Afghanistan, Five Years Later

Five Years Into War, The Taliban Has Resurged, And The Country Is Far From Won Over
By FISNIK ABRASHI and JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press

Oct 7, 2006 DASHTAK, Afghanistan -- The village of Dashtak sits on a bumpy, washed-out specter of a road, an hour's drive off the main highway between Kabul and Afghanistan's lawless southeast. It has 16 new wells financed by an aid agency. But the village men who gather around a visiting journalist offer a litany of complaints: no paved roads, no running water, no electricity, and the closest health clinic is two hours away by donkey. Their frustration boils over when talk turns to 10 villagers recently arrested on suspicion of aiding insurgents. I swear to you, I have not seen a single dollar bill. I do not know its size or color, said Shah Mahmood, a 55-year-old with a long white beard and stark black turban. We are dying from lack of food and water and they call us al Qaeda or Taliban. Five years into the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the country is far from won over, or even safely on the path to stability and democracy. The hard-line Islamic Taliban that appeared down and out has returned with a vengeance, taking control of large swaths of countryside. Widespread poverty has smoothed its way, shaking what little confidence Afghans have in their democratically elected government. More than 3,000 people have been killed in rising violence this year. Suicide bombers are targeting ordinary Afghans and Western troops. Militants are assassinating key political figures, burning down schools and using roadside bombs to deadly effect. The 40,000 U.S. and NATO troops appear further away from bringing stability than they did three years ago when their number was 2 times smaller. And Osama bin Laden, whose presence here was a trigger for the U.S.-led attack, is still at large, possibly hiding in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This is likely to be a long war, said Seth Jones, an analyst with the U.S.-based RAND Corp. That Afghanistan's future would remain in doubt today was almost unthinkable when the U.S.-led rout of the Taliban began on Oct. 7, 2001. The military campaign that captured Kabul, the capital, in just over a month resulted in a wave of optimism across Afghanistan, a country that had known little except war for a quarter century. Emerging from the Taliban's repression, the nation embraced renewed freedoms. Millions of Afghans voted for a new president in 2004 and parliament in 2005. Afghan girls once banned from schools became free to attend class, and citizens could again fly kites or listen to music without risking the wrath of the Ministry of Vice and Virtue. But despite billions plowed into new roads, clinics and schools, development lags in the volatile ethnic Pashtun areas in the south and east, and corruption has helped the Taliban to take root once again. Making matters worse, drug production that was virtually wiped out by the Taliban by 2001 has skyrocketed. Afghan farmers grew enough opium in 2005-06 to make 610 tons of heroin more than all the world's addicts consume in a year. Profits go to Taliban supporters and to corrupt government officials and police, who like teachers and soldiers, make only $70 a month. Our police are doing all of those crimes that they have a duty to stop, said Shamsul Haq, a 48-year-old grape farmer and car salesman from the Taliban's former seat of power in Kandahar. And in some areas, there are no authorities to bribe. Said Jawad, the Afghan ambassador to the United States, noted that Uruzgan, a southern province about the size of West Virginia, has only 45 police officers. No one is checking into poppies because there is no police force, Jawad said. (And) a person who enlists probably is already thinking about abusing his position. Large areas of southern and eastern provinces near the Pakistan border are under Taliban control, said Ayesha Khan, an Afghanistan expert in Britain. Abdul Salaam Rocketi, a lawmaker and former Taliban commander, ticks off the militant strongholds: Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan, Zabul, Paktika, Khost, Kunar and Ghazni provinces. When 8,000 NATO troops moved to the border area this year to extend the government's control, they were surprised by the intensity of the resistance, often in pitched battles. More than 3,000 people, mostly militants, have been killed nationwide in 2006, according to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials. The tally, also including Afghan security forces, officials and civilians, is about 1,500 more than the toll for all of 2005. Western casualties have been rising, too 152 foreign troops killed this year, according to the Web site icasualties.org that tracks foreign troop fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's almost triple the number of deaths in 2003 or 2004. Of the 280 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001, 69 have died in nine months this year. NATO countries Britain and Canada are reeling from recent losses, including 10 Canadians killed last month. The war's cost for U.S. taxpayers: $97 billion, and Congress just appropriated $70 billion more for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, where the United States makes up the overwhelming majority of the international force, Afghanistan is a broad coalition. The world's most powerful nations continue to work side by side in pursuit of the same declared aim: stabilizing the country and bolstering economic recovery. But Richard Norland, the U.S. deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, said that the sense of progress has kind of abated lately. You have these villagers in the remote part of distant provinces who are in between the promise of government showing up and providing services and development on the one hand, and Taliban guys with guns on the other, Norland said. If they do not believe that the government is really coming, they will go to the Taliban, and we are seeing that in some cases on a small scale. But it needs to be stopped. It's a dangerous trend. Christopher Alexander, deputy head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, worries about the Taliban resurgence fed by local discontent. We do not think that this conflict can be resolved militarily, because that is the lesson of conflict and war, he said. Political settlement must come into play at some point. RAND analyst Jones said insurgencies are defeated only slowly, an average of 14 years in previous conflicts. That's a long time for a desperate country. Most of Afghanistan's 30 million people lead difficult lives. The poverty rate is estimated at 50 percent, unemployment at 40 percent. Clean water, electricity and advanced medical care are luxuries. Drought is a chronic problem. The average life expectancy is only 43 years. The United States Agency for International Development has poured $4.3 billion into Afghanistan, refurbishing or building more than 500 schools and 500 health care clinics. Thousands of miles of road have been paved a prerequisite for expansion of commerce and industry and government offices are being built nationwide. But Joanna Nathan, an analyst for the International Crisis Group which monitors war zones, said infrastructure alone isn't a path to victory. It is all very well handing out things and building buildings, but this will not make people love a corrupt local leader imposed on them, she said. And if it is not accompanied by efforts to build institutions, then it is probably not sustainable. An estimated 5 million to 6 million Afghan children now attend school about a third of them girls compared with 900,000 in 2000, said Leon Waskin, the director of USAID. But attacks on schools are increasing, too, in a bid to undermine girls' education and the government's authority. Militants last year burned down or attacked 146 schools and already this year have attacked 158, the Education Ministry says. President Hamid Karzai recently told the U.N. General Assembly there are 200,000 fewer children in school today than two years ago. The Taliban's spread undermines Karzai's government, but the Taliban growth is based more on intimidation than true support, experts say. Many of its fighters are village men needing a paycheck, not loyalists, and Taliban fighters get sanctuary because of their guns. A Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan, Mullah Hamidullah, told The Associated Press by phone from an undisclosed location: First the U.S. alliance needs to leave the country, and when they do the Taliban will implement an Islamic government in all of Afghanistan. Norland, the deputy U.S. ambassador, said the pace of Western support must accelerate. The U.S. walked away from Afghanistan in the 1990s, he said, and the Taliban took over. I don't believe that America would want to be accused of doing the same thing twice. And Abdullah Abdullah, Afghanistan's former foreign minister, said a pullout would be a big, disastrous disappointment for the people of Afghanistan.

The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

It is with great sadness...

It is with great sadness that I announce the death of a very dear family friend's youngest son. Sr. Magda's son, Yusef, passed away last evening around maghrib time. He was only 4 years old.

Khale Magda was not only my high school teacher/principal/advisor, she was a friend, a sister, a mentor, and like a second mother to me. May Allah (swt) ease her pain.

Let us be there for the Saleh family just as they have been there for the community for the past 15 years. Please keep them in your duas as they endure such trying times.

Pop Culture in the Name of Islam??

Here we go again with another one of Miss Yvonne's self-righteous articles...she's still left a bad taste in my mouth after I met her back in '04. Even an amateur can tell she doesn't do nearly enough research before writing/saying the rubbish that she does. Below her article is Sami Yusuf's response.

Pop Culture in the Name of Islam
YVONNE RIDLEY
Monday,
April 24, 2006

I FEEL very uncomfortable about the pop culture which is growing
around some so-called Nasheed artists. Of course I use the term ‘Nasheed
artists' very lightly. Islamic ‘boy bands' and Muslim ‘popsters' would probably
be more appropriate. Eminent scholars throughout history have often opined that
music is haram, and I don't recall reading anything about the Sahaba whooping it
up to the sound of music. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for people letting off
steam, but in a dignified manner and one which is appropriate to their
surroundings. The reason I am expressing concern is that just a few days
ago at a venue in Central London, sisters went wild in the aisles as some form
of pop-mania swept through the concert venue. And I'm not just talking about
silly, little girls who don't know any better; I am talking about sisters in
their 20's, 30's and 40's, who squealed, shouted, swayed and danced. Even the
security guys who looked more like pipe cleaners than bulldozers were left
looking dazed and confused as they tried to stop hijabi sisters from standing on
their chairs. Of course the stage groupies did not help at all as they waved and
encouraged the largely female Muslim crowd to "get up and sing along." (They're
called ‘Fluffers' in lap-dancing circles!) The source of all this
adulation was British-born Sami Yusuf, who is so proud of his claret-colored
passport that he wants us all to wave the Union Jacks. I'm amazed he didn't
encourage his fans to sing "Land of Hope and Glory." Brother Sami asked his
audience to cheer if they were proud to be British ,and when they responded
loudly, he said he couldn't hear them and asked them to cheer again. How
can anyone be proud to be British? Britain is the third most hated country in
the world. The Union Jack is drenched in the blood of our brothers and sisters
across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Our history is steeped in the blood of
colonialism, rooted in slavery, brutality, torture, and oppression. And we
haven't had a decent game of soccer since we lifted the World Cup in
1966. Apparently Sami also said one of the selling points of Brand UK was
having Muslims in the Metropolitan Police Force! Astafur'Allah! Dude, these are
the same cops who have a shoot-to-kill policy and would have gunned down a
Muslim last year if they could tell the difference between a Bangladeshi and a
Brazilian. This is the same police force that has raided more than 3000 Muslim
homes in Britain since 9/11. What sort of life is there on Planet Sami, I
wonder? If he is so proud to be British, why is he living in the great Middle
Eastern democracy of Egypt? Apparently the sort of hysteria Sami helped
encourage is also in America, and if it is happening on both sides of the
Atlantic, then it must be creeping around the globe and poisoning the masses.
Islamic boy bands like 786 and Mecca 2 Medina are also the subject of the sort
of female adulation you expect to see on American Pop Idol or the X-Factor.
Surely Islamic events should be promoting restrained and more sedate
behavior. Do we blame the out-of-control sisters? Or do we blame the
organizers for allowing this sort of excessive behavior which demeans Islam? Or
do we blame the artists themselves? Abu Ali and Abu Abdul Malik, struggling
for their Deen, would certainly not try to whip up this sort of hysteria.
Neither would the anonymous heroic Nasheed artists who sing for freedom; check
out Idhrib Ya Asad Fallujah, and you will know exactly what I
mean. Fallujah is now synonymous with the sort of heroic resistance that
elevated the Palestinians of Jenin to the ranks of the resistance written about
in the Paris Communeand the Siege of Leningrad. The US military has banned the
playing of any Nasheeds about Fallujah because of the power and the passion it
evokes. If those Nasheeds had sisters running in the streets whooping and
dancing, however, the Nasheeds may be encouraged because of haram activity
surrounding them.Quite frankly, I really don't know how anyone in the Ummah can
really let go and scream and shout with joy at pleasure domes when there is so
much brutality and suffering going on in the world today. The rivers of blood
flow freely from the veins of our brothers and sisters from across the Muslim
world. Screaming and shouting the names of musical heroes drown out the screams
coming from the dungeons of Uzbekistan where brothers and sisters are boiled
alive in vats of water. How many will jump up and down and wave their arms in
the air, shouting wildly for justice for our kin in Kashmir, Afghanistan,
Chechnya, Palestine, and Iraq? There are many more killing fields as well across
the Asian and Arab world. Will you climb on theater chairs and express your rage
over Guantanamo Bay and other gulags where our brothers and sisters are being
tortured, raped, sodomized, beaten, and burned? Or will you just switch off this
concerned sister and switch on to the likes of Sami Yusuf because he can sell
you a pipe dream with his soothing words and melodic voice? Oh, Muslims,
wake up! The Ummah is not bleeding; it is hemorrhaging. Listen not to what
is haram. Listen to the pain of your global family.

Open Letter From Sami Yusuf to Yvonne Riddley 17/06/06

Dear Yvonne,
Peace and blessings of God be upon you.
Your recent article on ‘Pop Culture in the Name of Islam’ has been brought to my attention. I commend you for voicing your opinion and raising some very important issues – albeit in a very provocative manner. I thought it would be useful to share some of my thoughts with you on this matter.
As a Muslim artist, I regularly seek clarification and advice from world-renowned scholars on art, music, singing and culture. Be informed that the subject of music is one of the most controversial topics in Islamic Jurisprudence. I respect those who consider music to be haram. Yes eminent scholars of our past have opined such. However, I respect and follow the opinion of other eminent scholars – classical and contemporary, who permit singing and the use of musical instruments. The well-established jurisprudential rule states that ‘in matters where there is ikhtilaf (differences of opinion) there is to be no condemnation of either opinion.’ This is from the beauty of the religion of Islam. The diversity of our cultural, legal and social traditions is something we are in dire need of celebrating not condemning. So let’s agree to disagree on this one.

The obsessive fascination of fans towards any celebrity - be it in arts, music, politics, media, etc - to the point of hysteria and hero-worshipping is definitely unhealthy not to mention un-Islamic. Of course, as Muslims, we are required to abide by certain etiquettes in whatever situation we may find ourselves in. However, I definitely did not see girls dancing or behaving indecently in any of my concerts. To state otherwise is a gross exaggeration if not an outright fallacy. And if indeed that did take place then let’s deal with it in the true Prophetic tradition - a tradition that imparts love, mercy, tolerance and wisdom. Let me share with you the story of the Bedouin who came to the Prophet’s mosque and started urinating in the mosque itself. The Companions rushed to grab him and give him a ‘good beating.’ But the Prophet did not allow them to do so and told them to let him be. After the Bedouin had urinated, the Prophet asked his Companions to bring a bucket of water and wash the place. Afterwards he called the man and with gentleness and affection explained to him that this was a place of worship and that it should be kept clean. Though I have to say that had the Bedouin been around today he would be lucky to get away with just a ‘good beating’!

Indeed the state of contemporary mainstream music is one dominated by celebrity worship, materialism and the constant promotion of a consumerist culture that seeks only to derive instant emotional and physical gratification. The arts industry in general – and the music industry specifically – is being commercialised at the expense of art itself. We don’t value good art or good music anymore – it’s about what can sell most in the market. In the midst of all this, it is upon all conscious and responsible artists who look beyond the commercial to work in refining arts and music. Apart from entertaining audiences, music is a powerful medium to communicate values and social messages. In these times where heinous crimes against humanity are being committed, we as artists – Muslims or non-Muslims, British or non-British – have a duty to use this medium to bring some sanity to this world of unrest, fear, violence, terror and war. Human life and dignity are values that should be cherished and championed by all. Had you listened carefully to the songs in my latest album which is actually entitled ‘My Ummah’ before hastily passing judgements, you would have noticed my modest attempt at addressing issues facing the global Muslim community – such as regaining our lost legacy in all spheres of human life, oppression in different parts of the Muslim world, Aids, landmines, poverty and freedom to wear the hijab.

This leads me to another important issue which you raised – that of identity and culture. Who are we? How do we define ourselves? What do we stand for? Let me remind you again – I am a British Muslim. Proud to be Muslim and proud to be British! Why? Because this is what Islam teaches me to be – loyal towards my faith and my country. Throughout our rich history, wherever Muslims settled they adopted and fused the best aspects of the local culture/society with Islamic teachings and traditions. As Dr. Umar Faruq Abdallah, a leading American Muslim scholar and thinker writes in ‘Islam the Cultural Imperative’:

In history, Islam showed itself to be culturally friendly and, in that regard, has been likened to a crystal clear river. Its waters (Islam) are pure, sweet, and life-giving but—having no color of their own—reflect the bedrock (indigenous culture) over which they flow. In China, Islam looked Chinese; in Mali, it looked African. Sustained cultural relevance to distinct peoples, diverse places, and different times underlay Islam’s long success as a global civilization.

At a time when leading Muslim scholars and thinkers have reached an advanced stage in crystallising theories of citizenship and positive integration into Western societies, any discussion of renouncing parts of our identity is simply ridiculous, dangerous and destructive – especially for someone who has no other homeland. Such emotional fist-pumping and chest-pounding about renouncing our British identity may seem attractive to a minority of Muslim youth, but as Muslims in positions of influence like yourself, we should not play to these base instincts. Rather, we should try to be more far-sighted and responsible in our discourse and not sacrifice this in the pursuit of tabloid-style sensationalist journalism.
Do you not see the Prophet of Islam shedding tears whilst migrating from Makkah – his beloved homeland to Madina despite the persecution he suffered at the hands of its people. Britain is my home. I was raised here as a child, I went to school here, most of my friends – Muslims and non-Muslims - are British and my earliest as well as fondest memories are rooted here. Does being British mean I take pride in the oppressive and exploitative colonial past of Britain? Does it mean I support the British invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Does it mean I support the Anti-Terrorism Act? Does it mean I support the erosion of civil liberties and human rights? Of course not! But Yvonne, let us be fair and not forget that it was in Britain that the world witnessed the largest anti-war demonstration – a testimony to the moral consciousness of the British public. I too was in that demonstration voicing my discontent over the foreign policies of our government. Although we have our fair share of racism, Islamophobia, discrimination, under-representation – and in no way am I claiming that we live in a utopian society, but I still believe that British society is amongst the most tolerant, open, liberal, multi-cultural and inclusive societies in the world. We don’t need to go far but Muslims in the Continent would envy the liberties and opportunities that British Muslims take for granted. Actually the real debate that needs to take place is how are we to shape this emerging British / European / Western Muslim identity and what direction it should take. I see my work a humble contribution towards that end.

You are critical of my mention that the Metropolitan Police is inclusive of Muslims. By God, who are you depending on to protect and safeguard our streets? Yes, there is no doubt that the Metropolitan Police have committed a series of grave mistakes and blunders – the recent Forest Gate incident is one such example and the Police must be held fully accountable for their actions. But we as Britons and Muslims have a religious and civic obligation to help maintain a safe and secure Britain. This actually raises serious questions about the participation of British Muslims not just in the Metropolitan Police but in mainstream civil society. We have three options as a community: [1] To assimilate and lose our cultural, ethnic and even religious roots. [2] To ghettoise and divorce ourselves from society and face extermination. [3] To positively integrate and contribute to society whilst remaining loyal to both faith and country. I – like the vast majority Muslims – have chosen option three. We need to build trust and partnerships with civil institutions and engage with them. This path entails that we be active members in our communities and societies; that we participate at all levels of society from politics to sports, from academia to arts, from business to media; that we reserve and exercise the right of dissent and criticism; that we join our fellow citizens in building a safe, peaceful, tolerant and pluralistic society that embodies the values of freedom and justice. Thus I commend you for standing in the last European Elections, General Elections and the recent Council Elections as a candidate in order to get your views heard, to make an impact, and to represent British people – although I hope you have better luck next time. Positive engagement – not anarchist ranting -– is the path we must tread.

It is true that the state of the global Muslim community is saddening but are we meant to live in perpetual grieving and lamenting and dress in black? Despite all the oppression and persecution suffered by the Prophet, he would always find time to celebrate the different joyful moments in life such as marriages, births, Eids and other happy occasions. He, peace and blessings of God be upon him, also found time to enjoy poetry and even had appointed a personal poet – the notable companion Hassan ibn Thabit.

Maintaining balance and adopting the middle way is the key in these troubled times of ours. Extremism and extremists have no place in Islam and in our civil societies. “Perished are the extremists” is a famous Prophetic tradition. Extremism is not a problem unique to Islam. Every religion, every way of life, every ideology has its puritans and those willing to distort and misinterpret it to meet their own agenda. And these are no different to those that commit acts of terror, who preach extremism, and who sow seeds of hatred in the name if Islam. There is no denying that Muslims in places like Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Chechnya are facing oppression and tragedy every day, and both the Muslim world and the West need to come together to solve these problems in the greater interest of humanity. Western governments in particular must understand that to help the majority of Muslims defeat the minority of extremists, they must assist us in eradicating the daily humiliation faced by Muslims across many parts of the world. Ending this humiliation is the only way forward for us.

You have every right to criticise and disagree with me or anyone else for that matter, and I always welcome any advice and constructive criticism for I know my defects and shortcomings are many. I am guided by the ancient wisdom which states ‘May God have mercy on the one who shows me my defects – for that is the best gift he could give me.’ However, in the Islamic tradition there are adab (ethics) of criticism and disagreement. I know you wrote your article with sincerity and zeal, but on a more personal level, I was deeply pained and saddened by the hostile tone and the vulgar style of your language that was brimming with sarcasm and was clearly un-Islamic, indecent and a gross violation of the beautiful teachings of our beloved Prophet who said “I was not sent except to perfect your manners.” Using words such as “astagfirullah dude,” “lap-dancing,” ‘whooping and dancing,” and describing the volunteer stewards as “pipe cleaners” and “bulldozers” are inappropriate to say the very least. What shocked and even angered me was the way you shamelessly insulted our pure innocent sisters who were supporting a charity concert by describing them as “fluffers”! (Incidentally, these very sisters managed to raise over £100,000 for orphans all over the world.) I – like the vast majority of those who read your article – was blissfully ignorant about the very existence of this disgusting obscene word, and I would question the wisdom of introducing it to the vocabulary of your readers. As to my performances, I always consciously endeavour to be responsible, respectable, modest and dignified on stage.

It has been my approach that whenever personal criticism is levelled at me I ignore it and get on with my work, as my philosophy in life is to build and not destroy, and to unite not divide. However, on this occasion I felt duty-bound to respond because of the dangerous ideas and notions contained in your article. Yvonne, let us work together as fellow Muslims and Britons in building a better future for our community and all human beings and strive to make our world a safer, more peaceful, tolerant and prosperous place.

Yours faithfully,
Sami Yusuf

Victory for Muslim Activists in UK

Victory for Muslim Activists in UK

May 6th, 2006



Salma Yaqoob - victory in Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath

A great deal of attention is being given to Blair and his Labor party losses in the recent local elections in England. But what is not highlighted is the remarkable victory for Muslim activists, and their allies in these elections. The Respect Party is a (sometime tenuous) coalition of Muslims and anti-war activists who have come together to create a social justice alternative to Tony Blair’s Labor that has, for all practical purposes, been a sometime poodle, and sometime attack dog for the George Bush regime in the United States.

The Respect Party has won a total of 16 local council seats, with 12 in the council of Tower Hamlet (an area with a high concentration of Bangladeshi and other Muslims). Three seats were won in the council of Newham, and possibly the most important victory was that of the prominent British Muslim activist Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham where she garnered 55% of the vote. As Yaqoob points out on her campaign page: “This constituency is one of the most deprived areas in the country … help improve the quality of life for all, and not just a few.”

It should also be noted that Yaqoob’’s candidacy was endorsed by a number of Islamic scholars and Imams (contrary to the usual stereotype). The endorsement letter stated in part that:

“She stood up and campaigned against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a brave and consistent manner. Even when others were not prepared to speak out, she has been a voice of principle.

She is a voice of reason who is respected by all the different communities – Muslim and non-Muslim presenting a positive image, whilst remaining true to the values of Islam.

It is the duty of every Muslim to support those people who stand for truth and justice – whoever they are. We urge the community to break away from the tradition or simply supporting those they have personal links with – representation and competency are the real issues. Allah says in the Qur’an:

“O you who believe! Stand up for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it goes against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, Allah is nearer to both (than you are). Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, Allah is aware of what you do.” (4:134)”

Muslim Women Shatter Stereotypes

An awesome article about how Muslim women in the US are excelling in all areas! We can be educated and still be good mothers!

Achievement and hard work make for role models

She should be one of
those red-white-and-blue success stories: An immigrant, she worked her way
through med school and now directs the laboratories of two Florida hospitals.
She passed her career drive on to her daughters: One just graduated from Thomas
M. Cooley Law School in Lansing; the other is an investigator for the Miami-Dade
State Attorney's Office.

This feminist vision of a successful
family, though, has a flaw: Shahida Shakir and her daughters, Sadia and Sofia,
are Muslim...

Source:http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060417/OPINION02/604170305/1070/OPINION

At the UN, How We Envy the World Cup

Amazing article by UN Secretary General about World Cup!!!

Kofi
A. Annan SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 2006-->Published: June 9, 2006

UNITED
NATIONS, New York You may wonder what a secretary general of the United
Nations is doing writing about football. But in fact, the World Cup makes us at
the United Nations green with envy. As the pinnacle of the only truly global
game, played in every country by every race and religion, it is one of the few
phenomena as universal as the United Nations.

You could even say it's more universal. FIFA has 207 members; we have
only 191.

But there are far better reasons to be envious. First, the World Cup is an
event in which everybody knows where their team stands, and what it did to get
there. They know who scored and how and in what minute of the game; they know
who missed the open goal; they know who saved the penalty.

I wish we had more of that sort of competition in the family of nations.
Countries openly vying for the best standing in the table of respect for human
rights, and trying to outdo one another in child survival rates or enrolment in
secondary education. States parading their performance for all the world to see.
Governments being held accountable for what actions led them to that result.

Second, the World Cup is an event that everybody on the planet loves
talking about, dissecting what their team did right, and what it could have done
differently - not to mention the other side's team.

People sitting in cafés anywhere from Buenos Aires to Beijing debate the
finer points of games endlessly, revealing an intimate knowledge not only of
their own national teams but of many of the others too, expressing themselves on
the subject with as much clarity as passion. Normally tongue-tied teenagers
suddenly become eloquent, confident, and dazzlingly analytical experts.

I wish we had more of that sort of conversation in the world at large.
Citizens consumed by the topic of how their country could do better on the Human
Development Index, or in reducing the amount of carbon emissions or the number
of new HIV infections.

Third, the World Cup is an event that takes place on a level playing field,
where every country has a chance to participate on equal terms. Only two
commodities matter in this game: talent and teamwork.

I wish we had more levelers like that in the global arena. Free and fair
exchanges without the interference of subsidies, barriers or tariffs. Every
country getting a real chance to field its strengths on the world stage.

Fourth, the World Cup is an event that illustrates the benefits of cross-
pollination between peoples and countries. More and more national teams now
welcome coaches from other countries, who bring new ways of thinking and
playing.

The same goes for the increasing number of players who, between World Cups,
represent clubs away from home. They inject new qualities into their new team,
grow from the experience, and are able to contribute even more to their home
side when they return.

In the process, they often become heroes in their adopted countries -
helping to open hearts and broaden minds.

I wish it were equally plain for all to see that human migration in general
can create triple gains - for migrants, for their countries of origin and for
the societies that receive them. That migrants not only build better lives for
themselves and their families, but are also agents of development - economic,
social and cultural - in the countries they go and work in, and in the homelands
they inspire through newly won ideas and know-how when they return.

For any country, playing in the World Cup is a matter of profound national
pride. For countries qualifying for the first time, such as my native Ghana, it
is a badge of honor. For those who are doing so after years of adversity, such
as Angola, it provides a sense of national renewal. And for those who are
currently riven by conflict, like Ivory Coast, but whose World Cup team is a
unique and powerful symbol of national unity, it inspires nothing less than the
hope of national rebirth.

Which brings me to what is perhaps most enviable of all for us at the
United Nations: The World Cup is an event in which we actually see goals being
reached.

I'm not talking only about the goals that a country scores; I also mean the
most important goal of all - being there, being part of the family of nations
and peoples, celebrating our common humanity.

I'll try to remember that when Ghana plays Italy in Hannover on June 12. Of
course, I can't promise I'll succeed.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Cultural Warmongers -- Picking a fight with a faith 1.3 billion strong

A really good article by Pat Buchanan that I just got around to reading!

American
Conservative
03/14/06
If you wish to get along with a man, you do not insult his faith. And
if you seek to persuade devout Muslims that al-Qaeda is our enemy, not Islam,
you do not condone with silence insults to the faith of a billion
people.

Understanding this, President Bush ceased to call the war on terror a
“crusade.” Visiting a mosque, he removed his shoes. He has hosted White House
gatherings for the breaking of the fast at the end of Ramadan. He sent Karen
Hughes to the State Department to improve our dismal image in the Islamic world.
He has declared more times than many of us care to recall, “Islam is a religion
of peace.”

President Bush knows we are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of
Islamic peoples, and if we are to win this struggle we must separate the Muslim
monsters from the masses. For as that great American military mind Col. John
Boyd defined it, strategy is the appending to oneself of as many centers of
power as possible and isolating your enemy from as many centers of power as
possible.

This is what makes the Mohammed cartoons so stupid and
self-destructive. They have given Islamic extremists visible proof to show pious
Muslims that the West relishes mocking what they hold most sacred: the prophet.
They have united Muslim moderates with militants in common rage against us. They
have added to the hatred of the West in the Islamic world as friends like King
Abdullah of Jordan, Presidents Mubarak of Egypt and Karzai of Afghanistan, and
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey warned us they would.

One wonders. Did the cynical Europeans learn nothing from the Salman
Rushdie episode? Did they learn nothing from the firestorm that erupted in the
Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States, post-9/11, called
Mohammed a “terrorist”?

Why then did they do this? Why did the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten
publish cartoons it knew to be so blasphemous to Muslims? Why did Le Monde,
France Soir, Die Welt, El Pais, Il Stampa republish them—on their front pages?
If a European newsman was oblivious to the probable effect among Muslims of
plastering a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban on page one, he is
too stupid to be an editor. But if he did know the near-certain effect of such
an in-your-face provocation, why would he do it? Is this the reflexive
secularist hostility of the Europress to all religious faiths on display here or
something else?

And so we come to the heart of the matter. Why? What was the motive
here? What is the game that is afoot? The rationale of the imams who ensured
that all Muslims knew of the cartoons and their contents and called for
demonstrations and assaults on Western consulates and embassies is evident. They
hate us, and they wish to drive us out of the Middle East. But what propelled
our own ideologues to prod U.S. editors to republish the cartoons in
“solidarity” with the Europeans? Who pushed George W. Bush and Condi Rice not to
condemn the cartoons but to “stand up” for the freedom to publish and defy any
“intimidation” by the Islamic world?

Answer: our cultural warmongers, who seek the same goal as their
cultural warmongers—to ignite a war of civilizations. Both want the “long war”
of which the Pentagon speaks, the “World War IV” against “Islamofascism” that is
the dream of neoconservatives and the nightmare of their countrymen.

As has been evident for some time, bin Laden and the neocons both seek
the same thing: a fight to the finish, no matter how long, no matter how many
invasions it takes, no matter how many lives are lost. For if peace were reached
between the Islamic world and the West, even a cold peace with Iran and Syria,
what would they do then?

As the provocations of Ahmadinejad are music to the ears of neocons,
for they rule out dialogue and diplomacy, the escalation of the cartoon wars
into an all-out culture war between Islam and the West has made their day. But
it has also wiped out much of the goodwill that George W. Bush has sought to
rebuild in the region.

As one explores the arguments of the provocateurs in the West for what
they are doing, on inspection all appear hollow. “We believe in the First
Amendment!” comes the blustery reply of journalists when asked why they
published the cartoons. The First Amendment protected the right of Trent Lott to
toast Strom Thurmond. But that did not save Lott from the savagery of the
neocons who demanded and got his ouster as Senate majority leader. Yet which is
the more egregious offense? To pay a birthday tribute to a century-old man who
was once a segregationist or to insult deliberately the most revered figure in
the faith of a billion people?

Daily, U.S. editors decline to publish ethnic slurs and obscene remarks
and cartoons that might offend a race or religion. This is not censorship. It is
editorial judgment. The motto of the New York Times, which declined to publish
the offending cartoons, is “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

Conservatives contend that Islamic nations tolerate cartoons and TV
shows far more viciously anti-Semitic than these cartoons were anti-Islamic.
They are right. But Western newspapers never publish such cartoons, first,
because they are outrageous, second, because publication would cost them
advertisers, readers, and maybe their jobs. Insulting Muslims and Mohammed is a
less risky and less expensive hobby than insulting Judaism or Jews. Indeed, if
you insult Islam, you can make out credentials as a moral hero.

Though State initially condemned the cartoons—“Inciting religious or
ethnic hatreds in this manner is unacceptable”—the neocons rapidly re-seized
control of the message. In hours, State was in retreat: “While we share the
offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously
defend the right of individuals to express points of view.” Of course we do. But
do we believe freedom of the press was responsibly exercised when these idiot
editors used it to incite a religious war?

And when it comes to press freedom, Europeans are world-class
hypocrites. British historian David Irving has spent months in a prison in
Vienna awaiting trial for two speeches he made 15 years ago. In Europe, skeptics
and deniers of the Holocaust are fined and imprisoned with the enthusiastic
endorsement of the press.

Unfortunately, Bush let slip an opportunity to show respect for the
Islamic world and faith and, instead, let himself be intimidated into silently
condoning an insult to both. Standing beside the King of Jordan, Bush denounced
the violence the cartoons had ignited but declined to condemn the cartoons.
Condi Rice denounced Iran and Syria for exploiting the rage over the cartoons
but did not condemn the cause of that rage. If there is a double standard here,
Bush is the guilty party. He rightly denounced Iran’s president for mocking the
Holocaust but would not denounce the European press for mocking the
prophet.

If Bush and Rice cannot muster the moral courage to condemn the
insulting content of the cartoons, as well as the violence being promoted by
anti-Western agitators and demagogues, our wars for democracy in the Middle East
are in vain. For we can never win the friendship of these people if they believe
our words of respect for their religion cover up a sneering contempt.

Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative