Global Intifada

Are the Wars on Terror and Iraq truly designed to promote global stability or merely to pursue American interests? Is this expansionism a new phenomenon or merely a manifestation of a pre-existing pathology to control the world at the expense of other peoples?

- Extermination of the Native Americans

- Spanish-American Wars followed by the brutal suppression of the Philippines

- Various interventions in Latin America to protect American corporate interests

- Dividing the Middle East up after WWI

- Funding various genocidal dictatorships and monarchies during the Cold War

If one scrutinizes all of American history, it seems that expansionism is the norm, not the exception.

Thoughts?

Share This

Today, the New York Times posted an article that reveals that the Obama campaign has fairly systematically avoided associating itself with the American Muslim community. Here are some interesting tidbits of information:

• Last December, the first American Muslim congressman, Representative Keith Ellison, offered to assist Obama in Iowa last year December. The Iowa caucuses are important state because it hosts the country’s first primary elections and sets the tone for the entire nomination process. Specifically, Representative Ellison offered to speak on the Senator’s behalf at one of the country’s oldest masjid in Cedar Rapids, but Obama declined in order to avoid “controversy.”
• When Representative Ellison tried to campaign for Obama in North Carolina, he was declined again.
• In spite of Muslim leaders, organizations, and political action committees from all over the country requesting appearances from the campaign by either the Senator or from his representatives, most have remained unfulfilled and those appearances that were made involved representatives, not the Senator himself.
• Obama has visited many churches and synagogues, but has never appeared at a single masjid.
• The apology to the two Muslim women who weren’t allowed to sit behind him during a really in Detroit seems to have been done at the behest of Representative Ellison who confronted Obama over the issue. (Fox News)

The fear of association with Islam is not a good enough reason for Obama to snub the entire community. The American Muslim population is concentrated in states such as California, Northern Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Ohio. Half of these states (Virginia, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio) are battle ground states where the Muslim vote could be pivotal in winning the election. Of course, if neither candidate is associating with Muslims at all, then this advantage will have little effect.

Perhaps the community should instead focus on other aspects of the elections then, such as Senate seats and governships.

Share This

Earlier this month, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain lambasted the oil industry:

“I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies,” said the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. “Not only because of the obscene profits they’ve made, but their failure to invest in alternative energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.” (Source)

When McCain ran for the Presidency in 2000, he was a fairly staunch opponent of enforcing the prohibition on drilling for oil in the Arctic, but he recently switched on his position and stated that he think it would be okay if individual states wanted to do so. (VOA)  He went on to argue that the federal government should ease the regulations on offshore drilling as well. (Houston Chronicle)

Hmm, why the sudden change of mind? Is it because of the global oil crisis? Probably not, the advantages of drilling in that region won’t immediately defuse the problem which is being caused primarily by a shortage of supply and an increase in demand for oil.

A better explanation is that the oil industry has proved to be not only his most prominent supporter during the presidential race, but even during his terms in the Senate:

“. . . McCain does lead all other senators, and all others who ran for president, in contributions from the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis of federal data in the 2007-08 election cycle. McCain collected $724,000 through May.” (Washington Wire)

Whose HIS daddy?

Share This

The Muslim Obamabots (hat tip to Eteraz for the term) are bending over backwards to support Obama, in spite of several indications that supporting him might not be in the best interest of the community, such as his weak stance against Islamophobia, blind support of Israel, and violating the sovereignty of Pakistan to fight the war on terror. Here are some frequent justifications of the recent fiasco:

Don’t blame Obama for Islamophobia! (Err, no one’s blaming him for Islamophobia, we’re saying he’s consistently spoken weakly against it!)

If Obama speaks out against Islamophobia, he’ll lose votes! (Err, so votes are more important then acting on moral principle? So much for “Yes we can!”)

Let Obama win the Presidency first! (Err, right, because we all know that Presidents adhere more to their campaign promises after they’re elected.)

Islamophobia isn’t a big deal anyway! (Err, then why was Obama attacked for being Muslim and why were McCain’s pastors allowed to brazenly bash Islam so openly for such a long time?)

Islamophobia is part of the fabric of American political culture! (Err, so that means we should just accept it and would other religious groups tolerate anti-Semitism or racism?)

Islamophobia isn’t the primary issue for the American Muslim community! (Err, so what is, getting halal meat certified or Eidh as a recognized holiday?)

At the end of the day, Mcama and Obain are two sides of the same coin. Both of them are uncritical of Israel, support American hegemony abroad, and will probably do little to stop the US military or intelligence agencies from engaging in human rights abuses. Here’s a statement from Obama regarding (nuclear armed to the teeth) Israel’s military intimidation of Iran under the guise of preventing that country from developing its own nukes:

“And so there is no doubt that Iran poses an extraordinary threat to Israel and Israel is always justified in making decisions that will provide for its security.” (Source)

Its quite entertaining watching the long chain of ass-kissing going on here. The community kisses the asses of the elites within it who then kiss the asses of Obama and McCain who then kisses the ass of Israel. Its like a line dance of ass-kissing.

Who are we kidding? Is the choice really between choosing the lesser of two evils? Why are we idealizing these candidates when its clear at the end of the day, a bomb is going to be dropped on a Muslim country somewhere? Obama isn’t pulling out of Iraq, he’s not going to kick out American oil companies that want to monopolize the market for their own profit, we are all not going to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Ultimately, the difference between Obama and McCain ultimately breaks down into: do we want to bomb Iran or Pakistan?

(Since ISNA Matrimonials are only for doctors, if I want to get a hot Paki trophy wife, I guess I’m gonna have to vote for McCain)

Instead of discussing these issues, this is what Muslims for Obama have put on the table as “issues”:

QUESTION: What are issues and recommendations for solutions that are unique to Muslim Americans?

1. A Law against harrassment of a Muslim women wearing Hijab at the Airport, DMV and other public arenas.

2. Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take a hours off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.

3. Make the 2 Eid’s, recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.

4. Optional Halal meals in federal buildiings, public schools and colleges.

5. Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)

6. Organize a Muslim American group to assist in recommendations for US foreign policy affecting majority Muslim countries.

Way to step up to the plate guys, this is policy making at its finest! Hmm, I’m glad to know that getting off on Eidh so I can exact Eidhi tribute from my closest relatives is a greater priority then . . . I dunno . . . fair brokering of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or ending the human rights abuses in secret prisons and Guantanamo Bay that have been documented by NGOs.

Lets be up front about our interests and not beat behind the bush: like every other special interest group, we should promote self-preservation. Self-preservation means no unjustifiable attacks against Muslims, denying Muslims civil and human rights, and ending Islamophobia.

Whose dying in Iraq? Muslims. Whose dying in Afghanistan? Muslims. Whose getting tortured in rendition flights, secret camps, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay? Muslims. Whose getting racially profiled? Muslims.

Instead of speaking on the strongest issues (loss of life and liberty), our “leaders” tip toe around the real issues and make things like Eidh, halal food, and getting off for Jumah issues.

Lets drop this idiotic rhetoric, muddled vision, and false sense of empowerment just because the candidate has an Arabesque name.

- Naive Muslims believing that they can change the system? Check.

- Incoherent goals other than vague slogans of “We gotta vote”? Check.

- Avoiding substantive issues such as promoting local and global self-preservation? Check.

- Letting people smear our religion without consequence? Check.

Will the American Muslim leadership and intellectuals ever stand up for its own self-interest instead of pandering to selfish elites who don’t give a damn about them?

YES WE CAN’T!

Share This

As you read this post, I would advise that you pop in classic modern rock song “The Boys Are Back In Town” by Thin Lizzy.

Got the song on? Okay, now proceed with reading the post.

According to the New York Times, several Western oil companies that were kicked out of Iraq for 36 years during Saddam Hussein’s regime are currently finalizing negotiations to allow them to return to Iraq. These oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, BP, Chevron, and several smaller oil companies) beat out 40 other oil companies (primarily from Russia, China, and India) in order to get no-bid contracts from Iraq’s Oil Ministry for the country’s largest oil fields that would run for one to two years, but “would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.” Other competitors in the region, such as Lukoil (a Russian company) are getting kicked out in spite of claiming to have an previous agreement with Hussein’s government as well as an American firm that negotiated with the Kurds. The contracts were given to these companies because they had provided years of “free” services to the ministry (which incidentally has American advisers) and also because they have the most up to date technology. The goal of the companies is to increase production in order to alleviate the global increase of oil prices.

If the past history of these companies is any indication of how they will behave in the future, it may not be far fetched to claim that Iraq is on the verge of becoming nothing more than a Western oil colony. This claim is given more credence given the theory that the US is attempting to convince the Iraqi government to allow it to construct 58 permanent military bases (the country currently has 275 bases). [Bush Administration officials of course are denying such bases are permanent, but a lot Iraqi legislators don’t see it that way] (New York Times) Looking at the history of these oil companies in Iraq and the region in general reveals grand chessboard schemes, violation of international law, and intrigue.

For one thing, oil companies had a significant influence in the formation of the Middle East itself. The San Remo Conference held in Italy on April 27, 1920 confirmed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret agreement between Britain and France made before WWI to divide up the Ottoman Empire, and the Balfour Declaration, which called for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (even though it belonged to the Ottoman Empire at the time). However, what the conference is most known for is that it resulted in Britain and France concluding a secret oil bargain that essentially enabled them to monopolize the entire future of oil in the Middle East. The US government later put pressure on the British government which conceded opening the monopoly up to seven American oil companies. (p 534-535 of “A Peace to End All Peace” by David Fromkin) The results of these activities eventually lead to the formation of the Iraq Petroleum Company.

Four of the companies mentioned in the beginning of this post were previously part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (called the Turkish Petroleum Company from 1912 - 1929) and essentially had a monopoly on Iraqi oil exploration from 1925 to 1961. The IPC was comprised of (1) the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1935, and BP in 1954), (2) Royal Dutch/Shell, (3) Compaign Francaise Des Petroles (the French company that acquired German interests after World War I, which became Total in 1991), and (4) Near East Development Corporation (a consortium of five large US oil companies, including Standard oil) (Source). Their monopoly was supposed to have lasted for a period of 75 years, but was ended when General Qassem of the Ba’ath party nationalized it in 1961. They’ve been trying to get back ever since.

BP, as it is known today, was famous for its monopolization of the Iranian oil market and paying off small portions to Iran from its stupendously large profits. Naturally, this pissed off the Iranians who, like the Iraqis later on, moved to nationalize the industry. Western governments responded by overthrowing the democratically elected populist leader, Mossadegh, under the guise of “fighting communism.” The tyrannical dictator they put in power triggered a powerful reaction that culminated in the Iranian Islamic Revolution, which has resulted in an counter-hegemonic force in the Middle East comprised of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and some would argue, even within Iraq.

Royal Dutch/Shell was fined $2 million by the United Nations for violating the embargo against Iraq by shipping the country’s oil in April 2000. (New York Times) It was later fined $137 million by the European Commission for setting up a price fixing cartel of bitumen. (Houston Chronicle)

Its good to know that a bunch of corporations with a history of supporting Western imperialism, espionage, overthrowing legitimate governments, and repeatedly violating international law are getting to back to a country that was pretty much designed to cater to Western interests. But what can we say? Boys will be boys!

Guess who just got back today?

Them wild-eyed boys that had been away

Haven’t changed, haven’t much to say

But man, I still think them cats are crazy!

Share This

Alhumdulillah, it looks like Senator Obama personally contacted the two sisters who had been prevented from sitting behind him by campaign volunteers during an election rally in Michigan and apologized to them. He also issued the following statement earlier today:

“I reached out to Ms. Aref and Ms. Abdelfadeel this afternoon. I spoke with Ms. Abdelfadeel, and expressed my deepest apologies for the incident that occurred with volunteers at the event in Detroit. The actions of these volunteers were unacceptable and in no way reflect any policy of my campaign. I take deepest offense to and will continue to fight against discrimination against people of any religious group or background. Our campaign is about bringing people together, and I’m grateful that Ms. Abdelfadeel accepted our apology and I hope Ms. Aref and any who were offended accept my apology as well.” (Source)

Nonetheless, I’d hope in the future that there are more photo ops and video footage with Muslims in it. Moreover, while I think this is a good first step, the underlying problem of Islamophobia still hasn’t been addressed, but hopefully he’ll get to it when he’s president.

People have pointed out that Obama isn’t an Islamophobe because he grew up with Muslims or he’s not against hijab. Such childish arguments reveal their elitist nature: kiss the ass of the man for now and we’ll get a pat on the head later. This mentality is inexcusable and was used in the past to justify colonialism and is currently being used to justify an inequitable global hegemonic order. Moreover, even if Obama rocked a turban and took some pictures with a crowd of people that had one or two hijabis, it is still irrelevant. No one has ever accused Obama of being an Islamophobe. However, the issue is that there is Islamophobia in America and it is an particular touchy issue in this election because people are using the fear of Islam as a political tool. Islamophobia came up with McCain’s pastors stating that the US was created to “war” on Islam. It came up repeatedly with the smear tactics to affiliate Obama with Islam over and over and over and over again. Islamophobia has created such a climate of fear in America, that one of the most progressive candidates in modern times has spent more time distancing himself from Islam and Muslims than attacking the demonization that produces it in the first place. My problem is that Obama has repeatedly proven to respond weakly in condemning the insinuation that there is something wrong with being Muslim and instead has devoted most of his energies in rebutting accusations that he IS a Muslim. If one gives it the proper context, then the issue is not ‘minor’ and is not just an ‘isolated incident’ but establishes a broader pattern of behavior.

Ultimately, what this incident reveals is that Obama is submitting to the pressures of the Islamophobes by distancing himself from Muslims. Unlike the Reverend Wright controversy which resulted in Obama giving a lengthy speech in Philadelphia about race relations in America, this time, Obama discreetly tip-toed around the issue and privately called the two women and apologized. Had this been based on race or another religion (such as Judaism), there would’ve been no qualms about the bigoted nature of the actions of the volunteers and no one would insinuate that the Muslim community is over-reacting. These reactions reveal just how deep bigotry and fear of Islam goes. If Obama is going to take a strong stand about bigotry on race but not on demonizing Muslims, then this shows disparate treatment of Islam and should be just as unequivocally condemned as a double standard.

Islamophobia is not only an issue in this election due to the smear tactics and outrageous antics of certain individuals, but it is an American issue period. The same people who propagate Islamophobia do so for a reason: they seek to utilize the fear of Islam to incite fear among the masses to justify a domestic policy to deny Muslims their civil rights or to support an aggressive foreign policy in the Muslim world. Islamophobia thus becomes a global problem. It leads to human rights violations, loss of life, and the deprivation of civil rights. It was Islamophobia that enabled the Bush administration’s weak argument regarding Saddam Hussein being connected to 9/11 so easy to swallow by the American public. It was Islamophobia that leads American politicians making statements indicating that they don’t want to see a Muslim president, or that we should bomb Mecca if there was a terrorist nuclear attack.

If successful, integrated American Muslims can’t get positive coverage in an election campaign that defines itself by tolerance, diversity, and change, then where can they? Why are so many of our elitist Muslim brethren concerned about standing up for their own rights? What “greater good” is being served by not saying that we, as a community, will not tolerate being demonized any more? A victory for Obama isn’t a victory for the Muslim community if there isn’t a change in the underlying manner in which Islam is treated. If Obama wins by not contesting the large segment of American society that has irrational hostile views towards Islam, then this isn’t a victory for the American Muslim community - its a loss.

Again, to be clear, I am not calling for Muslims to disavow Obama, I’m telling them to support him because he’s still the strongest candidate. However, they should also put pressure on him and others similarly situated to make it clear that the demonization of Muslims from anyone is not going to be tolerated. Instead of being paralyzed by fear or acquiescing to the elitist structure of American politics, its time to make waves.

Share This

We’ve heard this phrase so many times before.

When tyrannical monarchies hiding behind the guise of religion oppressed people, we were told “Don’t make waves.”

When European imperialists came to our lands, robbed our natural resources, subverted elites into their peons, enslaved millions, dispossessed the lands of its native inhabitants, and created a patently discriminatory and unfair global economic system, we were told “Don’t make waves.”

When our forefathers came to America, either on the slave ship or through Ellis Island and they were discriminated against based on their skin color or because they dressed funny, we were told “Don’t make waves.”

When a candidate in one of the most hotly contested elections in American history has volunteers in his campaign who didn’t allow Muslims to sit behind him in a televised address, we are again being told “Don’t make waves.” We are being told that Obama’s campaign had no choice, or they attempt to justify it by saying “Look, here are some pictures of Obama with some Muslims” as if being pictured with a general mass of people with one or two Muslims in the crowd makes up for the affront, or they say “The campaign has apologized” but not Obama himself. These events illustrate a fundamental contradiction in Barack Obama’s campaign.

There is hope in America to combat racism - but not Islamophobia. Yes we can, if you’re white, black, or whatever, as long as you ain’t Muslim. The audacity of hope seems to be not so audacious anymore. Obama’s campaign seems to have spent more time distancing themselves from the Muslim community rather than condemning Islamophobia itself. While there are certainly statements from the Senator stressing how stereotyping all Muslims is wrong, on his website and in his speeches, we see more of a focus contesting the notion that he is Muslim rather than stating the real problem which is that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.

Some American Muslims will be satisfied with Obama’s campaign and point out that there’s nothing he can do. I disagree, there is something he can do. If he is going to be the President of the most powerful country in the world and he cannot stand up against Islamophobia, then who will? If Obama makes a commitment to combat racism in America, but not Islamophobia, he will fail as a President whose primary focus will be national security in the war on terror. If Obama can’t keep bigoted people from fanning the flames of hatred and feeding into the propaganda of terrorists now, then what will he do when he is president?

How long will we have to submit to racism against Arabs or Islamophobia merely because rich white folks don’t like the fact that we’re different? If his campaign is truly about uniting America and making a difference in the world, then he should put his money where his mouth is and live up to his ideals of pluralism and diplomacy.

I don’t think this is the time to sit by idly and let elites govern the course of history anymore. I think its time to stand up and make waves. I think its time to get mainstream America to realize that it has a problem with its portrayal and treatment of Islam and Muslims. The war on terror isn’t a sufficient reason to stereotype an entire people, especially when such bigotry preceded the war by years. These two Muslim women had nothing to do with terrorism, they represented the best and brightest of the American Muslim community, they were fully “integrated”, they were active participants in the American democratic system and solely because of an outward representation of their faith, they were castigated.

Islamophobia is the governing issue in the Western Muslim community. Thats the primary interest of our community at the domestic level. Islamophobia then becomes the basis for the belligerent narrative of the entire Muslim world and results in wars of aggression. I don’t think you can separate the obvious nexus between Islamophobia and the war on Iraq. Without the former, the latter would not have been possible. Islamophobia legitimates neocolonialist enterprises whether it is in America, Europe, or Israel. Now, some will argue, “Muslims need to suck it up” or that “they need to think of the greater good”, but what compelling interest is being served by constantly degrading Islam or Muslims? It doesn’t serve any national interest, in fact it hurts it by fostering feelings of anti-Americanism based on a perceived prejudice that may undermine our efforts in the war on terror. It doesn’t serve any economic interest. It doesn’t fulfill any viable social function at all - and thats the problem. We are being told to tolerate the demonization of our faith and not make waves.

And to be fair, no special interest group EVER operates on the mythical construct of utilitarianism.  They do not operate on lofty ideals, but self-interest. Thats the entire purpose of a lobby or a special interest group in general. The Israeli lobby doesn’t benefit America in any way shape or form. Israel doesn’t provide America with any economic benefits, its not a strategic asset, in fact, its a strategic liability, its contribution to the war on terror is minimal. The oil lobby doesn’t give a damn about the average American. The racial and religious groups primary purpose is promoting their self-image and ideals.

The Muslim political action interest is (a) self-preservation of the community at home and (b) self-preservation of the community abroad, and (c) the promotion of social justice. If we can’t defend ourselves, how can we defend others?

Moreover, in the interest of justice, I think its entirely justifiable for Muslims to be concerned about their self-image and the preservation of the community abroad because they are issues of global concern. No offense, but I don’t see the average American suffering to the absurd degree as Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Somalis, Chechens, Uighurs, etc. How many Americans have to fear getting blown up by an IED or getting gunned down by a helicopter or having Tomahawk cruise missiles? How many Americans truly have to worry about their civil rights being unlawfully violateld? About being tortured in secret prisons at GITMO, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The issues regarding Muslims are global issues and we are often the victims of decrepit domestic and foreign policy and to stand up for one’s rights isn’t being selfish at all and even if it is, its not any different from how other interest groups behave.

And lets be honest here, if the volunteers told a black couple they couldn’t sit behind a candidate, that would be universally condemned. If they did it with Jews, that would be condemned. But for some reason, its acceptable to discriminate against Muslims? We can’t even get a strong condemnation of this cultural segregation where Muslims are open game and subject to ridicule? Muslims are invited to share in the American dream - but through the back door.

Islamophobia is a domestic issue, its a foreign policy issue, its a human rights issue, its an issue of global concern. Its not something that should be brushed under the rug. There are legitimate grievances that must be addressed. To be clear, I am not calling for American Muslims to stop supporting Obama, he’s clearly the strongest candidate. What I am calling for is a clear statement from ALL of the candidates to condemn Islamophobia and the demonization of all Muslims without compromising on the war on terror.

Share This

Muslim Barack Obama Fans Told to Hide from Television Cameras

So apparently, some Hijabis were sitting in special seats at Obama’s Detroit rally and one of them was asked to sit somewhere else and another was asked to take her headscarf off. Now, the underlying reason is probably because these volunteers didn’t want Obama to be associated with “Islam” again, but it behooves the American Muslim community to apply pressure on Obama to strongly condemn these actions. While fear of Islam and Muslims may be justifiable due to the war on terror, fear of Muslim elites who are integrated into mainstream American society is inappropriate.

Many people constantly decry the Muslim community from “failing to integrate” and for allegedly being “insular” and not adhering to Western values, but here we have two sisters who represent the best of their communities and are fully integrated into mainstream American democratic culture. These two sisters, whether they recognize it or not, are symbols of the success of the American Muslim community and those symbols need to be presented in the media, not castigated or denuded.

My suggestion is to contact the Obama campaign and let them know that you’d like a clear statement from the Senator on this occurrence with the reassurance that it won’t happen again.

Here’s a sample response:

To Whom It May Concern:

Sincerely,

Share This

Interesting juxtaposition on skin tanning/whitening beauty product commercials.

Thoughts?

Share This

In case you already didn’t know, one of the hottest Muslim magazines is Illume Media. In addition to writing thought-provoking articles, they just revamped their website and its got some amazinggggg features. In addition to really integrating it into the web (RSS feed, user blogs, etc), my favorite feature is the magazine preview which gives the viewer a real three-dimensional feel of the article. Its phenomenal! (The only downside is that I couldn’t figure out how to exit the preview feature). To be honest, I think its the best English Muslim magazine thus far.

But you don’t have to take MY word for it, check it out yourself:

Illume Magazine

I’d recommend reading the following articles:

- Tea with the Taliban

- The Muslims of Cham

- The PhD Kid (an article about rapper Hasan Salam)

Share This