Mosque In Paris

The largest mosque in France and the third largest in Europe, the Great Mosque of Paris (Grande Mosquee De Paris) is located in the Fifth Arrondissement, right in the heart of Paris. In fact, it is just a little more than a mile from Notre Dame. The Great Mosque of Paris was the very first mosque to be built in France, and it was initially constructed in honor of the French Arab community that fought in the World War I - especially those who perished at the Battle of Verdun in 1916. With its pure white walls and the green-blue roofs and tiles on portions of the building like the minaret, the Great Mosque of Paris is a lovely sight to behold.

Getting There



The Great Mosque of Paris is located at Place du Puits de l'Ermite, 5e, (5th arrondissement of Paris is one of the 20 administrative districts) in the Latin Quarter near Jardin des Plantes and the Institut de Monde Arabe. If you need a hotel room near the Mosque, visit Paris Hotels



Guided tours are offered throughout the day without a prior reservation; however, the tours are in French. So, while they are quite informative, unless you speak French, you won't get the full benefit of the guided tour. Saturdays tend to be the busiest so you might wish to avoid that day. If you go throughout the week, try and arrive exactly when the doors open, which is usually 9:30 a.m.

Historical Significance

President Gaston Doumergue inaugurated the Mosque on July 15, 1926. Ahmad al-Alawi (1869-1934), an Algerian and founder of the modern Sufi order Darqawiyya Alawiyya, led the first communal prayer as part of the inauguration ceremonies. During World War II, the Mosque became a secret hiding place for those persecuted by the Axis powers. Historic accounts show that the Mosque provided shelter, safe passage and even fake Muslim birth certificates for Jewish children.

Today, this Mosque plays an important social role for Muslims in Europe. According to the Institute of the Arab World's registry of Mosques, there are only about 121 mosques throughout France, which is a very small number when you consider there are more than 4 million Muslims living in France. Many so-called mosques in France are no more than parking lots and empty buildings being used for prayer, so this grand Mosque in Paris with its rich history means quite a lot to Muslims in France and throughout Europe.

Originally constructed in the 1920s, the Mosque underwent an extensive renovation in 1992. It is made of reinforced concrete and enhanced with marvelous mosaics, wonderful wood carvings and ravishing wrought iron from Morocco. While all of those intricacies are aesthetically pleasing, the main attraction during the winter months is the marble Turkish baths. Men can take advantage of the baths on Tuesdays and Sundays, while the rest of the week is reserved for women. No matter which day you choose to visit the Mosque, you're sure to enjoy the unique architecture and learn more about Islam and its rich history in France.

Read More...

Mosque In Rome

The Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of Rome is one of the largest mosques in Europe and can accommodate 12,000 people which is important since many Muslims have relocated to Rome over the past few decades. It's the only mosque in the very Catholic Rome, and it is quite exquisite. In addition to being a place of worship, it is also a location that offers cultural and social activities such as wedding ceremonies, funeral services, conventions and other events. Plus, this mosque and Islamic Cultural Center has become a place that connects Shia and Sunni Muslims. It is a very important and prominent structure for Muslims throughout Europe.

Getting There

The mosque and cultural center is situated in a park-like setting at the base of the well-to-do Parioli district, very close to a multitude of sports complexes along Acqua Acetosa, which, when translated, means "very good water."



To get to the Mosque of Rome from the center of the city, take the train just outside Piazza del Popolo (Metro A from Termini to Flaminio/Popolo) to the Campo Sportivi stop and head back towards the city, towards the minaret, which you can see from that spot. Via Rome Hotels you can find hotel rooms near the Mosque of Rome



Historical Significance

The Mosque was established by the then exiled Prince Muhammad Hasan of Afghanistan and his wife, Princess Razia Begum,. It was financed by Faisal of Saudi Arabia and designed by Paolo Portoghesi, Vittorio Gigliotti and Sami Mousawi. The construction of the Mosque took more than a decade to complete and more than 20 years, from the time the land was acquired. In fact, the land was donated by the Roman City Council in 1974 but no construction began until 1984. It was first opened on June 21, 1995.



Since its opening, the Mosque has been at the center of much news coverage, appearing in a great number of international publications. In one particular article about the Mosque, James Steele wrote that Italian architect Portoghesi felt there was no better symbol than the tree with which to express the diversity inherent in the unity of Islam, which is why he implemented the palm tree-like columns into the Mosque's design. "The roots, trunk, branches and leaves of the tree, like the various countries in which Islam prevails, are all different, and yet work together as a complete organism." The Mosque is a wonderful combination of Roman and traditional Islamic elements, conveying the heart of Islam in a beautiful way.

Read More...

Obama Calls on UN To Support Middle East Peace Talks

Barack Obama has challenged the countries of the United Nations to unite around peace efforts to create an independent Palestine and a secure Israel – within a year. In a speech to the UN general assembly, the US president urged fellow world leaders to press forward with renewed determination in the quest for peace in the Middle East. Without an agreement, Obama said, "more blood will be shed", and "this Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity".

Israel did not have a representative in the hall, owing to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, but the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, listened to the speech through a translator. Obama's call for a Palestinian state drew a burst of applause from throughout the hall.
Abbas has threatened to walk out of the latest round of talks if Israel does not extend a moratorium on the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a moratorium that is set to expire next week. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said he will not extend the freeze.

Obama repeated the White House position that the settlement moratorium should be extended. "It has made a difference on the ground and improved the atmosphere for talks," he said. Faced with the possibility of the collapse of negotiations, Obama implored the international community to get behind the idea of peace, and forget favouritism.

"Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine," he said. "And those of us who are friends of the Palestinians must understand that the rights of the Palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means – including genuine reconciliation with a secure Israel."Obama also called for the promotion of human rights, open government and democracy.He defended his administration's approach to engaging Iran in negotiations over its nuclear programme. "The door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it," he said. "But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear programme."

Read More...

Hamas arrests Israel ‘spies’ in Gaza

Hamas has said it had arrested ‘many’ Palestinians in Gaza on suspicion of collaborating with Israel to kill senior members of the enclave’s Islamist rulers and bomb training sites and government offices.The announcement came as a Hamas military court sentenced a Palestinian man accused of assisting Israel’s secret service to death by firing squard, security sources said. Ehab Al Ghsain, spokesman for Gaza’s interior ministry, said some of the suspected collaborators were accused of aiding Israel in a late 2008 war in which 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.

‘The phenomena (collaboration) is small but we have arrested many,’ Abu Abdallah Lafi, a senior official in Hamas internal security service, told a news conference. He would not say how many people were detained but said they included some women.

Ghsain asserted the suspects posed ‘a real danger to the unity of the pople and their resistance’ against Israel, which has sealed off the narrow coastal enclave by land, sea and air.

Hamas security organs had obtained ‘serious confessions and uncovered many collaborators who stood behind assassinations of some leaders of resistance and implemented policies of the enemy’s intelligence service against our people’, Ghsain said.

Some of the suspects had planted bombs at training camps and government offices that caused Palestinian casualties, while others had helped to facilitate Israeli raids into Gaza and assassinations of militants, he said.

Investigations were continuing.

Among those Israel had killed with Palestinian assistance, Ghsain said, was the ex-commander of the Islamic Jihad group, Majed Al Harazeen, whose car was hit in a 2007 air strike aided by an informer who provided his license plate number.

Lafi showed reporters a display of what he described as Israeli-made communication equipment he said had been used by the alleged collaborators.

Ghsain said some suspects who surrendered to the authorities would be ‘rehabilitated’ rather than prosecuted, and their identities would not be published.

In April, Hamas authorities executed two Palestinians convicted of collaborating with Israel.

Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 after a brief civil war with the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose authority the Islamists no longer recognise.

Abbas’s mainstream Fatah movement controls the West Bank, except for areas taken up by Israeli settlements.

Read More...

Thoughts on the Eid Day

It's Eid Day at the end of the month-long fasting and my heart is sore. I think of the Muslims all over the world and I find little comfort.

I think of the Shia-Sunni divide profusely bleeding the ummah every moment. I shudder at the thought that some groups on both sides in Pakistan or elsewhere might not hesitate to shed each others' blood even on this day of joy and festivity. I think of those rulers in the heartland of Islam, Arabia, who would rather cooperate with Israel than endure the thought of Iran surviving and thriving. I cannot forget how this Shia-Sunni divide has been exploited by Islam's common enemies for centuries and has facilitated their conquest and domination of the Muslims, and continues to do so today. On this Eid Day I sit down alone and lament the blindness and the perversion of our hearts that this Shia-Sunni divide has caused.

I think of the plight of the Muslim lands - Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Mindanao, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen, ravaged by internal strife and humiliated by foreign occupation and domination, the killing fields that these places have become. Killing in the Muslim lands has become an easy sport. I think of the fear, insecurity, misery, humiliation and helplessness of so many of my brothers and sisters, too many to count. I think of the long dark night in their lives with no sign of an approaching morning.

I think of the beleaguered Muslim masses around the world. The Muslim societies in Muslim lands are no longer a unified whole; they are torn up into conflicting segments in which the masses always lose. The ruling elite in these lands have a tenuous connection with Islam and stand as a class apart only to serve themselves. Their insensitivity and heartlessness to those they rule over is mind-numbing. Likewise, Muslims living outside the Muslim world have a precarious existence and are under constant threat. At every step they need to prove themselves as sufficiently human, sufficiently American or European or whatever; they are regarded with suspicion, ridicule and even outright hostility.

I think of my brothers and sisters in so many places of the world in staggering poverty and suffering one natural calamity after another. I see my millions of flood-affected brothers and sisters in Pakistan, mostly poor, pitifully neglected by successive governments and by the rich and powerful in their communities who exploit them but refuse to stand by them in their distress. Where are Muslims who are humble in power and generous in wealth, as Islam teaches? I think of the waste and ostentation that go on all year round, culminating in Ramadan and on the Eid Day, even when neighbours are suffering unspeakably.

I think of the breed of politicians in the Muslim lands who ferociously compete with each other to lead the Muslims. Barring a few exceptions here and there, they range from insane to clownish. They display their talent best in groveling at the feet of their foreign masters while creating division and strife at home. They beg without shame from their foreign masters only to fatten themselves and their cronies. They utterly lack any sense of self-respect and are incapable of behaving in a dignified manner. In their own base interest they mortgage the fate of the millions of their fellow Muslims. They lead only to destroy. I think of the way Muslim rulers in the oil rich states squander their wealth in useless and wasteful projects. I grieve at the inhuman treatment millions of desperate expatriate Muslim workers receive at the hands of many Muslim governments.


I think of the government offices that will open soon after the Eid vacation. I will not speak of the incompetence and corruption in these places. I only shudder to think of the indignity and humiliation an ordinary Muslim is meted out by the people sitting in chairs in these places. An encounter with them is enough to take away one's joy of living.

I miss the loss of community, its integrity and cohesion that Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) and His noble Messenger (Sallallahu alayhi wassallam) repeatedly enjoin on Muslims. Muslims oppress other Muslims without hesitation, inflict pain on each other, make each other's burdens heavier with no feeling of shame or remorse. Muslims go hungry in the midst of plenty and waste, get sick without succor, cry bitterly and in vain for redress and justice. I find Muslims today living side by side without even being aware of each others' existence. We pray together in the masjid, but have no real communion with one another.

I think of the Muslim people split up and caged into national entities, even so much so that at Hajj they are deprived of any opportunity to come close to each other because they are consigned to enclaves by nationality. I smell the air in which the concept of the ummah has been given a foul odor and has become dangerous to breathe in. It has become a crime to think of oneself as an integral part of a unified body of Muslims, universal and timeless.

I miss the ulema who are supposed to be the heirs of our noble Prophet Muhammad (saws) in all the aspects of his life and life's work. I long to see a body of the ulema who understand Islam, live by it, understand their own people and their tradition and know the contemporary world for what it is. I long to see them breaking out of their isolation in their own regional confines and forming a close bond with the ulema in all parts of the Muslim world, sit together and discuss issues and concerns that need to be addressed unitedly and firmly. I long to see them, and them alone, lead the Muslims. Muslim masses are hungry for leadership that does not come. There are many individuals and groups active in Islamic work, but there are not many who present Islam in its entirety, faithfully and truly. It is as if we are engaged in creating an Islam of our own inclinations, as if we are not comfortable with Islam as it is.

I remember what Allah (swt) has called the Muslims, the best ummah raised for mankind (Quran 3:110). Can we make any claim to being the best of anything? This Eid Day will pass and another day will begin, and thus another week, month and year. On this auspicious day we need to examine ourselves and ask what groundwork we have done for that noble role during the month of Ramadan that we have just bidden farewell to.

Read More...

A Mosque Maligned

Just to show you how naive I am: When I first heard about the plan to build a mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks, I didn't envision any real opposition to it.

Sure, I can understand how some people traumatized by 9/11 - firefighters who survived it, or people whose loved ones didn't - might not like the idea. But I'd have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, "What would Osama bin Laden want?" and then do the opposite.

Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch - that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam.

Apparently I was wrong. Two New York politicians - Representative Peter King and Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor - are ginning up opposition to the project, as is the Weekly Standard.

Their strategy is to ask dark questions about the motivations behind the project (known as Park51 because of its address on Park Place). Those motivations reside in an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the project's co-sponsors. So far as I can tell, Rauf is a good person who genuinely wants to build a more peaceful world. (I met him briefly last year at a venue where we had both been asked to give talks about compassion - his from an Islamic perspective, mine from a secular perspective. Here's the talk he gave.)

But if you think Rauf's good intentions are going to keep him safe from the Weekly Standard, you underestimate that magazine's creative powers. Its latest issue features an article about Park51 chock full of angles that never would have occurred to me if some magazine had asked me to write an assessment of the project's ideological underpinnings. For example: Rauf's wife, who often speaks in support of the project and during one talk reflected proudly on her Islamic heritage, "failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its Web site to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (I.C.N.A.), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami."


Got that? Rauf's wife has an uncle who used to be "a leader" of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization. (I'll get back to the claim that the Westbury Mosque is itself a "center for Islamic radicals.")

The odd thing is that the author of this piece, Stephen Schwartz, is a self-described neoconservative whose parents were, by his own account, communists. You'd think he might harbor doubts about how confidently we can infer people's ideologies from the ideologies of their older relatives. You'd also think he might disdain McCarthyite guilt-by-association tactics.

You'd be wrong. Schwartz's piece goes on and on, weaving webs of association so engrossing that you have to keep reminding yourself that they have nothing to do with Rauf. At one point Schwartz spends several paragraphs damning someone whose connection to Park51 seems to consist of having spoken favorably about it.

As for the views of Rauf himself: In Schwartz's universe, Rauf's expressions of opposition to terrorism are themselves grounds for suspicion. Rauf, says Schwartz, has "cloaked the Cordoba effort in the rhetoric of reconciliation, describing himself and his colleagues as 'the anti-terrorists.'"

Rauf has been the imam at a Manhattan mosque for a quarter of a century, so you'd think that, if he actually had radical views, there would be some evidence of that by now. Just to give you some idea of what solid evidence of radicalism looks like: Representative King, who shares the Weekly Standard's grave suspicions about Rauf, supported the Irish Republican Army back when it was killing lots of innocent civilians. He raised money for the I.R.A. and said it was "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland" and praised the "brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry" and in various other ways backed this terrorist group. If Rauf's past looked like King's past, there would indeed be cause for concern.

Read More...

Facebook and Muslim Outrage: Gleaning the Wrong Lesson, Again

There is no denial – and no shame – in the fact that most Muslims hold their Prophet in the highest regard. Despite the continued decrease in the number of faithful in increasingly secularized Western societies, Muslims are clinching even tighter to their faith.

"Any depictions of the prophet are considered blasphemous by Muslims," wrote Agencies, as reported readily by Aljazeera.net English. The above statement is meant to fully summarize the reason behind the outrage that arises in Pakistan and other parts of the Muslim world whenever some provocative 'artist' decides to express his freedom of expression and 'expose' Muslims as anti-democratic.

Such a simplistic interpretation of such an intricate issue.

There is no denial - and no shame - in the fact that most Muslims hold their Prophet in the highest regard. Despite the continued decrease in the number of faithful in increasingly secularized Western societies, Muslims are clinching even tighter to their faith. However, while the outrage over the latest transgression by some Facebook user and his "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" may appear as a straightforward news story - that of Western values vs Muslim narrow-mindedness - the true underpinnings of the outrage is suspiciously missing.

The na•ve depiction by Western media makes it easy for 'freedom of expression' enthusiasts to condemn Muslims for yet again failing the democracy test.

The latest Facebook episode is a remake of the same old story. Some ill-intended 'artist', under the guise of freedom of speech, takes on a confrontational mission, knowing fully the response such an act would generate, and perhaps the lives that would be lost. Muslim masses, predictably, respond through angry protests, burning flags, denouncing America, Israel, Zionism, Facebook, Youtube and so on. Strangely, the very governments that are considered US allies tend to be on the forefront of condemning the 'blasphemous' provocations. Muslim masses are thus exploited on all fronts - by the media, by anti-Muslims, by rightwing forces in the West, and their own governments.

This, in turn, gives more ammunition to the Islamaphobes who constantly try to fan the flames in order to validate their racist perception of Muslims. The likes of Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, and other 'experts' invade our TV screens and take on the responsibility of lecturing the world on Islam. They use the same reductionist and racist language that they have utilized for years in the guise of academic jargon.

Why, though, are these 'academics' and 'intellectuals' eager to discredit Islam? And why are Muslims playing right into their hands?

It behooves us all to remember that some of those who champion freedom of expression are selective in their advocacy. Freedom of expression becomes important when the holiest symbols of Islam and its Prophet are paraded, ridiculed and stereotyped. However, these very advocates are enraged when the opinions being expressed are inconsistent with their own agenda, which is overtly militant and hegemonic, and refuses to take into consideration any honest opinion on Israel and its war crimes against Palestinians. One needs to repeat the way that the respected South African Judge Richard Goldstone, himself Jewish, was depicted for pointing out the horrendous crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's most recent war. More, these individuals seem completely oblivious when Muslims are denied the right to express their own values. When, for example, was the last time a rightwing fanatic stood up for a Muslim woman's right to cover her hair or face?

It must be stated, however, that discrediting Muslims and Islam is not a random strategy. It is very much in tandem with an overriding agenda that has occupied the thinking of many rightwing and Zionist ideologues for years, especially following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rising of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fervor in various Western countries. The aim is to dehumanize Muslims, to make them seem less civilized, and thus less worthy of equal human rights. In other words, Muslims cannot be treated using the same standards that apply to Westerners, because they have failed to subscribe to Western values. The angry protests in Pakistan are supposedly proof of this. This makes war easy and sanctions morally justifiable.

Why are Muslims playing right into this scenario? Actually, they are not, although it would seem otherwise. The fact is, many Muslims nations are caught between two layers of oppressions: that of outsiders - wars and occupation, interference in their countries' affairs, all forms of humiliation and exploitation - and internal pressures - corruption, oppression and denial of rights, including, yes, freedom of expression, speech, assembly and democracy itself. These rights are also denied by the very countries that are seen as 'pro-American.'

Under these external and internal pressures, Muslim societies embrace even tighter their everlasting Islamic symbols. Islam, for many Muslims, represents more than just a way of life and an answer to unworldly questions. It also provides a sense of hope, and it helps to maintain a level of solidarity and societal cohesion. The harder people's lives become, the more impoverished, oppressed and abused, the stronger their faith grows.

Considering all of this, insulting Islam, depicting the Prophet in degrading (or any other) ways, bashing Islamic symbols and values is equivalent to denying Muslim masses with their last and only chance at dignity and hope.

Those who are under the impression that Muslims are opposed to freedom of expression are only seeing a small part of the picture. Those versed in history understand that it was Muslim advancements in science, art and literature, and their most impressive translations of the great works of ancient civilizations that allowed Europe to bask in the sun of its renaissance.

Moreover, those who are sensible enough to see the big picture will understand that when a Pakistani woman chants "Death to Facebook" - as pitiful and confusing such phrase may sound - she is not actually referring to a social networking website. Far from it, especially since numerous Muslims have utilized Facebook to share their own ideas with the rest of the world. What the woman is chanting against is the manipulation of freedom of expression to further humiliate her people. She is standing in solidarity with European Muslim communities who are under a most intense attack on their civil rights and liberties. She is angry at the war in Afghanistan, the constant bombing of innocents in Pakistan, the occupation of Iraq, the rape of women and the parading of naked prisoners, the siege in Gaza. She is angry about the Western double standards regarding democracy, about her own oppression and her people's misfortunes. And so much more.

Read More...

Muslim Countries Must Rethink United Nations

The United Nations, after the United States had spurned the League of Nations, was forged mainly out of President Roosevelt's idea of "Four Policemen" - the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and China - to police the postwar world. Later, on Churchill's suggestion France was brought in as "Fifth Policeman". The Big Five made up the Security Council with the right to veto on all issues that come before it. The power to veto was considered essential for there could be no "peace" in the postwar world if the Big Five did not agree. The acquisition of veto power by the organization's five most powerful member states, for all practical purposes, reduced the 184 non-veto members into a mere polyglot body of impotence, called General Assembly.

The United Nations Security Council, a totally undemocratic body, is composed of a privileged group of five countries with colonial and imperial past. Czarist Russia was known as the "prison house of nations" as it brutally and autocratically ruled over many peoples, including Georgians, Azerbaijanis and Turkic peoples. Imperialist China, through invasion and occupation, brought Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Manchuria and Taiwan under its jurisdiction. France and Great Britain exploited and ruled over many colonies all over the world. U.S. may not have occupied colonies in the manner of France and Britain, but it rules the world, like empires of the past, with its most extensive system of military bases.

Stalin's declaration shortly after the war, that "no peaceful international order is possible" between the communists and the capitalist-imperial world, and Churchill's famous "iron curtain" speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri set off the cold war. For the next four decades exchange of nasty barbs and fiery words between the diplomats of east and West characterized the world forum. The U.N., during the East versus West conflict, was powerless to bend any of the two superpowers or their client states to its will. Soviet invasion of Hungary and Afghanistan; American invasion of Vietnam, and recently Iraq; India's (an erstwhile Soviet client state) seizure of Portuguese enclave of Goa, Israel's (an American client state) flagrant violation of every U.N. resolution, are just a few blaring example of the United Nations' inability to contain the members of the Veto Club or their client states.

The Security Council effectively serves the five economically and militarily powerful nations to dictate and perpetuate the dominance over the less powerful countries, fomenting serious global crises. The power of veto did much, as intended, to ensure that general memberships would never unpleasantly surprise the "Big Brothers" by a show of unity and tenacity that would bind them to the lofty principles of the U.N. charter.

With the fall of the Berlin wall, the most conspicuous of all symbols of the cold war, in November 1989, comes the end of the East-West conflict. The death of the cold war resurrected the age old West's animosity towards Arabs and Muslims. Islam replaced communism as the principal adversary of Western liberal democracy. The hostility that was, to some degree, calmed by the presence of the big bear of communism resuscitated into a screeching storm of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim invective. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the unipolarization of the world, a new crusade against Islam and the "Islamic peril" is being wagged on all fronts: news media, academia, State Department, NSC, and the U.N. Security Council. The repressive measures of boycott, sanctions, and embargo, are reserved exclusively for Muslim Nations. The United States and the Great Britain employ the U.N. to impose their ideas on the rest of the world. They found it convenient to declare nations that have not caved in to their pressures "totalitarian" or "rogue states."

After the bitter experience of the Vietnam War United states came to realize that a unilateral international action is increasingly likely to be condemned abroad and unpopular at home. A military operation under the U.N. flag, rather than the Stars and Stripes, would internationally legitimize the action. Thus, U.N. has been reduced to a law enforcement agency of the U.S. State Department. It has won U.N. not the respect, but the contempt. It lost its credibility and became irrelevant, particularly in the Muslim world.

In a just and civilized community, crimes of like nature elicit like punishment regardless of the perpetrator. United Nations, under the tutelage of Western power, is free of any such moral restraint. If we look at United Nations' retributive actions we would find an invariable pattern of categorical prejudice against Muslim countries.

In 1988, an American airliner was sabotaged over Lockerbie Scotland; blame went to Libya. Gadhafi's refusal to hand over the two alleged suspects in the bombing, on the terms dictated by a country whose only justification is its power, brought the U.N. wrath. A few years later, on some other trumped up charge, American warplanes bombed Gadhafi's residence killing his infant daughter. Compare the U.N. treatment of Lockerbie incident with the American downing of an Iranian airliner in the same year, during the tension in the Persian Gulf, killing more than 300 passengers. U.N. slapped Libya with sanctions, and adopted a complete silence on American downing of Iranian civilian airliner. The silence speaks volume about U.N. dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.

On 2 August 1990, the United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to its invasion of Kuwait. The U.N. trade embargo prohibited the import or export of goods or capital into or from Iraq. As a result of the U.N. imposed sanctions, according to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, about 10,000 Iraqis died each month. In a letter to U.N. Mr. Clark stated, "The history of this violent century does not reveal a more deadly, cruel, inhumane and degrading torture of the whole population of an entire nation inflicted by foreign power for so long a period of time. That a deed is done in the name of the United Nations Security Council demonstrates its cowardly surrender to the will of the United States..." The U.N. Children's Fund estimated that 4,500 Iraqi children perished every month - one every ten minutes - as a direct result of American led U.N. sanctions.

In May 1995, then U.S. representative in the U.N., Madeleine Albright, cheerfully vetoed a Security Council resolution that called on Israel to reverse its decision to expropriate land in East Jerusalem. Ms. Albright is reported saying: "by injecting Council into this issue, this resolution would merely compound the problem." Contrast Ms. Albright's above statement with what she said when asked about the mass killing of the Iraqi children as a result of the Security Council's resolution, she unabashedly said that 500,000 dead Iraqi children were "worth it to enforce the resolutions."

Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait was not any more criminal than the Indian oppression of Kashmir or Israel's occupation of Palestine, Syrian territory or Southern Lebanon. If Iraq's occupation of Kuwait called for the U.N. Sanctions then, in all fairness, India and Israel should have also been subjected to the same punishment for they were guilty of the same crime. With the U.S. backing in the U.N. Security Council, Israel never faced the U.N. embargo for provocating the international will and making mockery of the Security Council resolutions. Using its veto power, the United States has stymied every effort to restrain Israeli violence and violation of international laws.

Today, the Security Council, by imposing sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, once again, proved that it's not a neutral and an objective body, but a highly politicized and blatantly discriminatory forum where members of the veto club protect themselves and their client states against the U.N. retribution, or block actions for political gains. United Nations in its discriminatory double standard singled out Iran for its nuclear program while completely ignoring any sanction against Israel for its stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The United States and Great Britain will never allow the Israeli nuclear program to U.N. scrutiny; Israel will never face the U.N.'s reprisal for violating more than 60 Security Council resolutions, thanks to the U.S. veto.

Security Council's bulldoggish manner in implementing resolutions against Muslim countries, and at the same time completely ignoring the other equally valid resolutions against Israel and India, shows its fixed state of mind - consistent discrimination against one set of people - Muslims.

Muslim countries must rethink the United Nations.

Read More...

Gaza factories remain paralysed despite Israel pledge to ease blockade

After three years of deadlock, Palestinian businesses are hoping for a better future. But some fear that the new Israeli trade rules could actually mean a fresh squeeze. Donald Macintyre reports from Gaza City. The chilled Tropika that Salama al-Kishawi proudly serves guests in his office tastes, unusually for a processed juice, of real oranges – especially refreshing on a 35C midsummer day in Gaza. But the flagship product of the Gaza Juice Factory has a significance that goes way beyond its taste.

The factory employs 65 workers and is one of very few industries to function despite the siege of Gaza imposed by Israel after Hamas seized full control of the territory three years ago this month.

How long it continues to function may well depend on just how the deal easing the Israeli blockade announced last Sunday works in practice. The future of Tropika has become a litmus test for Gaza's real economy.


In diplomatic terms, the deal negotiated between Israel and international envoy Tony Blair was a breakthrough. Israel is still refusing – apart from internationally supervised exceptions – to allow in anything, including cement badly needed for rebuilding bombed out homes, which it deems Hamas could use for military purposes.

But the announcement signified a real change of policy: in theory at least, all other goods will, for the first time in three years, be allowed to enter.

But nearly a week after the announcement, the people of Gaza, while content about the prospect of an increase in consumer goods from Israel, are demanding that the much more fundamental promise in the agreement, to allow the expansion of "economic activity", will also be honoured.

"If consumer items are allowed to come through the crossings, but at the same time we don't allow materials and the means of production to enter, that will have a negative effect," said Amr Hamad, Gaza director of the Palestinian Federation of Industries.

The Gaza Juice Factory, which is in the eastern suburb of Shajaia, in full view of the Israeli border, is a perfect illustration of the problem. Its neatly tended gardens and the bustle of forklift trucks loading the newly bundled bottles on to vans for shipment to local supermarkets testify that this is –unusually for Gaza – a going concern.

Their are tracks left by the Israeli tanks that smashed through the green metal perimeter fence during the military offensive of 2008-9, and the remains of what company boss Ayed abu Ramadan thinks must have been an Apache missile have been hung on the front wall as a memento to everything the factory has been through.

Its history is inextricably woven with that of the territory's turbulent and blood-splashed politics over the last 15 years.

An imposing plaque reminds visitors that it was opened by Yasser Arafat just two days after his triumphant return to Gaza from exile in Tunis in July 1994. The factory became a success, exporting to Egypt, the US, Europe, and Israel itself for more than a decade.

In 2006, however, the exports ground to a halt. Hamas had won the elections, the land crossings were mostly closed. By then Gaza's famous citrus groves had been almost destroyed by the Israeli military during its frequent incursions since the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000.

"Here in Gaza we have always had the best oranges in the world," said Mr Kishawi. "Now most of it has gone."

Yet the 87p bottles of Tropika on the shelves of Gaza stores today are a testament to the company's remarkable adaptability. Its managers diversified into Tropika, but also strawberry and tomato juice, along with ketchup, jam, and a popular range of candied fruits.

From being a 100 per cent exporter, the company now caters 100 per cent for the home market. And although it would have greatly preferred to buy its raw materials much more cheaply from Israel, it was obliged by the closure to bring in bottles, packaging, flavouring and colouring additives through the tunnels from Egypt, paying what Mr Ramadan delicately calls the high "subway tolls" demanded by the tunnelers to pay their own costs – including levies to the Hamas de facto government.

Scarcity of fruit was the first problem. "Last year I needed 9,000 tonnes of citrus to meet demand," said Mr Kishawi, "but I was only able to find 1,000 tonnes."

Oranges from Israel were half of what they cost in Gaza but only eating – as opposed to juicing – oranges were allowed in by the Israeli authorities.

To underline the Alice in Wonderland economics of Gaza it was also possible to import from Egypt, through the tunnels, identical concentrate to that which it used to export to Egypt. "In June 2007 I was selling concentrate at $1,350 (£900) a ton but now it costs me $4,000 a ton to bring in," explained Mr Kishawi. "Where is the competition in that?"

As if this wasn't enough, eighteen months later the factory suffered devastating damage from Israeli ground and air assaults during the 2008-9 offensive, which hit hundreds of industrial sites. The damage prompted Amr Hamad of the Federation of Industries to remark: "What [Israel] were not able to reach by the blockade, they have reached with their bulldozers."

The main tube in the juice factory's key evaporator, wrecked by a missile, was quickly repaired, but the huge, 2,000-tonne capacity freezer, along with its contents, was destroyed. Then, toward the end of last year, the firm hit another obstacle. It thought it had done a deal with Israeli suppliers to supply 500 tonnes of badly-needed grapefruit.

"But then, when they realised that it was going to a juice factory and not the supermarkets, they stopped the grapefruits coming in," said Mr Kishawi.

Two weeks ago, in the wake of the international outcry that followed the crisis over the pro-Palestinian flotillas, came the first stage of the easing of the embargo and, perversely, with it a fresh threat to Tropika. The company was happy to hear the blockade was being eased – anticipating that it would now be able to import from Israel much cheaper raw materials.

Instead, it found that it was facing new competition. For the first time in three years, Israel has permitted the entry of processed fruit juice
– at the competitive price of five shekels (86p) a bottle. In a final irony (though its bosses are not sure how long this will last), the company, which is effectively owned by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and has a board of directors appointed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, is now depending on a lifeline from the Hamas de facto government. It has issued a protectionist warning to traders not to order processed juice from Israel.

The company has already preemptively reduced Tropika's own price, from six to five shekels a bottle, and would have no problem competing with the Israeli product if it was also to import the much cheaper raw materials available in Israel. "If we have a truly open market we can compete with anybody, including Israel," says Mr Kishawi.

Underlining the present imbalance, however, the company's chief buyer, Haitham Kannan, says: "Israel can produce a bottle of juice for around 25 cents – which is what the plastic bottle alone costs us."

As his boss, Mr Ramadan, puts it: "This is like tying someone's hands up and telling him to get into the boxing ring. After everything we have been through – closure, war, shortages, it would be crazy if we lost the business now."

Yet the Gaza Juice Factory is still – for now – operating. More typical is the fate of the Aziz Jeans factory on the edge of the Jabalya, eerily silent now, four years after it was alive with the din of 100 employees stitching teenage fashion jeans for the Aziz family's appreciative Israeli business partner.

Able neither to import the fabric or, even more importantly, export the finished jeans, the firm, like many hundreds of others, came to an abrupt halt almost immediately the blockade began.

Its highly skilled workforce dispersed – "a lot", according to Aziz Aziz, on to the Hamas payroll. The last time The Independent was here, Mr Aziz had generated a modest income by assembling electric plugs – but the competition of ready-made plugs smuggled though the tunnels made this a hopeless task.

Read More...

The Origins of a Holy Book

Modern research into Islam's origin and early years has been hampered by the paucity and inaccessibility of ancient texts, and the reluctance of Muslim governments in places like Yemen to allow wide access to them.

Later this spring, a team of scholars at Germany's Berlin-Brandenberg Academy of Sciences will complete the first phase of what will ultimately be an unprecedented, two-decade effort to throw light on the origins of the Koran.

The project, called the Corpus Coranicum, will be something that scholars of the Koran have long yearned for: a central repository of imagery, information, and analysis about the Muslim holy book. Modern research into Islam's origin and early years has been hampered by the paucity and inaccessibility of ancient texts, and the reluctance of Muslim governments in places like Yemen to allow wide access to them.

But, drawing on some of the earliest Korans in existence - codices found in Istanbul, Cairo, Paris, and Morocco - the Corpus Coranicum will allow users to study for themselves images of thousands of pages of early Korans, texts that differ in small but potentially telling ways from the modern standard version. The project will also link passages in the text to analogous ones in the New Testament and Hebrew Bible, and offer an exhaustive critical

commentary on the Koran's language, structure, themes, and roots. The project's creators are calling it the world's first "critical edition" of the Koran, a resource that gathers historical evidence and scholarly literature into one searchable, cross-referenced whole.

Critical editions - usually books rather than websites - are a commonplace in academia. University bookstores do a brisk business in critical editions of the world's best-known literary works, from "The Iliad" to "Hamlet" to "Das Kapital.Ó" As labor-saving devices for scholars and teaching aids for students, they can be invaluable. Presenting a novel or manifesto or play in its historical context helps readers to see the ways it was shaped by contemporaneous events and local attitudes, how it was built from the distinctive cultural building blocks at hand. Embedding a work in critical commentary - and critical editions often include essays that are sharply at odds with each other - gives readers a sense of the richness of possible readings of the text.

But the form takes on a special significance with holy books, where millions of people order their lives in accordance to what they see as divine language. Standard versions like the King James Bible or the regularized Cairo Koran (the version, first printed in 1924, that most Muslims have today) help to unite the faithful in one common reading of their holy book. A critical edition, on the other hand, by its nature, highlights the contingency of a text's creation and gives readers the tools to interpret it for themselves.

Among Koranic scholars, there's a great deal of excitement about the Corpus Coranicum, which will help them make better sense of a text that - despite the fact that millions regularly recite from it and live their lives according to its precepts - remains something of a historical and theological puzzle

"I think it is a big deal," says Jane McAuliffe, the editor of the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an and the president of Bryn Mawr College, "it's a wonderful opportunity to do something that the field of Koranic studies has wanted to do for a long time."

At the same time, the impending publication of the Corpus has set off a small stir outside the scholarly world. Islam has a long and lively tradition of theological debate, but in recent years revisionist scholars in the Muslim world have been threatened, branded heretics, and even attacked for their work. Already, the creators of the Corpus Coranicum, in response to press coverage in Germany, have felt the need to publicly insist on al-Jazeera and in visits to Muslim countries that they have no intention of undermining the faith. In part what's to blame is the strict, austere form of Islam that is dominant in some parts of the world, but the friction also stems from the relationship all Muslims have to the Koran. To a mainstream Muslim, the Koran is not merely a divinely inspired text put together by disciples, as most modern Christians believe the Bible to be. It is the literal word of God, dictated directly to Mohammed. To question that is to insult the faith.

The fact that it will be born on the Web makes the Corpus Coranicum seem a quintessentially 21st-century project, but its roots actually extend back to the 1930s. Then, as now, Germany produced some of the world's leading Koranic scholars - proteges of the great 19th-century linguist, historian, and "Semiticist" Theodor Noldeke.

The archive that was to become the Corpus Coranicum was started by the German Arabist Gotthelf Bergstrasser, who traveled through Europe and the former Ottoman Empire photographing the old Korans he turned up. After Bergstrasser's death in a mountain climbing accident in the Alps, a colleague named Otto Pretzl took over, before he died in a plane crash while serving in World War II. That left the photo archive in the hands of a young scholar named Anton Spitaler.

Then, in a mystifying twist detailed in a 2008 Wall Street Journal article, Spitaler began to claim, falsely, that the photo archive had been destroyed in 1944 by an Allied bombing raid. Spitaler kept up this deception until the early 1990s, when he revealed to a former student of his named Angelika Neuwirth that he still had all 450 rolls of film. He offered to give them to her - she is today the head of the Corpus Coranicum project - and he died a decade later without explaining himself.

According to Islam, the Koran is a series of revelations Mohammed was given through the Angel Gabriel, starting in 610 AD and ending with Mohammed's death two decades later. Those revelations were recorded and compiled by Mohammed's followers. In the religion's early years, little need was seen for a standardized text - Mohammed and most of his followers were illiterate and as a result the Koran was meant to be recited rather than read (a tradition that remains central to Islam). Transmission was mainly oral, with written texts simply an aid. But within decades of Mohammed's death, conquests had ballooned the size of the Muslim empire and many of the original disciples were themselves aging and dying, and one of Mohammed's successors decreed a standard written version to unify the growing faith. In a pre-printing-press world, however, the process took time, and alternate versions continued to be written and read for decades, and perhaps centuries.

Read More...

Modernity And Morality

To be civilized you should have western habits and consumption patterns and also have to mimic western way of life. On the top of that list comes women's liberation. That is, if women in your culture are not 'liberated' by discarding the traditional garb or dress, you must be 'oppressing' your females, and you are uncivilized!

The values that I grew up with and learned as a child born in South Asia nearly half a century ago are quite different than the ones preached and practiced today in the West. In our zeal to be called civilized we have automatically assumed it to equate with modernity. Thus, in our political jargon when our western leaders talk about being civilized they mean how well we have adopted the modern western way of life. That means, to be civilized you should have not just an ordinary wired telephone but a wireless/cellular phone, TV, cars, computers and other amenities of the western modern life - running faucets, western habits and consumption patterns. Minus those modern amenities, you simply are not civilized. But that is not enough! You have to also mimic western way of life. On the top of that list comes women's liberation. That is, if women in your culture are not 'liberated' by discarding the traditional garb or dress, you must be 'oppressing' your females, and you are uncivilized! It is no accident that France and its president, born of a broken family and himself a playboy, Nicolas Sarkozy are now defining how the 'cultured' and 'civilized' French society ought to look like.

Sarkozy is married, if I am not mistaken his third time, to Carla Bruni, a singer who is more known for exhibiting her naked body than her voice. So, as you can guess: hijab and Muslim veil, worn by many traditional Muslim women, are unacceptable in that 'emancipated' country whose 'civilized' natives still have not learned the basic hygiene, let alone the true meaning of morality. If you care not to expose your kids to sex, you better switch off the TV after sunset. In such countries of sin and immorality, where sometimes you can't distinguish a real politician from a part-time pimp and a prostitute, and, (probably pertinently so,) run by racists and bigots, it is no wonder that immigrants with their conservative values and family-oriented culture and tradition are considered a direct threat to the very foundation of those states. It is that age-old cry and fury of the 'liberated' inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah: you must be like us in order to reside here; there is no place for the Prophet Lut (Lot) or his righteous kind!

Sarkozy is surrounded by guys like Bernard Kuchner who not too long ago is accused by hard-hitting investigative journalist Pierre Pean in "The World According to K." of a "possible conflict of interests" in working as a consultant in Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo while serving as government-appointed head of a public body supporting health services in Africa. In the Netherlands the far-right, anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders of the PVV has won major gains in local elections, with results indicating that he may dominate the political scene in the run-up to the general election in June. After winning the election, Wilders told cheering supporters at a rally in Almere, "We are going to conquer the entire country ... We are going to be the biggest party in the country. The leftist elite still believes in multiculturalism, coddling criminals, a European super-state and high taxes." Wilders likens the Qur'an to Hitler's Mein Kampf and wants Muslim immigrants deported.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats remain the largest party in the Netherlands, but for how long? On March 18, 2010, the PVV gave up trying to form a governing coalition in Almere, where it won more seats than any other party. In a press release, the party said most of the other parties had refused to give ground to PVV demands on what it describes as "essential issues". The PVV's demands included a ban on headscarves for city council workers and in all institutions and clubs "which get even one cent of council money." The ban would not have applied to other religious items such as Christian crosses and Jewish skull caps. Is it anything but blatant discrimination and religious bigotry?

In the French-speaking Quebec province of Canada Premier Jean Charest this week proposed an anti-niqab bill. The proposed law is misguided and described by the Ottowa Citizen as a clumsy, politically-charged hammer. The newspaper says, "Of the 200,000 or so Muslims in Quebec, maybe a few dozen women wear a niqab, a veil that covers the entire face except for a slit for the eyes. To draft legislation singling out such a tiny minority suggests the law has more to do with pandering to fears about immigration -- specifically, the failure of some immigrants to integrate -- than solving any real, non-aesthetic problem posed by niqabs... The anti-niqab bill is clearly meant to be a political statement, and an ostentatious one at that, not unlike the infamous code of behaviour drafted by the Quebec town of Herouxville in 2007 that prohibited all sorts of practices, real or imagined, that are associated with immigrants. The joke was that Herouxville had virtually no immigrant population." The editor is absolutely right, but will the racist politicians in Quebec see the light, or follow their racist cousin in France? Never mind a westerner's preference for almost everything artificial and unnatural, cosmetics and perfumes to hide his/her natural imperfections and bad body odors, are the modern amenities the real measures of civilization?

Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity

Let's consider TV. It has both positive and negative sides. There is no doubt that it allows us to learn about our planet and galaxy. A peasant in Lalmonirhat in Bangladesh can now get a glimpse of life in Louisiana, USA - located on the other side of the globe without ever having to sail or fly there. But news, history, geography, health and science are not the only things shown on TV. Seldom do we realize that with TV, we have brought violence and sex into our family rooms, and not the kind of things family members can watch together in the same room! Just turn on any major channel in the USA between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. You will see soap operas about dysfunctional families where everyone seems to be cheating - husband cheating his wife and vice-versa, let alone the unmarried guys and gals whose preoccupation seems all about sex. In places like Germany and France, it is much worse; you can hardly find a channel in the evening that is free of showing sexual stuffs. If this kind of lifestyle is what a western civilization has ended up producing who in the right mind would need this poison?

Unfortunately, a dominant culture is like a magnet that attracts others to mimic its ways. Many in the third world and developing countries are, therefore, learning those bad ways faster and unquestioning. Take a look at the beaches in South America where traditional bikinis worn by women are getting fast replaced by G-string bikinis. It is no surprise that we see many young boys in South Asia today with earrings, a practice that was not known or seen in the past. Many youngsters are now addicted to drugs -- another statement to show off their borrowed modernity and liberated soul. Many possess illegal arms. It is not difficult to find a strong correlation with a rise in sex-related crimes, violence and divorce in these societies today. Women in traditional homes are discarding natural herbs for synthetic cosmetics!

In this culture of modernity often times it is the large and small screen actors that become the role models to copy. The things that they wear become our fashion and style. We are not shocked any more to learn that most Hollywood actors live immoral lives; they are into drugs and sex. Divorce and sex scandal are rather common facets of life in the Hollywood. The hottest topic that dominated the media the last week was all about sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. It is obvious from the reports unearthed thus far that Pope Benedict has a long history, dating at least back to 1979, of condoning such sexual abuses within the Church. As a micro-manager all his life, he was on the top of all such affairs and cannot now evade accountability. He allowed the transfer of molester priests that preyed on children. There are also questions about Benedict's directive as a Vatican cardinal in 2001 that bishops worldwide were to keep pedophilia investigations secret under threat of ex-communication. Regrettably, the church leaders chose to protect the church instead of the children.

As a child growing up in Bangladesh, I remember the story of a rickshaw puller who stopped by a well to help a village girl to put her water pitcher on the head. Neither the doer of the kind act nor the beneficiary had to utter a single word; he knew the kind of help the girl needed. After he was able to place the water pitcher on the head of the girl, he left for his rickshaw while the girl left for her home. No "thank you" was even needed to be uttered by the girl. It was all that natural - giving and receiving. That is what real civilization is all about: where each member of the society does continuous small acts of charity without expecting reward or recognition. It is also free of hypocrisy or pretension.

Surely, a society and civilization that prides in its modernity where immorality, sex and abuse are engrained into its very core, and fascist inclinations are interwoven with its sinful and faulty character cannot be the role model or guiding light for anyone, much less for others with strong life-giving and -sustaining ethics, values and mores.

Read More...

Islam and the Gender Equity Movement

The mere proposal of an All-Africa Muslim Women formation nearly caused brouhaha at a conference I recently attended.

Some righteous males started pontificating about women wanting to dethrone them from their God-given seat of being the centre around which the life of a woman should revolve. They accused women of wanting to beat them in the marvelous game of smoking cigarettes, wearing trousers and sleeping around. If this was aimed at intimidation and muting and mutilating the women's voice, I must say, this is a strategy that seems to be working very well for the blessed man. The most enthusiastic and articulate woman activist started giving men assurances that they are by no means feminists. She stressed that they want to organize themselves precisely to preach to the women who are not dressed properly, that women can police the behavior of deviant women who wear trousers or don't put on scarves better than men can ever do. The males who defended such a forum did this on the basis of enabling women to impart religious education to children and other, with emphasis on the usual message we hear from the pulpit: Islam provides rights to women, but it is men who dispense these rights.

My support for the idea was informed by an expectation that it will serve as a platform for women to challenge male-centric expressions of Islam, push for a fiqh that allows the voices and experiences of women to be articulated and to unapologetically confront the inequities and injustices that women face in society. I had thought that such a platform would raise issues such as women leadership and women scholarship in Islam, access to education, decent and adequate space for women in places of worship, women representation in Mosque committees and on the board of Muslim schools and other Islamic institutions. Thanks to the all-powerful protestation and rave of the male voice, this was shrinking into a place for women at a table laid out by men, with strict instructions not to forget that this is a men's world.

As the vigorous debate went on the voices of the women were getting muter and muter. This vindicated my observation that patriarchal, chauvinist and sexist men deliberately make generalizations and equate the feminist and gender equity movement with women smoking cigarette, drinking beer, tearing off their bras, discarding motherhood in order to intimidate and bully women away from the struggle against gender-based inequities and injustices. The same Muslim men who rile against the Islamophobic painting of Muslims with one brush find it so easy and comfortable to stereotype the feminist and gender equity movement as a lobby of immodest, anti-men, wild women. They deliberately ignore the diversity of the strands and perspectives within the feminist movement.

The reality of the matter is that as a political, cultural and/or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women, and concerned with issues of gender difference, women rights and interests, feminism addresses a range of issues and causes most of which are compatible with the Islamic call towards justice for all. These issues and causes include campaigns for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for women's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; or workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; against misogyny; and against other forms of gender-specific discrimination against women.

In addition to ignoring the validity and legitimacy of the many issues and causes addressed by the feminist and gender equity movement, those who bash women's rights and gender equity also deliberately or ignorantly don't recognize the diverse theories, philosophies and currents within this movement. In their zeal to portray feminists as all being frustrated, estranged, elite white and black women, the 'haters' lump liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, environmentalist feminism, anarchist feminism, individual feminism, post colonial feminism and Black feminism or Womanism together. What seem to be lost to the gender equity bashers is that at its very birth Islam transformed the gender dynamics in society by recognizing the full personhood of women, placing a prohibition on female infanticide, recognizing inheritance, turning marriage into a social contract rather than a status, making dowry to be a nuptial gift to the women rather than a bridal-price paid to the father, and providing inheritance and property rights to women at the time such rights were unknown of.

The patriarchal and sexist brigade within the Muslim community thrives on political apathy, low culture of reading, decline in popular education and lack of access to material by classical and contemporary Muslim scholars who tackle these issues outside the framework of literalist and a-contextual fiqh. According to the catalogue of the list of books in our libraries and bookstores, and our curriculum in Muslim institutions, Qasim Amin's Women's Liberation (Tahrir al-Mar'a) (1899) was never written and the feminist undertones in the works of the first woman to undertake Quran exegesis - Aisha Abdal Rahman - aka Bint al Shati (Daughter of the Riverbank) - are just a figment in the imagination of modernist scholars.

Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity

How many Madressa and Dar-ulooom graduates know that women's assertion of their right to be acknowledged, listened to and heard starts with the female companions of the prophet Mohammed (s) demanding to know from the prophet (s) why Allah does not address women directly in Quran - to which the Almighty responded by henceforth using the phrase 'believing men and believing women' when addressing the believers? And that this woman activism gender equity tradition continues in the medieval period and the eighteen century with Ibn Arabi arguing that women could achieve spiritual stations as equally high as men and Nana Asma'u - the daughter of the prominent and eminent reformer Uthman Don Fodio - pushing for literacy and education of Muslim women. How many Madressa teachers tell their students of the founding of the University of Al Karauine by Fatima al-Fihri in 859 CE? How many of our children know that 26 of the 160 Mosques built in the 12 and 13th century during the Ayyubid dynasty were funded by a women's charitable trust (Waqf) and that half of all the royal patrons for these institutions were women?

Needless to mention the obvious example and inspiration behind women's active participation and leadership in public political, economic, social and cultural affairs women were the mothers of the believers, Khadijah (RA), Aisha (renowned scholar of hadith and military leader), Fatima (RA) (the beloved daughter of the prophet).

And the prophet's (s) words of praise to the women of Medina: 'How splendid were the women of the ansaar; shame did not prevent them from becoming learned in the faith.' The prophet's (s) words clearly articulate that guarding one's chastity, spirituality and righteousness does not dictate invisibility in public affairs. This is a sufficient rebuttal of the myth that women scholarship, leadership and activism are equal to the loss of shame and decency. What about stressing in the rules of modesty the language and tone we use when talking to our employees and house-helpers most of whom are old enough to be our parents, irritating cat-calls, suggestive looks and gestures towards women in the streets or passes at our house-helpers? How many men who rap about modesty talk down to their wives and treat them like they are dolls?

How many of the men who rant about modesty use vulgar, derogatory and degrading language, are rude to people, and give shabby treatment to their aged parents and grandparents? How many of these men are equally enraged when they witness girl-children below the age of eighteen being handed over in arranged/forced marriages to adults, and how many speak out in outrage against honor-killings and the disowning of children by their parents for marrying outside the village, race, tribe, and sect. How often do we rebuke men for strolling around the beach with bare chests and walking the streets in Bermudas? It seems like for many of us males, modesty and chastity has little to do with God and the integrity of the individual but a lot to do with controlling women's body, voice and movement to ensure that our wives and our daughters remain our property.

Read More...

Islam's European Reformation?

The controversial Tariq Ramadan's latest book promotes a "Western" version of Islam. Is he the "Muslim Martin Luther"?

Late last month, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton lifted a six-year visa ban on the Swiss Muslim academic Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan, an Oxford professor and Europe's premier voice of reformist Islam, had been prohibited by the Bush administration from entering the U.S. on the grounds that he had given money to the Palestinian militant group Hamas - a charge he vigorously denied. Ever since, Ramadan has polarized public opinion in both America and Europe: the left lauds him as a "Muslim Martin Luther," while the right demonizes him as an extremist in sheep's clothing. Despite the passionate debate, neither side has shown much interest in the substance of Ramadan's message - conveniently summarized in his concise new book, What I Believe (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Ramadan wrote What I Believe as "a work of clarification." In it, he emphasizes that his goal is to fashion a distinctively "Western" expression of Islam that does not require Muslims to choose between their national identities and their religious one. According to Ramadan, a person can be both fully Muslim and fully French, British, or German; these multiple identities shift and blend depending on the situation we face.

Ramadan's intellectual agenda reflects his own unconventional upbringing: his maternal grandfather was Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical group that championed the establishment of an Islamic state in Egypt and which launched the modern era of Islamist politics. Ramadan's father, Said, was one of al-Banna's senior deputies, and after al-Banna's death, he went into exile with his family in Geneva. There, he committed his life to preserving and disseminating al-Banna's legacy. The first of Said Ramadan's children born in Europe was Tariq. Caught between the Islamist cauldron of Egypt and cosmopolitan Geneva, Tariq grew up parsing his multiple and seemingly competing identities. As he writes, "I am Swiss by nationality, Egyptian by memory, Muslim by religion, European by culture, [and] universalist by principle."

Read More...

U.S. Can't Afford Military Aid to Israel

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to "go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work." One week later, he sent his FY2011 budget request to Congress, which included a record-breaking $3 billion in military aid to Israel.

This requested increase in U.S. weapons to Israel -- part of a ten-year $30 billion agreement signed between the two countries in 2007 -- qualifies on both counts as a program that the United States can't afford and that doesn't work in establishing a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Data published recently by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation shows that U.S. military aid to Israel comes at a financial and moral price that this country cannot afford to pay. Its website reveals that this same $3 billion earmark for Israel could be used instead to provide more than 364,000 low-income households with affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green jobs, or to provide early reading programs to 887,000 at-risk students, or to provide access to primary health care services for more than 24 million uninsured Americans.

If U.S. weapons were going to Israel for a good purpose, then perhaps a coherent guns versus butter debate would be appropriate. However, Israel repeatedly misuses U.S. weapons to commit grave human rights abuses against Palestinians who are forced to live under its illegal 42-year military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.

During the Bush Administration, Israel killed at least 3,107 innocent Palestinian civilians, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. Israel also injured thousands more innocent Palestinians and destroyed billions of dollars of Palestinian civilian infrastructure including homes, schools, factories, government buildings, and even Palestine's only airport. The severity and scale of this killing and destruction were made possible by hi-tech U.S. weapons provided to Israel at taxpayer expense.

And during Obama's first year in office, Israel continued to misuse its stock of U.S. weapons to entrench its apartheid policies toward Palestinians by maintaining its illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip -- collectively punishing its 1.5 million Palestinian residents by severely restricting the flow of humanitarian relief -- and building illegal Israeli-only colonies on stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Read More...

Obama names U.S. envoy to Islamic Conference

President Obama announced Saturday the appointment of Rashad Hussain, a White House lawyer, to be his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Obama made the announcement in a video conference to the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. In his message, Obama called Hussain "an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff," who would strengthen his policy of outreach to the world's Muslims.

Obama has made repairing U.S. relations with the Islamic world an important element of his foreign policy, an effort highlighted by his call for a "new beginning" in a speech in Cairo last June.

In the statement Saturday, Obama said Hussain has "played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo," and would continue to do so in his new position. Obama noted that Hussain is a Hafiz of the Koran, someone who has memorized the holy Islamic text.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference comprises 57 nations with a goal of promoting Muslim unity.

As a deputy associate counsel to Obama, Hussain has worked on national security, new media, and science and technology issues, according to a White House statement. He previously worked as a trial attorney for the Justice Department and as a legislative assistant on the House Judiciary Committee.

Hussain attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and earned his law degree from Yale Law School. He holds master's degrees in public administration and Arabic and Islamic studies from Harvard University.

Read More...

Gaza and Lebanon: Beware the Iron Wall, the Coming War

The Israeli military may be much less effective in winning wars than it was in the past, thanks to the stiffness of Arab resistance. But its military strategists are as shrewd and unpredictable as ever. The recent rhetoric that has escalated from Israel suggests that a future war in Lebanon will most likely target Syria as well. While this doesn't necessarily mean that Israel actually intends on targeting either of these countries in the near future, it is certainly the type or language that often precedes Israeli military maneuvers.

Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel's immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel's actions is Israel's historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy.

"Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence," claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government.

Israeli official policy - military or otherwise - is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact.

For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist "colonization can...continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through." He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip.

One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of 'existence' can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel's military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon - and in fact, Syria - seriously lacking.

Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel's exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll.

Israel's 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real - not figurative - Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat.

Not only did Hizbullah had penetrated the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army's notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon.

Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008.

As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements.


Of course, Israel's military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image.

Thus Yossi Peled's calculated comments on January 23: "In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north." Further, he claimed that "We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt."

Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance - following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah - is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war - against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas' recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.)

Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense.

Read More...