Just International

Syria News On 15th August, 2012

Authorities Arrest Dozens of Terrorists in Aleppo, Destroy Several Cars Equipped with DShK Machineguns

Aug 15, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA)- The authorities on Tuesday arrested dozens of terrorists near Souq al-Hal area in Aleppo. The authorities also destroyed 7 cars equipped with DShK machineguns with the terrorists inside them in al-Bab area in Aleppo.

In the same context, units of the Syrian armed forces pursued an armed terrorist group in the areas of al-Kura al-Ardiya, the Radio and Saif al-Dawleh in Aleppo, killing and injuring a number of terrorists.

In Kafar Hamra, a group of armed terrorist was killed during an attempt to enter the city of Aleppo, and their vehicle, equipped with DShK machinegun, was destroyed.

Armed forces units cleared the area of the Science Faculty in Aleppo from terrorist and confronted a terrorist group that attempted to attack the Traffic Department, killing a large number of terrorists.

Another armed forces unit clashed with terrorists who were using Abdelrahman al-Dakhel school in Bustan al-Qaser neighborhood in Aleppo as a hideout, eliminating a large number of them.

In Aleppo countryside, armed forces units carried out two operations against terrorist groups in al-Atareb area, destroying two cars equipped with DShK machineguns and killing large numbers of terrorists.

Syrian heroic Army pursues vanquished armed groups in a number of areas in Aleppo, Killing an arresting scores of them

The Syrian heroic Army today pursued the vanquished armed terrorist groups in a number of areas in Aleppo, killing a big number of mercenaries, arresting scores of them and seizing their weapons.

A source in Aleppo told SANA reporter that a unit from the army confronted terrorists who took al-Shifaa Hospital in al-Shaar neighborhood and al-Kifah school as base for their crimes, killing a big number of them.

During its cleaning of Salah al-din neighborhood from the remnants of the mercenaries, the army dismantled 3 explosives put by the terrorists inside three  government stolen cars to be bombed in crowded areas.

The Army soldiers seized big quantities of weapons in the surrounding areas of Salah al-Din, including RPGs, Russian rifles, pistols and ammunitions.

At al-Atareb region in Aleppo countryside, a unit from the Army carried out two specific operations against the armed groups, destroying two cars equipped with Dushka machine guns, killing and injuring many mercenaries.

The army arrested scores of terrorists in Suok al-Hal, al-Ezaa and Saif al-Dawla.

The security forces also destroyed 7 cars equipped with machine guns coming from al-Bab region, destroying other cars equipped with Dushka machine guns at Kfar Hamra area in Aleppo countryside.

Assistant Director of Health Directorate in Daraa Assassinated

In Daraa, an armed terrorist group on Tuesday assassinated doctor Ma’moun al-Zoubi, Assistant Director of the Health Directorate in the city.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that a number of terrorists waited for Dr. al-Zoubi while leaving the Directorate at the garage and opened fire on him causing his martyrdom.

The source added that the martyr’s car was stolen by the terrorists.

Security Forces Continue Pursuing Terrorists in al-Tal, Damascus Countryside

The security forces continue pursuing terrorists in the town of al-Tal in Damascus Countryside, arresting a number of them and confiscating their weapons and killing others.

Authorities Clash with Terrorists in Daraa Countryside

While canvassing the area of Tafs in Daraa countryside, the authorities clashed with terrorists, killing a large number of them and arresting others.

Among the terrorists who were killed were Maamoun al-Manbesh, Mohammad Mousa al-Ghanem, Mohammad Kiwan, Mohammad Barakat, Mohammad Horani, Ziyad al-Hourani, and Salim Ouaymer.

In the town of al-Hara in Daraa countryside, security forces clashed with a terrorist group and killed a number of its members, including the group’s leader Barakat Nayef al-Barakat.

The armed forces also continued to pursue terrorists in the areas of Izra’a and Ghabagheb in Daraa countryside.

Infiltration Attempt from Jordan Thwarted

Border patrols managed to thwart an infiltration attempt by terrorists who were trying to cross into Syria from Jordan in Tal Shihab area. A large number of terrorist were killed in the ensuing clash, one of whom was Attaf Abdelrazzaq al-Masalmeh.

Authorities Raid Terrorist Hideout in al-Qseir, Homs

The authorities raided a hideout used by a terrorist group among the farms in Tal Dosar area in al-Qseir countryside, Homs Province.

The ensuing clash resulted in the killing of a number of terrorists, including the group’s leader who is known as Abu al-Hareth, and some of the terrorists were injured.

At al-Adra bridge near Rableh in al-Qseir countryside, the authorities  ambushed a group of four terrorists who were using a pickup truck equipped with a DShK machinegun, destroying the car along with those inside it.

Also in al-Qseir countryside, the authorities took out a sniper who was attacking passersby and cars on one of the roads of Blada al-Zira’a.

Stand in Honor of Martyr Journalist Ali Abbas

Aug 14, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- The Syrian Journalists’ Union and workers in the private and public media institutions staged on Tuesday a solidarity stand outside the building of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) in honor of the martyr journalist Ali Abbas and in solidarity with the kidnapped Syrian journalists.

Martyr Abbas, who was the head of the Internal News Department at SANA, was assassinated by an armed terrorist group in his home in Jdeidet Artouz in Damascus Countryside.

The participant journalists stressed that targeting the Syrian media and its cadres will not deviate them from performing their duty in conveying the truth and exposing the lies and fabrications broadcast by some misleading Arab and foreign satellite channels.

The journalists condemned targeting Syrian qualified cadres, wondering at those who raise slogans of freedom meantime they do their best to silence any opposing opinion.

Head of the Syrian Journalists Union Elias Murad said that the recent development in the conspiracy hatched by foreign powers with the aid of some tools inside Syria in is the direct targeting of journalists.

He stressed that the killing of journalists violates the religious and social values, considering it as an example of the behavior of those who claim to call for freedom and do the contrary, which proves that they have no cause as they are mere tools.

Chairman of the National Media Council, Taleb Qadi Amin said that targeting the Syrian media is because of its role in revealing the reality of the war against Syria and the media machines recruited for this purpose and conveying the real image to the Syrian and international public opinion.

For his part, Director General of the Syrian Arab News Agency, Ahmad Dawa, said that the martyr Abbas was an example of the resistant national journalist in his devotion to duty and morals.

He reiterated the Syrian journalists’ determination to continue carrying out their national duty, adding that these criminal terrorist acts will not affect them.

Dawa said that the foreign intervention in what is taking place in Syria escalates the situation and hinder finding a solution to the crisis in the country, stressing Syria’s ability to come out of the crisis thanks to its army and people.

In turn, Director General of al-Wahda Establishment for Press, Printing, Publishing and Distribution, Khalaf al-Miftah, said that the terrorists’ crimes against the Syrian people reflect their primitive culture which does not belong to the nature of the Syrian people.

He added that the assassination of journalist Abbas indicates that these criminals want to silence every voice that divulge their lies and crimes.

Ali Kassem, editor-in-chief of al-Thawra newspaper, said that the stand came in honor of the souls of our martyr colleagues and all Syria’s martyrs, adding that targeting the media is not accepted.

Managing Editor of the Syrian Al-Thawra newspaper, Mustafa Al-Miqdad, said that anyone who follow the attack against the Syrian media whether through blocking channels, targeting press teams and journalists or through imposing sanctions is aware of the real impact of the Syrian media on its audience.

Member of the People’s Assembly Omar Osi expressed solidarity with Syrian journalists against terrorist acts, adding that the Committee for Freedoms and Human Rights issued a statement in solidarity with the Syrian media in the current stage.

He hailed the Syrian media’s ability to shoulder its responsibilities against the western media and Zionist-US circles which try to destabilize Syria through its tools in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

Iranian TV reporter, Issam al-Hilali, said that targeting the Syrian journalists indicate that the enemies of the Syrian people have lost the battle, adding that the national media in Syria proved that it serves the interest of its people.

Reporter of the Cuban Prensa Latina News Agency, Luis Beaton, condemned the assassination of Syrian journalists, adding that these crimes came within the media campaign launched by western media to hide the reality of what is happening.

He called upon all western media not to fabricate news or convey information that might falsify the reality of events on the ground.

He offered condolences, on the behalf of all Cuban journalists and his own behalf, to the Syrian media institution, stressing that Cuba and Syria are in one line against the imperialism and western colonialist powers.

Solidarity Stand outside Tartous TV and Radio Center in Condemnation of Terrorism against National Media

The Teachers’ Association in cooperation with other popular and youth organizations in Tartous province staged a solidarity stand outside the TV and Radio Center in condemnation of the systematic terrorism targeting the national media, and to salute SANA’s Journalist Martyr Ali Abbas who was assassinated by terrorists.

Participants waved placards condemning the terrorist acts against the national media institutions and cadres, expressing solidarity with the Syrian media which proved credibility and capability to confront the misleading media.

They stressed that targeting the national media cadres will increase Syria’s resolve to go ahead in national work.

Prime Minister, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Discuss Cooperation

Aug 14, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi discussed on Tuesday with UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Valery Amos cooperation between Syria and international organization in humanitarian fields.

Dr. al-Halqi reviewed the economic, political and social reforms taking place in Syria and the considerable efforts exerted by the government to provide services to citizens despite the fact that terrorists are targeting developmental sectors, affirming that Syria can persevere, overcome the crisis, achieve reconciliation and restore security and stability in all areas.

He also detailed the results of the inhumane economic sanctions imposed by the US and some European and Arab countries, which only affect innocent civilians.

Amos also met with State Minister for National Reconciliation Affairs Dr. Ali Haidar, with the meeting focusing on the humanitarian situation in Syria and the need to restore the relations which were established before between Syria and the UN.

In a statement to the press following the meeting, Haidar said that humanitarian situations in any area in Syria cannot be tackled without considering the security situation in it and stopping violence, noting that the government has an ambitious plan for returning citizens who were forced out of their homes for one reason or another to their original places of residence.

He stressed that violence is still the main element that is hindering his ministry’s fieldwork, and that the cessation of violence is a priority of his ministry and the government as a whole.

Haidar also said that the government isn’t relying on international organizations in terms of the Syrian issue as some of them have become a part in the war on Syria and proved ineffective in serving peoples’ interests over the year, adding that instead, Syria depends on friends who are honest in dealing with the Syrian people.

For her part, Amos said that her visit to Syria aims to review commitments in the humanitarian field and discuss the Syrian authorities” evaluation of what is happening on the ground.

In the same context, Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister Dr. Fayssal Mikdad discussed with Amos the relations between Syria and the Humanitarian Relief Coordination Office at the UN.

Mikdad lauded the progress made in the plans for evaluation and response to answer the needs of people affected by the current events, while Amos voiced satisfaction over the cooperation achieved since her visit in March, stressing that her office is working to gather as much humanitarian aid as possible to help Syria overcome this crisis in a framework of neutrality and independence.

Russian, Iranian Foreign Ministries Condemn Terrorist Acts against Journalists in Syria

Aug 14, 2012

MOSCOW, TEHRAN, (SANA)- Russia on Tuesday condemned the terrorist acts committed against the journalists in Syria, urging the concerned international organizations to exert pressures to put an end to these acts.

Russia Today website quoted Maria Zakharova, Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, as saying in a statement “We vehemently condemn the terrorist acts against journalists. Countries with influence on the Syrian opposition in addition to the regional and international organizations should not be neutral in not responding to these facts.”

She added that Moscow receives, with great concern, the news on the escalation of the attacks committed by the illegal armed groups against journalist in Syria.

Iran Condemns Terrorist Groups’ Killing and Kidnapping Acts against Innocents in Syria

The Iranian Foreign Ministry also condemned the terrorist acts of killings and kidnapping perpetrated by the armed terrorist groups against the innocent civilians and the journalists in Syria.

Speaking at his weekly press conference, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast offered condolences over the martyrdom of the journalist Ali Abbas, the head of Internal News Department at the Syrian Arab News Agency.

He underlined Iran’s continuous efforts with other influential countries to solve the crisis in Syria through peaceful means to ward off its repercussions on the region.

Mehmanparast said that his country has devoted all its efforts to achieve security and stability in Syria and create the appropriate atmosphere to hold dialogue between the government and the opposition.

He added that there is a US-Zionist scheme to sow sedition and undermine stability in Syria in service of the US and Zionist interests, regretting the US role along with its allies to destabilize the region, describing it as “destructive”.

The Iranian Spokesman pointed out that after the massacres committed against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the US wants to carry out such plot in Syria to ensure its interests through increasing losses of the Syrian people.

Mehmanparast said that Iran opposes suspending Syria’s membership at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, calling for taking the Islamic world’s higher interests into consideration instead of such proposals.

Regarding the kidnapped Iranians in Syria, he stressed that Tehran is working in coordination with other countries to get them released as soon as possible.

Lebanese Foreign Minister: Solution to Crisis in Syria Should Be an Internal Political One

Aug 14, 2012

BEIRUT, (SANA) – The Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour stressed that the “self-distance” policy adopted by Lebanon regarding the crisis in Syria is based on that the solution in Syria should be an internal political one.

Addressing the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Jeddah, Mansour said that the solution in Syria depends mainly on dialogue between the leadership and the opposition and on implementing reforms.

He stressed that the foreign interference will complicate the crisis instead of helping in solving it, adding that the flow of money and arms into Syria threatens its sovereignty, unity of its people and territorial integrity and escalates the killing and violence.

Mansour warned that the systematic media instigation, igniting religious discord and sectarianism and the continuation of violence will have serious repercussions not only on Syria’s people and land but also on the security and stability of all the countries in the region.

The Lebanese Foreign Minister reiterated Lebanon’s stance on the Syrian issue included in the concluding statement of the 4th Extraordinary Islamic Summit Conference on suspending Syria’s membership, distancing itself from the decision on it.

He hoped that Syria will come out of the crisis soon and restore its national and Islamic role.

Mansour criticized the concluding statement for not including a firm decision on ending and suspending all forms of political, trade and economic cooperation with the Israeli enemy and exerting practical pressure on it through tightening the economic boycott.

Russian Diplomatic Source: Bogdanov Made No Statements to Saudi Website

Aug 14, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – A Russian diplomatic source on Tuesday said that the Russian President’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, made no statement to the Saudi Website al-Watan.

In a statement to Russia Today TV channel, the diplomatic source added that circulating the so-called interview of Bogdanov to al-Watan is “a new media provocation”.

“I didn’t speak to any newspaper inside or outside Russia,” Bogdanov told Russia Today reporter by phone, adding that he is on a vacation.

He stressed that what was attributed to him regarding the destiny of the Syrian President is “complete nonsense”.

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister affirmed that he does not know any journalist at al-Watan newspaper who claimed to have called him, dismissing as baseless everything that was ascribed to him in the alleged interview.

Reuters: Libyan Fighters among Terrorist Groups in Syria

Aug 14, 2012

BEIRUT, (SANA) – Fighters of last year’s civil war in Libya have joined the armed terrorist groups in Syria, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

The news agency quoted a Libyan-Irish terrorist as saying that Libyan “veteran fighters…have come to the front-line in Syria, helping to train and organize rebels.”

Hussam Najjar, who has a Libyan father and Irish mother, has entered Syria, said the agency, noting that Najjar, who goes by the name of Sam, is a trained sniper and was “part of the rebel unit that stormed Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli a year ago, led by Mahdi al-Harati, a powerful militia chief from Libya’s western mountains.”

Harati, Reuters added, now leads a terrorist group in Syria known as the Umma Brigade.

Harati’s brigade, according to Najjar, “is made up mainly of Syrians but also including some foreign fighters, including 20 senior members of his own Libyan rebel unit.”

The agency said that Harati asked Najjar to join him in Syria from Dublin a few months ago.

The Libyan fighters, Najjar told Reuters, “include specialists in communications, logistics, humanitarian issues and heavy weapons.”

He noted that thousands more fighters from the Arab world were gathering in neighboring countries prepared to join the armed groups in Syria.

First Interactive Youth Media Agency and Radio Launched on the Internet

Aug 14, 2012

TARTOUS, (SANA)- A group of youth from the coastal province of Tartous has launched a first interactive youth media agency on the internet under the title ‘Al-Aaan Agency’ to provide minute-by-minute coverage of all the activities and events taking place in the Syrian provinces.

The coverage depends on photos and footages particularly for the events happening in Syria under the current stage with the aim of confronting the campaigns of falsification and misleading undertaken by various tendentious media outlets.

‘Tartous al-Aaan’ internet radio station was also launched to contribute to bolstering the role of the agency.

Editor-in-chief of al-Aaan Agency, Tarek al-Qaht, stressed in a statement to SANA the importance of interactive and social media which depends on reporting the events and news at the moment of its occurrence and posting it on the agency’s social networking sites on the internet.

Al-Aaan Agency includes the launching of websites in a number of provinces with Tartous being first along with Lattakia, Homs and Damascus, while websites will be started soon in Aleppo and Hasaka and later in all the other provinces.

Al-Qaht, who is a student at the Faculty of Political Sciences, told SANA reporter that the main objective of the project is to uncover the fabrication and media misleading targeting the Syrian people and its national unity and back the national media in terms of honestly reporting the reality.

He noted that Tartous al-Aaan page is available in the English language with the aim to reach out to a larger number of expatriate youths.

He also highlighted that the agency seeks to bridge the gap between the citizens and officials by making it possible to receive complaints on every website which will be published transparently along with the responses after being followed up with the officials and parties concerned.

The managing editor, Ali al-Kinj, hailed the quick success achieved by Tartous website in terms of the speed and honesty in reporting the events, referring also to Homs website which was the first to succeed in entering into several tense neighborhoods and areas in the province and reporting the situation suffered by the citizens due to the practices of the armed terrorist groups.

He hailed the determination and strong will of the youth working for the agency, particularly those of the photographer of Homs website who had been shot in his leg by a sniper in a neighborhood in Homs and is continuing his duty with more persistence.

For his part, Ali Wannous, the technical coordinator at the agency, said that the number of visitors to the agency websites has reached 10,000, while the number of those communicating on the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube amounted to 23,000.

He mentioned that the number of people listening to the internet radio, which is currently broadcasting a program through which youth communicate to express their ideas and proposals to overcome the crisis in Syria, has exceeded 1500.

Terrorist Gharibo: I Issued Several Fatwas Upon which the Terrorists Perpetrated Crimes Against Civilians

Aug 14, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Terrorist Ahmad Ali Gharibo, one of the armed terrorist groups’ Muftis in al-Maliha, Damascus countryside, admitted that he has issued several fatwas to the armed groups that permit killing upon which terrorists have depended to perpetrate a number of crimes against civilians.

“I was born in Aleppo countryside in 1964 and live in al-Maliha, East Ghouta.. I work as the Imam and preacher of Khadija mosque,” Terrorist Gharibo said in confessions to the Syrian TV broadcast Monday.

“One day, a car came to my house at 12 midnight.. four armed men came down and asked me to go with them for one hour.. they threatened me of my son if I rejected to go with them.. they took me to Dir al-Asafeer town.. when we arrived in there, we entered a tent where a group of people were inside with drugs in front of them,” the terrorist added.

He said “After interrogating me by the armed group, I pleaded to them to inform me about the person which threatened me.. they answered that his name was Mazen Zamzamm, a leader of an armed terrorist group in al-Maliha.”

Terrorist Gharib added that those evil persons were drug addicts, and one of them has raped a married woman.

“Later, they introduced me to a man called Abu Adi from Homs who has escaped from the army in Saqba.. they told me that they will give him the leadership of the group and they will name themselves as the free army, I told them you are free, it is up to you,” terrorist Gharibo said.

He added that a fatwa has been issued on a website, known as the fatwa No. 107, because it was issued by 107 Sheikhs inside and outside Syria.. it permits to kill anyone who deals with the State if he was proven a killer, they asked me about my opinion, I answered yes, it is true.

“It was my first fault to give a fatwa to kill.. they were killing in a unnatural way.. they were mutilating the bodies.. I remember that they have killed five persons and threw their bodies in the sewage and rubbish containers,” he said.

Terrorist Gharibo went on to say that al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nasra in Syria are takfiris, they believe in sectarianism, they regard bloodshed as lawful and they have no problem to kill civilians during their evil acts.

Impunity At Home, Rendition Abroad

How Two Administrations and Both Parties Made Illegality the American Way of Life

After a decade of fiery public debate and bare-knuckle partisan brawling, the United States has stumbled toward an ad hoc bipartisan compromise over the issue of torture that rests on two unsustainable policies: impunity at home and rendition abroad.

President Obama has closed the CIA’s “black sites,” its secret prisons where American agents once dirtied their hands with waterboarding and wall slamming. But via rendition — the sending of terrorist suspects to the prisons of countries that torture — and related policies, his administration has outsourced human rights abuse to Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. In this way, he has avoided the political stigma of torture, while tacitly tolerating such abuses and harvesting whatever intelligence can be gained from them.

This “resolution” of the torture issue may meet the needs of this country’s deeply divided politics. It cannot, however, long satisfy an international community determined to prosecute human rights abuses through universal jurisdiction. It also runs the long-term risk of another sordid torture scandal that will further damage U.S. standing with allies worldwide.

Perfecting a New Form of Torture

The modern American urge to use torture did not, of course, begin on September 12, 2001. It has roots that reach back to the beginning of the Cold War and a human rights policy riven with contradictions. Publicly, Washington opposed torture and led the world in drafting the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Geneva Conventions in 1949. Simultaneously and secretly, however, the Central Intelligence Agency began developing ingenious new torture techniques in contravention of these same international conventions.

From 1950 to 1962, the CIA led a secret research effort to crack the code of human consciousness, a veritable Manhattan project of the mind with two findings foundational to a new form of psychological torture. In the early 1950s, while collaborating with the CIA, famed Canadian psychologist Dr. Donald Hebb discovered that, using goggles, gloves, and earmuffs, he could induce a state akin to psychosis among student volunteers by depriving them of sensory stimulation. Simultaneously, two eminent physicians at Cornell University Medical Center, also working with the Agency, found that the most devastating torture technique used by the KGB, the Soviet secret police, involved simply forcing victims to stand for days at a time, while legs swelled painfully and hallucinations began.

In 1963, after a decade of mind-control research, the CIA codified these findings in a succinct, secret instructional handbook, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual. It became the basis for a new method of psychological torture disseminated worldwide and within the U.S. intelligence community. Avoiding direct involvement in torture, the CIA instead trained allied agencies to do its dirty work in prisons throughout the Third World, like South Vietnam’s notorious “tiger cages.”

The Korean War added a defensive dimension to this mind-control research. After harsh North Korean psychological torture forced American POWs to accuse their own country of war crimes, President Dwight Eisenhower ordered that any serviceman subject to capture be given resistance training, which the Air Force soon dubbed with the acronym SERE (for survival, evasion, resistance, escape).

Once the Cold War ended in 1990, Washington resumed its advocacy of human rights, ratifying the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, which banned the infliction of “severe” psychological and physical pain. The CIA ended its torture training in the Third World, and the Defense Department recalled Latin American counterinsurgency manuals that contained instructions for using harsh interrogation techniques. On the surface, then, Washington had resolved the tension between its anti-torture principles and its torture practices.

But when President Bill Clinton sent the U.N. Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included language (drafted six years earlier by the Reagan administration) that contained diplomatic “reservations.” In effect, these addenda accepted the banning of physical abuse, but exempted psychological torture.

A year later, when the Clinton administration launched its covert campaign against al-Qaeda, the CIA avoided direct involvement in human rights violations by sending 70 terror suspects to allied nations notorious for physical torture. This practice, called “extraordinary rendition,” had supposedly been banned by the U.N. convention and so a new contradiction between Washington’s human rights principles and its practices was buried like a political land mine ready to detonate with phenomenal force, just 10 years later, in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Normalizing Torture

Right after his first public address to a shaken nation on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush gave his White House staff expansive secret orders for the use of harsh interrogation, adding, “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.”

Soon after, the CIA began opening “black sites” that would in the coming years stretch from Thailand to Poland. It also leased a fleet of executive jets for the rendition of detained terrorist suspects to allied nations, and revived psychological tortures abandoned since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the agency hired former Air Force psychologists to reverse engineer SERE training techniques, flipping them from defense to offense and thereby creating the psychological tortures that would henceforth travel far under the euphemistic label “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

In a parallel move in late 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed General Geoffrey Miller to head the new prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, and gave him broad authority to develop a total three-phase attack on the sensory receptors, cultural identity, and individual psyches of his new prisoners. After General Miller visited Abu Ghraib prison in September 2003, the U.S. commander for Iraq issued orders for the use of psychological torture in U.S. prisons in that country, including sensory disorientation, self-inflicted pain, and a recent innovation, cultural humiliation through exposure to dogs (which American believed would be psychologically devastating for Arabs). It is no accident that Private Lynndie England, a military guard at Abu Ghraib prison, was famously photographed leading a naked Iraqi detainee leashed like a dog.

Just two months after CBS News broadcast those notorious photos from Abu Ghraib in April 2004, 35% of Americans polled still felt torture was acceptable. Why were so many tolerant of torture?

One partial explanation would be that, in the years after 9/11, the mass media filled screens large and small across America with enticing images of abuse. Amid this torrent of torture simulations, two media icons served to normalize abuse for many Americans — the fantasy of the “ticking time bomb scenario” and the fictional hero of the Fox Television show “24,” counterterror agent Jack Bauer.

In the months after 9/11, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz launched a multimedia campaign arguing that torture would be necessary in the event U.S. intelligence agents discovered that a terrorist had planted a ticking nuclear bomb in New York’s Times Square. Although this scenario was a fantasy whose sole foundation was an obscure academic philosophy article published back in 1973, such ticking bombs soon enough became a media trope and a persuasive reality for many Americans — particularly thanks to “24,” every segment of which began with an oversized clock ticking menacingly.

In 67 torture scenes during its first five seasons, the show portrayed agent Jack Bauer’s recourse to abuse as timely, effective, and often seductive. By its last broadcast in May 2010, the simple invocation of agent Bauer’s name had become a persuasive argument for torture used by everyone from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to ex-President Bill Clinton.

While campaigning for his wife Hillary in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Clinton typically cited “24” as a justification for allowing CIA agents, acting outside the law, to torture in extreme emergencies. “When Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences,” Clinton told Meet the Press, “it always seems to work better.”

Impunity in America

Such a normalization of “enhanced interrogation techniques” created public support for an impunity achieved by immunizing all those culpable of crimes of torture. During President Obama’s first two years in office, former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz made dozens of television appearances accusing his administration of weakening America’s security by investigating CIA interrogators who had used such techniques under Bush.

Ironically, Obama’s assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 provided an opening for neoconservatives to move the nation toward impunity. Forming an a cappella media chorus, former Bush administration officials appeared on television to claim, without any factual basis, that torture had somehow led the Navy SEALs to Bin Laden. Within weeks, Attorney General Eric Holder announced an end to any investigation of harsh CIA interrogations and to the possibility of bringing any of the CIA torturers to court. (Consider it striking, then, that the only “torture” case brought to court by the administration involved a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who had leaked the names of some torturers.)

Starting on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the country took the next step toward full impunity via a radical rewriting of the past. In a memoir published on August 30, 2011, Dick Cheney claimed the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on an al-Qaeda leader named Abu Zubaydah had turned this hardened terrorist into a “fount of information” and saved “thousands of lives.”

Just two weeks later, on September 12, 2011, former FBI counterterror agent Ali Soufan released his own memoirs, stating that he was the one who started the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah back in 2002, using empathetic, non-torture techniques that quickly gained “important actionable intelligence” about “the role of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.”

Angered by the FBI’s success, CIA director George Tenet dispatched his own interrogators from Washington led by Dr. James Mitchell, the former SERE psychologist who had developed the agency’s harsh “enhanced techniques.” As the CIA team moved up the “force continuum” from “low-level sleep deprivation” to nudity, noise barrage, and the use of a claustrophobic confinement box, Dr. Mitchell’s harsh methods got “no information.”

By contrast, at each step in this escalating abuse, Ali Soufan was brought back for more quiet questioning in Arabic that coaxed out all the valuable intelligence Zubaydah had to offer. The results of this ad hoc scientific test were blindingly clear: FBI empathy was consistently effective, while CIA coercion proved counterproductive.

But this fundamental yet fragile truth has been obscured by CIA censorship and neoconservative casuistry. Cheney’s secondhand account completely omitted the FBI presence. Moreover, the CIA demanded 181 pages of excisions from Ali Soufan’s memoirs that reduced his chapters about this interrogation experience to a maze of blackened lines no regular reader can understand.

The agency’s attempt to rewrite the past has continued into the present. Just last April, Jose Rodriguez, former chief of CIA Clandestine Services, published his uncensored memoirs under the provocative title Hard Measures: How Aggressive C.I.A. Actions after 9/11 Saved American Lives. In a promotional television interview, he called FBI claims of success with empathetic methods “bullshit.”

With the past largely rewritten to assure Americans that the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” had worked, the perpetrators of torture were home free and the process of impunity and immunity established for future use.

Rendition Under Obama

Apart from these Republican pressures, President Obama’s own aggressive views on national security have contributed to an undeniable continuity with many of his predecessor’s most controversial policies. Not only has he preserved the controversial military commissions at Guantanamo and fought the courts to block civil suits against torture perpetrators, he has, above all, authorized continuing CIA rendition flights.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama went beyond any other candidate in offering unqualified opposition to both direct and indirect U.S. involvement in torture. “We have to be clear and unequivocal. We do not torture, period,” he said, adding, “That will be my position as president. That includes, by the way, renditions.”

Only days after his January 2009 inauguration, Obama issued a dramatic executive order ending the CIA’s coercive techniques, but it turned out to include a large loophole that preserved the agency’s role in extraordinary renditions. Amid his order’s ringing rhetoric about compliance with the Geneva conventions and assuring “humane treatment of individuals in United States custody,” the president issued a clear and unequivocal order that “the CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.” But when the CIA’s counsel objected that this blanket prohibition would also “take us out of the rendition business,” Obama added a footnote with a small but significant qualification: “The terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ in… this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Through the slippery legalese of this definition, Obama thus allowed the CIA continue its rendition flights of terror suspects to allied nations for possible torture.

Moreover, in February 2009, Obama’s incoming CIA director Leon Panetta announced that the agency would indeed continue the practice “in renditions where we returned an individual to the jurisdiction of another country, and they exercised their rights… to prosecute him under their laws. I think,” he added, ignoring the U.N. anti-torture convention’s strict conditions for this practice, “that is an appropriate use of rendition.”

As the CIA expanded covert operations inside Somalia under Obama, its renditions of terror suspects from neighboring East African nations continued just as they had under Bush. In July 2009, for example, Kenyan police snatched an al-Qaeda suspect, Ahmed Abdullahi Hassan, from a Nairobi slum and delivered him to that city’s airport for a CIA flight to Mogadishu. There he joined dozens of prisoners grabbed off the streets of Kenya inside “The Hole” — a filthy underground prison buried in the windowless basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency. While Somali guards (paid for with U.S. funds) ran the prison, CIA operatives, reported the Nation’s Jeremy Scahill, have open access for extended interrogation.

Obama also allowed the continuation of a policy adopted after the Abu Ghraib scandal: outsourcing incarceration to local allies in Afghanistan and Iraq while ignoring human rights abuses there. Although the U.S. military received 1,365 reports about the torture of detainees by Iraqi forces between May 2004 and December 2009, a period that included Obama’s first full year in office, American officers refused to take action, even though the abuses reported were often extreme.

Simultaneously, Washington’s Afghan allies increasingly turned to torture after the Abu Ghraib scandal prompted U.S. officials to transfer most interrogation to local authorities. After interviewing 324 detainees held by Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) in 2011, the U.N. found that “torture is practiced systematically in a number of NDS detention facilities throughout Afghanistan.” At the Directorate’s prison in Kandahar one interrogator told a detainee before starting to torture him, “You should confess what you have done in the past as Taliban; even stones confess here.”

Although such reports prompted both British and Canadian forces to curtail prisoner transfers, the U.S. military continues to turn over detainees to Afghan authorities — a policy that, commented the New York Times, “raises serious questions about potential complicity of American officials.”

How to Unclog the System of Justice One Drone at a Time

After a decade of intense public debate over torture, in the last two years the United States has arrived at a questionable default political compromise: impunity at home, rendition abroad.

This resolution does not bode well for future U.S. leadership of an international community determined to end the scourge of torture. Italy’s prosecution of two-dozen CIA agents for rendition in 2009, Poland’s recent indictment of its former security chief for facilitating a CIA black site, and Britain’s ongoing criminal investigation of intelligence officials who collaborated with alleged torture at Guantanamo are harbingers of continuing pressures on the U.S. to comply with international standards for human rights.

Meanwhile, unchecked by any domestic or international sanction, Washington has slid down torture’s slippery slope to find, just as the French did in Algeria during the 1950s, that at its bottom lies the moral abyss of extrajudicial execution. The systematic French torture of thousands during the Battle of Algiers in 1957 also generated over 3,000 “summary executions” to insure, as one French general put it, that “the machine of justice” not be “clogged with cases.”

In an eerie parallel, Washington has reacted to the torture scandals of the Bush era by generally forgoing arrests and opting for no-fuss aerial assassinations. From 2005 to 2012, U.S. drone killings inside Pakistan rose from zero to a total of 2,400 (and still going up) — a figure disturbingly close to those 3,000 French assassinations in Algeria. In addition, it has now been revealed that the president himself regularly orders specific assassinations by drone in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia off a secret “kill list.” Simultaneously, his administration has taken just one terror suspect into U.S. custody and has not added any new prisoners to Guantanamo, thereby avoiding any more clogging of the machinery of American justice.

Absent any searching inquiry or binding reforms, assassination is now the everyday American way of war while extraordinary renditions remain a tool of state. Make no mistake: some future torture scandal is sure to arise from another iconic dungeon in the dismal, ever-lengthening historical procession leading from the “tiger cages” of South Vietnam to “the salt pit” in Afghanistan and “The Hole” in Somalia. Next time, the world might not be so forgiving. Next time, with those images from Abu Ghraib prison etched in human memory, the damage to America’s moral authority as world leader could prove even more deep and lasting.

By Alfred W. McCoy

14 August, 2012

@ TomDispatch.com

Alfred W. McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, which provided documentation for the Oscar-winning documentary feature film Taxi to the Darkside. His recent book, Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation (University of Wisconsin, 2012) explores the American experience of torture during the past decade.

Copyright 2012 Alfred W. McCoy

Israel’s ‘Bomb Iran’ Timetable

 

 

More Washington insiders are coming to the conclusion that Israel’s leaders are planning to attack Iran before the U.S. election in November in the expectation that American forces will be drawn in. There is widespread recognition that, without U.S. military involvement, an Israeli attack would be highly risky and, at best, only marginally successful.

At this point, to dissuade Israeli leaders from mounting such an attack might require a public statement by President Barack Obama warning Israel not to count on U.S. forces — not even for the “clean-up.” Though Obama has done pretty much everything short of making such a public statement, he clearly wants to avoid a confrontation with Israel in the weeks before the election.

However, Obama’s silence regarding a public warning speaks volumes to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The recent pilgrimages to Israel by very senior U.S. officials — including the Secretaries of State and Defense carrying identical “PLEASE DON’T BOMB IRAN JUST YET” banners — has met stony faces and stone walls.

Like the Guns of August in 1914, the dynamic for war appears inexorable. Senior U.S. and Israeli officials focus publicly on a “window of opportunity,” but different ones.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney emphasized the need to allow the “most stringent sanctions ever imposed on any country time to work.” That, said Carney, is the “window of opportunity to persuade Iran … to forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions.”

That same day a National Security Council spokesman dismissed Israeli claims that U.S. intelligence had received alarming new information about Iran’s nuclear program. “We continue to assess that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapon,” the spokesman said.

Still, Israel’s window of opportunity (what it calls the “zone of immunity” for Iran building a nuclear bomb without Israel alone being able to prevent it) is ostensibly focused on Iran’s continued burrowing under mountains to render its nuclear facilities immune to Israeli air strikes, attacks that would seek to maintain Israel’s regional nuclear-weapons monopoly.

But another Israeli “window” or “zone” has to do with the pre-election period of the next 12 weeks in the United States. Last week, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevi told Israeli TV viewers, “The next 12 weeks are very critical in trying to assess whether Israel will attack Iran, with or without American backup.”

It would be all too understandable, given Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s experience with President Obama, that Netanyahu has come away with the impression that Obama can be bullied, particularly when he finds himself in a tight political spot.

For Netanyahu, the President’s perceived need to outdistance Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the love-for-Israel department puts Obama in a box. This, I believe, is the key “window of opportunity” that is uppermost in Netanyahu’s calculations.

Virtually precluded, in Netanyahu’s view, is any possibility that Obama could keep U.S. military forces on the sidelines if Israel and Iran became embroiled in serious hostilities. What I believe the Israeli leader worries most about is the possibility that a second-term Obama would feel much freer not to commit U.S. forces on Israel’s side. A second-term Obama also might use U.S. leverage to force Israeli concessions on thorny issues relating to Palestine.

If preventing Obama from getting that second term is also part of Netanyahu’s calculation, then he also surely knows that even a minor dustup with Iran, whether it escalates or not, would drive up the price of gasoline just before the election — an unwelcome prospect for Team Obama.

It’s obvious that hard-line Israeli leaders would much rather have Mitt Romney to deal with for the next four years. The former Massachusetts governor recently was given a warm reception when he traveled to Jerusalem with a number of Jewish-American financial backers in tow to express his solidarity with Netanyahu and his policies.

Against this high-stakes political background, I’ve personally come by some new anecdotal information that I find particularly troubling. On July 30, the Baltimore Sun posted my op-ed, “Is Israel fixing the intelligence to justify an attack on Iran?” Information acquired the very next day increased my suspicion and concern.

Former intelligence analysts and I were preparing a proposal to establish direct communications links between the U.S. and Iranian navies, in order to prevent an accident or provocation in the Persian Gulf from spiraling out of control. Learning that an official Pentagon draft paper on that same issue has been languishing in the Senate for more than a month did not make us feel any better when our own proposal was ignored. (Still, it is difficult to understand why anyone wishing to avoid escalation in the Persian Gulf would delay, or outright oppose, such fail-safe measures.)

Seeking input from other sources with insight into U.S. military preparations, I learned that, although many U.S. military moves have been announced, others, with the express purpose of preparation for hostilities with Iran, have not been made public.

One source reported that U.S. forces are on hair-trigger alert and that covert operations inside Iran (many of them acts of war, by any reasonable standard) have been increased. Bottom line: we were warned that the train had left the station; that any initiative to prevent miscalculation or provocation in the Gulf was bound to be far too late to prevent escalation into a shooting war.

SEARCHING FOR A CASUS BELLI

A casus belli — real or contrived — would be highly desirable prior to an attack on Iran. A provocation in the Gulf would be one way to achieve this. Iran’s alleged fomenting of terrorism would be another.

In my op-ed of July 30, I suggested that Netanyahu’s incredibly swift blaming of Iran for the terrorist killing of five Israelis in Bulgaria on July 18 may have been intended as a pretext for attacking Iran. If so, sadly for Netanyahu, it didn’t work. It seems the Obama administration didn’t buy the “rock-solid evidence” Netanyahu adduced to tie Iran to the attack in Bulgaria.

If at first you don’t succeed … Here’s another idea: let’s say there is new reporting that shows Iran to be dangerously close to getting a nuclear weapon, and that previous estimates that Iran had stopped work on weaponization was either wrong or overtaken by new evidence.

According to recent Israeli and Western media reports, citing Western diplomats and senior Israeli officials, U.S. intelligence has acquired new information — “a bombshell” report — that shows precisely that. Imagine.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Radio that the new report is “very close to our [Israel’s] own estimates, I would say, as opposed to earlier American estimates. It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one.”

Washington Post neocon pundit Jennifer Rubin was quick to pick up the cue, expressing a wistful hope on Thursday that the new report on the Iranian nuclear program “would be a complete turnabout from the infamous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that asserted that Iran had dropped its nuclear weapons program.”

“Infamous?” Indeed. Rubin warned, “The 2007 NIE report stands as a tribute and warning regarding the determined obliviousness of our national intelligence apparatus,” adding that “no responsible policymaker thinks the 2007 NIE is accurate.”

Yet, the NIE still stands as the prevailing U.S. intelligence assessment on Iran’s nuclear intentions, reaffirmed by top U.S. officials repeatedly over the past five years. Rubin’s definition of “responsible” seems to apply only to U.S. policymakers who would cede control of U.S. foreign policy to Netanyahu.

The 2007 NIE reported, with “high confidence,” the unanimous judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in the fall of 2003 and had not restarted it. George W. Bush’s own memoir and remarks by Dick Cheney make it clear that this honest NIE shoved a steel rod into the wheels of the juggernaut that had begun rolling off toward war on Iran in 2008, the last year of the Bush/Cheney administration.

The key judgments of the 2007 NIE have been re-asserted every year since by the Director of National Intelligence in formal testimony to Congress.

And, unfortunately for Rubin and others hoping to parlay the reportedly “new,” more alarmist “intelligence” into an even more bellicose posture toward Iran, a National Security Council spokesman on Thursday threw cold water on the “new” information, saying that “the U.S. intelligence assessment of Iran’s nuclear activities had not changed.”

Relying on the unconfirmed Israeli claim about “new” U.S. information regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Rubin had already declared the Obama administration’s Iran policy a failure, writing:

“Foreign policy experts can debate whether a sanctions strategy was flawed from its inception, incorrectly assessing the motivations of the Iranian regime, or they can debate whether the execution of sanctions policy (too slow, too porous) was to blame. But we are more than 3 1/2 years into the Obama administration, and Iran is much closer to its goal than at the start. By any reasonable measure, the Obama approach has been a failure, whatever the NIE report might say.”

Pressures Will Persist

The NSC’s putdown of the Israeli report does not necessarily guarantee, however, that President Obama will continue to withstand pressure from Israel and its supporters to “fix” the intelligence to “justify” supporting an attack on Iran.

Promise can be seen in Obama’s refusal to buy Netanyahu’s new “rock-solid evidence” on Iran’s responsibility for the terrorist attack in Bulgaria. Hope can also be seen in White House reluctance so far to give credulity to the latest “evidence” on Iran’s nuclear weapons plans.

An agreed-upon casus belli can be hard to create when one partner wants war within the next 12 weeks and the other does not. The pressure from Netanyahu and neocon cheerleaders like Jennifer Rubin — not to mention Mitt Romney — will increase as the election draws nearer, agreed-upon casus belli or not.

Netanyahu gives every evidence of believing that — for the next 12 weeks — he is in the catbird seat and that, if he provokes hostilities with Iran, Obama will feel compelled to jump in with both feet, i. e., selecting from the vast array of forces already assembled in the area.

Sadly, I believe Netanyahu is probably correct in that calculation. Batten down the hatches.

 

By Ray McGovern

14 August, 2012

@ Consortiumnews.com

 

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27 years in CIA’s analysis division, his duties included preparing and delivering the President’s Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates.

Copyright © 2012 Consortiumnews

 

Netanyahu Humiliates Obama

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sets the tone for Israeli policy– one that is earning him few friends in the West. Three embarrassments broke for him on Tuesday. First, yet another housing expansion in East Jerusalem was announced while he was meeting President Obama. Then, the cover story of Israeli troops accused of firing live ammunition at Palestinian protesters began to unravel. Then British Foreign Minister David Miliband unceremoniously tossed the Mossad London station chief out of the country for counterfeiting British passports, to be used in an Israeli assassination of a Palestinian in Dubai recently. Netanyahu personally ordered that hit, and is responsible for the forging of real peoples’ passports and their use to commit a murder. Netanyahu is the one behind these acts of arrogance, and they are emblematic of his mean brand of politics.

The far rightwing government of Binyamin Netanyahu humiliates American officials every time it meets with them. Netanyahu met Obama in Washington on Tuesday, and like clockwork Israel embarrassed Obama by announcing that same day it was going ahead with a building project (funded by an American millionaire) in East Jerusalem that the Obama administration had strictly told the Israelis to halt. What I don’t understand is why the Palestinians cannot sue over this issue in American courts. If the administration’s stance is that East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel, and the US is signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention, then why couldn’t Palestinians with standing sue in the US when their property is usurped by an American millionaire?

Israel will investigate the shooting deaths of two Palestinian youth who were protesting (not rioting as AP puts it) against Israeli theft of water from the village well. Israeli troops claimed they were using rubber bullets, but Palestinians charge it was actually live ammunition.

Aljazeera English has the scoop, with live video of Israeli troops firing on the Palestinian youths, with what certainly sounds like live ammunition.

By Juan Cole

24 March, 2010

Juancole.com

Justice central to Sharia law

MOST of our ulema insist that Sharia law is divine and hence there is no question of any flexibility in its application. It is supposed to be immutable. This does not bear scrutiny though.

Imam al-Shatibi, a Spanish imam of great eminence in the 13th century, discusses in his writings on the Sharia in Al-Maqasid al-Sharia as well as Al-Masalih al-Sharia the purposes and welfare of Sharia laws. The law is obviously devised to serve certain purposes and is meant for the welfare of the people. If it becomes rigid it can neither serve the purpose nor can it aim at the welfare of the people. Even Imam Ghazali who tends to be orthodox in his views, always discusses the purpose behind every Sharia provision.

The Quran says in verse 5:48 that we have appointed a law and a way for everyone, which means that the Sharia is supposed to serve the purpose of every community and it has to keep the welfare of various communities in mind. There is unanimity among the ulema that customary law (adaat) also becomes an integral part of Sharia law. That is why Arab customary law (Arab aadat) became an integral part of the Islamic Sharia. If Arab customary law had not become part of the Sharia it would not have been acceptable to Arabs.

When Islam spread to different parts of the world the local customary laws also became part of Islam in their respective cultures. In Indonesia a great controversy erupted among the ulema whether Indonesian customary law should be part of Islam, and a majority of the ulema accepted Indonesian customary law as part of Islam as practised in that country.

It was for this reason that in early Islam a provision was made for ijtihad (creative interpretation through utmost intellectual exertion). Allama Iqbal called ijtihad the dynamic spirit of Islam. However, our ulema closed the doors on ijtihad in the 13th century. And Sharia law has become stagnant ever since, because this law was based on ijtihad up to that point in time. The argument given by the ulema for not undertaking ijtihad was that no one was qualified to do so anymore. However, the fact is that the real reason for abandoning ijtihad is the stagnation of society that has prevailed since then.

As time passes new challenges arise, and it is only the spirit of ijtihad which can keep the Sharia dynamic and enable it to meet new challenges. A stagnant law becomes a burden for the people rather than resulting in their welfare. That is why reform movements became necessary from time to time. In the 19-20th centuries radically new situations arose and many eminent Islamic thinkers launched reform movements. Jamaluddin Afghani, Mohammed Abduh, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Mohammed Iqbal were among them. What is most important in the Sharia is the principles and values given by the Quran. If we keep that in mind and protect these principles and values the real spirit of Sharia would not be injured even if certain necessary changes were made to applicable laws. However, we have often ignored these principles and values and made mediaeval formulation more central and rigid in their application. It was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Among the Quranic principles and values justice is most important. Justice is the very basis of Sharia law. If we protect the mediaeval formulations rather than the Quranic value of justice, it will result in more injustice, thus defeating the very purpose of Sharia law. One of the examples is polygamy. The Quran permitted polygamy subject to the rigorous condition of doing equal justice to all four wives; and the Quran also made it clear in verse 4:129 that even if one wanted to, one could not do justice.

Despite such a rigorous condition of justice, somehow the number of four wives became more important than the value of justice. It is only in modern times that some Muslim intellectuals are emphasizing justice rather than the number of wives that can be taken at a time. But even today conservative ulema think that marrying up to four wives is a man’s privilege even if it seriously injures the value of doing justice to all four, which the Quran says is not humanly possible.

Some even go to the extent of saying that it will promote prostitution if a man is not allowed to marry up to four wives. Many more examples can be given wherein orthodox formulations have become more important than the value of justice in the Quran. Justice should be restored to its central position in the application of Sharia law. This is only possible when the Sharia is not treated as a stagnant law and Muslim intellectuals come forward to attempt comprehensive ijtihad.

by Asghar Ali Engineer

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

E-mail : csss@mtnl.net.in

Joe Stack and Likely Coming Attractions

It may be a time of crisis, but it doesn’t have to be a time of catastrophe. It’s in times of crisis that human beings are often most creative and ingenious and that they pull together most effectively to solve their problems.

Thomas Homer-Dixon, author of The Upside of Down

Most of us have heard it by now-software engineer torches his own house then crashes his private plane into an IRS office in Austin, Texas on February 18, 2010. Most descriptions of the event were careful not to call the event an act of domestic terrorism, but rather asked: Was Joe Stack a terrorist or a lone nut? And most mainstream media reports pointed out that Stack was not a Tea-Partier, but some progressive media accused him of behaving like one. Wrong questions, wrong answers. Once again, mainstream media reveals it pathetic depth-perception deficit.

As Rich Benjamin of Alternet notes, Joe Stack’s “suicide screed chafes and exposes a raw wound this country does not know what to do with.” Bingo.

In the same week as Stack’s rampage, an Ohio man so enraged about his home being foreclosed upon, even though he owes far less on it than it’s worth, bulldozed the house so that the bank would not be able to repossess it. Not unlike Stack, Terry Hoskins was trying to cope with business debts as well as a lawsuit, and vehemently demonstrated his rage toward banks for all the world to see.

It doesn’t take Patrick Jane, “The Mentalist” or Allison DuBois, “The Medium”, to grasp that these eruptions of vitriolic rage are most likely, previews of massive civil unrest worldwide, as individuals and families awaken to the current ghastly global transfer of wealth, so brilliantly exposed in David DeGraw’s “The Economic Elite Have Engineered An Extraordinary Coup”-a wealth transfer of mindboggling proportions that has left the middle class impoverished and writhing in despair. But this particular side of the Toxic Triangle-economic meltdown, along with the other two sides, climate chaos, and planetary energy depletion, signals that the human species has entered, not a long and painful recession, but nothing less than a tipping point in its own evolutionary odyssey.

And now, millions of human beings who for at least a decade have been unwilling to look deeply at how their world works, find themselves depressed, enraged, paralyzed, and terrified at best and suicidal and homicidal at worst. Since before the turn of the 20th century, many courageous researchers who were willing to look deeper gave us extraordinary “maps” of who was running the world and what the consequences of that reality would be-individuals like Mike Ruppert, Richard Heinberg, Dmitry Orlov, Peter Dale Scott, Colin Campbell, Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Cynthia McKinney, Sibel Edmonds, and many more. They produced volumes of research related to the Triple Crisis/Toxic Triangle which for the most part, fell on deaf ears.

The corporate capitalist system had forced on American families a lifestyle that left them too busy and too strapped with debt-and of course, too hypnotically entranced with the proverbial “American dream”, to read the signals that were becoming more ominous by the day. Besides, in the pubescent ecstasy of the earning/spending/debt party, who wants to be annoyed with downers like becoming an adult and comprehending the facts and their consequences?

And so, those who were too busy, ambitious, hard-working, conscientious, dedicated, and of course, let us not forget, patriotic, have within the past two years been blindsided by that which they refused to acknowledge–and worse, they who have called the mapmakers and their supporters, such as myself, “whack jobs, wing nuts, conspiracy theorists, fearmongers, and pessimists” now find themselves bewildered, flabbergasted, dumbfounded, and horrified.

Tragically, it’s the result of being uninformed and unprepared, and when the excrement hits the circular air mechanism, it results for the unprepared in becoming unplugged-like Joe Stack and Terry Hoskins.

But Terry and Joe are only two cases in point. Apparently, the United States government (not Patrick Jane or Allison DuBois) is anticipating many more such incidents. In December, 2008, the Phoenix Business Journal reported in a story entitled “Arizona Police Say They Are Prepared As War College Warns Military Must Prep For Unrest; IMF Warns of Economic Riots” that “a new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.” Concurrently, Military.Com cited another part of the report which stated that “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities … to defend basic domestic order and human security, likewise in the case of ‘unforeseen economic collapse’, ‘pervasive public health emergencies,’ and ‘catastrophic natural and human disasters,’ among other possible crises.”

Fortunately, many individuals and families have awoken to the reality that what our species is confronting is nothing less than the total collapse of industrial civilization and the end of the world as we have known it. They are coming to understand that the collapse is a process, not an event, and that some aspects of it will be slow and grinding, while other aspects will be sudden, catastrophic, and traumatic. And very importantly, they are becoming prepared.

But how does one “prepare”, and what is preparation anyway?

In my experience, there are three aspects. The first concerns individual and family self-sufficiency which relates to things like learning to grow one’s own food, learning to store and preserve food, understanding and utilizing permaculture design principles in all aspects of life; deeply evaluating one’s living situation and assessing where the most sustainable living venue might be; completely extricating oneself from the debt/credit system; learning natural, holistic healing techniques and wild, edible plant foraging skills. These are only a few of the most basic forms of logistical preparation.

And please note, this is not about becoming a camo-clad survivalist with years of food and water stored underground and protected by an arsenal of weapons. In fact, the reality of our predicament is that the lone survivalist/ “apocalypse man” is precariously at risk because survival demands cooperation and coordination.

Therefore, the second aspect of preparation relates to neighborhood and community cooperation, and I believe that the Transition Handbook and Transition movement worldwide offer the most practical, sensible, and feasible model for creating local resilience and self-sufficiency. Those who are skeptical of community preparation often argue that a burgeoning police state will not allow such communities to exist let alone thrive. What they tend to overlook are the realities of energy depletion and economic unraveling which are likely to seriously curtail the functioning of all levels of law enforcement worldwide.

Finally, but in my opinion, most fundamental, is emotional and spiritual preparation for the unprecedented changes which have already begun and which will continue and intensify for many decades to come. It is perhaps the best hedge against becoming “unplugged” in the face of mindboggling chaos and transition. For this reason I published in 2009 Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization’s Collapse–a poetic manual of emotional and spiritual preparation for navigating the daunting challenges of our uncertain future.

Although I do not condone Joe Stack’s violent attack on the Austin IRS office, I find that his articulate suicide letter contains many grains of truth, as well as a tragic exposé of his lack of comprehension of the larger transition that inundated his life with an overwhelming number of smaller ones. Myriad forms of preparation are no guarantee of survival or well being in the face of the end of the world as we have known it, but they may allow us unimaginable opportunities for personal and community transformation.

In addition to the Transition Handbook, I strongly recommend the Post-Peak Living website and its online “Uncrash Course”, as well as my upcoming course in April, 2010 on “Navigating The Coming Chaos”. For further information on the latter course, please contact me at Carolyn@carolynbaker.net

No one needs to be either unprepared or unplugged. But the time to address both issues is now.

By Carolyn Baker

21 February, 2010

Carolynbaker.net

Islam: the state or civilisation?

MANY scholars maintain that Islam and the state are inseparable, thus reducing Islam to a political ideology. This approach, though in a way, historically dictated, has caused much power struggle among different groups of Muslims.

The bloodshed which took place between the Umayyads and the Abbasids is enough to horrify any religious Muslim, and yet this ideology has remained rooted in Islamic society for centuries; it has taken another form in a post-colonial society. In the Islamic world, dictator after dictator has seized power in the name of Islam and declared the establishment of an Islamic state, making ‘Islamic’ punishments binding.

They have imposed medieval jurisprudence uncritically, resulting, among other things, in serious gender disparity. Countries from various regions of the Islamic world have suffered from this practice. There are only few exceptions to the rule in the Muslim world today. Islam, one must understand, is not primarily a political ideology but a religion which gave rise to a great civilisation, and has its own foundational values. Islam basically arose in an urban setting, and in view of inter-tribal disputes it laid great stress on unity and brotherhood of all (all believers are brothers and sisters [10:49]; the word ‘ikhwatun’ being inclusive of both genders).

Yet, a lust for power divided Muslims and caused serious enmities. The Quran stresses non-discriminatory behaviour between one tribe and another, one ethnic group and another, whereas power struggles were based on these very divisions. As opposed to that, civilisations are built on cooperation between all groups, not fighting among them. The other foundational values of Islamic civilisation are truth, justice and compassion.

These values were actually practised by the Sufis on the one hand, and ordinary Muslims on the other. The Sufis never allowed Islam to be reduced to a political ideology and kept away from divisive politics. As opposed to power, they emphasised love, another civilisational value. Great Sufi masters like Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi and Maulana Rumi believed in the power of love and persuasion instead of power per se.

A power struggle brings about what Prof Huntington has theorised as a ‘clash of civilisations’. The US Right needed an enemy after the collapse of communism and hence they invented one in the Islamic civilisation. The former reformist president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, instead gave a call for a dialogue of civilisations and proposed at a UN meeting to adopt it as its programme.

As against power, the Sufis for ages carried on a dialogue with the people of other religious groups, with Jews, Christians, and Hindus in India. While kings and sultans grabbed power causing so much bloodshed, the Sufis followed the Islamic civilisation’s values and pursued the unity of people — Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Ibn Arabi even went to the extent of saying “My Sharia and din is love”.

The Quran also lays emphasis on pluralism. According to the Quran, Allah could have created one people but He created diversity and plurality so that He can test us and it is better to cooperate with each other in good deeds (5:48). Thus, rather than fighting, one should cooperate for good deeds the basis on which all civilisations are built.

Today, the world again is torn by conflict, especially countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen. These are the countries where various American interests are at stake, making brothers kill brothers with bombs and acts of terror. Everyday scores die in these countries, taking them away from the path of civilisation.

What Muslims should concentrate on is their fiqh, bringing it in conformity with the spirit of the Quran rather than basing it on disputed historical literature. The Quran’s basic emphasis is on justice, especially gender justice, which in turn is the very basis of a great civilisation. Muslim societies desperately need gender equality by giving women their due. The Quran also emphasises the treading of the middle path, whereas we tend to go towards extremism in religion and politics.

The Quran has not addressed a single of its verse to kings or rulers but to the Prophet (PBUH) and the people in general, and believers in particular. If we establish the primacy of politics, it is the rulers who have to be responsible for everything whereas the Quran puts the primary responsibility on all believers who, in cooperation with other non-Muslim groups, should create a just and compassionate society. Thus, it demands of the believers to “cooperate with one another in righteousness and piety and help not one another in sin and aggression” (5:2).

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

March 2010

E-mail:csss@mtnl.net.in
Website: www.csss-isla.com

Is Ethical Capitalism Possible?

In response to the current ecological and financial crises, the call for a more sustainable and fairer globalization is gaining momentum. Building this alternative must begin with a spiritual, moral and ethical understanding of our society and economy, says Kamran Mofid.

We live in a time of transition, a time when all is changing and being challenged – weather systems, ecosystems, our interaction with nature, our understanding of other beings. We now understand that we are all interconnected and interdependent. Somewhere along the line, our actions as human beings have created enormous instability to the planet and the millions of species who reside here.

Much of which is familiar to us and deemed the ‘norm’ is no longer working and is being challenged. Sometimes change brings with it destruction. Sometimes destruction is beneficial. It can alert us to practices that do not work. With destruction also comes new birth, and new avenues open wide to be explored. There are many choices as to which route to take; the issue is which route is the one that will provide life for all. The golden opportunity presented by the current ongoing crises is to make the right choices that will affect the long term future for us, our descendants and our planet.

There is no denying the fact that we are in a serious state of crises, a crises of our own making, all of us and not the bankers alone. They responded to what we wanted: cheap, available, unregulated money and loads of it.

They in turn were responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the so-called Washington Consensus: Privatisation, deregulation, market forces, liberalisation, low taxation, free trade, and one glove fits all policies and more. No regards, no respect for different cultures, civilisations, religions and history. What is good for America and the West, then, must also be good for everybody else, regardless of all other factors, we were told again and again.

The tragedy is that we have now discovered that what we were pushing on others, which we thought was good for us – the so-called market-forces driven Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism – was nothing but a huge cancerous cell which at the end brought the house of cards down. The emperor has no clothes, so to say.

What to Do Now?

The current global economic crisis is deeply complex and perplexing. Many world politicians, business people, academics, activists, and civil society representatives, as well as religious and spiritual leaders, have called for a new kind of “ethical capitalism” – a moral, spiritual and virtuous economy. People everywhere are calling for an international framework of standards for an equitable and sustainable global economy to replace the current economic system of unbridled growth and increasing ecological degradation. While some look for quick short-term solutions that would perpetuate the current economic model, others see the need for more fundamental changes of the model itself. Our challenge is great. In a time of continuing crisis and polarizing viewpoints, can the world agree on an ethical approach to the global economy?

I propose a comprehensive examination of the major attempts to integrate economics with ethics and spirituality, along with an exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of these activities. In considering the need for bold economic initiatives, we must keep in mind the deeper questions that rarely find their way into political debate or public discourse.

We should explore the emerging economic issues as well matters that are deeply ethical and spiritual:

* What is the source of true happiness and well-being? What is the good life?

* What is the purpose of economic life? What does it mean to be a human being living on a spaceship with finite resources?

* How can the global financial system become more responsive and just?

* How can the world make the global trade system more equitable and sustainable?

* What paths can be recommended to shift the current destructive global political-economic order from one of unrestrained economic growth, profit maximisation and cost minimisation, to one that embraces material wealth creation, yet also preserves and enhances social and ecological well-being and increases human happiness and contentment?

* How can society overcome poverty and scarcity with limited natural resources?

* How should we deal with individual and institutionalized greed?

* What are the requirements of a virtuous economy?

* What religious or spiritual variables should be considered in economic/business ethics and economic behaviour?

* How are these components to be integrated with economic theories and decisions?

* What role should universities play in building an integrity-based model of business education?

* What should be the role of the youth?

* How might the training of young executives be directed with the intention of supplying insights into the nature of globalisation from its economic, technological and spiritual perspectives, to build supporting relationships among the participants that will lead toward action for the common good within their chosen careers?

* Indeed, is ethical, profitable, efficient and sustainable capitalism possible?

These questions and more need to be reflected upon, debated, and ultimately, answered and put into policy formation, guiding us to a more humane globalisation.

A concrete framework for understanding what has gone wrong and possible remedies, including both broad perspectives on policies and specific recommendations, must include not only an economic perspective, but also a spiritual, moral and ethical understanding.

Steps can be taken towards a sustainable economy, to turn the current crisis of casino capitalism into an opportunity for a successful, sustainable and everlasting change, where all people, wherever they may be, can live  fulfilling, healthy, and yet more ecologically compatible lives.

Here are the steps I suggest:

1. Begin a Journey to Wisdom

Economics and business are all about human well-being in society and cannot be separated from moral, ethical and spiritual considerations. The idea of an economics which is value-free is totally false. Nothing in life is morally neutral. In the end, economics cannot be separated from a vision of what it is to be a human being in society.

In order to arrive at such understanding, my first recommendation  must surely be for us to begin a journey to wisdom, by embodying the core values of the Golden Rule (Ethic of Reciprocity): “Do unto others as you would have them to do to you”. This in turn will prompt us on a journey of discovery, giving life to what many consider to be the most consistent moral teaching throughout history.

It should be noted that the Golden Rule can be found in many religions, ethical systems, spiritual traditions, indigenous cultures and secular philosophies. Applying this universal principle can provide an enabling mechanism for the dialogue and development essential to resolving the challenges we face globally, nationally, and locally.

2. Now is the Time for a Revolution in Economic Thought

“An economist who is only an economist cannot be a good economist”. Therefore, the focus of economics should be on the benefit and bounty that the economy produces, how to let this bounty increase, and how to share the benefits justly among the people for the common good.

Moreover, economic investigation should be accompanied by research into subjects such as anthropology, philosophy, politics and most importantly, theology, to give insight into our own human mystery, as no economic theory or no economist can say who we are, where have we come from or where we are going to. Humankind must be respected as the centre of creation and not relegated to short-term economic interests, as has been the case for the past few centuries.

3. Don’t Repair the Economy, Change It

The current financial meltdown is the result of under-regulated markets built on an ideology of free market capitalism and unlimited economic growth. The fundamental problem is that the underlying assumptions of this ideology are not consistent with what we now know about the real state of the world. The financial world is, in essence, a set of markers for goods, services, and risks in the real world and when those markers are allowed to deviate too far from reality, “adjustments” must ultimately follow and crisis and panic can ensue.

To solve this and future financial crises requires that we reconnect the markers with reality. What are our real assets and how valuable are they? To undertake this readjustment requires both a new vision of what the economy is and what it is for, proper and comprehensive accounting of real assets, and new institutions that use the market in its proper role as servant rather than master.  We have to first remember that the goal of the economy is to sustainably improve human well-being and quality of life, not the promotion of materialism, consumerism and “shop till you drop” values – especially when they are done with borrowed money!

Ultimately we have to create a new model of the economy and development that acknowledges this holistic context and vision. This new model of development would be based clearly on the goal of sustainable human well-being. It would use measures of progress that clearly acknowledge this goal. It would acknowledge the importance of ecological sustainability, social fairness and real economic efficiency.

Ecological sustainability implies recognising that natural and social capital are not infinitely substitutable for built and human capital, and that real biophysical limits exist to the expansion of the market economy.

Social fairness implies recognising that the distribution of wealth is an important determinant of social capital and quality of life. The conventional model has bought into the assumption that the best way to improve welfare is through growth in marketed consumption as measured by GDP. This focus on growth has not improved overall societal welfare, which is why explicit attention to distribution issues is sorely needed.

4. Recognise That the Economy Is Part of the Biosphere

A comprehensive economic plan must be based on the scientific fact that the global economy is a subsidiary of the natural order. Economic policies should be attuned to the limited capacity of Earth’s biosphere to provide for humans and other life and to assimilate their waste. Photosynthesis and sunlight are as essential to the framework for economic budgets and expenditures as the laws of supply and demand.

5. Acknowledge That We Need New Institutions

An economic renewal tailored to the 21st century would establish institutions committed to fitting the human economy to Earth’s limited life-support capacity.  We need something like the central reserve banks which will look after shares of the Earth’s ecological capacity, not just interest rates and the money supply. Money should be recognised as a social licence for using part of Earth’s life-support capacity. Some functions of governance will have to operate at a global level through a federation modelled perhaps on the European Union, with enforceable laws designed to assure that individual nations don’t overrun Earth’s limits. The rules for the developed countries that are responsible for the current ecological crisis should be different from those of developing ones.

6. Fairness Matters

A “right” human-Earth relationship would recognise humans as part of an interdependent web of life on a finite planet. The economy must recognise the rights of the human poor and of millions of other species to their place in the sun. In a world awash in money, addressing poverty only with growth reflects a tragic lack of moral imagination. Indeed, in pushing for more “free” trade as it is currently understood, we would entrench an ongoing addiction to consumption, pursued in a manner that often ravages the bio-productivity of developing countries.

7. Expand the Discussion

The new knowledge that will forever mark this period in human history is the overwhelming scientific evidence that we are over-consuming the planet and accelerating toward ecological catastrophe. The short-term approaches of most ministers of finance and professional economists don’t account for how the planet works, or even that the economy exists on a finite planet. Scientists morally committed to protecting the global commons and researching ecological limits to the global economy need more funding and influence in policy-making.

8. Look beyond Neoliberal Education and Short-Term Fixes

We must begin a serious debate on the role of education and what education is all about. We must greatly increase investment in educational and civic institutions that teach that we are not “consumers,” but citizens of the Earth and guardians of life’s prospects on a small, beautiful and finite planet. In today’s largely decadent, money-driven world, the teaching of virtue and building of character is no longer part of the curriculum at many of our universities around the world. The pursuit of virtue has been replaced by moral neutrality – the idea that anything goes. For centuries it had been considered that universities were responsible for the moral and social development of students and for bringing together diverse groups for the common good.

Given the above, it is clear that we need a new economic model, enabling us to deal with new challenges, rather that rescuing and bailing out a discredited and bankrupt model, philosophy and theory.

The long-term solution to the financial crisis is therefore to move beyond the “growth at all costs” economic model to a model that recognises the real costs and benefits of growth. We can break our addiction to fossil fuels, over-consumption, and the current economic model and create a more sustainable and desirable future that focuses on quality of life rather than merely quantity of consumption.

It will not be easy; it will require a new vision, new measures, and new institutions. It will require a redesign of our entire society. But it is not a sacrifice of quality of life to break this addiction. Quite the contrary, it is a sacrifice not to.

This article is an abridged version of a presentation delivered at the Biltmore Hotel, Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, California, on 1st December 2009.

Kamran Mofid is the Founder of the Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (Oxford, 2002), Co- founder/Editor of Journal of Globalisation for the Common Good and a member of the International Coordinating Committee of the World Public Forum, Dialogue of Civilisations

15th March 2010 – Published by Share The World’s Resources

Iraq: National Unity Government Or Return To Sectarianism?

Patrick Martin of the Toronto Globe and Mail gets the diction right when he says that Iyad Allawi’s list won a thin plurality. The official results of the March 7 Iraqi parliamentary elections have been announced by the Independent High Electoral Commission. Of 325 seats, 91 went to the National Iraqi List (“Iraqiya”) of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi. The State of Law grouping of incumbent Nuri al-Maliki came in at 89. The Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the Iraqi National Alliance, which includes the followers of clerics Ammar al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, garnered 70 seats. The Kurdistan Alliance won only 43 seats.

That leaves 33 seats in the hands of smaller parties, many of them wild cards.

Shortly before the results were announced, two large bomb blasts in Khalis, in Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, killed 53 persons. Diyala is still the site of violent struggle between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Most Sunni Arabs in Iraq have moved on from the violence and fundamentalism of groups such as the ‘Islamic State of Iraq,’ and most voted for the Allawi list as a way of reentering national politics.

Despite some breathless headlines, the outcome of the elections is not very different from previous elections. Allawi put together a coalition of Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites. In the December, 2005, parliamentary elections, those two groups received about 80 seats, only 11 less than Allawi’s just list won. If the two major Shiite religious lists (State of Law and Iraqi National Alliance) had run on the same ticket, they would have nearly a majority, about what they won in December, 2005. The Kurdistan Alliance only has 43 seats, down from 54 in the last parliamentary election, but the overall number of Kurdish Members of Parliament is not so different from that in the last polls.

In spring-summer of 2006, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki put together a government of national unity, with the help of the US ambassador. It included Sadrists and Allawi’s Iraqiya. But it gradually fell apart. This election is an opportunity for al-Maliki to attempt to repeat that feat. Indeed, a national unity government may be the first preference of the Iraqi National Alliance, which has, according to al-Sharq al-Awsat, swung into action to convince the other major lists that such a path is the only right one for Iraq at this juncture.

Although Allawi’s list won the most seats, he is very unlikely to be the next prime minister. Al-Maliki’s State of Law list is anti-Baathist and hasn’t gotten on well with Sunni Arabs, while ex-Baathists and Sunnis are the backbone of Allawi’s constituency. Likewise, the Shiite religious party, made up of Sadrists and members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), among others, are unlikely to ally with secularist ex-Baathists. Allawi says that he is dialoguing with the parties led by Hakim and Sadr, as well as with the Kurds. But Allawi rejects a role in politics for Shiite clerics, which would make for an uneasy alliance with lists headed by clerics. Without the two big Shiite blocs, Allawi could only become prime minister by attracting the Kurdistan Alliance and all of the smaller parties and independents. Keeping such a disparate coalition together would be difficult in the extreme. Allawi is supported by Sunni Arabs who have sharp differences with the Kurds over the future of the mixed province of Kirkuk, which the Kurds covet. Allawi may therefore have a plurality that is incapable of growing into a majority.

It is also true that al-Maliki is deeply disliked by Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadrists because he used the Iraqi Army to crush their Mahdi Army militia in Basra and East Baghdad in spring-summer of 2008. His party, however, the ‘State of Law,’ groups Shiite religious parties such as his own Islamic Mission Party (Da’wa), and the natural ally of Da’wa is the Sadrists and ISCI. Still, as Sadrist and ISCI officials admitted on Wednesday, their parties are natural allies with the State of Law. The easiest way to form a new government would be to dump al-Maliki and choose another leader of Da`wa as prime minister. The State of Law and the Iraqi National Alliance can form a coalition of 159 at a time when only 163 is needed for a majority. By picking up just 4 independents, these two could form a strong, stable government. Al-Maliki has gathered a lot of power into his hands, however, and unseating him may prove difficult and time-consuming. In the end, the Iraqi National Alliance may decide that he is their best bet for dominating Iraq in the near to medium term.

Al-Maliki said Friday that he rejects the announced outcome and demands a manual recount of the ballots. He had earlier warned of “violence” if the votes were not recounted. The reason for his adamant stance is that if he could nose ahead of Allawi by even a single vote, he seems to feel that he would have more of a mandate to remain prime minister. The Iraqi constitution stipulates that the president ask the head of the largest single party or coalition to attempt to form the government. As it now stands, al-Maliki will not be asked, while Allawi could be.

One possibility is for his State of Law to form a coalition with the Iraqi National Alliance [Hakim and Sadr] while easing al-Maliki out in favor of some candidate more acceptable to both. Iraqi courts have ruled that post-election coalitions will be counted as legitimate for the purpose of installing a government. The Shiites are thus still in a position to remain dominant, though if they remain divided then Allawi could pick up the pieces. A Shiite electoral alliance accompanied by the elegance of the numbers would detract from the quality of life.

It seems unlikely that anyone can become prime minister without the Sadr Bloc, now the majority component inside the Iraqi National Alliance. Sadr may well demand as a quid pro quo for joining any Iraqi government that the new PM pledge to accelerate the timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and also promise to end that troop presence altogether.

The difficult road ahead is indicated by the recent denunciation of al-Maliki by both Muqtada al-Sadr and Ammar al-Hakim for his initial warning that “violence” might break out if the ballots are not recounted. Muqtada called the implied threat of violence “political terrorism,” thus ironically turning the tables on al-Maliki, who had hunted down Sadr-linked Mahdi Army commanders on the grounds that they were terrorists.

The big question now in Iraqi politics is whether the new government will look like the sectarian Shiite coalition with the Kurds in 2005, or more like the national unity government forged in summer, 2006. Each proved unstable in its own way, it should be remembered, so neither is a guarantor of a good outcome for these elections. The other question is how many concessions smaller parties can wring from the majority in order to form a government. It seems to me that if the Sadrists demand with sufficient vigor, they should be able to get a faster US troop withdrawal. Their platform since 2003 has been the removal of the American military from Iraq. They may finally be in a position to effect via the ballot box what they could not by their armed paramilitary, the Mahdi Army.

By Juan Cole

29 March, 2010

Juancole.com

Interview: Chandra Muzaffar on the Controversy About the Word”Allah” in Malaysia

Chandra Muzaffar is Malaysia’s best-known public intellectual. A professor at the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, he recently assumed the position of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of 1 Malaysia, a foundation set up by some concerned citizens to promote harmony between Malaysia’s various ethnic and religious communities.

In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the ongoing controversy in Malaysia in the wake of a recent court ruling permitting the country’s Christians (and other non-Muslims) to use the term ‘Allah’, which many Malaysian Muslims fiercely oppose.

Q: Why do you think many Malaysian Muslims are so opposed to the use of the term ‘Allah’ by Christians?

A:  I think among many Malaysian Muslims there is a certain degree of apprehension about Christians using the term because they feel that it is somehow exclusive to them. They also fear that some Christian groups deliberately want to use the term in order to mislead Muslims and gradually convert them to Christianity. Supporting these fears is the general Muslim mindset that sees Islam as special, as an exclusive claim to truth. Now, since Allah is the basis of Muslim doctrine, they feel that the term ‘Allah’ must be a Muslim monopoly.

Personally, I do not agree with this thinking, but you have to understand the general Malaysian Muslim response in the wider political context, in the context of how the Malays, who form the vast majority of Malaysia’s Muslims, feel about their position in Malaysia. This is linked to the perception that, historically, Malaysia was a Malay land and that, in the presence of large numbers of non-Malays who now live in Malaysia, and who are still economically strong, Malay identity needs to be protected and promoted. Islam is one of the major pillars of Malay identity, the other two being the Malay language and the Malay Sultans. Islam can be said to be an even more powerful pillar of Malay identity than the other two, the essence of which is the concept of Allah.

I think we need to deal with these fears about identity, and be careful not to dismiss them out of hand. We need to empathetically understand how many Malays feel about having once been a nation, living in a Malay land, and, then, with the advent of colonialism, being turned into an economically subordinate community in their own country. I think non-Muslims must appreciate these fears and concerns of many Malays.

On the other hand, we also need to educate the Malaysian Muslims, to convince them that there is nothing in Islam that forbids non-Muslims from using the term ‘Allah’. Unfortunately, that sort of public education has not been undertaken at all. We need to reach out to people and tell that that the Quran does not prohibit people of other faiths from referring to God as Allah. We need to explain to Malaysian Muslims that, historically, many non-Muslims have used the term ‘Allah’ to refer to the Divine, and that, in fact, the term Allah actually precedes the Quranic revelation. Even prior to the Prophet Muhammad there were a large number of Christian Arabs, and they, too, used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. And when Islam began spreading across the Arab world, the Muslims never forbade the Arab Christians from using the word ‘Allah’, although, of course, Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians understood the word in different ways. Yet, it never became a theological problem. True, there were conflicts between Arab Christians and Muslims over many issues, but the use of the word ‘Allah’ by the former was never a problem or a cause of any conflict. I think Malaysian Muslims need to be educated about this.

Then, again, we need to educate Malaysian Muslims that the Christians of Sabah and Sarawak, in East Malaysia have been using the term Allah to refer to God for over a hundred years. They have all along been using the Indonesian translation of the Bible, which uses the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. Of course, it is true that this translation, first made by Dutch Christian missionaries in what is now Indonesia, aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity, and so deliberately used the term ‘Allah’ instead of the Malay term Tuhan to refer to God. But, still, we cannot now tell the Christians of Sabah and Sarawak to stop using the word ‘Allah’. Their using that word has never caused any communal problem—in fact, in those parts of Malaysia there are numerous families that have both Christians and Muslim members, and relations between them have all along been fairly harmonious.

We also need to educate the Muslims of our country to understand that even other communities that live in Malaysia, such as Sikhs and some Hindus, also use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God, in addition to other names. The word ‘Allah’ occurs 46 times in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs.

Q: But non-Arab Christians generally do not use the word ‘Allah’, so why are some Christians in Malaysia making such a hue and cry about the reaction of Malaysian Muslims to the court ruling?

A: It may be that some of these Christian groups are indeed missionary in orientation and that they actually want to spread Christianity among the Muslims. I think we really must ask the question as to why, if the vast majority of Christians worldwide do not use the word ‘Allah’, these groups are insisting that they must have the right to do so in Malaysia.

Frankly, as I see it, the issue is not strictly religious. In fact, the controversy has become an ethnic one, and so you have many Hindus and Buddhists—people who generally do not use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to the Divine—taking a position against the Muslims.

Q: What is your own personal position with regard to the controversy?

A: I think religious bigots and exclusivists who insist that only Muslims can use the word ‘Allah’ themselves pose a grave danger to Islam. They have absolutely no justification for their claim from the Quran. In fact, the Quran very explicitly mentions, without any disapproval whatsoever, non-Muslims also referring to God as Allah. Thus, in the Surah Hajj (22:40) God says:

Those who were unjustly expelled from their homes just because they said, “Allah is Our Lord”; and had Allah not repelled some men by means of other men, the abbeys, churches, synagogues and mosques – in which the name of Allah is profusely mentioned – would definitely be demolished; and indeed Allah will assist the one who helps His religion; indeed surely Allah is Almighty, Dominant.

God certainly does not prohibit people from calling Him by any decent term, including ‘Allah’, so, as far as I am concerned, I think everyone—Muslim or other—has the right to call God by that name. But what I object to is the misuse of the term in the public domain, because then it becomes a problem. You cannot stop anyone from referring to God as Allah, but his or her misuse of the term in the public domain can be made punishable.

Q: And how would define ‘misuse’ in this context?

A: Although the term ‘Allah’ predates the Quran, it is a fact that the concept of Allah that we are familiar with has been shaped through the last fourteen hundred years by the Quran and the Islamic tradition. So, if the term ‘Allah’ is sought to be given an interpretation that goes against this concept, and if that interpretation is sought to be articulated publicly—as opposed to privately—then surely that could be controlled.

To come back to my own position, I have been pushing for the setting up of a National Consultative Council for Religious Harmony, as an official body or mechanism to promote dialogue between the different religious communities in Malaysia. Such a council can deal with issues like this ongoing controversy. While some inter-faith dialogue initiatives do exist in civil society, there is nothing of the sort at the government level, although it is extremely crucial. Lamentably, the muftis of the different states in Malaysia have consistently opposed the setting up such a council, on the specious grounds that it would mean Islam being treated at par with the other religions although Islam is the religion of the Malaysian Constitution. Their argument is actually quite fallacious, because I have stressed that the proposed council would naturally operate within the ambit of the Malaysian Constitution, which reserves a special place for Islam.

Q: What do you think of the way the Malaysian Government has handled the controversy?

A: I think the police have acted admirably. When some non-Muslim places were attacked, they rushed to the scene. So did the Prime Minister, who roundly denounced the attacks. In some other multi-ethnic and multi-religious country such attacks might have led to rioting, and so I think it is to the credit of the Malaysian government and the police that nothing of that sort happened.

The Government has taken a largely law-and-order approach to the issue. But, I do not think this law-and-order approach is enough. The government has not dealt with the theological issues involved, and, as a result, it is the Islamic muftis associated with the ruling establishment that are now setting the tone. Sadly, they have all adopted a very conservative, bigoted and exclusivist position—to the effect that the term ‘Allah’ is a Muslim monopoly. Very cleverly, they have resorted to the Sultans, who have the last say on Islamic matters, and who have largely endorsed their stance. It is a pity that the muftis are reflecting such a superficial, shallow understanding of the Quran. Their understanding of the Quran appears to be very shallow and superficial, and even worse.

I think the Prime Minister may be more inclined to our own position, the 1Malaysia position—which is that we cannot prohibit non-Muslims to use the term ‘Allah’ but that we should prevent its misuse—but I guess he cannot say so openly because the vast majority of Malaysian Muslims do not agree. The issue is a veritable political minefield, and so I think the government is simply trying to delay taking any decision.

I must add here that a number of Malaysian Muslims strongly condemned the attacks on the churches and a Sikh gurdwara that took place in the wake of the court ruling. Some Muslim NGOs also set up voluntary squads to guard non-Muslim places of worship in some parts of the country. So, I think, there is ample good sense among ordinary Muslims, who, like ordinary non-Muslims in this country, want and value inter-communal peace. There is always this great fear in Malaysia of an ‘ethnicquake’—inter-community violence—and I think ordinary Malaysians, Muslims and others, know that this is something that we just can’t afford.

Q: The way the Western media reported the controversy, it was as if Malaysia was on the verge of civil war in the wake of the violence following the court ruling. How do you see the way the Western media handled the issue?

A: I think their projection was wide off the mark. They made it out to be as if Malaysia was on the verge of destruction. They seemed to relish the thought of that actually happening. I think this has much to do with the way the West wants to see itself—as supposedly ‘civilized’, compared to the non-Western world, particularly Muslims, who are depicted as the mirror opposite, as intolerant, violent, barbaric, primitive, fanatic and so on. I think, therefore, that the Western media’s reporting was really most unfortunate, although not entirely unexpected.

Chandra Muzaffar can be contacted on cmuzaffar@gmail.com

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore.

Check out my blogs: www.madrasareforms.blogspot.com

www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com