contains the complete law (Shariah) of God (Koran 45:18 and 42:13), as against man-made law or Shariah (Koran 42:21), “Muslims” insist that the Koran needs supplements to be understood, and lacks details. This amounts to disbelieving what God himself says in unequivocal terms in the Koran.

The Koran and Hadith:

The Koran states explicitly that the messenger’s duty was only to convey (Balagh) the message (Koran 29:18) contained in the Koran (Koran 69:44) and that the Koran was the only Wahi (revelation) given to the prophet to be conveyed to people (Koran 6:19), by testimony of God Himself. Therefore to follow the words of God in the Koran would be to follow the messenger. Thus following God is the same as following the messenger, who only conveyed the Koran (see Koran 4:80)

The inventions against the true words of God, revealed to the messengers, which is called their true speech (Qawl- Koran 69:40) are the so called “Hadith” (stories about the sayings and doings of the prophets) as narrated by the writers of the Old Testament, the Gospels of Jesus (i.e. the “Hadith” about Jesus), and the various Hadith about the prophet Muhammed contained in the many “extra-Koranic” books believed in by the Sunni and Shia schools of thought. People have attributed these things throughout history to the messengers, whereas the messengers could never have said them given the history of the documents and the Criterion (Furqaan) of the Koran (Koran 2:185)

The Koran states:

“Do they not consider the Koran with care, If it had been from anyone other than Allah, it would contain many discrepancies (Koran 4:82).”

Any document that claims to be from God, but in actuality is not would contain some form of error according to the Koran. What we see on analysis is that the Hadith attributed to Muhammed and the Gospels attributed to Jesus fail this test of authenticity. What we also see is the subjectivity of the various Muslims groups. They reject the Gospels of Jesus based on the same test as being corrupt whereas similar defects found in the books of Hadith are overlooked by them and they accept them as being authentic sayings of Muhammed. Let us have a look at the books of Hadith:

Hadith are the various traditions contained in specific books, believed in by the majority of Muslims to be the sayings of the prophet Muhammed. These in the major part are extra-Koranic, i.e. from outside the Koran. They either contradict or add to the Koran. Muslims sometimes present them as an explanation of the Koran or as an integral part of Islamic law, even though the Koran does not confirm them.

A minority among the Muslims does not accept the various books of Hadith as being an accurate representation of what the prophet Muhammed said. They take the Koran as Criterion (Furqaan in Arabic), according to the Koran’s own claim (2:185), accepting only those Hadith [tradition or narration attributed to the prophet] which the Koran confirms and attests in totality. I represent that view in this paper. Opposition to the Hadith, and the whole body of extra-Koranic literature on Islam as doctrine, has existed from the earliest days of Islam. This is well documented by Shafi (died 204AH/ 819AD).

The Koran, historically predates any written Hadith and there is no mention of Hadith or the Sunna of the Prophet in what we possess as writings before the third century after the prophet. Koran and rationality based on its principles formed the basis of religion for first century Muslims (Rahman 1979). Thus contrary to being an innovation, following the Koran alone is historically the original Islam and hadith and other extra-Koranic literature is an innovation, introduced in its written form in the 3rd century after the prophet.

And they scattered not, those who were given the Book, except AFTER the clear sign came unto them. They were commanded only to serve God, making the way PURE for Him alone(Koran 98:1-)

Hadith and the Gospels:

The various books of Hadith that we see in Muslim society today are the same in relation to Muhammed, as the gospels are to Jesus. They are both similar in that both were complied [in what we possess today] centuries after Muhammed and Jesus respectively [unlike the Koran which was memorized and written down at the time of its revelation] and they both present no proof of authenticity [unlike the Koran in which numerous verses say: In this is a sign [or proof]&127;”, and then asks you to refute it]. Therefore, objectively speaking both the Hadith and the gospels do not present any evidence as to be considered a 100% reliable representation of the words of the prophets, Muhammad and Jesus. Modern scholarship of both the gospels [the Jesus Seminar] and the Hadith finds them an unreliable representation of the words of the prophets or even their close companions.

Fazlur Rahman, who was the Harold H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor of Islamic Thought at the University of Chicago wrote in his book Islam (1966) on the historic study of the Hadith. Summarising I. Goldziher’s scientific study of the Hadith, he writes:

But his argument runs, since the corpus of the Hadith continued to swell in each succeeding generation, and since in each generation the material runs parallel to and reflects various and often contradictory doctrines of Muslim theological and legal schools, the final recorded product of the Hadith, which date from the 3rd/ 9th century [over 250 years after the death of the prophet], must be regarded as being on the whole unreliable as a source for the prophets own teaching and conduct (1979:44)

Professor Schacht, who according to Fazlur Rahman is the first scholar to have undertaken a, “extensive and systematic comparison of legal traditions in their historical sequence, is unassailably scientific and sound in method&127;(1979:47-48), did not believe that the Hadith or the concept of “Sunna of the Prophet” were part of first century Islam. Shafi [150-204/767-819] introduced them, at the earliest, nearly two hundred years after the death of the prophet. The Koran states exactly the same. The Koran was the only “Hadith” that was conveyed by the prophet and formed the guidance for the early Muslim community.

Most Muslims who have taken on themselves the responsibility of teaching Islam to others have themselves abandoned the Koran by upholding Hadith. They say without hesitation: “The majority of Shariah (Law) in Islam is contained outside the Koran in books of Hadith and fiqh.” Such a saying is a direct attack on the validity of the Koran, which claims to contain the complete Islamic law from God. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of submission (Islam) is this when you are rejecting God’s words to follow your traditions.

“…If any do fail to judge by what Allah(God) has sent down (i.e the Koran), they are unbelievers (Kaafiroon).” (Koran 5:45).

“…If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, they are tyrants (dhilamoon).” (Koran 5:45)

“…If any do fail to judge by that which Allah has sent down, such are evil-livers (fasikoon).” (Koran 5:47)

The Koran reports that the messenger himself will complain to God about his so called followers abandoning the Koran: “And the messenger says,”O my Lord, my OWN people have forsaken the Koran.” (Koran 25:30)

Muslims, those, who claim also to believe in the Hadith as being totally true, need to be objective and not subjective. They should, as concern for truth demands not change standards while evaluating phenomena. If they reject the Gospels as being true based on reasons that are valid, i.e. contradictions, history etc (and they almost all do), then they should also reject the Hadith on the same criteria. Hadith have the same problems of authenticity as the gospels do. Hadith do not represent the words of Muhammed just like the gospels don’t represent the words of Jesus in total.

One would be mistaken in thinking that once the Gospels were written they constituted the basic Scriptures of the newly born Christianity and that people referred to them the same way they referred to the Old Testament. At that time, the foremost authority was the oral tradition as a vehicle for Jesus’ words and the teachings of the apostles. The first writings to circulate were Paul’s letters and they occupied a prevalent position long before the Gospels. They were, after all, written several decades earlier. It has already been shown that contrary to what certain commentators are still writing today, before 140 AD there was no witness to the knowledge that a collection of Gospel writings existed. It was not until circa 170 AD that the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature (Bucaille 1987).

Both the Hadith and the Gospels are based on oral traditions that were written down, in the written form that we have today, centuries after the prophets, Muhammed and Jesus. In recalling events, a gap of even a year can be distorted by memory beyond recognition. However, when the gap is of more than a hundred years, and you’re narrating something to support a point of view [the Ahl-al Kalam and Mutizila, against the Ahl al Hadith in early Islam or the Judeo Christians against the Pauline Christians in early Christianity], your own as against conflicting points of view, the distortions are immense. Since history shows that eventually the followers of the Hadith and the followers of Pauline Christianity, politically dominated the scene both the teachings of Muhammed and Jesus got distorted. Modern scholarship recognizes this. Except for the Koran, we have no reliable historical record of the message that Muhammed conveyed.

John Dominic Crossan, in his book, The Birth of Christianity (1998), cites a study done after the Challenger explosion:

The morning after the Challenger explosion, the 106 students in Psychology 101 [Personality Development] at Emory University filled out questionnaires on how they had first heard of the disaster. That established a baseline for their memories within twenty four hours of the even itself in January of 1986. Then in October of 1988, the forty-four of 106 students still at Emory were requestioned (only 25% remembered the original questionnaire) and their two answers compared. Finally in March of 1989, follow up interviews were given to the forty students willing to participate in the final phase of the experiment&127;When those second versions were compared with the first ones for accuracy and graded on a 0-7 scale for major and minor attributes of the event, the mean was a 2.95 out of a possible 7. Eleven subjects were wrong about everything and scored 0 (25% of the sample). Twenty two of them [50% of the sample] scored 2 or less, this means that if they were right on one major attribute, they were wrong on both of the others&127; what makes these low scores interesting is the high degree of confidence that accompanied many of them (Crossan 1998: 62-63)

The Koran captures the similarity of what has happened in the case of both Jesus and Muhammed in this statement:

Has not the time arrived for the believers that their hearts should engage in the admonishment from God and the truth that has been revealed to them and that they should not become like those to whom was given the Book before, but long ages passed over them and their hearts grew hard..(Koran 57:16)

Hadith believing Muslims make big claims on the so-called scientific compilation of Hadith. Let it be clear however, that no matter how scientific you are in your compilation of what is “false” to start with, the compilation cannot make it true. Even the criteria that is presented are un-objective, i.e. the truthfulness of a particular narrator with a story of how truthful he was. To repeat, falsehood is not converted to truth by its scientific compilation.

The scientific method demands that “subjective” proof i.e. how truthful a person was be ignored and the item tested on objective criteria. What does the content say? THE DILEMMA:

Hadith doctors have traditionally evaluated Hadith on its chain of narrators and its body text, according to their own criteria of what should be correct. However even according to their own standards, they fell into a dilemma. Some Hadith exist which have according to them a “sound” chain of narrators i.e. it was truthfully narrated but they dispute the text of the Hadith. One example of this and their whole system collapses. The Koran gives us the standard for judging anything that is presented. If the Koran confirms it in total its true. If the material adds to or contradicts the Koran, its source is not God or his messenger.

History of compilation of Hadith:

Out of the books that the majority of Muslims believe in as being authentic, Sahih Bukhari is presented as being the MOST authentic. However a analysis of the history of the books shows that it is anything but authentic. Imam Bokhari the collector of the narration lived in a period over 230 years after the death of the prophet. Out of the 600,000 Hadith (narrations) that he collected, which were initially attributed to the prophet, he threw out as fabrication 592,700 of them and kept only 7300 as being genuine. They further reduce to 2762 Hadith after repetition. The margin of error in these numbers is so great, that any rational inquirer can see that accepting the book of Bukhari as containing all authentic Hadith or even a majority of authentic Hadith is stupidity. Yet the majority of Muslims unquestionable accept it as “gospel” truth!

There are many scientific and logical errors and contradictions in the Book of Bukhari, as well as the other books. Some examples:

1.The prophet according to Bukhari in one of the narration tells his companion Abu- Dharr Ghafari that the sun goes around the earth, in the apparent description that he gives (Hadith 421, pg. 283, vol. 4 of M.Muhsin Khan’s translation of Sahih Bukhari).

 

This erroneous view was very popular at the time Bukhari compiled his collection. However this is absurd, we know today that the earth rotates around the sun, proven by scientific evidence. The Koran not only corrected this erroneous notion but also gave an accurate description of a round earth centuries before scientists discovered it.

2.According to Hadith no disease is contagious [Adwa]. This as we all know is inaccurate. What about the common cold and viruses like Ebola etc. [Hadith 649, page 435, volume7]

3.Books of Hadith contain many home-remedies, according to ideas prevalent at that time, which are scientifically absurd. The Hadith mentions there being a cure for every ailment in black cumin seed [Hadith 591, pg.400, vol 7]. This is evidently not true. Can it cure cancer or AIDS, not to mention even the common cold? Hadith suggests that we drink “camel-urine” to recuperate after an illness [Hadith 590, pg.399, vol.7]. This is disgusting, naturally speaking. Urine is toxic stuff. The Koran places extreme importance on cleanliness and clean eating (tayyab). The Hadith mentions that “fever” is from the “heat of hell” [Hadith 621,622, page 417, vol 7]. Atrocious!

4.The Hadith books insult the prophet by giving him a contradictory personality. In one instance it mentions that the prophet ate with a leper and in another it mentions that he refused to meet with a leper who had come to take allegiance at his hand and accept Islam. He told the man to leave and accepted his allegiance in absentia.

5.The famous Hadith about the fly: “If a fly falls into the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (in the vessel) and then throw it away [and use the material in the vessel], for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is a healing [Bukhari, Hadith 673, pg. 452, vol 7] Beware world, there is going to be an outbreak of typhoid and cholera if people take the above as “Hadith-truth”, just like “gospel truth” made some people get castrated just because it reports Jesus saying, “….and there are some who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God.” Beware these myths can harm you!

6.According to Hanbel 6/136, 192,213, the prophet “Never urinated in a standing position.” However Bukhari in his “authentic” book of Hadith says that the prophet indeed urinated in a standing position. (Bukhari 4/60-64)

7.According to Bukhari 56/152 and Hanbel 3/107, 163; the prophet recommended that people drink camel urine to recuperate after an illness Later on when the same people killed the prophet’s shepherd, he commanded that they be seized, their eyes taken out and their hands and feet cut and left them thirsty in the desert. This does not fit in with the personality of the prophet presented in the Koran. The Koran says that the prophet was compassionate. How could the prophet recommend the drinking of camel’s urine, considering the importance that the Koran gives to hygiene?

8.The Koran commands believers not to make any distinction between any of God’s messengers (Koran 2:285 and many other places), yet according to Bukhari’s books of Hadith (Bukhari 97/36), the prophet contradicted the Koran saying that he was the “most honorable” among all the messengers. Not only this, the books of Bukhari make the prophet even contradict himself by saying in a different Hadith (Bukhari 65/4,6 and Hanbel 1/205,242,440) that we should not make any distinction between the messengers and that he was not better than even Yunus. Could the prophet have contradicted the Koran? Could the prophet of Allah have contradicted himself? The books of Hadith in fact insult the prophet by attributing to him things he never said or did.

9.According to the books of Hadith, a woman is compared to a black dog or a monkey (this Hadith pre-dates Darwin but it refers to women only) Bukhari 8/102 and Hanbel 4/86. The Koran on the other hand honors women and lifts up their status contrary to what is contained in the Hadith. A woman is called bad luck in the haidth (Bukhari 76/53). Also, according to the collection of Muslim (Sahih Muslim), most of the people in hell were of the feminine gender! According to Bukhari, “Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective.” Therefore, according to the standard of the Koran, no Muslim should accept such prejudiced Hadith as issuing from the lips of the prophet of God.

10.According to Bukhari (Book of Jihad, 146) and Abu Dawd 113, the prophet gave permission to warriors to kill women and children in war. Indeed these people are attributing tyranny to a prophet held in honor by Allah, and described as having mercy for the people. The Koran says, even about the people that attack us first, that we should quit fighting if they offer peace, leave alone killing women and children. According to the standard of the Koran, the prophet could NEVER have asked his warriors to kill women and children.

11.The Koran describes accurately, the shape of the earth as being rounded (Koran 39:5), and the cause of night and day as being the rotation of the earth. The Hadith and similar writings however contain mythological concepts, which are then by hook or by crook attributed to the prophet. The most famous commentary of the Koran, that by Ibn Kathir (2/29 and 50/1) makes extensive use of the Hadith as explaining the Koran. In that spirit, Ibn Kathir suggests that the earth is “carried on a giant bull.” When the bull shakes its head, an earthquake results. As stated earlier, Bukhari’s book of Hadith states that the sun revolves around the earth.

12.According to Hanbel 4/85, 5/54, the prophet ordered that all black dogs be killed because they were devils. Inspired by that Hadith so called “Muslims” kill hundreds of dogs all over the world and consider them unclean.

The Koran, on the other hand talks about the sleepers in the cave (sura 18) as having a dog, inside their dwelling place and allows meat killed by hunting dogs. There is nothing in the Koran, which even remotely suggests that dogs are unclean as pets. Indeed the Koran states that God has subjected animals to be of use to humankind.

13.The Koran states that,” Vision cannot comprehend God, who comprehends all vision,” yet the Hadith of Bukhari 97/24 and 10/129 says that to prove his identity to Muhammed, God showed the prophet his thigh.

14.The Koran mentions with absolutely no ambiguity that the punishment of adultery or fornication is 100 lashes (Koran 24:1-3); which is half in the case of slave girls (50 lashes) and double in the case of the wives of the prophet (200 lashes) if they were to become guilty. The Hadith, contrary to this mention “stoning to death,” as being the punishment of adultery in the case of married couples. This is completely against the commandment of Allah in the Koran, which makes no distinction between married or unmarried in the case of adultery.

The Hadith is definitely borrowed from a similar ruling in the Old Testament. It contradicts the Koran. Could the prophet have issued a ruling contrary to the ruling of Allah in the Koran? There is no verse on stoning adulterers in the Koran. Hadith forgers knew about this so they inserted another Hadith which claims that a verse on stoning existed in the Koran but it was eaten by a goat and so vanished from the earth (Ibn Maja 36/144; Ibn Hanbal 3/61;5/131, 132, 183;6/269). The Hadith also tells of a “planet of the apes” type story in which the prophet helped stone a monkey guilty of adultery whom the other monkeys had caught in order to bring it to justice. Why do they attribute such fairy tales to the prophet? Could not God protect his book from the goat? The Koran suggests halving or doubling the punishment for adultery, how can you kill someone (stone to death) half or double?

15.The Koran states that God is the protector of true believers, yet the Hadith states that the prophet was bewitched by a Jew and for many days, he didn’t know what he was doing (Bukhari 59/11, 76/47; Hanbel 6/57 and 4/367). This Hadith goes completely against the Koran, which counters in many places the claim of the unbelievers that the prophet was bewitched.

16.The Koran talks of itself as being the only message that God intended the prophet to convey (Koran 42:52, 14:52;69:44;6:19 etc.). The Hadith of Muslim quotes the prophet as saying (Muslim, Zuhd 72, Hanbel 3/12,21,39) that no one should write anything from him other than the Koran. This particular Hadith is in harmony with the Koran, but then another Hadith contradicts not only the Koran but this Hadith. The prophet is quoted as asking, in Hanbel 2/162, Amr bin As, his companion to write everything he spoke.

17.The Koran states that those who forbid things even though God has allowed them, are committing a great sin. Yet the followers of Hadith have forbidden (haraam) the use of silk and gold by men, even though Allah never forbade these in the Koran. Contrary to that Allah specifically allows them (Koran 7:30-32, 42:21;22:23; 35:33). The Hadith in keeping with its reputation of contradictions, even contradicts this forbidding law by stating that the prophet allowed a “gold ring” to be worn by one of his companions and forbade the others! Could the prophet have invented laws not in the Koran? Could he then have been partial in implementing those laws?

18.The Koran only prohibits the meat of one animal, the pig. Certain sects in Islam however, based on the authority of the Hadith forbid clams, shrimp, crab etc. Why are they attributing against God a lie if they are submitters?

19.According to the Koran, division into sects is the work of evil, and is the result of following man made ideas like the Hadith (Koran 23:52-56 and 6:159) Division into sects can never be a mercy as claimed by some schools of thought.

The Koran claims to be the best Hadith (Ahsan ul hadeeth 39:23), and states that after Allah and his ayat (verses) no other Hadith is to be followed (Koran 45:6). The Koran also states that people have fabricated Hadith to mislead from the way of Allah (Koran 31:6 Lahwal Hadith). The Koran challenges people to produce a “Hadith” like the Koran (Koran 52:34) if they are truthful. The difference in language, style and content between the Koran and the other “Hadith” has been evident and is not denied even by those who believe in the Hadith as being genuine. “These are the verses of Allah (God) which we rehearse to you with truth. Then in what Hadith will they believe after Allah and His verses? (Koran 45:6).”

The Koran’s Verdict:

” And the messenger says of Judgment Day, “O my Lord! My own people took this Koran as a thing to be shunned (KORAN 25:30).”

The Koran says in well over 15 places that it is “explained in detail (6:114 etc).” One word used is Tafseel which means a detailed explanation. It further says that it contains a Biyan or clear exposition of everything (16:89). God says in the Koran that He neglected nothing in the Book (6:38). The Koran talks about Moses’ Book being Tamam (which means complete), and that the Koran is in no way less than that. The Koran also suggests that it should be Kaafi meaning “enough” for guidance by itself (29:51).

The Koran states explicitly that the messenger’s duty was only “to convey the message (29:18),” and he said nothing on his own as his own sayings (69:44). It states that the message that the messenger conveyed was the Koran only (42:52 & 14:52 & 69:44). Therefore, to follow God’s words in the Koran would be to follow the messenger, (4:80), as the words of the Koran is the messenger’s speech (69:40). It also claims to be the Qawl or the speech of the messenger (69:40). The Koran claims that it contains answers to ALL relevant questions (25:33) and contains the best explanation (Tafseer) of itself (25:33 & 2:159). The Koran claims to be the Hukm or commandments of God, according to which humankind is to be judged (5:48). It also states that it is the Shariah or law/way with which God sent the messenger (45:18 & 42:13). Who would know best on how to talk to humankind but their creator? Therefore, it makes no sense to say that outside sources better explain God’s word.

The Koran claims that it is explained fully in detail and lacks nothing. Therefore it must, according to its claim, contain a full explanation of everything in Islam, including Salaah (prayer). It surely does, we just need to study it. A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid-el Haraam [the continuous practice at Mecca since the time of Abraham], specifically the “place of Abraham (moqaam e Ibraheem).” The Koran tells us that the purpose of Hajj is to educate Muslims in Islam (Koran 22:27-28) and that the Masjid-el-Haraam is “guidance for all the worlds (3:96).”

By indexing the verses of the Koran, we can check all relevant details on the Salaah [the daily prayer]. The Koran confirms and covers every aspect of Islam, more comprehensively and with no discrepancy compared to the books of Hadith. The Koran states explicitly that it guides to that “which is the MOST STRAIGHT PATH (17:9).”

In Koran 2:185 it is stated explicitly that the Koran is the Criterion (Furqaan). It is the distinguisher between what is correct and what is wrong. If the Koran is missing details, as Muslim sects purport, how can it be a criterion or a distinguisher over those details?

By M. Asadi

The Koran and the History of Religion

Notes:

The Koran is in detail [6:114; 2:159-160; 10:37; 11:11; 41:1-3; 22:16; 6:38; 12:111; 14:52; 17:89; 75:16-19; 18:54; 20:113; 39:27-28; 54:17; 25:33; 16:89 etc.]

The messenger’s duty is only to convey the Book [5:102; 16:35; 16:82; 24:54; 36:16-17; 14:52 etc.]

The way sent down by God has been uniform in history in every way [41:43; 42:13; 46:9; 30:30; 6:20; 23:68; 21:24; 4:26; 1:7 read together with 19:58; 6:83-88]

Extra-Koranic Hadith an innovation [6:112; 22:52; 17:73-77; 10:15; 16:116; 42:21; 10:69-70; 5:47-49; 7:28; 33:64-68; 6:123; 6:144; 49:16; 39:23; 45:6; 31:6; 52:33-34; 31:20; 6:116; 2:170; 69:38-49;81:15-19; 51:7-11]

Bibliography:

Koran. Translated from the Arabic The Bible. Revised Standard Version (1971) Fazlur Rahman. Islam (1979). University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Illinois. Sahih Al Bokhari. English Translation by M. Muhsin Khan. Bucaille, Maurice. The Bible, The Qur’an & Science. 1987. Seghers. Paris

References to the Koran in this paper e.g. 39:23 refer to Koran chapter or sura 39, aya or verse 23. References to the various books of Hadith e.g. Bukhari 56/152 refer to the Book of Bukhari, book (chapter) 56, Hadith number 152. Copyright © 1997 Muhammed Asadi

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicIdeology_1.aspx?ArticleID=2711

 

By Honourable Saka

The author is a regular writer and a political analyst on African affairs, and a well-known social commentator in Africa. He is currently seeking to establish the “ Project Pan-Africa (PPA)”, to create a mental revolution across Africa. He is the editor of “The Doctor’s Report”, your most reliable source of critical analysis on African affairs. Please visit his blog at: www.honourablesaka.blogspot.co.uk and reach him by Email at: honourablesaka@yahoo.co.uk Also Visit PPA at www.projectpanafrica.org

Patrice Lumumba (2 July 1925 – 17 January 1961), the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Congo Republic was murdered by a CIA- sponsored plot, over 50 years ago.

We must move forward, striking out tirelessly against imperialism. From all over the world we have to learn lessons which events afford. Lumumba’s murder should be a lesson for all of us”. — Che Guevara, 1964.

“Dead, living, free, or in prison on the orders of the colonialists, it is not I who counts. It is the Congo, it is our people for whom independence has been transformed into a cage where we are regarded from the outside…” — Patrice Lumumba, October 1960.

 

Introduction

The truth surrounding the brutal murder of Patrice Lumumba is an embarrassing event which, when exposed to the African youth of today, will definitely send the US government scratching its head. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has had a troubled history since the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Currently there is conflict in the eastern DRC. But who are the main actors in the conflict this time? African leaders, it is important to remember history so that you can appreciate what is going on today in Africa and the rest of the world.

Lumumba was a strong African revolutionary leader whose Pan-Africanist vision of a united Congo gained him many enemies from the outside world. Like Kwame Nkrumah, Lumumba sought for a country where the numerous resources of the Congo will benefit not only the Congo but the African people as a whole. In his famous first ever independence speech, a newly elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba who had not been scheduled to speak, stood up and made this speech (30th June 1960):

“You who have fought for independence, and are today victorious, I salute you in the name of the Congolese government. We have been subjected to insults and sarcasms, to the blows we had to endure from morning to night just because we were Africans. We learnt that the law was never the same according to whether it was applied to whites or blacks. Who will ever forget the shootings or the barbarous jail cells awaiting those who refused to submit to this regime of injustice, oppression and intimidation?”

With this speech, it was said that he signed his death warrant. From the very first day, the West especially the American and the Belgian governments started to sabotage Lumumba’s government and sought the immediate removal of Lumumba all cost.

Ludo De Witte, the Belgian author of the best book on this crime, qualifies it as “the most important assassination of the 20th century”. His assassination’s historical importance lies in a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being the global context in which it took place, its impact on Congolese politics since then and Lumumba’s overall legacy as a nationalist leader, writes Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, a professor of African and Afro-American studies at the University of North Carolina, author of “The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A People’s History”.

“Today, it is impossible to touch down at the (far from modernized) airport of Lubumbashi in the south of the DR Congo without a shiver of recollection of the haunting photographs, taken of Lumumba there shortly before his assassination, and after beatings, torture and a long, long flight in custody across the vast country which he so loved”. — Victoria Brittain, The Guardian, 2011.

Exposing The Facts and Debunking The Then Media Distortions

It is a fact that both the Belgian government and the United States actively sought to have him eliminated. The CIA ordered his assassination but could not complete the job. Instead, the United States and Belgium covertly funnelled cash and aid to rival politicians (just as they recently did in Libya) who seized power and arrested Lumumba. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had said something [to CIA chief Allen Dulles] to the effect that “Lumumba should be eliminated”. This was revealed by a declassified interview with then-US National Security Council minute keeper, Robert Johnson which was released in August 2000 from Senate intelligence committee’s inquiry on covert action. The committee later claimed that while the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba, it was not directly involved in the actual murder. Therefore one must ask: on whose orders was the actual murder executed if not the United States? Which elements in the CIA ever faced justice for such a brutal murder?

In his book, “In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story” John Stockwell (1978), revealed that a CIA officer in Elizabethville was in direct touch with Lumumba’s killers the night he was assassinated. Later, another CIA agent admitted to have had the body in the trunk of his car to try and get rid of it (p. 105) This leaked cable went on to state that Lumumba was first picked up from the airport by “all white guards”, taken to the bush where his fate was decided and his body completely dissolved in acid, leaving no traces whatsoever. What a horrible way to eliminate the traces of such a hero!

Having realised the complicity of the United Nations and the world powers, on this brutal murder, Kwame Nkrumah thus made a broadcast to the people of Ghanaian :

“Somewhere in Katanga in the Congo- where and when we do not know- three of our brother freedom fighters have been done to death. They have been Patrice Lumumba, the Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo, Maurice Mpolo, the Minister in his government who was elected from Katanga Province and Joseph Okito the Vice-President of the Congolese Senate. About their end many things are uncertain, but one fact is crystal clear. They have been killed because the United Nations, whom Patrice Lumumba himself as Prime Minister had invited to the Congo to preserve law and order, not only failed to maintain that law and order, but also denied to the lawful Government of the Congo, all other means of self-protection.” Kwame Nkrumah, (Challenge of the Congo, page 129).

“History records many occasions when rulers of states have been assassinated. The murder of Patrice Lumumba and of his two colleagues, however, is unique in that it is the first time in history that the legal ruler of a country has been done to death with the open connivance of a world organisation (the United Nations) whom that ruler put his trust”, -Nkrumah concludes (page 129/130).

I believe what happened in Libya in 2011 goes to affirm the real agenda of the UN, as long as Africa is concerned.Just as it had always been, it is always the same for Africa. But who cares when an African leader is brutally murdered on the orders of Western agents? After all we are used to it.

Between 1961 and 1973 alone, six African independence leaders were assassinated by their ex-colonial rulers, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo.

Complicity of the Belgian Government

A recent report by a Belgian Commission revealed that Belgium wanted Lumumba arrested and was not particularly concerned with Lumumba’s physical well-being. Though informed of the danger to Lumumba’s life when later arrested, Belgium did not take any action to avert his death.

Under its own laws, Belgium was legally culpable for failing to prevent the assassination of the leader of a country where it had colonial ties. It was also in breach of its obligation (under U.N. Resolution 290 of 1949) to refrain from acts or threats “aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of another state.

In 2001, a Belgian Commission exposed that there had been previous U.S. and Belgian plots to kill Lumumba. Among them was a CIA-sponsored attempt to poison him, which might have come on orders from the then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. A CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb was made to devise a poison disguised as toothpaste for the elimination of Lumumba to which the corporate media intended to blame on “opposition elements”. This plot however backfired.

In another book, “Congo Cables”, the author details many communications by local CIA Station Chief, Larry Devlin at the time who continually urged the total elimination of Lumumba as the only outcome the US government wanted to see (p. 53, 101, 129-133, 149-152, 158-159, 184-185, 195).

Thanks to the power of suppression, political intimidation, as well as the fear and panic on the part of many African leaders who surrender at the expense of the African people. The bloody hand of colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism has always fought hard to burry the facts surrounding the brutal murder of many African heroes, African reggae legends, and tens of thousands of the people. The African people of today, continue to live under the illusion of so-called “independence, as foreign pressure continues to mount on their leaders to either comply or face similar fate.

That notwithstanding, we the African generation of today, cannot sit aside and watch our history to be distorted nor completely buried for the sake of satisfying the wishes of the oppressor. Our revolutionary leader Patrice Lumumba has underlined that the history of the African people must be written. This history should not be the type that Brussels, Paris, Washington, the United Nations nor the corporate media will teach. Rather, Africa’s history should be written by the African people and should be taught in all the countries emancipated from colonialism and its current puppets… a history of glory and dignity.

African scholars and all historians of African origin therefore owe our children, the youth and our children’s children, the responsibility to teach them the true history of their ancestors. The future generations have every right to know the sacrifices and the price which many of their ancestors had to pay (with their blood) before we were able to attain our political independence. It was Lumumba’s wish that “Africa writes her own history, a history of glory and dignity”.

Lumumba and his kind we fall short of today, but we will get there. –A message to the African youth.He is a true African hero who must be celebrated by the African people all over the world.

Long live Patrice Lumumba,

Long live the people of the Congo,

Long live Africa.

NOTE:

1. “Patrice Lumumba: the most important assassination of the 20th century” available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination

2. Kwame Nkrumah, (1967) “Challenge of The Congo: A Case Study of Foreign Pressures in an Independent State”, Panaf Books: London.

3. Patrice Lumumba, (1972) Lumumba Speaks: The Speeches and Writings of Patrice Lumumba, 1958–1961. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

4. Patrice Lumumba, (1962) “Congo, My Country” London: Pall Mall Press.

5. John Stockwell (1978), “In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story”. W.W. Norton.

6. CIA document #CO 1366116.

7. Plan to poison Congo leader Patrice Lumumba (page 464). pdf copy available at:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/top06.pdf

8. Biography of Patrice Lumumba, available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba#Writings_by_Lumumba

9. Karen De Young (2007), “CIA Releases Files on Past Misdeeds”, The Washington Post. Available at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062600861.html?hpid=topnews

10. Victoria Brittain, (2011) “Africa: a continent drenched in the blood of revolutionary heroes”. The Guardian (London). Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/lumumba-50th-anniversary-african-leaders-assassinations

“We were always cautious about the triumph of President Obama. Early on, we began to take note of the truth, that the empire is here, alive and more threatening than ever.”

– Hugo Chavez Frias

 It is said when you can’t beat ‘em, that you might as well make common cause with them, but in the case of President Hugo Chavez and the government of Venezuela this doesn’t seem to be the logical choice of the U.S. State Department, and the corporate ‘mainstream’ media at all. Since, the Obama State Department and its auxiliaries are incapable of debunking the unequivocal success of the Bolivarian revolution, and since the CIA’s forays into the Bolivarian Republic have been far from a success; the corporate MSM seems to be employing the strategy, that if you can’t beat ‘em, then you might as well throw a whole bunch of mud in their eye.

Craven, and seemingly incapable of a fair fight, the corporate ‘mainstream’ media egregiously; goes for the low blow, each and every time. The propaganda and half-truth, levied against the sitting Venezuelan President, at times veers into the realm of classifying Chavez as a dictatorial strongman — which has never stopped the U.S. government before — but I think the lion’s share of the effort to impugn and delegitimize Chavez, is to make him out to be playing with something far short of a full deck.

Perhaps most recognizably, we have seen the baseness of the coverage of President Chavez in colorful remarks that he has made about George W. Bush being the devil, or in his referring to Sarah Palin as a confused beauty pageant contestant. These comments have been made out to be the zenith of President Chavez’s intellectual powers. And although the Venezuela leader, may — at times — make these sort of flip, off the cuff remarks and comments; his raising of serious and incisive points about the United States empire and belligerent ‘hegemonic’ power; generally go unnoticed by a media, seemingly looking to do nothing other than lampoon and skewer the Bolivarian President.

Presumably, anyone who opposes — and has a coherent critique — of U.S. neocolonialism and imperialism is some kind of a buffoon or imbecile. History, of course, ended long ago, and anyone looking to swim against the tide of the straight-jacket that the wealthiest countries want to affix upon the rest of humanity, apparently must be hopelessly misinformed and/or wildly out of touch. Never do the so-called mainstream media reliable sources, focus on figures like a drop in poverty from 71% in 1996 to 23% in 2010, or that Venezuela, long ago, met its UN Millennium Development targets. Instead, slander, invective, and a generalized muddying of the waters, are the tools of the ‘diligent reporting’ of the ‘venerable’ corporatist press.

Time Magazine, for example, in an article in 2007, referred to Chavez as a budding movie mogul, for funding a project on Toussaint L’Ouverture with the veteran American actor and activist Danny Glover. Time opined, in that piece of incomparable ‘journalism’, that this would probably be just the beginning, of Chavez’s forays into socialist propaganda films. One would think that the apropos question for Time’s reportage, would be why would such a seasoned and respected actor of Hollywood need to go outside of the U.S. to fund this kind of project — of such an important figure of Haitian history and even the history of the world? And one can only imagine the coverage of L’Ouverture, by the Western media of his day; he was probably the Hugo Chavez of his era, and almost undoubtedly accused of being something like an inciter of riots, for realizing that people born in chains might want some modicum of freedom.

The Los Angeles Times devoted critical resources recently, to informing their audience that Hugo Chavez had opened a Twitter account. The Times — in a testament to their abilities of ‘objective’ news-making — said they were glued to Chavez’s Tweets, because of the man’s “sometimes unpredictable actions”. Moreover, they erroneously reported that Chavez had a tight grip on the media in his country; when the fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of Venezuelan media is rabidly anti-Chavez, and firmly in the hands of the Venezuelan elite.

Progressive commentator Mark Weisbrot, has even likened the Venezuelan private media’s coverage of Chavez, to Fox News’ coverage of Barrack Obama in the United States. Though Weisbrot went even further, saying that the Venezuelan private media is more politicized, more prone to hyperbole, and less rooted in facts — as compared to Rupert Murdoch’s virulent propaganda operation in the U. S. In concluding the LA Times article, unequivocally a Pulitzer level, erudite piece; the Times talked to U.S. State Department spokesmen Philip Crowley. Crowley, soberly told the Times reporter that he spoke with, that he simply couldn’t resist being a Twitter follower of President Hugo Chavez’s numerous tweets.

The corporate media is, of course, replete with this kind of shoddy, trivialized, and half-baked ‘journalism’. And apparently one needs to be a highly celebrated and academy award winning film maker to get any kind of substantive, reasonably fair coverage of Venezuela in the U.S. corporatist fourth estate. A recent piece on Oliver Stone’s newest documentary in the tabloid the New York Daily News, actually raised some sober-minded points about Venezuela — things that are regularly redacted from most of the mainstream accounts. Things like, that the ‘bad guys’ in this narrative are really the U.S., the International Monetary Fund, and colonial powers; such as Britain and Spain. And also that there is widespread popular support for Hugo Chavez in his home country; he’s not just some clownish Svengali who has a nation by the horns.

The article also quotes Stone’s accurate contention, that there’s been virtually no change whatsoever emanating from the administration of Barrack Obama. Reading this is sort of information in American mainstream media, is almost not to be believed, because it is just the kind of thing that is perennially missing from the one side of the issue that the ‘mainstream’ chooses to support. And as George Orwell famously noted in his seminal work of fiction 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” It’s no wonder Venezuela, almost undoubtedly, could surely be just another potential territory ripe for invasion, and the spreading of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and ‘nation-building’ one day; on the not all too distant horizon. Especially, when considering a media that succeeds in redefining up as down and rewriting history according to the worldview that it is— self-referentially— operating from.

One would think, if s/he puts any stock in the MSM’s egregious, slanderous actions, that a dictatorial, oafish, president controls the state of Venezuela. The truth of the matter is, undeniably, that making progress there — on the fronts where President Hugo Chavez has been successful — would, of course, be impossible; if Venezuela were being shepherded by just another one of the stewards of U.S. imperial mandates. And it would, irrefutably, be nothing more than a vassal, wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States.

By Sean Fenley 

Sean Fenley is an independent progressive, who would like to see some sanity brought to the creation and implementation, of current and future, U.S. military, economic, foreign and domestic policies. He has been published by a number of websites, and publications throughout the alternative media.

 22 June, 2010

Countercurrents.org

 

A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.

Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusation of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent Last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US by 2015.

Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.

Accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. T his accusation was countered by Ahmadinejad in ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos stating that, since Bin Laden was a previous partner of Mr. Bush, he is living comfortably in Washington DC not in Tehran. It was also widely reported that one of Bin Laden’s wives was living in Tehran with six of his children and eleven grandchildren.

A recent Associated Press exclusive, May 13th, written by Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, reported that according to CIA monitoring program RIGOR Saad, the son of Usama Bin laden and many Al-Qaeda leaders and operative had taken refuge into Iran after 911. This exclusive disqualifies itself stating that “But generally, the U.S. has only limited information about them.”, and “Details are murky”.

The American military capitalized on such rumors when the commander of US forces in the Middle East, general Petraeus, told Congress that Tehran is working with Al-Qaeda facilitating links between its senior leaders and affiliate groups.

Syria, in turn, was not spared from American and Israeli warnings and threats. Syria was accused of violating 2006 UN Resolution 1701 prohibiting the transfer of weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah. Just before the US Congress approves sending Robert Stephen Ford as American ambassador to Syria as a sign of improving relationships, the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, accused Syria of smuggling Scud missiles to Hezbollah. Peres’ accusation prompted the Congress to suspend sending Ford to Damascus.

Major General Alberto Asarta Cuevas of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon was quoted by Lebanese daily An-Nahar as saying: “We have no evidence of any Scud missiles in UNIFIL’s area of operations.” The US, also, could not confirm any Scud missiles shipped to Lebanon. Scud missiles are large and are difficult to hide.

Although not mentioning Scud missiles in specific Israeli officials such as the head of the Israeli military intelligence research department, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, claimed that: “Weapons are transferred to Hezbollah on a regular basis and this transfer is organized by the Syrian and Iranian regimes.” Syria was accused of transferring sophisticated weapons, such as M600 rockets, to Hezbollah. Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, accused Syria of importing weapons of mass destruction from North Korea to ship them to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak directly warned both Syria and Lebanon: “We make it clear once again that we see the government of Lebanon, and behind it the government of Syria, responsible for what happens now in Lebanon, And the government of Lebanon will be the one to be held accountable if it deteriorates.”

The Americans parroted the Israeli claims. Hillary Clinton warned Syria of grave consequences of delivering weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas warning that such an act “could mean war or peace for the region … Hezbollah’s acquisition of new weapons, especially long-range missiles, would threaten Israel’s security and destabilize the region.”

Robert Gates, the American Defense Secretary, had also accused both Iran and Syria of arming Hezbollah with sophisticated weaponry. Finally, citing what the White House alleged Syria’s “extraordinary threat” to US security and foreign policy, Barrack Obama decided to renew economic sanctions against Syria for another year. Obama said that Syria’s “continuing support of terrorist organizations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the US”.

Israel’s fear was heightened by the visit of Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, to Syria, the first visit to Damascus by Russian ruler since 1917, to sign an arm trade agreement by which Russia would supply Syria with Mig-29 fighters, truck-mounted Pantzir short range surface to air missiles, and anti-aircraft artillery system. Building a Syrian nuclear power plant with Russian help was also discussed by the two leaders.

Turkey’s improved relationships with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and its sympathy towards Palestinians worry the US and Israel the most. Since Davos incident in January 2009 between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Israel’s president Shimon Peres, Turkey seems to adopt the Palestinian cause. Turkey had sent humanitarian aid to besieged Gaza within “Viva Palestina” and “Break the Siege” campaigns, and is also sending three humanitarian ships to Gaza within the “Freedom Flotilla” campaign.

Turkey and Syria had dramatically improved their political, economic, socio-cultural, and military relationships. The two countries conducted, last April 2009, a three-day military exercise along their borders and signed a technical military cooperation agreement to strengthen collaboration between their defense industries.

Turkey had improved relationship with Iran, where trade between the two countries is expected to increase to $30 billion. Turkey had opposed economical sanctions against Iran, had repeatedly played down the alleged threat of Iran’s nuclear program, and defended Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy. This month, May 2010, Turkey and Brazil convinced Iran to accept nuclear fuel swap on Turkish soil.

Turkey seems determined to protect its good relationships with Syria and Iran to a point of deploying anti-aircraft batteries along the Syrian border in the Iskenderun district to repel any US or Israeli aerial attack against Iran or Syria, according to Turkish daily Hurriyet. In a phone call with Al-Manar TV, Mustafa Ozcan, a Turkish political analyst, confirmed this fact.

A Middle Eastern geopolitical alliance between Turkey, Iran, and Syria and Lebanon seems to take shape. This alliance seems to provide a counterbalance for Israel’s military superiority in the region, and a deterrent to any further Israeli terrorist attack against Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria. Israelis are afraid that they may not be able to win a war as convincingly and with impunity as they used to do, especially after their failures in 2006 Lebanese war and 2008 Gaza onslaught.

Israel’s whining about Iran’s and Syria’s weapons is meant to portray the Israelis as the poor victims, and to justify any Israeli aggression against its neighbors. It is meant also to draw in the US for its rescue, as usual. Israel wants a joint American/Israel attack against Iran/Syria/Hezbollah axis before their alliance become any stronger. American involvement is the wild card, as it always has been, that will maintain Israel’s superiority in the region.

While supplying Israel with weapons allegedly for self defense the US denies this right to Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians. Coming to Israel’s rescue, again, the US described Iran as the greatest threat to America, to its allies, to the Middle East, and to world peace by claiming that Iran is the region’s greatest proliferators of weapons and supporter to terrorist groups.

Obama cited the possibility of nuclear Iran supplying nuclear material to some terrorist groups to be used against the US and its allies. The documented facts proved that the US is the only nuclear country that had secretly supplied nuclear material to terrorist Israel to build its nuclear bombs.

In his article “America’s Loose Nukes in Israel”, Grant Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, explains how large quantities of America’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was smuggles to Israel via the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC), part of Apollo Steel Company plant in Pennsylvania. A 1965 audit by Atomic Energy Commission discovered the shortage of 220 pounds of enriched uranium, and in September 1968 587 more pounds of enriched uranium went missing immediately after the visit of 4 Israelis, including Mossad agent Rafi Eitan. Also refer to the 1978 declassified report “Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” regarding the investigation between 1957 and 1967 of the loss of highly enriched uranium in NUMEC.

Whistleblower former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds testified that Richard Perle, Doughlas Feith, and Marc Grossman, high ranking officials in G.W. Bush administration, were passing sensitive data and nuclear technology to Israel’s military industrial complex.

Based on 30 declassified government documents from the National Security Archive in April 2006 Avner Cohen and William Burr published the article “Israel Crosses the Threshold” in the May-June 2006 issue of the “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” indicating that the Nixon’s administration decided to accept and to live with Israel’s ambiguity of its nuclear weapons program, knowing very well that Israel had already built nuclear bombs.

At the Global Summit on Nuclear Security, last April, the US tried to rally nations against Iran’s nuclear program, and supported the call for Middle East nuclear-free zone. Yet the US supported Israel’s claim that it would consider signing the NPT and supporting such a nuclear-free zone only if there is a comprehensive Middle East peace.

The US, with 5,113 self-declared nuclear bombs and free of any IAEA monitoring process, is trying to use the NPT to monopolize nuclear technology and deny it to other countries. After signing the START Treaty on April 8th President Obama called for $80 billion in nuclear funding to modernize the US nuclear weapons complex to meet the need to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile”. This means making the bombs smarter, smaller in size, and more powerful. This $80 billion came on top of more than the additional $100 billion for nuclear deliver systems like submarines. The US has no intention of reducing its nukes, but to improve them.

War clouds are looming over the Middle Easter. Israeli military officials keep threatening to attack Iran claiming they can use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israel is primed to attack Iran boosted Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon. Iran is taking these threats seriously and is preparing for war through war games; two of them this month. Iran’s strongest warning to Israel came Wednesday May 19 from Iranian Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, stating that if Israel attacked Iran it would be destroyed within a week. Sunday May 23 Israel is conducting its most intensive and comprehensive war games called “Turning Point-4” lasting five days and including 68 cities and towns. Could this be preparation for another war this summer?

During its short 62 years history Israel had fought 8 wars against its Arab neighbors. It had developed nuclear weapons and did not sign the NPT. It had used chemical and nuclear (DU) weapons against civilians. It violated many UN resolutions. It committed war crimes and many massacres against civilians. It had refused all Arab peaceful gestures and keeps threatening to attack its neighbors. It occupation and destruction of religious sites, especially Islamic, might provoke religious war in the region. Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East.

By Dr. Elias Akleh

Countercurrents.org

 

We live amidst multiple crises — economic and political, cultural and ecological — that pose a significant threat to human life as we understand it.

There is no way to be awake to the depth of these crises without an emotional reaction. There is no way to be aware of the pain caused by these systemic failures without some experience of dread, depression, distress.

To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one’s own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse.

Though I have felt this for some time I hesitated to talk about it in public, out of fear of being accused of being too negative or dismissed as apocalyptic. But more of us are breaking through that fear, and more than ever it’s essential that we face this aspect of our political lives. To talk openly about this anguish should strengthen, not undermine, our commitment to political engagement — any sensible political program to which we can commit for the long haul has to start with an honest assessment of reality.

Here is how I would summarize our reality: Because of the destructive consequences of human intervention, it is not clear how much longer the planetary ecosystem can sustain human life on this scale. There is no way to make specific predictions, but it’s clear that our current path leads to disaster. Examine the data on any crucial issue — energy, water, soil erosion, climate disruption, chemical contamination, biodiversity — and the news is bad. Platitudes about “necessity is the mother of invention” express a hollow technological fundamentalism; simply asserting that we want to solve the problems that we have created does not guarantee we can. The fact that we have not taken the first and most obvious step — moving to a collective life that requires far less energy — doesn’t bode well for the future.

Though anguish over this reality is not limited to the affluence of the industrial world — where many of us have the time to ponder all this because our material needs are met — it may be true that those of us living in relative comfort today speak more of this emotional struggle. That doesn’t mean that our emotions are illegitimate or that the struggle is self-indulgent; this discussion is not the abandonment of politics but an essential part of fashioning a political project.

I would like help in this process. I’ve started talking to people close to me about how this feels, but I want to expand my understanding. By using the internet and email, I am limiting the scope of the inquiry to those online, but it’s a place to start.

My request is simple: If you think it would help you clarify your understanding of your struggle, send me an account of your reaction to these crises and collapse, in whatever level of detail you like. I am most interested in our emotional states, but any exercise of this type includes an intellectual component; there is no clear line between the analytical and the emotional, between thinking and feeling. An understanding of our emotions is connected to our analysis of the health of the ecosystem, the systems responsible for that condition, and the openings for change.

Because I may draw on this material in public discussions and for writing projects, please let me know how you are willing to have your words used. Your writing could be: (1) “on background,” not to be quoted in any forum; (2) “not for attribution,” permission to be quoted but not identified; or (3) “on the record,” permission to be quoted and identified. If you don’t specify, I will assume (2).

My plan is to report back to anyone interested. If you would like to be included on that distribution list, let me know. Please send responses in the body of an email message, not as an attachment, to robertwilliamjensen@gmail.com.

Whether or not you write to me, I hope everyone will begin speaking more openly about this aspect of our struggle. If there is to be a decent future, we have to retain our capacity for empathy. Most of us can empathize with those closest to us, and we try to empathize with all people. The next step is to open up to the living world, which requires an ability to feel both the joy and the grief that surrounds us.

By Robert Jensen

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film “Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing,” which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Information about the film, distributed by the Media Education Foundation, and an extended interview Jensen conducted with Osheroff are online at http://thirdcoastactivist.org/osheroff.html

 

The consensus that held Thailand together is crumbling. Recent events will cement the bitter divides and lead to more bloodshed. My first experience of Bangkok was in 1995. I felt as if I had stepped on to the set of Blade Runner; a scattered and disjointed fusion of skyscrapers and tangled neon-soaked streets bustling with life. It left me electrified and entranced. Six years later, I made this city my home. Friends were envious. I was excited. No one was warning me against it. “Bangkok is much safer than London” has been my recurrent refrain whenever asked about living in this sprawling capital. However, while I may have been mugged in my hometown of London, I have never seen anyone shot there by a sniper. At least 70 people have been killed and well over a thousand injured in recent political violence in Bangkok. Areas of the city were turned into a war zone as troops battled with protesters for more than five days before finally – and brutally – crushing the redshirt “resistance”. To suggest that this chaos and destruction came as a surprise would be disingenuous. I have had serious misgivings about the state of affairs in Thailand for several years, but have, like many others, pushed them to one side lest they interfere with my enjoyment of the weather, lifestyle and, of course, the food that has kept me so content in this country for nearly a decade. I was in a bar with three friends earlier this month. A little drunk and excitable, two of the friends, a journalist and a photographer, sought to convince the third, who works for a large US-based multinational, that Bangkok was a city on the brink of chaos. “Why are you laughing? This country is going to hell. Mark my words, there will be deaths on these streets that you cannot imagine,” the journalist said to the skeptical office worker. Perhaps her laughter was born from nervousness. I’m not sure, but despite living here for eight years, she did not seem to recognise the storm clouds. Four days later at least four people had been shot dead on a street one minute’s walk from that bar, and the office worker had evacuated her apartment to go and live in another part of the city. But it wasn’t just the latest tensions – two months of protests, 25 deaths and 800 injuries on 10 April and the increased military presence on the streets – that portended darker days. Ignited by a military coup and against the backdrop of rising anxiety over the deteriorating health of the king and the continued meddling of a divisive, ousted prime minister from self-imposed exile overseas, protest movements have been growing, with opposing groups increasingly pushing their agendas on the streets rather than in parliament. Years of tensions have uncovered stark social and political fissures. As I watched television last Tuesday morning, a military commander, in a pooled presentation on all free-to-air stations, showed images from YouTube and other public websites of “terrorists” among the redshirts. While there are armed elements among the protesters, almost all those shot so far have been unarmed. As the urban battles continued, the government and military pushed their propaganda on television each day – these are “terrorists”, we must defend ourselves and the king and country. A significant number of Thais agree. This makes me uneasy. The rhetoric is nothing new. The delivery is nothing new. I can’t help but identify these generals with a bygone era. But many in Thailand, it seems, do not want a new future; they are emotionally devoted to their past and fearful of what may come if the redshirts win. In May 1992, when dozens of protesters were shot dead by soldiers, the military also claimed it was acting in self-defense. Today there is no grilling from the local media. Many continued to support the crackdown, despite the rising death toll. International media, such as CNN, have been accused of pro-redshirt bias. Vile and hateful messages calling for the deaths of the protesters were unashamedly plastered on Facebook and other social sites. At a television awards ceremony on the evening of 16 May, as the fighting continued on the streets outside, an actor received his statuette and, as stars have done in the past, took the opportunity to make his political feelings known. “If you hate father, if you don’t love father any more, then you should get out of here!” he said defiantly, in reference to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who Thais often refer to as “father”, and the alleged anti-monarchy sentiments of some redshirts. “Because this is father’s home! Because this is father’s land!” The well-dressed audience of the glitterati and light-skinned actors and actresses gave a standing ovation, punched the air in defiance; some wept. Such scenes of obsequious devotion and intense emotion are common when it comes to the monarchy. Due to societal and legal pressures, there is no room for discussion of the monarchy – a culture of self-imposed censorship increasingly ingrained over the 63 years of King Bhumibol’ s reign, permeating all areas of social and political interaction and defining, in many cases, what it means to be “Thai”. Everyone has an opinion on what the real issue behind this enduring crisis is: class struggle against uncaring elite; a scorned megalomaniac former prime minister fighting to recover his ill-gotten gains and power; a battle to fend off a republican revolution. But what no one seems to have is a clear answer to how this all will end. I don’t have any answers either. As I sit here in my apartment, awaiting another night of curfew, watching the sun set on a city still smoldering from a week of tragedies, I can’t help but think that recent events will only further cement the country’s already bitter divides and lead to more bloodshed. The consensus that held Thailand together and saw decades of economic advance is crumbling. Thailand must build a new future under a new image, but I fear this divided nation is not yet ready to face that painful truth. By Ismail Wolff 23 May 2010 The Guardian

 

When Thailand’s army ousted Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006, generals hailed the coup as bloodless. Four years on, clashes between troops and his followers left 85 people dead, a capital in flames and a nation broken in two. To Thaksin’ s opponents, who wear yellow as a symbol of their allegiance to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the former prime minister is a corrupt billionaire who orchestrated protests in Bangkok in a bid to regain power and topple the monarchy. To supporters clad in red, he’s a champion of the rural poor who sought to close one of Asia’s widest income gaps, and a victim of urban elite that uses the courts and army to perpetuate its rule. “There are no neutral people,” said Sanit Nakajitti, a director at PSA Asia, a Bangkok-based security and risk consulting company. “When I meet someone, in three sentences I can tell if they are red or yellow.” Amnesty for Thaksin, 60, living in exile to escape a prison sentence he calls politically motivated, is the one concession Oxford-educated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been unwilling to make. Their division mirrors the nation’s, which risks further violence that may undermine an economy reliant on foreign investors and tourists. “Thaksin’s conviction is a point of contention that will never be reconciled,” said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a political science lecturer at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. “The government has won the battle, but to win the war it must try and isolate him from the people who see him as a superhero who can cure all economic ills.” Early Election Abhisit vowed on May 21 to “rebuild the house” through a reconciliation plan announced earlier this month that includes addressing economic disparities and rewriting political rules. In the national address, in which he didn’t mention Thaksin’s name, he pledged an independent investigation into the violence over the past two months. Red Shirt supporters rioted on May 19, venting their anger on symbols of wealth and privilege. The stock exchange and 10 Bangkok Bank Pcl branches were set ablaze; the Central World mall and Siam Theater were gutted by flames. Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., Japan’s two largest automakers, last week suspended production in Thailand. Financial regulators closed the stock exchange and ordered banks in the capital of 9 million people to shut. The benchmark SET Index dropped 3.9 percent since May 4 and the baht is trading close to a two-month low. “I never imagined it would come to this,” said Karl-Heinz Heckhausen, former president of Daimler Chrysler Thailand who has lived in the country for 12 years. “At the moment for investors, nobody is coming.” Poor Northeast The Red Shirts, whose six-week occupation of a central Bangkok business district led to the military crackdown, hail mostly from the country’s northeast, the poorest region, where a third of the population live. Income levels in the provinces supporting Abhisit’ s party at the last election were more than double those that backed the pro-Thaksin alternative, a United Nations report released this month showed. Thaksin, the only elected prime minister in Thailand to serve a full four-year term, appealed to the lower class with a platform of $1-a-visit health care and low-interest loans for villagers. Abhisit’s government has attempted to build on those policies by offering free school supplies and low-income housing. “The big lie of the leaders and of ex-Prime Minister Thaksin was that this fight was about democracy and income inequality,” Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij said May 21. “Not once did the Red Shirts offer any solutions or suggestions as to how they would address these issues.” ‘Before the Coup’ “The problem is that Thaksin wants something we cannot give, Korbsak said. “He wants to go back to before the coup; he wants his passport back; he wants to come home without any time in jail.” Thaksin isn’t behind the protests and it’s unfair to say he’s using the movement for personal gain, spokesman Noppadon Pattama said May 18. After the coup, a military-appointed panel drafted a constitution that declared ousting Thaksin legal. It also added a clause used to dissolve the pro-Thaksin party that won the first election after the coup, paving the way for Abhisit to take power in a December 2008 parliamentary vote. The Red Shirt rallies in Bangkok started two weeks after a court seized $1.4 billion of Thaksin’ s fortune. During the protests he addressed the group, also known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, via videoconference and using his Twitter account. ‘Untrue Accusations’ “There are questions about my relationship with the Red Shirt movement, and many untrue accusations,” Thaksin said in a May 20 statement. “I will continue to morally support the heroic effort of the UDD and their leaders to seek democracy and justice for Thailand.” Pro-Thaksin parties won the past four elections while Abhisit’ s Democrat Party last won the most seats in a nationwide vote in 1992. Earlier that year, the admonishments of King Bhumibol prompted a military commander and middle-class protest leader to prostrate themselves before him on live television after clashes left dozens dead. King Bhumibol, 82, has been hospitalized since September and hasn’t commented publically on the protests. “Traditionally, the king would have stepped in and stopped all this,” said Ernest Bower, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There’s now a sense that because he hasn’t, there is a vacuum being created. And if you’ve got the guns and money, you may be able to hold on and have a major role in the leadership of this country in the future.” –With assistance from Anuchit Nguyen, Suttinee Yuvejwattana in Bangkok, and Yuki Hagiwara in Tokyo. Editors: Bill Austin, Patrick Harrington. To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok at dtenkate@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Tony Jordan at tjordan3@bloomberg.net ; Bill Austin at billaustin@bloomberg.net By Daniel Ten Kate and Peter S. Green 23rd May 2010

 

Cambridge Massachusetts, June 2, 2010 – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna will meet in Washington this week (June 2 and 3) to lay the groundwork for a visit to India that President Obama plans to make in November. This meeting comes on the heels of recent announcements by India’s military that it plans to test and deploy an anti-satellite system.

Indian military officials have set a target date to deploy an ambitious anti-satellite system, according to a report released in May by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). The report, titled Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap (TPCR), states that the “development of ASAT for electronic or physical destruction of satellites in both LEO and Geo – synchronous orbits” can be expected by 2015.

This is not exactly news, in that the developmental timeline coincides with DRDO comments from years past. What is striking about it—much like most information released from the DRDO regarding its development of anti-satellite systems—is that it blatantly contradicts statements by Indian political leaders that deny any intent by their nation to pursue space weapons.  Moreover, target dates for the development of anti-satellite systems by any nation should be considered shocking, particularly given the scrutiny that was paid to nations such as China and the U.S. when they each demonstrated a direct-ascent ability to strike satellites in space.

Historically, U.S. concern over China’s potential to deploy a formal ASAT system has been well documented. In 1999 The Cox Report on US National Security with China stated: “The PRC is believed to be developing space-based and ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons.” In a 2008 Congressional hearing before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, it was stated that a Chinese ASAT threat definitely exists, putting many U.S. and allied spacecraft at risk.  In January of 2007, many nations, including India, voiced opposition to China’s successful shoot-down of its own aging Fengyun (FY-1C) polar orbit satellite with a kinetic kill vehicle (KKV). In response to China’s action, then-Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said, “The security and safety of assets in outer space is of crucial importance for global economic and social development. We call upon all States to redouble efforts to strengthen the international legal regime for the peaceful use of outer space. ” Then-U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe echoed Mukherjee’s comments, stating, “The U.S. believes China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area.”

The U.S. experienced similar international suspicion and condemnation a year later when it destroyed a reportedly malfunctioning National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) satellite via a Standard Missile 3

(SM3) launch from aboard the USS Lake Erie. Russia’s Defense Ministry responded in a statement: “There is an impression that the United States is trying to use the accident with its satellite to test its national anti-missile defense system’s capability to destroy other countries’ satellites.”

With all of the attention paid to China’s and the United States’ anti-satellite capabilities, how has the international community missed continuous, overt claims by Indian military officials that the development and eventual deployment of an ASAT system is on the horizon?

If the U.S. and China are subject to international outrage over what the two countries claim were responses to their own malfunctioning satellites, why is India overlooked when it touts that it is developing the same technology for defensive and offensive military applications?

Is its technical prowess being underestimated? Does the Indian nation’s defiant actions pale in comparison to those of China, Iran and North Korea?

In the spring of 2000, an alarming report entitled “Military Dimensions in the Future of the Indian Presence in Space” caused waves within official circles but drew little international attention (probably due to its lack of availability outside of India). Perhaps most controversial was its suggestion that India could deploy a directed-energy weapon, such as a particle beam weapon, in space by 2010 and also a system referred to as the KALI (kinetic attack loitering interceptor). The paper’s author, Dr. V. Siddhartha, was at the time of the document’s publication an officer on special duty in the secretariat of the scientific adviser to the Defense Minister. The paper is testament to, at the very least, a clear interest within the Indian military of deploying not only a space-based laser, but also an ASAT system.

Over the past decade, there has been no shortage of inflammatory comments made by Indian military officials claiming India’s intent to weaponize space. There has also been no shortage of contradictions to these statements from India’s most senior government officials—oftentimes happening within days of one another. For example, on January 26, 2007, after China’s satellite shoot-down, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin convened a joint press conference where Singh declared; “Our position is similar in that we are not in favor of the weaponization of outer space.” This was just one day after then-Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Shashi Tyagi stated, “As the reach of our air force is expanding, it has become extremely important that we exploit space, and for it you need space assets.” Actions speak louder than words, and unfortunately the Indian military is acting.  How long is the international community going to wait for India’s bold claims to materialize?

On January 3rd of 2010 at the 97th Indian Science Congress, Dr. V K Saraswat, director general of India’s Defense Research and Development Organization, stated in a televised press conference that India was in the process of developing an ASAT system and that it is “working to ensure space security and protect our satellites.” He went on: “At the same time, we are also working on how to deny the enemy access to its space assets…India is putting together building blocks of technology that could be used to neutralize enemy satellites.” These building blocks, he stated, will be ready between 2012 and 2014. He added, “With the kill vehicle available and with the propulsion system of Agni-III, that can carry the missile up to 1,000 km altitude, we can reach the orbit in which the satellite is and it is well within our capability.” Testing on an interceptor missile with a range of 120-140 km will begin, he says, in September. All of this evidence points to the fact that, despite claims to the contrary, India is and has been unwavering in its desire to develop a space weapons system that could significantly destabilize the international security environment.

It has been 36 years since India broke trust with the international community with its first nuclear test. In 1998 U.S. sanctions were placed upon the country in response to more nuclear tests. When the Bush Administration lifted the aforementioned sanctions against India in the wake of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, and then progressively loosened export and commerce laws against India, it ignored many events that have taken place historically. To date, India has not signed on to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). It is also highly unlikely that India will subscribe to the treaty to Prevent an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS.)

At a time when the international spotlight seems trained on North Korea and Iran, a growing tolerance for India’s belligerence in building its nuclear and missile capabilities appears to shield it from similar scrutiny. Geographically, it is also comparable in its potential for volatility; South Asia is a highly volatile region—home to two nuclear weapons states, including India, that fought in multiple wars, the last taking place in 1999. In fact, since the Kargil War, India-Pakistan relations have not moved towards peace and remain highly unstable.

India has stated that it intends to deploy a space weapon by 2015, and a 5,000 km ICBM by 2011.  The Indian nation is currently acquiring missile defense technologies while simultaneously increasing its role as a leading importer and exporter of military technologies that will irreversibly alter the security balance not only in South Asia, but in the Middle East as well.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Indian counterpart S.M.

Krishna will meet in Washington this week to lay the groundwork for a visit to India that President Obama plans to make in November. Isn’t it time, at the very least, for the Obama Administration to reassess the US-India policies set by its predecessor?

Military Space Transparency Project

Director Matthew Hoey

Email: hoey@spacetransparency.org

Phone: 617.650.0255

3rd June 2010

 

SRINAGAR, June 12: The killing of Tufail Ahmad, a teenaged boy in police action at Gani Memorial Stadium is yet another indicator of the unabated killings of teenaged boys, continuing despite assurance of zero tolerance to human rights violations, in Kashmir.

These serial innocent killings have generated anguish and fear psychosis among the parents regarding the safety of their children under prevailing circumstances.

The situation at present is reminiscent to some extent of early 90s when people were reluctant to send their teenaged sons outside due to the fear that they may be arrested and killed by the security forces.

When the infamous “Operation Tiger,” by the security personnel, marking the beginning of organised fake encounters was started in early 90s, large number of boys were picked up and killed in custody during crackdowns

They included teenaged students from all over the valley particularly the old city of Srinagar. The incidents of fake encounters in Kashmir by security forces got exposed with Maroof Sultan’s case in 90s. He was one such intended target of fake encounter. Maroof was arrested by BSF while he was traveling in a bus which was stopped at Solina. Maroof was taken to the infamous Papa II interrogation centre where he was brutally tortured and then the security men brought him to Solina bund in the darkness during night and showered bullets on him. Believing him dead, the BSF men left him there and reported to Shergari Police Station that they had killed a militant in an encounter at Solina Bund and recovered a gun from his possession.

The BSF men then asked the cops to recover the body from the spot. As the police party immediately reached the spot they found Maroof alive and in a very critical condition. The injured boy was taken to hospital where he recovered after a long time to reveal the truth to the world.

Later, scores of Kashmiri boys fell prey to bullets in the fake encounters.

And now, the situation is almost taking the same turn. While the teenaged boys in the past were getting killed in crackdowns, now they fall victim to bullets during demonstrations.

“With demonstrations and subsequent police action being order of the day, I remain concerned about the safety of my son when he goes to school or some other work,” said Tehmeena, a housewife.

“On any tense day, my son returning home safe is a huge sigh of relief for me. Parents in the valley are apprehensive of the security of their children even when they go to school,” she added.

Sharing similar views, Abdul Ahad, a businessman, said, “The government must do something practical to address the sense of insecurity getting developed among the parents. Stopping of killing of the boys during demonstrations would be an important step in this direction.”

He viewed that mere promise of zero tolerance for human rights violations may impress those outside Kashmir but not the ones living in Kashmir. “The ground situation is that the zero tolerance does not exist at all. If it existed, then Tufail, Zahid, Wamiq and others would not have got killed,” Ahad said

Zahid was killed on Boulevard Road near Nishat when a BSF party opened fire on him.

Wamiq was killed near Gani Memorial Stadium while he was playing. He was killed by a smoke shell which hit his head. Even after his death, police booked him under attempt to murder case blaming him for pelting stones on cops. The charge was vehemently denied by the family of the deceased boy and eyewitness. Later the state government ordered a magisterial probe into Wamiq’s killing.

“Killing after killing of innocent children and the justification of such killings by the authorities, has all led to frustration among common people here. They do not believe the promises made by authorities for human rights,” said Muntazir Ahmad, a human rights activist.

By Bismah Malik