Israel's Tragedy Foretold

By GERSHOM GORENBERG Jerusalem WITH Israel's national election approaching, each day's news emphasizes a clear political shift: the settlement enterprise has lost the support of the country's mainstream voters.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the front-runner in the March 28 vote, plans to evacuate more West Bank settlements unilaterally, a top figure in his party said this week. Mr. Olmert himself announced he would stop decades of investment in infrastructure for settlements. Those promises reflect a change not only in Mr. Olmert, a lifelong rightist, but in the electorate. Polls show that a strong majority supports parties ready to part with settlements.

The pattern is a familiar one from other countries. An endeavor once considered the epitome of patriotism leads to a quagmire. Sobriety and sadness replace euphoria. Arguments that once turned dissidents into pariahs now seem obvious: in this case, that to keep the West Bank will require Israel either to cease being democratic or to cease being a Jewish state. Not only settlers but national leaders have eroded the rule of law in pursuit of what they considered a patriotic goal.

As an Israeli who has pored over the documentary record of the settlement project, I know there is one more painful, familiar element to this story: the warnings were there from the start and were ignored, kept secret or explained away. Leaders deceived not only the country's citizens, but themselves. So begin national tragedies.

Here is one critical example. In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights, conquered three months earlier in the Six-Day War. An Arab summit meeting in Khartoum had rejected peacemaking. The prime minister believed that the Golan and the strip of land along the Jordan River would make Israel more defensible. He also wanted to re-establish the kibbutz of Kfar Etzion near Bethlehem, which had been lost in Israel's 1948 war of independence.

The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

In the detailed opinion that accompanied that note, Mr. Meron explained that the Convention - to which Israel was a signatory - forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote.

Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

There is a subtext here. In treating the West Bank as occupied, Israel may simply have been recognizing legal reality. But doing so had practical import: if the land was occupied, the Arabs who lived there did not have to be integrated into the Israeli polity - in contrast to Arabs within Israel, who were citizens.

Eshkol and other Israeli leaders knew that granting citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would quickly turn Israel into a binational state. In effect, the Meron memo told Eshkol: you cannot have it both ways. If the West Bank was "occupied" for the Arab population, then neither international law nor Israel's democratic norms permitted settling Jews there.

The memo did note, however, that settlement was permissible if done "by military bodies rather than civilian ones" in bases that were clearly temporary. A week after receiving the memo, Eshkol informed the cabinet that Kfar Etzion would be re-established - through a branch of the army called Nahal, which created paramilitary outposts. By the end of September, settlers arrived at Kfar Etzion. Publicly they were described as "Nahal soldiers." In fact, they were civilians. The ruse acknowledged Mr. Meron's opinion. It also showed a sadly mistaken confidence that the legal, ethical and diplomatic difficulties of settlement could somehow be avoided.

Mr. Meron, it is worth noting, left Israel's foreign service a decade later to teach at New York University. A child survivor of the Holocaust, he became one of the world's leading experts on the laws of war - and more recently, a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

Meanwhile, it did not take long before explicitly civilian settlements were established in land occupied in 1967. Israel's diplomats and supporters reverted to the argument Mr. Meron discounted - that the Geneva rules on occupied territory did not apply to the West Bank. Those who still use that argument are unaware of the secret Israeli legal opinion that preceded settlement.

Today a quarter-million Israelis live in the West Bank. Legal arguments cannot undo 38 years of settlement-building. And the ascent of Hamas in Palestinian politics has only made it more difficult to reach diplomatic agreement on the West Bank's future.

Yet along with international law, Israeli law was repeatedly bent or broken to allow settlement to proceed. The contradiction between keeping Palestinians under military occupation while settlers enjoy the rights of Israeli citizens has become glaring, even to the Israeli center-right. Hence the shift in Israeli politics.

Today it is clear that Israel's future as a Jewish state depends on ending its rule of the West Bank. Settlements have shackled Israel rather than served it. Thirty-eight years after the missed warning, we must find a way to untie the entanglement.

Gershom Gorenberg is the author of "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements."

Great before and after pictures of Dubai..

After...

Quran Quote of the Day on Peace

Juan Cole The fourth chapter of the Quran, "Women," addressed the early Muslim community in Medina during the 620s, at a time when they were being attacked by the powerful pagan Meccans, who were trying to wipe them out. The Quran repeatedly commands the Muslims to defend themselves from these Meccan infidels and polytheists, who worshipped star goddesses (think Venus) and refused to permit the new monotheistic teachings of Muhammad. The Quran objects on spiritual grounds to the Meccans' polytheism, but it was only when the Meccans tried to ethnically cleanse the Muslims that it commanded them to fight back. But there were non-Muslim, including pagan, tribes with whom the Muslims had reached peace treaties, with whom they were not at war. So the question arises-- what if a new non-Muslim tribe shows up in the area? Are the Muslims to treat them as enemies or not? Remember that they are pagans, or at least non-Muslims, and entering the war zone of Western Arabia. This is what the Quran says about pursuing warfare in these ambiguous circumstances:

[4:90] Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.

(Cole translation, influenced by several existing ones, but done from the Arabic text.) The Quran lays down in 4:90 the rules governing such a situation. Muslims are not to fight tribes under these conditions: 1. If the new tribe joins up with a tribe in the area with which the Muslims are at peace, then the Muslims are to act peacefully toward the new one. 2. If the new tribe shows up in the region and lets the Muslims know that they have no desire to attack Medinah or the Muslims, then the Muslims are to act peacefully toward it. Some of these tribes may be related to the Muslim tribes of Medina, and that may be one reason they are inclined to peace. The inclination must be returned under these circumstances. The Quran reminds the Muslims that they benefit from peace with the peaceful. If they had to fight all the tribes in Arabia, they might well be conquered. Returning peaceful intentions in kind is a sort of "social intelligence" that allowed Muslims to focus on the real threat, the profound hatred for them of the Meccans, while living at peace with the neutral Arabs. The default in the Quran is therefore not aggressive warfare, something the book repeatedly condemns. Warfare is permitted in self-defence. But the default is to be at peace with those who are at peace with you.

I love Juan Cole

[Cole: Oh, great. First God chose George W. Bush and whispered things in his ear. Then He chose Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and whispered things in his ear. Now we have yet another messianic, divinely appointed leader [Jaafari] out to do God's will. If God really were choosing these people, couldn't He come up with better candidates? And if He is giving them advice, why isn't it better advice? I'd just like to caution all these political prophets that it is widely rumoured among medieval observers, who were the real experts in things divine, that sometimes Satan manages to misrepresent himself to you as the voice of God. And sometimes the conviction that God is speaking to and through you is not so much piety as the mortal sin of pride.]

Tafseer Al Mizan

at-Tafseer (exegesis), means explaining the meanings of the Qur'anic verse, clarifying its import and finding out its significance.

at-Ta'wil (interpretation) is that reality to which a verse refers; it is found in all verses, the decisive and the ambiguous alike; it is not a sort of a meaning of the word; it is a real fact that is too sublime for words; Allah has dressed them with words so as to bring them a bit nearer to our minds; in this respect they are like proverbs that are used to create a picture in the mind and thus help the hearer to clearly grasp the intended idea.

Among the many valuable works of the great exegete 'Allamah Tabataba'i, al-Mizan occupies a distinguished position due to its unique qualities, not only among his own books but also among all the Islamic books written so far on religion, science, philosophy and especially among all the old and new exegeses of the Qur'an, written by both the Sunnis and the Shi'ah.

The aim of this website is to help the readers to acquaint themselves with the elegant style of this great exegesis. The great thinker, scholar of the Qur'an, and an exegete himself, Ayatullah Mutahhari has stated about al-Mizan that it is the greatest exegesis of the Qur'an written since the advent of Islam, and that it will take another sixty or even one hundred years for our people to realize the greatness of al-Mizan of 'Allamah Tabataba'I. Other scholars, experts and men of insight have made similar remarks regarding this book. We ask for help from Allah to guide us in performing this task in a way that will satisfy the gentle soul of the pious author of this exegesis. "And verily, the exterior of the Qur'an is elegant and its esoteric (meaning) is deep. Its wonders cannot be enumerated, and its marvels will not cease; and the darkness cannot be removed except by it." (Imam 'Ali ibn Abi-Talib)

Click here...

Shi'a

A very good book outlining the basic beliefs of the Shi'a. click here....

My Bars of Chocolate

Zulfi Ahmed

Karachi girls

Girls are like bars of chocolate. They are sweet and too much consumption of either can cause heart trouble. Then there is bitter chocolate, which like girls can leave a bitter taste in your mouth. And still ramp up a heart attack if not consumed with caution. Both of course melt when hot and hard to chew when cold. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the mini-bar or the extra large. They come in pretty, eye-catching wrappers to attract the wandering eye and heart, in mouth-watering flavors. And they are both more fun unwrapped. Some are just plain, some filled with soft coconut inside, some just nutty. And all can definitely lead to heart trouble. And they do not come cheap. You want more tastes, have your wallet ready. Every taste and every bite will cost, trust me. And unwise consumption can still cause heart trouble. My first encounter with chocolate was probably at 4 and with girls at 14. I had a decade of experience with chocolate by then, and it was nearly not enough to handle the real thing. It all began in class 9 in high school. St. Jude's school was tucked at the end of D'Slva Town in the shadows of Abdullah Girls College in Karachi. It was a co-ed institution offering all the fun a boy could have. Tehmina and Kahkashan were my classmates. And they also happened to be practically my neighbors in Block L, North Nazimabad. This gave me the extreme advantage of escorting them home whenever the school bus broke down or the driver did not show up or during any other heavenly emergency. A Rickshaw ride in puberty class, sandwiched between 'namkeen' looking Kahkashan and 'rus bhari' Tehmina made me the envy of my every ogling testosterone laden male classmate. They were both sweet, innocent, shy, generous, soft, unselfish, and untested virgins. And they and I had only one thing in common, and I used to dream about losing that one commonality every night and numerous daydreams. It is at this point I realized my only passion in life, unlike my car fanatic friend and Chowk contributor, Shahzad Kazi, who I met many years later at NED University, had two legs and a 'choti' and not four wheels and a muffler. Although soon it became a reality that to enjoy the first, you had to have some ownership of the second. Those were the glory years of 1974-1975 as we prepared for our matriculation exams. Being nerdy and nurturing an uncanny command on geometry, English, and solving algebraic factors gave me a license to tutor these two unfettered blossoming beauties. Late night study sessions at fifteen in the sweet comfort of two unsuspecting, unassuming, dove-eyed girls is any boy's dream. There was chocolate everywhere. To make sure I could impress them, I really developed super-skills at math, as my wiry looks, curly hair, and square rimmed glasses were not enough to make any female do back flips. There were also many stupid tricks and treats that donned my repertoire of girl pleasing, most acquired through trial and error, natural instincts, and with a relentless ability to make them laugh with my everyday stupidity. And it was during these two formative years, I grabbed on to a well-kept secret that most guys still do not understand well enough. The ladder to a girl's heart goes not through expensive German autos, or thick dollar filled wallets, or a collection of Tommy and Polo outfits, or Rithik Roshan looks, or dad's deeply impressive mutual fund investments, although these may help position the ladder somewhat. Climbing into a girl's heart and getting a taste of that ravishing chocolate, requires knowing how to make them laugh, how to make them smile, leaving the ego at home and getting ready for complete, humble submission; doing the stupid pet tricks with reckless abandon; being a pet, letting her be the ring master. 'Hansi to phansi, muskurai to jaib main?' doctrine works. Tehmina and Kahakahsan were a fun experience, stepping-stones. It was not until I went into NED that the real fun began. White became my color. St. Joseph's virgin white uniform. Grey wrapped my days and nights, the Grey in the uniform of PECHS Girls College. White chocolate, dark chocolate, bitter chocolate, sweet chocolate, coconut flakes wrapped in chocolate, nuts mixed in chocolate. Life was dipping, nourishing, and flourishing in chocolate. And heart troubles were plenty. Bitter heartaches acquired from the gates of PECHS Girls College were remedied by sweet girl panaceas obtained at the Karachi University. Karachi University girl troubles were alleviated by juicy medication obtained by St. Joseph's girls. It was all very intoxicating. Lip alcohol does not come in a bottle, is more delicious, and many times more devastating in the long haul. There was always a need for more. An addiction to please, coddle, cajole; to be chivalrous, to extract a laughter from a damsel, to be wanted. Girls loved to talk, to be heard. And I was there to listen to their problems, about their nagging over jealous brother, or a strict disciplinarian father, or their rebellion to a super-orthodox family. Some just wanted to have fun, some wanted to break the mould, some did it because of peer pressure, some just because their friends were doing it, some to spite their mothers, some to emulate a more western lifestyle and exercise their freedom to date. And some were truly in love. In any case, there were plenty of girls, plenty or reasons, and plenty of sweet tasting chocolate. And plenty of heart aches. The pick up was probably more thrilling than the date itself. From the duller pick up at the St. Josephs' college gate or the Karachi University department lobby to the more unorthodox pool meetings at Karachi Gymkhana. Carving initials on trees surrounding the pool was a fun activity. Pick ups at mehndis were particularly exciting as the girls were decked up in paranda laden braid, giggling glass bangles, choori dar, and make up loud enough to put Reema to shame. Pick up from a close friend's house was quite exciting, as the friend was trusted to provide cover for the few hours of amorous dalliances that consumed the mind and body. The most daring of pick-ups were while dating Sadaf, who had six brothers. She nervously used to hop into my 1975 sea green Toyota Celica as dusk was being engulfed by darkness, less than 20 feet from her house in KDA Scheme 1's main chowrangi. The chocolate then melted. There was the video game arcade at the Bahadurabad chowrangi where I used to pick up and hang out with my Home Economics College dates only to get a glimpse of the storeowner's cute sister. Gazing at her forest thick dark knee length hair and pretty dark brown eyes had the same effect on me as white powder would on a coke junkie. Sitting in the car by the curb at the adjacent milk shake shop with a date for hours while craving for her to show up had an unfaithful sort of guilty pleasure associated with it. She is the one, though, who slipped away. But there were other brands of chocolate to satiate the craving. My Celica had dark tinted glasses and uncomfortably small rear seats. Advantage of the former was nullified by the discomfort of the latter. The girls were not very keen on getting back there. Limos would have come real handy here, oh well. All they wanted the exhilarating fast rides and fun filled drive by the Clifton beach. I just wanted more chocolate. Tehmina and Kahkashan went to Sind medical and Dow medical college to become doctors and get married. We did not keep in touch. I wish them well as they taught me well. I may have educated them in math but they left me with a lesson a lot more valuable. How to always enjoy a life full of chocolate.

State Department Report on Iraq

State department pretty much lambasts Iraq for suffering human rights abuses lack of good governance etc... not really focused on the causes.. of course there are foreign fighters... but not the foreign ones from the US.... no they're as local as apple shawirma... best line... Iraq s a republic with a freely elected government.... nice...

Balkanization of Iraq and Turkey's real concerns

The Balkanization of Iraq has become more evident than ever with the recent sectarian violence, unleashed by last month's bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine. Iraq is moving closer to a civil war and almost unavoidable disintegration, prompting serious but less-mentioned worries in Turkey. The generally accepted interpretation of Turkey's insistence on the unity of Iraq has been that an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq might in turn stoke separatist feelings among Turkey's own Kurds. This interpretation might hold some truth, but only when looking at the issue from such a limited perspective that overshadows Turkey's other concerns, which include important strategic assessments, and further limits understanding the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party's Iraq policy. One of Turkey's strategic concerns is that Iraq's disintegration would break down the historical geostrategic balance between two of the region's important players, Turkey and Iran. It was Turkey's former special Iraq representative who made public, in an interview with London based daily el-Hayat last year, this less-known Turkish concern in preserving Iraq's unity. He stressed Turkey's worry was not a so-called fear of Kurdish separatism but preserving the strategic balance in the region which is maintained by Iraq's unity. "The division of Iraq would break this balance," Koruturk stressed. Quite surprisingly Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish prime minister's chief foreign policy advisor who has challenged several traditional lines of Turkish foreign policy, is not taking a different position on this issue. Let me revisit his 680-page book, titled Strategic Depth, which constitutes a guideline for the ruling AK Party's foreign policy. Davutoglu, in his book, compares Turkish-Iranian relations in historical and geo-strategic terms with German-French relations. He points out that there are both competition and cooperation elements that exist in this relationship, and further underlines the following: "The meeting and confrontation line of these two Western Asian powers (Turkey and Iran) has traditionally been the area including today's Iraq and eastern Anatolia, the line between Diyarbakir and Baghdad." (Strategic Depth, page 429) Davutoglu compares this region as the Alsace-Lorraine in German-French relations and concludes that a geostrategic division and instability in Iraq is fueling greater competition between Turkey and Iran. A second related and important concern for the Turkish government, as was also disclosed by Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda last week, is the "increasing Iranian influence in Iraq." Svoboda in a conference at Chatham House quoted Gul as saying that if the U.S.-led coalition forces leave Iraq, then an Iranian-type radical Islam would be strengthened in Iraq and then Tehran would also be able to export this to Turkey. Although the Turkish foreign minister strongly denied remarks on Iran's regime export, and said that such an idea is totally irrelevant, he confirmed his worry about the power vacuum in Iraq. And this refers to another less-mentioned but serious worry held by the AK Party government, the "Shiite Crescent." That is to say a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government or a new Shiite breakaway state that is aligned with Iran, and connected to Syrian and Lebanese Shiites. This concern, which is shared by most of the Sunni Arab world, is an important element also shaping the AK Party's policy towards Iraq. After all, some analysts would argue that despite all the concerns, Iraq has always been an artificial country with a troublesome history and following the rise in sectarian violence, the breakup of Iraq into three is an inevitable outcome. Some advisors of the Bush administration may also view this as an acceptable solution since in this way Israel would be surrounded by small countries that would never form a bloc against Israel. But for the Turkish government this no doubt would be a nightmare.

Bigotry toward Muslims and Anti-Arab Racism Grow in US; Dubai and the Qur'an

The constant drumbeat of hatred toward Muslims and Arabs on the American Right, on television and radio and in the press, has gradually had its effect. This according to a Washington Post poll. Even in the year after September 11, a majority of Americans respected Islam and Muslims, but powerful forces in US society are determined to change that, and are gradually succeeding. As they win, Bin Laden also wins, since his whole enterprise was to "sharpen the contradictions" and provoke a clash of civilizations. Some 25% of Americans now say they personally are prejudiced against Muslims. And 33% think that Islam as a religion helps incite violence against non-Muslims, up from 14% after September 11. The Bush administration policy is to continually insinuate that the Muslim world is the new Soviet Union and full of sinister forces that require the US to go to war against them. But at the same time, America has warm relations with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc. When Saudi Arabia's then crown prince (now king) Abdullah came to the US, Bush brought him to the Crawford ranch, held hands with him and kissed him on each cheek. This two-faced policy and self-contradictory rhetoric has contributed to growing hatred and bigotry toward Muslims in the US, which is no less worrisome than the hatred Jews faced in Europe in the 1920s. It is dangerous because of what it can become. The subtext of bigotry and racism is what has blindsided the Bush administration with regard to the port deal for a company based in Dubai. Dubai is like the Fifth Avenue of the Middle East-- the place with the pricey shopping and the tall skyscrapers and the extravagant fashions. Dubai businessmen are no more likely to take over US ports and allow them to come to harm than US businessmen are. They want the deal in order to make money. Bush knows this very well. But since he has spent so much time fulminating against shadowy and sinister forces over there somewhere, he has spooked the American public and members of his own party. The Big Lie eventually catches up with you. The hatemongers are well known. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Cable News, Rush Limbaugh's radio program and its many clones, telebimbos like Ann Coulter, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, Congressmen like Tom Tancredo, and a slew of far rightwing Zionists who would vote for Netanyahu (or Kach) if they lived in Israel-- Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, David Horowitz, etc., etc. And finally, there are many Muslims who have an interest in whipping up anti-Islamic feeling. Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress helped manoeuvre the US into a war against Iraq with lies about a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection and illusory WMD. The dissident Islamic Marxist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is now placing equally false stories about Iran in the Western press and retailing them to Congress and the Pentagon. The hatemongers think that the American public is sort of like a big stupid dog, and you can fairly easily "sic" it on whoever you like. Just tell them that X people are intrinsically evil and that the US needs to go to war to protect itself from them. Then they turn around and blame those of us who don't want our country reduced to foot soldiers in someone else's greedy crusade for being "unpatriotic." All human beings are the same. They all have the same emotions. All laugh when happy and weep when sad. There are no broad civilizations that produce radically different behaviour in human beings. All are capable of violence. (Christians killed tens of millions in the course of the 20th century, far, far more than did Muslims). Few commit much violence except in war. You can walk around any place in Cairo at 1 am perfectly safely, but cannot do that everywhere safely in many major US cities, including the nation's capital, Washington, DC. Even the idea of Islam as a cultural world or civilization opposed to the Christian West is a false construct. Eastern Mediterranean honour cultures (Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria) have more in common with each other across the Christian-Muslim divide than either has in common with Britain or the US. And, Muslim states don't make their alliances by religion. Egypt was allied with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, then switched to the US in the 1970s and until the present. Four of the five non-NATO allies of the US are Muslim countries. Turkey is even a full NATO ally and fought along side the US in the Korean War. Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians. Quran 5:82 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell-- quite the opposite. When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say: 5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud." So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them "nearest in love" to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride. The tendency when reading the Quran is to read a word like "kafir" (infidel) as referring to all non-Muslims. But it is clear from a close study of the way the Quran uses the word that it refers to those who actively oppose and persecute Muslims. The word literally meant "ingrate" in ancient Arabic. So the polytheists ("mushrikun") who tried to wipe out Islam were the main referents of the word "infidel." Christians, as we see above, were mostly in a completely different category. The Christian Ethiopian monarch gave refuge to the Muslims at one point when things got hot in Mecca. The Quran does at one point speak of the "infidels" among the Jews and Christians (2:105: "those who committed kufr/infidelity from among the people of the Book.") But this verse only proves that it did not think they were all infidels, and it is probably referring to specific Jewish and Christian groups who joined with the Meccans in trying to wipe out the early Muslim community. (The Quran calls Jews and Christians "people of the book" because they have a monotheistic scripture). People often also ask me about this verse: [5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends; these are friends of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. This is actually not a good translation of the original, which has a very specific context. In the Arabia of Muhammad's time, it was possible for an individual to become an honorary member or "client" of a powerful tribe. But of course, if you did that you would be subordinating yourself politically to that tribe. The word used in Arabic here does not mean "friend." It means "political patron" (wali). What the Quran is trying to do is to discourage stray Muslims from subordinating themselves to Christian or Jewish tribes that might in turn ally with pagan Mecca, or in any case might have interests at odds with those of the general Muslim community. So the verse actually says: [5:51] O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as tribal patrons; these are tribal patrons of one another. Those among you who become clients of these belong with them. Since the Quran considers Christians nearest in love to Muslims, it obviously does not have an objection to friendship between the two. But apparently now it is some Christians who have that hateful attitude, of no friendship with "infidels."

Inside The Harem, 13 October 2004

PROGRAMME ONE - Polygamy, the positives

"I clearly felt that what attracted him to me, was things he couldn't find with her. Not saying anything negative about her - just in general. In my opinion you can never be a perfect fit, so I didn't feel that I was marrying somebody else's husband. I think he's got the energy for ten..." "That's 30 or 40% of the male population is at some point polygamous - in other words is having a bit on the side or he's dating two girls simultaneously. This is very common - becoming more common. It's not whether men should suddenly become polygamous or not because that's already happening." "The Qur'an says that yes a man can marry 2 or 3 or 4 but if he cannot be equal and if he doesn't have the means then he should marry only one. So I believe that monogamy is the rule and polygamy is the exception to the rule." S: My name is Shagufta Yaqub. Polygamy is something I'd never really thought about until one day I got a phone-call from a woman looking for a second wife for her husband. I used to edit a British Muslim magazine and the woman had phoned to say she wanted to place an advert for a co-wife. She told me how she knew her husband's taste better than anybody else and wanted to make sure he married someone she could get along with. Although polygamy is illegal under British law, it is allowed under Islamic law, and when I got married two years ago I thought very carefully about what to include in my marriage contract. I insisted on the right to continue my education and the right to initiative a divorce, but the question of polygamy was more difficult to resolve. Should I insist that my husband will never take another wife? In the end I decided to leave the possibility open. If God has allowed polygamy, I thought who am I to challenge it? And whilst I know I could not handle such a situation myself perhaps polygamy is not as strange or uncommon as I think it is? This very personal journey has taken me throughout the UK and also to the place of my birth, Pakistan. It started in Cambridge where I wanted to find out what role the harem had in traditional Islamic societies.

Read more...

Tracing the Trail of Torture

Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to IraqBy Dahr Jamail They told him, "We are going to cut your head off and send you to hell." Ali Abbas, a former detainee from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, was filling me in on the horrors he endured at the hands of American soldiers, contractors, and CIA operatives while inside the infamous prison. It was May of 2004 when I documented his testimony in my hotel in Baghdad. "We will take you to Guantanamo," he said one female soldier told him after he was detained by U.S. forces on September 13, 2003. "Our aim is to put you in hell so you'll tell the truth. These are our orders -- to turn your life into hell." And they did. He was tortured in Abu Ghraib less than half a year after the occupation of Iraq began. While the publication of the first Abu Ghraib photos in April 2004 opened the floodgates for former Iraqi detainees to speak out about their treatment at the hands of occupation forces, this wasn't the first I'd heard of torture in Iraq. A case I'd documented even before then was that of 57 year-old Sadiq Zoman. He was held for one month by U.S. forces before being dropped off in a coma at the general hospital in Tikrit. The medical report that came with his comatose body, written by U.S. Army medic Lt. Col. Michael Hodges, listed the reasons for Zoman's state as heat stroke and heart attack. That medical report, however, failed to mention anything about the physical trauma evident on Zomans' body --- the electrical point burns on the soles of his feet and on his genitals, the fact that the back of his head had been bashed in with a blunt instrument, or the lash marks up and down his body. Such tales -- and they were rife in Baghdad before the news of Abu Ghraib reached the world -- were just the tip of the iceberg; and stories of torture similar to those I heard from Iraqi detainees during my very first trip to Iraq, back in November 2003, are still being told, because such treatment is ongoing.

Read more...

Annals of the Pentagon

The Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.

by Jane Mayer One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers’ Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club’s ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments. “Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity,” David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, “He surprised us into doing the right thing.” Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora’s boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense. Back in Haynes’s office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked “secret” but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.

Read more...

What America wants

So two missing phones in Iraq are used for porn and gambling: proof that capitalism has won the battle for hearts and minds Marina HydeTuesday March 7, 2006The Guardian With good news stories out of Baghdad in such short supply that the coalition recently resorted to paying the local press to feature them, our government's reaction to the theft of two foreign office satellite phones seems baffling in the extreme. To recap briefly: two of the devices went missing in Iraq at a time no one seems able to pinpoint, and it was only after bills of £594,000 had been run up that the FO discovered they had been used to run sex phonelines and betting scams. Bewilderingly, this is being treated as some kind of embarrassment. Article continues Yet what more encouraging indicator is there that Iraq is embracing the civilised western values Messrs Bush and Blair were so anxious to impose on it than news that the fledgling democracy has already evolved to this advanced stage of what we might call late capitalism: namely, a highly developed adult entertainment industry, and the spirited drive to induce gambling problems in the populace? Freedom-wise, forget hearts and minds. Everyone knows groins and pockets is where it's at. Downtown Baghdad naturally has yet to reach the heights - or indeed the depths - of the San Fernando valley, the Los Angeles suburb known as the pornography capital of the world and which contributes billions of tax dollars a year to the US kitty. But watching Iraq take its first teetering steps on a journey that we know ends in Red Hot Forty Plus - well, the PM ought to be weeping public tears of pride, as opposed to getting in a tizz about a phone bill. Pretty soon we'll be able to take off the Iraqi people's stabilisers and marvel as the line representing their electoral turnout begins its sharp descent, in exact counterpoint to the line representing the number of Temptation Island reruns being watched in the region. Clearly, they are currently far too interested in politics, so the sooner the debate shifts to whether or not the first Iraqi Big Brother contestants will have sex live on TV, the better. Nothing says "healthy capitalism" like porn and numbers scams, and anyone who missed that underplayed section in the Wealth of Nations is directed towards the example of the internet. Sure, it may have been developed originally as a robust communications system that would survive Soviet attack. But how in the main has western humankind chosen to utilise the invention? By allowing it to assist them in their seemingly unending search for topless photographs of Britney Spears. Of course, when you don't live in a democracy, the internet has other more elevated uses, which accounts for the dismay that greeted Google's recent decision to offer a politically censored version of its search engine to China. But in places where freedom is taken for granted, you can bet your last dollar (quite literally: there'll be a click-through) that "Tiananmen Square" doesn't exactly top out the most popular search terms. I'd imagine it comes a close 98,000th to the likes of "Angelina naked" and "free shemale pics". And when the great dawn of Chinese democracy finally comes, one suspects that people will forget all about how hard won it was and idle away their days searching for pictures of Scarlett Johansson's nipple escaping from her dress on the red carpet, or low-resolution videos of women breastfeeding cats. But to quote Dubya's historic hand-scrawled note which marked last year's official Iraqi handover: let freedom reign! If the coalition leaders really want to accentuate the positive, they should incorporate into their speeches a celebration of this burgeoning trend in the nations they have liberated. They're hardly shy in other areas. During his visit to Pakistan last week, President Bush was at great pains to cheerlead the progress Afghanistan had made since he ceased bombing it. "I was thrilled to see firsthand the incredible transformation that has taken place there," he said. "We like stories of young girls going to school for the first time so they can realise their full potential." Returning later to the theme, he reiterated: "We like stories, and expect stories, of young girls going to school in Afghanistan ..." Should the country's transition to American values continue unimpeded (and you might get temptingly long odds on that on certain internet betting exchanges), then it would be cheering if next time he could focus on any startling advances that may have taken hold in either of the key growth sectors mentioned above. "Five years ago," he might explain portentously, "Afghanistan's adult phoneline industry did not exist. After all, what is the point of asking someone what she is wearing when the answer is always 'a blue burkha'? Today, thanks to Operation Tell Me We're Not Still Here, this hugely symbolic sector of the economy is thriving, and that burkha has become blue underwear, or blue fluffy handcuffs. We like stories like this. We like them and expect them. And our Afghan brothers and sisters should take pride in that ..." Indeed, why stop there? In Iraq, he and Mr Blair could purchase late-night television advertising spots, perhaps panning over the San Fernando valley and billed as a five-minute freeview of capitalist democracy. "You can see much more of me if you subscribe," their seductive voiceover would run, "so get dialling. The nature of this service will not appear on your bank statement or telephone bill." Although, given the FO are paying that for you, this may not be a concern.

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali

Because of him the lame walked briskly, And the songless through him burst into melody. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (450-1058 AH/505-1111 AD) [aka: al-Ghazzali , Algazel ] is one of the great jurists, theologians and mystics of the 12th Century. He wrote on a wide range of topics including jurisprudence, theology, mysticism and philosophy. Ghazali.org (a virtual online library) provides primary research material -hundreds of full length books and articles in addition to the works of al-Ghazali. in communem delectationem Click here...

Beyond Abu Ghraib

"I have lost a year and a half of my life" 43-year-old former security detainee and father of three daughters following his release in September 2005; he alleged that he was ill-treated while held in US detention in Iraq. Introduction Nearly three years after United States (US) and allied forces invaded Iraq and toppled the government of Saddam Hussain, the human rights situation in the country remains dire. The deployment of US-led forces in Iraq and the armed response that engendered has resulted in thousands of deaths of civilians and widespread abuses amid the ongoing conflict. As Amnesty International has reported elsewhere(1), many of the abuses occurring today are committed by armed groups opposed to the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) and the Iraqi government that it underpins. Armed groups continue to wage an uncompromising war marked by their disregard for civilian lives and the basic rules of international humanitarian law. They commit suicide and other bomb attacks which either target civilians or while aimed at military objectives are disproportionate in terms of causing civilian casualties, and they abduct and hold victims hostage, threatening and often taking their lives. Amnesty International condemns these abuses, some of which are so egregious as to constitute crimes against humanity, in addition to war crimes, and continues to call on Iraq’s armed groups to cease such activities and abide by basic requirements of international humanitarian law. In this report, Amnesty International focuses on another part of the equation, specifically its concerns about human rights abuses for which the US-led MNF is directly responsible and those which are increasingly being committed by Iraqi security forces. The record of these forces, including US forces and their United Kingdom (UK) allies, is an unpalatable one. Despite the pre-war rhetoric and post-invasion justifications of US and UK political leaders, and their obligations under international law, from the outset the occupying forces attached insufficient weight to human rights considerations. This remains the position even if the violations by the MNF that are the subject of this report do not have the same graphic, shock quality as the images that emerged in April 2004 and February 2006 showing inmates being tortured and humiliated by US guards at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison and Iraqi youth being beaten by UK troops after they were apprehended during a riot. The same failure to ensure due process that prevailed then, however, and facilitated - perhaps even encouraged such abuses – is evidenced today by the continuing detentions without charge or trial of thousands of people in Iraq who are classified by the MNF as "security internees". The MNF has established procedures which deprive detainees of human rights guaranteed in international human rights law and standards. In particular, the MNF denies detainees their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court. Some of the detainees have been held for over two years without any effective remedy or recourse; others have been released without explanation or apology or reparation after months in detention, victims of a system that is arbitrary and a recipe for abuse. Many cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in facilities controlled by the Iraqi authorities have been reported since the handover of power in June 2004. Among other methods, victims have been subjected to electric shocks or have been beaten with plastic cables. The picture that is emerging is one in which the Iraqi authorities are systematically violating the rights of detainees in breach of guarantees contained both in Iraqi legislation and in international law and standards – including the right not to be tortured and to be promptly brought before a judge. Amnesty International is concerned that neither the MNF nor Iraqi authorities have established sufficient safeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment. It is particularly worrying that, despite reports of torture or ill-treatment by US and UK forces and the Iraqi authorities, for thousands of detainees access to the outside world continues to be restricted or delayed. Under conditions where monitoring of detention facilities by independent bodies is restricted – not least, due to the perilous security situation – measures which impose further limitations on the contact detainees may have with legal counsel or relatives increase the risk that they will be subject to torture or other forms of abuse. Amnesty International is calling on the Iraqi, US and UK authorities, who both operate detention facilities where persons detained by the MNF are held, to take urgent, concrete steps to ensure that the fundamental human rights of all detainees in Iraq are respected. In particular, these authorities must urgently put in place adequate safeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment. This includes ensuring that all allegations of such abuse are subject to prompt, thorough and independent investigation and that any military, security or other officials found to have used, ordered or authorized torture are brought to justice. It includes too ensuring that detainees are able effectively to challenge their detention before a court; the right to do so constitutes a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment, and is one of the non-derogable rights which states are bound to uphold in all circumstances, even in time of war or national emergency.(2) Read more...

Fans and Rebuke Greet Women Writers

Ebtihal Mubarak, Arab News —

RIYADH, 3 March 2006 — Women for the first time in the history of the Riyadh International Book Fair were allowed to meet their fans. These inaugural book signings, which occurred on Wednesday — the day reserved for families — were not announced in advance like the ones for men authors. Nevertheless, fans of poet Fawziyah Abu Khaled and novelist Ala’a Al-Hathlol flocked around tables for a chance to meet their literary heroines. Despite the lack of publicity for the occasion, another group showed up to greet the women writers: Men, some of whom were visibly wearing badges identifying themselves as members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.. This Arab News reporter went to the book-signing section of the fair, elbowing through the crowd of women autograph seekers surrounding the two women writers. Though her works are difficult to find in the Kingdom, Fawziyah told Arab News that she felt “really great” to be signing her works in her home country. Young novelist Ala’a Al-Hathlol agreed, and praised the fair’s organizers for allowing them the unique opportunity. The commission members, on the other hand, went about their work. They raised their voice demanding that the two women cover their faces. The women were modestly attired, wearing abayas and headscarves, showing no hair. The fair’s general manager, Suliman Al-Aqla, later told Arab News that he had no power over the presence of the commission members and that there was nothing fair organizers could do to stop their intervention. “It is really humiliating to be treated this way,” said Ala’a Al-Hathlol during the signing. She said that throughout her book signing, some commission members kept coming up to her shouting. She is a Muslim, she said, and no one has the right to judge people and treat them in such a manner. She ignored the shouts from them and continued to sign her books. Later, it was poet Fawziyah’s turn to receive a dose of verbal attack. It was even harder for Arab News to indulge in a conversation with Fawziyah. She said harassment from some commission members made her feel insecure. During the interview, some men were standing in front of the book-signing section yelling at the poet, telling her that if she was an educated woman she wouldn’t be sitting in front of men showing her face. “If you argue with them they won’t go, just don’t answer them back,” a security man said to Fawziyah. Finally, she could not take it any more and told the men politely that she is wearing an abaya and covering her hair. She told them that many Islamic schools do not oblige women to cover their face. The men replied to her that she was wrong, that covering the face is a must. One man blocked the entrance to the signing area, shouting at the book fair organizers to erect a partition. “Why are you harassing her? She is a poet signing a book. What’s wrong with that?” asked one of the women standing next to Fawziyah. “Mind your own business, woman,” replied one of the men. Not one fair organizer appeared. The men later left with a threat to put an end to the book signing. Arab News called one of the fair organizers from the Ministry of Education and asked him to come and help end this confrontation. General Manager Al-Aqla arrived, but he had no answer when Arab News asked him how they could provide safety to writers invited by the ministry. He left ten minutes later. The fair visitors started to re-congregate after the intrusion. Calmly, Fawziyah said she was not discouraged. She said that this year’s book fair had attained a higher degree of freedom in terms of the books offered. She said that having a family day is a positive step. “It is really overwhelming to see the parents shopping for books with their children,” she said. The book signing concluded without any other incident.

Civil strife is not the only conflict for Iraq's Shias

An internal struggle for power has put the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr back at centre stage - and the Americans won't like it

Jonathan Steele Friday March 3, 2006

Guardian

It was the moment feared by everyone in Iraq, whether foreigner or Iraqi. Our car was stuck in traffic in Najaf. Two men in white robes walked out in front of us and took pistols from their pockets. Opening the car's front doors, they forced the driver and translator to get out and squeeze into the back with me. A third gunman appeared and got in with us. Twenty yards away traffic police watched but did nothing. The congestion eased and our new driver inched slowly up the street. I was by the door but scotched a fleeting instinct to jump out. Bullets would surely follow.

We reached a roundabout where the driver turned back towards the centre. I felt relief. Wouldn't a safe house to hold us hostage be out of town? Perhaps our captors were plain-clothes "detectives" from the Mahdi army, the militias loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, rather than a ransom gang. Maybe our activities had aroused suspicions.

That morning I had interviewed Ahmed al-Shaibani, one of Sadr's deputies. He explained a deal that US forces had just reached with the Mahdi army about who should control public order in Najaf. I then approached two US bases to get their version. We were refused admission, but our visits were spotted, I began to think, by the cigarette sellers who hang about nearby and must have reported us to headquarters.

Back in Najaf, our captors drove to the shrine of Imam Ali and stopped by a low building at the back. Stripped of our mobile phones, we were interrogated about our trip to the US bases; they hinted that we were spies. We explained that we had not been allowed in, and had talked to Shaibani. Why not contact him and he would surely vouch for us? Luckily they agreed, and 15 minutes later the young "sheikh" appeared. He sternly ticked the gunmen off and assured us this was not the way the Mahdi army behaved to journalists.

Freed to leave, I drew two conclusions from the brief but scary encounter. Normal reporting, where you visit the "other side" of a story, was no longer possible, at least not on the same day. Lesson two was that Sadr's Mahdi army was a powerful force, a state within a state, but capable of discipline.

That was June 2004. Weeks later it was in full revolt against the Americans in a battle that left hundreds of Mahdi fighters dead and much of Najaf in ruins.

Now, as Iraq slips into greater chaos after the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra, Sadr is back at centre stage. He was one of the first Shia leaders to call for restraint and for no reprisals against Sunnis. His envoys have visited the main Sunni religious group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, to issue a joint call to imams to prevent sectarian conflict, despite the provocation. He is also a bastion against Iraq's fragmentation. He disagrees with the other leading Shia player, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), which supports a decentralised Iraq with autonomy for the mainly Shia south.

Confused and vacillating, the Americans now seem to recognise that the constitution which they helped to push through last year is a recipe for Iraq's collapse, as Sadr warned. But the US cannot forgive his consistent opposition to the occupation, which he repeated this week in the statement with the Sunni scholars. Nor have the Americans accepted Sadr's role in supporting Ibrahim al-Jaafari to remain as prime minister instead of Sciri's neoliberal economist, Adel Abdel Mahdi. With US encouragement, Kurdish leaders have launched a move to block Jaafari's reappointment.

In spite of the killing of Sunnis and Shias, the main struggle these days is an intra-Shia one. The Mahdi army attacked several Sciri offices in southern Iraq last summer, putting Sciri in a weak position everywhere, including Basra. Under cover of the latest mayhem, each side accuses the other of sending snatch teams into mixed Sunni-Shia areas to kill people. While the Mahdi army's role is hard to prove (anyone can use men in black clothes, the trademark Mahdi dress, to terrorise people), Sciri's link to death squads that have killed hundreds of Iraqis in recent months is established: a Sciri minister runs the police, who operate a network of torture centres in Baghdad, which the Americans themselves have denounced.

The US is turning against the federalism it favoured last year. Anxious to bring Sunnis into government, it advocates legislation to "implement" the constitution, but in fact to amend it - a goal that looks unlikely unless Sciri changes its line or is marginalised.

The constant talk of civil war is undermining even the hardiest secular Iraqis, though it is still far from reality. Minorities in mixed areas are slipping away to be with their "own". Community leaders and imams are targeted. But the violence is mainly imposed from above. Balkan-style pogroms where neighbour turns against neighbour, burning houses and shops, have not happened.

The Americans use the fears of civil war to give life to their mission. The International Crisis Group, a thinktank, said last week that "US forces are preventing, by their very presence and military muscle, ethnic and sectarian violence from spiralling out of control". In fact, reports from Baghdad say US troops have been standing aside, rightly worried that intervention would increase people's anger. If they can do nothing now, why expect anything else if things worsen?

Better for the US to seize the opportunity to put troop withdrawal on the table. Instead of haggling over government portfolios - which only postpones the inevitable - Iraq needs a reconciliation conference that all parties, including radical nationalists such as Sadr as well as Sunni insurgents, would be urged to attend. Its central item would be stark. What form of national salvation government could Iraqis agree to, knowing that by midsummer all occupation forces would have left? Faced with the reality of no more US and UK troops, the secondary questions follow. What would be the role of militias/insurgents? Should they disband, with some gunmen incorporated into a national army, or should they be "re-badged" as local forces to confront the minority of al-Qaida activists in Iraq? Can a UN force manned mainly by Muslim nations play a security role?

Only by ending the occupation can the ideological base be cut from under the foreign jihadis and their terror bombings. Only when Iraq's leaders accept they are on their own will they have a strong enough incentive to work together to save their faltering country.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

Publish and Perish?

A row over who can publish Naguib Mahfouz’s banned Children of the Alley in Egypt and under what circumstances has reignited debate over Al-Azhar’s role in the publishing industry

I AM AFRAID THE novel is not available,” was the response I received when I asked about the Arabic-language version of Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz’s Awlad Haretna, or Children of the Alley, at one popular downtown bookstore.

The crestfallen look on my face must have been enough for the salesman to recant his initial statement. “Come back in an hour and I can give you a copy,” he murmured to me

“How much will it cost?” I asked.

“I can give it to you for LE 50,” was the reply.

An hour was all it took to discover that the novel, deemed blasphemous by religious scholars when it was first published in the 1950s and promptly banned, is readily available on the black market. Although most newspaper sellers surveyed said they could provide me with a copy within a few days, prices were all over the map, topping out at LE 70.

Omar Sayed, a Downtown newspaper seller, offered the lowest price: LE 25. Sayed says he has sold about eight copies of the novel in the past couple of months, claiming the copies he sells were of the Lebanese edition, then smuggled into Egypt by Arab tourists. “I keep those copies for my favorite clients. If an ordinary customer comes to me and asks about it, I tell him that I do not have it that’s because we heard it was banned,” says Sayed.

It was soon time to go back and see if my copy was ready for me. The salesman had left it with one of his colleagues. At the cash register, the cashier flipped the book on its face. When I tried to turn it around to have a look at the cover, he snatched it out of my hands, murmuring angrily: “No! This book is banned.” Once out of the bookstore, I discovered I was one of the lucky clients: mine was a Lebanese edition published in Beirut in 1986 — with no price tag.

Children of the Alley, which was among the four works that qualified Mahfouz for the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1988, has never been published in book form in Egypt. With the work having been banned several times by Al-Azhar, Mahfouz still insists he will not print it without the official endorsement of the seat of Sunni religious learning.

But a recent announcement that a state-owned publishing house would print the novel here for the first time has reignited a debate in intellectual circles on the role of the oldest Sunni institution in regulating literature. Read more...

Onward Christian Organizers

By David Hilfiker I don't always find the invisibility comforting. Almost any column in any progressive magazine analyzing the reactionary politics of the far right these days will at some point get around to taking a hard look at the Christian right that has given so much energy and supplied so many foot soldiers to that movement. Fair enough! It's a disturbing connection that should be teased apart. But then, it seems, the lefty columnist sometimes can't resist the temptation to lump all Christians together, as if everyone who believed in God and tried to follow Jesus cared only about preventing gay marriage and making abortion illegal.

As a Christian -- and a leftist -- myself, I can take the occasional lampooning, but it makes me wonder whether you on the secular left, especially the intelligentsia, realize I'm here, realize how many of the foot soldiers of the Left are Christians (or other religious people) whose activism springs from deeply held faith. The first recorded words of the young man I do my best to follow are that he was sent to "proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free." It's not just a liberal agenda, but a radical one.

I don't have much in common with Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr, or Cesar Chavez, except this: We all are (or were) Christian, and we've each spent much of our adult lives in the trenches of the movement for peace and justice. Most of those who have gone to prison for long sentences for hammering on nuclear warheads, or stopping nuclear trains, or crossing the line at military bases have been Christians, and they have often submitted to those long sentences because they believed their faith gave them no other option and would sustain them in the dark months of prison.

The four members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), kidnapped and still in captivity in Iraq, went to that country fully cognizant of the dangers of abduction but believing that their faith called them to peacemaking. Indeed, CPT is one of the few western non-governmental agencies left in Iraq, having been there almost continuously since before the 2003 invasion. Within three months of the fall of Baghdad to American troops, long before the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced, Christian Peacemakers were actively documenting and reporting the ways in which Iraqi detainees were being abused in prison. All because of their Christian convictions.

We're not (mostly) looking for accolades or more attention, but perhaps you should understand that not all religious people are your enemies or ascribe to us imperialist or conquering missionary visions. As a physician and writer, I've been working in the inner city of Washington D.C. for more than two decades as part of a network of institutions initiated and maintained by people from one church with less than 150 members. As part of those efforts:

* Jubilee Housing has offered low-cost housing to hundreds of low-income residents for over thirty years. * Columbia Road Health Services has provided medical care for homeless people and other low-income people from around the city for almost thirty years.

* Jubilee Jobs helps place over 1,000 people a year in entry-level jobs and then returns a year later to assist them in obtaining living-wage jobs. It's active in the District's living-wage campaign.

* Christ House is a 34-bed infirmary for homeless men and women too sick to be on the streets yet not sick enough to be in the hospital.

* Joseph's House and Miriam's House offer home, community, and hospice care to homeless men and women with AIDS and cancer.

* Samaritan Inns provides intensive in-patient recovery for men and women with addictions and then 6-month follow-up programs and long-term housing for hundreds.

* Manna has built close to 1,000 houses for very low-income people to purchase. * Academy of Hope is one of the largest adult education programs in the city. All of these organizations hire and serve religious and non-religious people without distinction; all began well before anyone talked about "faith-based initiatives." And that's just a very partial list. And from only one faith community. Indeed, take away the institutions in Washington DC that have been initiated and largely maintained by people of faith and there's not much left in the way of non-governmental services specifically for the poor. I doubt it's strikingly different in other cities around the country.

And it's not only in charity work but also in activism for justice that we're present. Bread for the World organizes churches politically to speak out on issues of world hunger. While the Children's Defense Fund isn't overtly religious, its founder and director Marian Wright Edelman is a deeply spiritual Christian as are many of its workers. Most of the liberal churches have offices in Washington, lobbying for peace and justice.

We're your friends. You may not have noticed us because most of us don't proselytize for our faith; we hope to be the body of Jesus, not talk about it. And we aren't actually out to convert you to our religion, although we will try to convert others to our work for the poor and the oppressed. In fact, the only time Jesus is recorded as having said anything about who is going to be rewarded and who punished, he gave the good word to anyone who saw the poorest of the hungry and gave them something to eat, the thirsty and gave them something to drink, strangers and invited them in, those needing clothes and clothed them, those who were sick and looked after them, those in prison and came to visit them. It doesn't really matter whether you "praise the Lord" or, in fact, what you say about what you believe. What counts for us is what you do for the poor and oppressed.

I'm as frustrated as you by the Christian right. Any Christian who believes that homosexuality is a more important issue than justice for the poor just hasn't read his Bible straight. But religion (of any stripe) has always been hijacked to support the Establishment; God is made captive to the King, and the poor have to approach God on the King's terms. That's not the faith that Jesus proclaimed.

So, give us a break. Not all Christians are alike, and more of us, I suspect, are on your side than on the other. David Hilfiker spent his medical career as a physician with low-income people in rural Minnesota and inner-city Washington DC. No longer in active practice, he is the Finance Director for Joseph's House, a ten-bed home and community for formerly homeless men with AIDS. Along with numerous articles, he is the author of three books, Healing the Wounds: A Physician Looks at His Work, Not All of Us Are Saints, and most recently, Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen (Seven Stories Press).

Copyright 2006 David Hilfiker

Surely Americans will not put up with this censorship

The decision by a New York theatre to cave in to pressure over our play shows how the scope for free debate has narrowed

Katharine Viner Wednesday March 1, 2006

Guardian

The flights for cast and crew had been booked; the production schedule delivered; the press announcement drafted and approved; tickets advertised on the internet. The Royal Court production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie, the play I co-edited with Alan Rickman, was transferring next month to the New York Theatre Workshop, home of the groundbreaking musical Rent, following two sellout runs in London and several awards.

We always thought that it was a piece of work that needed to be seen in the US. Created from the journals and emails of American activist Rachel Corrie, telling of her journey from her adolescent life in Seattle, Washington, to her death under a bulldozer in Gaza at the age of 23, we considered it, in a sense, to be an American story, which would have a particular relevance for audiences in Rachel's home country. After all, she had made her journey to the Middle East in order "to meet the people who are on the receiving end of our [American] tax dollars", and she was a killed by a US-made bulldozer.

But last week the New York Theatre Workshop cancelled the production - or, in their words, "postponed it indefinitely". The political climate, we were told, had changed dramatically since the play was booked. As James Nicola, the theatre's artistic director, said yesterday: "In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon's illness and the election of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections, we had a very edgy situation." Rachel was to be censored for political reasons.

It makes you wonder. If a young, middle-class, scrupulously fair-minded, and dead, American woman, whose superb writing about her job as a mental health worker, ex-boyfriends, troublesome parents, struggle to find out who she wanted to be, and how she found that by travelling to Gaza and discovering the shocking conditions under which the Palestinians live - if a voice like this cannot be heard on a New York stage, what hope is there for anyone else? The non-American, the non-white, the non-dead, the oppressed?

Anyone who sees the play, or reads it, realises that this is no piece of alienating agitprop. One night in London, a group of American students came to a performance and mobbed us afterwards, thrilled that they had seen themselves on stage, and who they might, in a different life, have become. Another night, an Israeli couple, members of the rightwing Likud party, on holiday in Britain, were similarly impressed. "The play wasn't against Israel, it was against violence," they told Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother. I was particularly touched by a young Jewish New Yorker, from an Orthodox family, who said that he had been nervous about coming to see My Name Is Rachel Corrie, because he had been told that both she and it were viciously anti-Israel. But he had been powerfully moved by Rachel's words and realised that he had, to his alarm, been dangerously misled.

But the director of the New York theatre told the New York Times yesterday that it wasn't the people who actually saw the play he was concerned about. "I don't think we were worried about the audience," he said. "I think we were more worried that those who had never encountered her writing, never encountered the piece, would be using this as an opportunity to position their arguments." Since when did theatre come to be about those who don't go to see it? If the play itself, as Mr Nicola clearly concedes, is not the problem, then isn't the answer to get people in to watch it, rather than exercising prior censorship? With freedom of speech now at the top of the international agenda, and George Clooney's outstanding Good Night, and Good Luck reminding us of the dangers of not standing up to witch-hunts, Americans should not be denied the right to hear Rachel Corrie's words - words that only two weeks ago were deemed acceptable.

I'd heard from American friends that life for dissenters had been getting worse - wiretapping scandals, arrests for wearing anti-war T-shirts, Muslim professors denied visas. But it's hard to tell from afar how bad things really are. Here was personal proof that the political climate is continuing to shift disturbingly, narrowing the scope of free debate and artistic expression. What was acceptable a matter of weeks ago is not acceptable now. The New York theatre's claim that the arrangement was tentative is absurd: the truth is that its management has caved in to political pressure, and the reputation of the arts in New York is the poorer for it.

It is surely underestimating the curiosity and robustness of the American public, many of whom would no doubt be interested in an insight into the reality of occupation that led to the Hamas victory. Artistic communities need to resist the censorship of voices that go against the grain of George Bush's America, rather than following the Fox News agenda and gagging them before they have even been heard.

· My Name Is Rachel Corrie will now be shown at the Playhouse theatre in London's West End from March 28; booking number 0870 060 6631

k.viner@guardian.co.uk

In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows. Its descriptions have relied on gross approximations and crude categories (Saddamists, Islamo-fascists and the like) that bear only passing resemblance to reality. This report, based on close analysis of the insurgents’ own discourse, reveals relatively few groups, less divided between nationalists and foreign jihadis than assumed, whose strategy and tactics have evolved (in response to U.S. actions and to maximise acceptance by Sunni Arabs), and whose confidence in defeating the occupation is rising. An anti-insurgency approach primarily focused on reducing the insurgents’ perceived legitimacy – rather than achieving their military destruction, decapitation and dislocation – is far more likely to succeed.

Failure to sufficiently take into account what the insurgents are saying is puzzling and, from Washington’s perspective, counter-productive. Abundant material – both undervalued and underutilised – is available from insurgent websites, internet chat, videos, tapes and leaflets. Over the past two years such communication has assumed more importance, both among insurgent groups and between groups and their networks of supporters or sympathisers. This report, the first exhaustive analysis of the organised armed opposition’s discourse, seeks to fill the gap, and the lessons are sobering.

Textual analysis has its limitations. The information by definition sheds light only on those who choose to speak, and only about that which they discuss in public. Wartime communication is part information, part propaganda; insurgents highlight their nobleness, tactical exploits and ingenuity while downplaying brutality and setbacks. Without knowing more of the groups’ inner workings, it is hazardous to speculate on the reasons behind specific communications.

Still, the discourse offers a window into the insurgency. It tells us about themes insurgents consider best to mobilise activists or legitimise actions, and gives us information on internal debates and levels of coordination, and about shifts in tactics and strategy. This war, U.S. officials concede, will be won as much in the court of public opinion as on any battlefield. The U.S administration faces an increasingly sceptical domestic audience; Iraq’s authorities suffer from a serious credibility deficit at home; and insurgents must contend with accusations of sectarianism and barbaric violence. For the U.S. to ignore, or fail to fully take into account, the insurgents’ discourse – at a time when they are paying close attention to what Washington is saying – is to wage the struggle with one hand tied behind its back.

Click here for full report...

Baby Bush go home

I'm secretly in love with Arundhati Roy.....sigh.... Arundhati Roy Wednesday March 1, 2006

Guardian

On his triumphalist tour of this part of the world, where he hopes to wave imperiously at people he considers potential subjects, President Bush's itinerary is getting curiouser and curiouser. For his March 2 pit stop in New Delhi, the Indian government tried very hard to have him address our Parliament. A not inconsequential number of MPs threatened to heckle him, so Plan One was hastily shelved. Plan Two was that he address the masses from the ramparts of the magnificent Red Fort where the Indian prime minister traditionally delivers his Independence Day address. But the Red Fort, surrounded as it is by the predominantly Muslim population of Old Delhi, was considered a security nightmare. So now we're into Plan Three: President George Bush speaks from Purana Qila, the Old Fort.

Ironic, isn't it, that the only safe public space for a man who has recently been so enthusiastic about India's modernity should be a crumbling medieval fort?

Since the Purana Qila also houses the Delhi zoo - George Bush's audience will be a few hundred caged animals and an approved list of caged human beings who in India go under the category of "eminent persons". They're mostly rich folk who live in our poor country like captive animals, incarcerated by their own wealth, locked and barred in their gilded cages, protecting themselves from the threat of the vulgar and unruly multitudes whom they have systematically dispossessed over the centuries.

So what's going to happen to George W Bush? Will the gorillas cheer him on? Will the gibbons curl their lips? Will the brow-antlered deer sneer? Will the chimps make rude noises? Will the owls hoot? Will the lions yawn and the giraffes bat their beautiful eyelashes? Will the crocs recognise a kindred soul? Will the quails give thanks that Bush isn't travelling with Dick Cheney, his hunting partner with the notoriously bad aim? Will the CEOs agree?

Oh, and on March 2 Bush will be taken to visit Gandhi's memorial in Rajghat. He's by no means the only war criminal who has been invited by the Indian government to lay flowers at Rajghat. (Only recently we had the Burmese dictator General Than Shwe, no shrinking violet himself.) But when George Bush places flowers on that famous slab of highly polished stone, millions of Indians will wince. It will be as though he has poured a pint of blood on the memory of Gandhi.

We really would prefer that he didn't.

It is not in our power stop Bush's visit. It is in our power to protest it, and we will. The government, the police and the corporate press will do everything they can to minimise the extent of our outrage. Nothing the Happy-news Papers say can change the fact that all over India, from the biggest cities to the smallest villages, in public places and private homes, George W Bush, incumbent president of the United States of America, world nightmare incarnate, is just not welcome.