Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Commentary on Uri Dromi's article in the Guardian
I thought I would take some time to post a commentary paragraph by paragraph of some of the lies that Israel's professional propagandists wheel out just after Israel has killed more people. Uri Dromi is writing an article for the Guardian and thoughtfully tells us why Israel had to kill all those people and that it regretted doing so, but it had no choice. Here is why I think he's talking absolute rubbish.
In the wake of the Israeli operation in Gaza, aimed at putting an end to years of Hamas harassment of the south of Israel, there are now media reports about the possible use by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) of white phosphorus and flechette shells. Now Amnesty International issues a report reiterating these claims.
This is not true, Hamas had been observing a ceasefire with the Zionist state, which was continuing its policy of assassination and destruction throughout. In addition, the Israeli state had maintained a two year seige on Gaza and continues to do so along with its Egyptian allies.
Some words about these weapons.
White phosphorous is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, used primarily to conceal the movement of troops. It burns on contact with oxygen and creates a smokescreen to mask the military manoeuvre. Unfortunately, it may have a negative side effect: when it comes into contact with people, it causes severe burns.
Flechettes are an anti-personnel weapon designed to strike a large number of enemy men. Basically, they are tiny metal darts packed into120mm shells. These shells explode in mid-air and scatter many flechettes in a conical pattern over an area around 300 metres wide and 100 metres long.
As frightening as they sound, these weapons are not banned by international law. Therefore, when the Israeli army used them in Gaza, it did nothing unprecedented. Peter Herby, the head of the Red Cross's mines-arms unit, told the Associated Press: "In some of the strikes in Gaza, it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used." However, he added: "It's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."
As for flechettes, whether we like it or not, they are standard weapons for most armies. Again, international law doesn't prohibit their use. Even so, the IDF established a commission of inquiry to investigate whether there were cases in which flechettes and white phosphorous were misused.
This is all true.
Amnesty International, however, didn't wait for any such investigation. Quick as ever to blame Israel, the organisation paid lip service to the launching of thousands of rockets by Hamas on Israel during the last years, aiming intentionally to kill innocent civilians. It hardly denounced them and then went on to conclude that it was Israel that had committed "war crimes".
Your army did kill over 1300 civilians, many of them children, over a period of over 30 days of sustained bombing in the most heavily populated area on the planet. A little perspective please.
Alas, war is a messy business. In urban areas, where the enemy is elusive and is using women and children as human shields, war is even messier. Remember Fallujah in Iraq, in 2004, when during Operation Phantom Fury US forces destroyed one out of every four dwellings of this 40,000-home city, killing 1,350 fighters and an undisclosed number of civilians. No one blamed the US for war crimes, and no one dared threaten to drag American generals to tribunals at The Hague. When it comes to Israel, however, double standards reign.
War is indeed a messy business, but you only say this when you kill Palestinian civilians, it doesn't seem to occur to you that since you are at war with the entire Palestinian people, some of your own civilians will get killed too. The same argument can and has been used that almost the entire Israeli civilian population is involved with the Zionist military establishment or industry which supports it, and since your country is on stolen Palestinian land, there are no cities or areas which are not embroiled in this war.
Does this man really think that anybody has forgotten what happened in Fallujah? He might as well have been an Italian fascist claiming precedence with the Luftwaffe and Guernica. Both of these countries will be held to account for what they have done, sooner or later. As for double standards in dealing with the United States and Israel, the phrase a pot calling a kettle black comes to mind.
Go explain to Amnesty, or to the world media, that Israel, in trying to hit Hamas operatives only, took extraordinary steps not to harm civilians. Millions of leaflets were scattered over Gaza, warning the locals to evacuate certain areas before they were attacked. Phone calls were made to specific residents to leave their homes, because Hamas terrorists operated from there and thus turned them into military targets (yes, read again: you call your enemy and you implore him to leave the area so he is not hurt). Last but not least, after exhausting all those warning measures, the IDF fired close to such homes and gave the residents enough time to leave them safely, before the houses were hit.
This is rubbish, Hamas has been warning the Israelis and the settlers not to occupy Palestinian land for years. It has also warned that any attempt at expansion of settlements, or invasion of Gaza, will be met with retaliation. Needless to say, the Israeli settlements have continued growing, Israelis have continued living on Palestinian land and the Israeli army launched a massive invasion attempt into the Gaza strip. No resistance group in the world would even bother giving an invading army an ultimatum before striking it and yet the Israelis time and again think that they can reside in Palestine with impunity and then have the temerity to complain that they are coming under rocket attack from the people whose land they stole. This is double standards to the extreme if ever there was any.
No other army in the world goes to such lengths to try not to hurt civilians. Yet once a military operation is launched, and especially in a heavily populated area such as Gaza, things happen. Was there a disproportionate use of force? The IDF is checking it. Was there misuse of white phosphorous or flechettes? Again, Israel, as a vibrant democracy, is investigating the matter thoroughly. In the meantime, foreign journalists who entered Gaza when the operation was over reported that the initial stories about the damage were grossly exaggerated.
The same holds true for Hamas attempts to dislodge both the Israeli army and Israeli settlers from their land. It is admirable how serious the self titled Israeli "Defense" Forces take any allegations of disproportionate force or the use of phosphorous and flechettes. I am assured that Hamas has also heard of the allegations made against it and will leave no stone unturned in their investigation of what happened, since they too are part of a vibrant democracy and were elected by the Palestinian people in free and transparent elections. Other foreign journalists who entered Gaza when the operation said that initial stories about the damage were grossly minimised but what is your point exactly?
Last but not least, the Israeli use of force must be put in context. Only after exhausting its patience vis-a-vis an onslaught of Qassam rockets did Israel decide to use its military power, in the most justifiable act of self-defence. If there is one commodity in short supply among the Hamas leaders, it is accountability. Hamas brought on the people of Gaza the wrath of the IDF – white phosphorous and flechettes included. Now its supporters are pointing fingers at Israel.
The Israeli use of force took place after it forced a seige on the people of Gaza for two years, during which time it continued to fire missiles into the territory in spite of Hamas adhering to a ceasefire. In terms of accountability, one thing these people are not in short supply of is that. They are of the people of Gaza themselves and are not some foreign body within the civilian population. It is the leadership, their colleagues, neighbours and very own families who are at the front line. Entire families have been wiped out in missile strikes, the very own families of these Hamas men he speaks of. Let us stop fooling ourselves that Hamas have brought this on the people of Gaza, they are the people of Gaza and they were elected by the people of Gaza.
.
The plight of Algerians, the plight of Arabs around the world
"Dignity and not hunger are driving Algerians to illegal emmigration", this is an article in al Quds newspaper, in which the writer casts doubts on the traditional view given by European countries of starving, desparate Africans trying to cross the Mediterranean sea. Kamel Bil'Abed lost his son, a 25 year old educated man, somewhere in that sea. In his attempt to locate relatives of other people who had suffered a similar fate, he found that many of them had been lawyers, policemen and graduates who had despaired of finding any decent opportunities in Algeria. The educational system has improved massively since 1962, but an economy which relied on oil and gas revenues has failed to generate enough jobs for the countries people. In Algeria people who throw themselves to the mercy of the sea in search of a better life on the other side are known as the "Burned" حراقة, as they are thought to be burning themselves in taking so high a risk and for a life of poverty working jobs in conditions nearing that of slavery. Personally I've been there and done that and I think that allows me to say that it is a mental condition which is propagated by everyone from friends and family to corrupt and incompetent governments that push you away from your home in search of a mythical "better life". That and everything you could ever want is sometimes right in front of your very nose. I believe it is only a form of insanity which could drive anyone to be of "the burned".
.Tuesday, February 24, 2009
On hippie Sufism
The BBC asks, "Can Sufi Islam counter the Taleban?", Maysaloon asks, "Does this Barbara Plett even know what she is talking about? "
It's one o'clock in the morning and the night is pounding with hypnotic rhythms, the air thick with the smoke of incense, laced with dope.
Is this Sufi Islam? The Sufism of Imam Ghazali and Ibn Arabi? Ibn Arabi, drunk from a night of revelry, claimed he heard a voice telling him, "I did not create you for this" and his nights of drinking were over from that point, his journey to Allah just begun. al Ghazali in his Revival set of books clearly believed that anything intoxicating was forbidden, haram. It is the essence of Sufism that a person dedicates themselves solely to worshipping the One, so how can these "Sufis" described in the article dance around and get high with something which separates them from their God as their own prophet himself said? These people are just stupid but then again, so is the BBC's reporting on Islam. I've heard Qawwali music before and it is indeed beautiful, but it is not a replacement to the fard, obligations of a Muslim, it is just music. That it glorifies Allah and leads to His remembrance is not contrary to Islamic belief and in fact admirable, but it becomes contrary when it is taken alone as the path to faith, or the key path to faith. al Ghazali himself pointed out the folly of some who claim Sufism when you see that they have abandoned the five prayers because they are beyond that "spiritually". He then cites what the Prophet Muhammad said, which is that whoever abandons the five prayers is no longer a Muslim. This is al Ghazali, the grand sufi master who is counted by some as belonging to the "moderate" history and branch of Islam. There isn't even a need to mention the dope in this article, which makes the BBC's writer sound absolutely ridiculous. If these Qawwali think taking hashish brings them close to the divine then they no longer belong to Islam and are something else. Sufis arise from Islam and are not exempt from Allah's laws nor are they superior to ordinary Muslims, they are just Muslim's a la Turbo mode who have turned their back on the world and on worldly desires.
In the article Ayeda Naqvi, claiming to be a 'teacher of Islamic mysticism" says "It was Sufis who came and spread the religious message of love and harmony and beauty, there were no swords, it was very different from the sharp edged Islam of the Middle East."
I see, the "sharp edged Islam of the Middle East"? Perhaps she got her qualifications to teach Islamic mysticism from the School of Oriental and African Sciences in London? As if to provide authority to this claim, we are then told that the Rand Corporation in the United States fully supports this version of "Hippie Islam" as an "open, intellectual interpretation of Islam". That's just grand isn't it? Still it gets better, our marvelous "teacher of Islamic mysticism" even offers advice. This time she is right, but it is just amazing how self-orientalising moderates love offering advice to the White Man on how to deal with the riff raff of her people:
Ayeda Naqvi, on the other hand, believes Sufism could play a political role to strengthen a tolerant Islamic identity in Pakistan. But she warns of the dangers of Western support.
"I think if it's done it has to be done very quietly because a lot of people here are allergic to the West interfering," she says.
"So even if it's something good they're doing, they need to be discreet because you don't want Sufism to be labelled as a movement which is being pushed by the West to drown out the real puritanical Islam."
What the West won't realise is that with all the different interpretations of Islam and various sects, the essence of Islam, the basis of faith is the Quran. The Quran is accessible and readable and it is clear in what it obliges Muslims to do in many matters. Whether these obligations are carried out is another matter, but in when it comes to fighting occupation and oppression, the rules of Allah are clear, fight those who fight you and who take your lands and push you out of your homes. In this case waging Jihad in any form possible, even violently, are an obligation and not just the manipulations of a few cranky mullahs in the mountains. The West will need more than just marijuana and drums if they want to try and destroy Islam.
Monday, February 23, 2009
“This is the day the Kurds were always afraid of. As the Americans leave, once again we are left isolated and face to face with Baghdad.”
Once again the Kurds make the strategic mistake of forgetting that whether it is the United States, the English or the Israelis, all of these will leave the Middle East sooner or later. How the Kurds have been treated is wrong, but they should never have trusted America and Israel. I think eventually they will go through an experience similar to what happened in Georgia where the shock reaches them that they are not in the West, and they cannot rely on people who are only using them as a means to an end and not an end in itself.
.
Binyam Muhammad to seek treatment on NHS!
"Before this ordeal, 'torture' was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim. It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways — all orchestrated by the US Government."
The Times has an interesting take on the way that they choose to report stories. Later in the article, they include just one sentence stating that he[Binyam Muhammad] will be entitled to NHS treatment.
"As a foreign national, he has been granted temporary admission to the UK but his immigration status will be reviewed. He will be allowed to seek NHS treatment."
I mean how relevant is that to the story? This is where an international story gets tied into the local issues which the British public are groomed with. The NHS is currently wracked with crisis, problems and mismanagement, due to decades of underfunding and poor management, all the fault of the government. Yet we have one man who was at the center of a torture scandal and in a typically English fashion, the Times wants to take out the calculator in the middle of the restaurant and see who is responsible for the extra 20 pence on the food bill and if some people chewed quicker than others. Oh, the fact that the man is brown and foreign is great too, especially since the economy is in recession. Things are going to get a lot worse here once the recession starts claiming more victims.
Still, they are only slightly less flippant in their coverage of this story than the rabidly American CNN. They reported the story as "Torture claim Gitmo detainee back in the UK". Yes oh wise American editors, it is a torture claim, because you are an impartial agency and you don't want to make any assumptions in your reporting. I also like how you affectionately call your governments torture and interrogation centre for Muslims "Gitmo".
.
My translation: Iran and Bahrain's Arabism
The latest article by Abd al Bari Atwan from al Quds newspaper. It's actually excellent and well worth a read for anyone bewildered by the recent blip of solidarity shown to Bahrain as it puts things in a much needed perspective.
Abd al Bari Atwan
23/02/2009
Recently Bahrain has been the subject of an unprecedented show of solidarity by its fellow Arab countries. Recently it had been visited by the Egyptian president Husni Mubarak for a few hours, the Jordanian King Abdullah the Second, has also paid a visit, and Riyadh has recently hosted an emergency meeting for the foreign and finance ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council.
This show of solidarity comes in the wake of recent Iranian statements which have increased in frequency recently, threatening the sovereignty of this small country and casting doubts as to its Arab identity. The most direct and agressive of these was made by Hujat al Islam Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, the former head of the Iranian Shourah Council, and the private inspector for the office of the grand Murshid of the Iranian republic, which described Bahrain as Iran's fourteenth province.
The Iranian government has publicly distanced itself from these comments and confirmed their belief in the sovereignty of Bahrain and its independence. At the same time it has also reiterated its commitments on keeping good neighbourly relations with the country. But the damage has been done and those who have been waiting for the slightest mistake from Iran have, with these statements, found a goldent opportunity to instigate and provoke a reaction against it.
The Iranian officials are surprised by the angry responses that have been made concerning the statements of Mr Nouri, and say in private meetings that this comes under the "freedom of expression" which is found in the country, where high level public officials in Iran such as the president Ahmadi Nejad are subject to fierce criticisms levelled by the country's press and universities by those who oppose his policies.
Freedom of expression is one thing, and skepticism of the sovereignty of a country and its stability, whilst alleging that it belongs to another country is a completely different matter. Especially since these statements have been repeated in recent months by more than one person, in addition to the fact that Mr Nouri is not merely a journalist or writer to claim that he is simply expressing his opinion, but a high level official in government and very close to the grand Murshid and who knows exactly what he is saying.
Bahrain gained its independence after a popular referendum which was free and transparent, in which its people chose to confirm their right to independence and the freedom to determine their future and to retain their Arab identity. Iran admitted to this free and democratic decision, and established complete diplomatic relations with the new country. Why is the current Islamic government now casting doubts over this choice now, thus proving that it is more Farsee in outlook and more hostile to the Arabs than even the Shah's government was!
The timing is terrible by all measurements, and serves the enemies of Iran, with the Israelis and Americans amongst them in particular, by planting the seeds of dissent and division with the Arabs who are standing in the same trench as Iran in the face of their [Israeli and American] conspiracies, and their readiness to wage an economic war against it which would precede a possible military action against it similar to what took place in Iraq.
We were expecting the Iranians to be much more intelligent than the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and not fall into the trap which led him into the arms of the Americans and those Arabs allied with them who eventually invaded the country and destroyed it. However appears that the "arrogance of power" is starting to blind some in Tehran from seeing the facts and learning from the lessons of history and of more recent times in particular. Iran is currently being targetted because it supports armed resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon, and stands beside the Palestinian people in their attempt to gain their legitimate rights, and has supported the resistance as they withstood the last war of aggression which took place against Gaza with money and some arms. This took place in spite of the severity of the seige and Iran is also behind the first and most honourable Arab victory against the Hebrew state during the summer war of 2006 against Lebanon.
The targetting of Iran may assume different guises, such as an economic blockade, international sanctions, and the creating of internal unrest by supporting opposition groups and reviving sectarian and racial divisions. Farsees represent 52 per cent of the entire Iranian population for their are also Arabs in Khozestan (Arabistan) and the Balush and Tajik in the South and South East, as well Kurds in the North West.
Mr Nateq Nouri presented, with his inflammatory statements, the greatest gift for those beating the drums of war against Iran, and especially to the "Coalition of the Afraid" of its increasing military strength and its right to develop nuclear capabilities to balance the mature military capabilities of the Israeli state which are ignored internationally and by the Arabs, and for no valid reason or gain.
All we have left is that this sudden Arab solidarity with the Bahraini state in facing Iran is a new step which deserves attention, but the question which presents itself forcefully is why this sudden awakening of solidarity and courage, and in such sudden strength? This especially by the likes of the Egyptian regime whose "Arab" blood was frozen in its veins during the recent Israeli war against the Gaza strip?! What can these countries offer Bahrain in the event of Iran making true of its threats, just as the president Saddam Hussein once did, and sends its forces to Bahrain?
The answer, with great sadness, is absolutely nothing. For these countries have lost all of their military will, exactly as they have also lost all of their political will and their freedom of decision. We have seen this tragedy in its ugliest form when the Iraqi forces entered Kuwait, whereby the United States rushed to offer assistance, and Kuwait lost all its sovereignty, bases and wealth as a hostage in exchange along with a blank cheque to cover all the expenses.
For the Gulf states in particular, and over the past twenty years since the crisis in Kuwait, have not developed any military capabilities to defend themselves in spite of possessing trillions of dollars in oil revenue, and have preferred to invest these in Europe and the United States instead of investing these in armies and defensive capabilities. Now they have lost most of it (some estimate the loss at around 3 trillion dollars) during the recent collapse in the Western financial markets.
The United States, and in its new administration, might not pay any heed to Gulf calls to save them should Bahrain or anybody else come under Iranian attack, for it has lost its reputation, sons and over seven hundred billion dollars at least when it last answered their calls concerning Kuwait, and it will lose double that in its current war in Afghanistan, where experts are in widespread agreement that it has already actually lost it.
The Arabs, and the rulers of the Gulf and Egypt in particular, have made a strategic mistake in the history of the region when they conspired against the former Iraqi regime and actively participated in imposing sanctions against it, then opening their bases and airspace for the last American invasion, when they handed Iraq to Iran on a golden platter, and unbalanced the strategic and political balance of the region, then sat crying over Iranian superiority.
Our hearts are with Bahrain, but we fear for her from the love of "Joseph's brothers" more than our fear for her from the fabricated Iranian wolf, and the trauma of the people of Gaza, and before them the people of Iraq with these same "brothers" is still plain for all to see.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Space, the final frontier....Inshallah....
Reading through the Saudi paper al Sharq al Awsat, we learn of plans to launch not one, but two Saudi satellites into orbit by 2011. Apparently this is is a joint project with an American university. The fact that Iran just launched its own satellite into space has NOTHING to do with this entirely coincidental development; Saudi Arabia has always been a beacon of scientific learning and discovery. On a purely speculative note, wouldn't it be amazing if the reason for all this joint space cooperation is because someone has convinced the Saudis to pay a lot of money to fund NASA? The last I heard, the US government was looking to cut back their funding so I wonder how their mission of exploring space and studying moon rocks is faring with what could be the worst recession in living memory.
.I just read on al Jazeera that there has been an explosion in Cairo, killing at least one tourist and injuring another 16 people. The area this took place in is apparently quite a busy tourist destination, so this is definitely aimed at sabotaging the industry. My initial reaction is that this might be the start of an attempt at getting even for Gaza but by whom? I have no idea yet. In December 2008 and early January 2009, the Egyptian government openly assisted with the Israeli state's seige of the people of Gaza and continues to collaborate with the West in preventing aid, weapons and supplies from reaching the besieged Palestinians.
.Thursday, February 19, 2009
An eye for an eye: a look at Islamic legislation
Iran has been gripped recently with the story of a woman who was disfigured and blinded with acid by an obsessed man who wanted her to marry him. What has surprised many people around the world is that she has demanded that they obtain justice for her in an unusual way, invoking the Islamic belief of "an eye for an eye". After a trial, the court sentenced the man to be blinded with drops of acid into his eyes and his recent appeal has been rejected.
Many people I've spoken with about this have been very uncomfortable about this in a number of ways, understandably. The first is that the state is the one which will be carrying out this extremely harsh sentence, the second is that this whole affair seems so utterly brutal and surreal. Still, I would argue that this isn't actually the case. Firstly Iran is an Islamic republic, which means that it's legislation is derived primarily from the Qur'an. The goal of the Islamic republic is to have a country which is run as closely as possible according to the laws as they believe were laid down by Allah (God) and so it is a country where Muslims have the opportunity to live according to their faith fully and entirely according to Islamic law, which is synonymous with justice. Based on this understanding, there is no law which is finer for a Muslim to adhere to than that which is laid down in the Qur'an, for it would preserve their rights and take into account their grievances to the full. Universal human rights, accepted by secular countries to varying extent throughout the world, is similar in form but not in content and it, according to a Muslim, leads to more injustice since it is clumsy and childish. Therefore, they believe it is Islamic law which would guarantee that the victim is fully compensated and that the criminal would receive the punishment due to them. Notions of reforming criminals are not alien to Islamic law, but they are within the framework of the limits set by Islamic jurisprudence and legislation. This brings us to a key point to remember about Islamic law. The transgressing of boundaries to do with a Muslims obligations towards Allah have, throughout the history of Islam and since the days of the Prophet Muhammad himself, been mostly forgiven and dealt with leniently, for God is forgiving. It is where the transgressions have infringed on other Muslims that the punishment has been harshest and the enforcement the most stringent. What good is justice if the victim is told their recompense is in the after life? This did not mean that there were not ways around it, for blood libel is accepted in cases of murder or accidental killing or for serious punishments.
When it comes to prescriptions for transgressions and harms that a person suffers from the hands of another, the Qur'an is clear about to what extent justice can be pursued and extracted, outlining the limits and options available. The media have latched onto the catchy "An eye for an eye" hadith, but there is much in the Qur'an which also confirms this view and in fact makes the enforcing of it a duty upon Muslims to enact in accordance with the limits set. For example:
al Shura 42:40
"and the punishment for a harm is a harm like it and who forgives and reconciles, his reward will be with Allah, He does not like the unjust."
The meaning of this is clear, though it is important to point out that when the Qur'an says, "He does not like the unjust", that does not mean that should a person choose to inflict a harm similar to the harm they suffered then they are unjust, but whosoever exceeds that would then be unjust.
al Nisa 4:92
"Never should a Believer kill a Believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake, (compensation is due); if one (so) kills a Believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a Believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah; for Allah hath all Knowledge and all Wisdom."
al Baqarah: 178,179
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ وَالْأُنْثَى بِالْأُنْثَى فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ذَلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَهُ عَذَابٌ
"O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude. This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty."
"In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, O ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves."
Islamic law clearly states the limits of applying retribution and extracting justice. For those who transgress, there are consequences. In the case of the man who has done such a horrible act on this woman, he has left her permanently scarred and with a burden that will last with her for the rest of her life. The injustice is already done and the focus now is on how best to address this imbalance whereby she has clearly, within the limits of the law of the land, as specified by the Qur'an, demanded that he suffer the same fate as she did. The court has obliged, since it does not contravene Islamic law, is within her right to request, and is therefore not unjust. Since it falls within the criteria of a just sentence, that is, it is fully deserved, then it is not unusual, since justice is not unusual for it is needed to maintain balance. Nor is it cruel, since cruelty is only when a person suffers undeservedly and this person, as mentioned above, deserves the sentence by virtue of the fact that he has done her grave harm out of malice and spitefulness and must be held to account. As a perpetrator of a crime in an Islamic state, subject to Islamic laws, justice has been exacted. If only Iran's Islamic authorities were this diligent in the application of the rest of Shariah law.
.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
My translation: Criminalising Muslims in Britain
The latest article by the brilliant Abd al Bari Atwan, of the London based 'al Quds newspaper' translated into English by Maysaloon:
18/02/2009
The British government is currently considering plans which target the Muslim community through categorising its members as either 'moderate' or 'extremists' as part of its anti-terror measures. This could result in the complete opposite of the intended effect and play right into the hands of the the phenomenon known as "Islamophobia" currently sweeping Europe and the United States, giving it an official capacity.
This new strategy, which will be announced officially next month, could turn into laws which reinforce current emergency legislation which has already taken effect, putting all the members of the Islamic community in Britain, which number between one and one and a half million, under surveillance and within the circle of suspicion. Those who will be considered "extremist" are all who fall under one or all of the following categories:
1. Whoever calls for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate or a unified Islamic nation.
2. Whoever calls for the establishment of Islamic law and promotes it.
3. Whoever believes in Jihad, or armed resistance anywhere in the world including the armed struggle to liberate Palestine against the Israeli military juggernaut.
4. Argues that Islam forbids homosexuality, and that whoever practices it will be punished by the Creator.
5. Refuses to condemn the killing of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Extremism" is another label for "terror" and whoever is stuck with this description could be treated as a terrorist in the worlds airports, harbours and in government agencies, and could be subject to arrest as a threat to national security. The lists of potential terrorists which have been compiled by the National Security Agency in the United States include the names of up to one million people, the vast majority of whom are Muslims, and who are subject to the most humiliating of treatment in American airports, this writers included amongst them.
The fact that they are even considering such lists, let alone plans to implement them, betrays a deep seated racist and exclusionary view of Muslims in Britain, reminding us of the Inquisition in Europe, or the McArthy witch-hunts in the United States, because they make every Muslim a suspect who has to prove their innocence, and condemns them beforehands for their beliefs and not their actions, labelling them as "extremists" because they exercised the right to think and committed themselves to the principles of their religion and its teachings.
This is a blatant intrusion into the religious beliefs of Muslims because their only crime was that they are Muslims who carry non-European names and faces. The Islamic law which is being criminalised by these proposals, and which sees that any who call for it or support it as an extremist, is one of the foundations of the Islamic faith. Even British priests known for their theological knowledge and insight, such as the Archbishop Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury called for their application in some scenarios and integrating some of its laws into British law. For this he was subject to the most vicious campaigns which almost led to his crucificion.
As for what is being said about homosexuality and Islams forbidding of it, that is not exclusive to Muslim extremists. Even the Christian faith is against homosexuality and forbids it, and there are millions of British Christians who deny it in the full light of day, and British law only decriminalised it forty years ago. Why are they [homosexuals] allowed their full rights, including marriage, and it is not allowed of others regardless of their faith to oppose this in a democratic way?
We also do not understand why these British officials are opposed to the issue of calling for an Islamic caliphate and consider it a call to extremism. For Britain itself is a member of the European Union, with its own representatives in its parliament, as well as a member of NATO, then why does it forbid its Muslim citizens what it allows upon itself and its Christian citizens? Is the European Union halal and the Islamic Union pagan or heretical?
The most dangerous point in this racist and provocative plan is that which is related to Jihad and criminalising armed resistance, even in Palestine against Israeli bloody massacres which are carried out against innocent and unarmed Palestinians. Do the British officials wish for the Palestinians to present bunches of flowers to the killers of their children so that they would not be labelled as extremists? Jihad is an obligation to all Muslims if their land is under occupation by foreign invading forces. The British government itself supported Jihad when it was proclaimed by the Afghan Mujahideen to liberate their lands from the Soviet occupation, and the British capital London greeted the leaders of the Mujahideen as heroes and guests of its government such as Sheikh Subghat Allah Mujadidi for whom the red carpet was rolled out when he visited as head of a delegation of Mujahideen in the early eighties.
It is our right to ask the British government, and any other European government which follows in its footsteps, the same question but in a different way: What is its position towards members of the Jewish community who support the recent Israeli massacres in Gaza and justify it, after it resulted in the tearing apart of the bodies of 1350 people, amongst them 450 children? Will it categorise them as terrorist extremists too who stand in the trenches of a country which is perpetrating a war against humanity? The Islamic communities in the West generally, and in Britain in particular, are being subjected to a dangerous and provocative campaign which is no longer limited to only certain parties and extreme right groups, but is being directed by the highest of government committees too. This is sadly in complete contradiction with the values of equality, justice, and democracy which count as the core of the modern European civilization whose proponents are trying to propagate and implement throughout the world and in the Islamic world in particular.
Islam is currently being used as a scapegoat, or one of the key tools which are being used by Western governments to promote a culture of fear amongst their own citizens, giving it the excuse and pretext to deny them the civic freedoms for which they have struggled for centuries to gain. These are the freedoms which played the greater role in the modern European rennaissence in all fields. Ms Stella Yemington, head of the British intelligence services (MI5), hit the nail on the head when she warned, in statements she had made recently,of turning Britain into a police state because of the interference of her ministers in the private lives of citizens and the surveillance of their telephone conversations and e-mail messages. Only three months before the British public awoke to news of a police search in the offices of an MP in the opposition shadow government, the confiscation of his computer and the examining of its contents, because he expressed doubts concerning the official figures regarding immigration and other issues, and this has been unprecedented here for centuries.
Such policies which gradually erode freedoms and civil rights for the citizen, converge in their results with the goals of terrorist groups which say that their hatred of the West is because their way of life which is based on freedoms, equality and justice. We are not exaggerating if we say that these policies serve terrorism, and increase the waves of extremism, sowing the seeds of hatred and a feeling of non-belonging in the midst of the Islamic communities, which would make some of their members an easy picking for those who might wish to turn them into human bombs. God forbid, unless this is what the present government is actually looking to achieve.
These proposals represent a grave danger on the security of the British citizen, as well as being in direct contravention to the most basic of human rights which are recognised by international treaties and agreements. For this reason it is important that all parts of British society join together to prevent them from being passed, for it will be considered as a black mark in their history, probably blacker than that on their American counterpart by events such as the torture in Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo in Cuba.
.
The Prince: Assad in the Middle East
President Assad's interview with the Guardian's Ian Black is the most recent in a series of events which have marked a watershed moment in the Middle East. Assad's Syria has, over the past eight years, survived the first serious set of crises to his rule and come through with flying colours. The message to the United States and its regional allies is clear and business-like, "you must deal with Syria on her terms". Once this key fact is recognised, discussions can begin and no grudges will be held. Assad has proven himself capable of being a lion as well as a fox - in textbook Macchiavellian style.
When Assad first assumed power in Damascus there was a lot of speculation as to whether the young prince would be tough enough for the byzantine politics of the region. Whether it is himself or those who are advising him, we will only know many years from now, but the reality is that he has proved adept internally and externally in dealing with his foes. One of his first priorities as the new ruler of Damascus was to consolidate his rule internally and put together a reliable and trustworthy team. The "Damascus Spring" helped bring out of the woodwork any movements or individuals which had kept a low profile during the long years of his father's rule and that might prove a thorn in his side later. The quick freeze which followed took many of the regimes most outspoken (and usually careful) critics by surprise and out of the equation. Some, such as Michel Kilo and Riad Seif, are still languishing in a cell, whilst others of that period are now silenced or in exile. A good prince knows when to make a promise and, more crucially, when to break it. He also knows that it is better to be feared than to be loved.
In Lebanon, the Valentines day killing of Rafik Hariri in 2005 might have led to a withdrawal of Syrian troops after 30 years, but it helped consolidate Assad's rule in Syria and move Lebanon firmly into the "Resistance" camp. Abdul Halim Khaddam resigned in June 2005 and moved from there shortly to France in what was to become a permanent exile. In December Ghazi Kanaan "killed himself", followed shortly by his brother, who chose to "commit" suicide by letting a train run over him. In Lebanon Hezbullah quickly filled the vacuum left by the Syrians and a series of bombings, assassinations and tit-for-tat killings quickly silenced the Lebanese 14th of March movement. Not even an attempted Israeli invasion in 2006 would dislodge the "Party of God", who emerged victorious, and the following year Hezbullah took over Beirut in about 6 hours of fighting, easily eliminating the militias that were being built up by the pro-Western 14th of March figureheads. At times of danger the prince can only test the loyalty of those around him once, and only once. Since these opportunities arise from situations which are beyond his control, the prince must prepare himself for them as best he could. Assad was prepared, and his reaction was swift and brutal.
In Iraq, Syria's strategic alliance with Iran made it impossible for the Americans to succeed in any kind of victory there without cutting a deal first. Bush's message to the insurgents to "bring it on", was a thinly veiled challenge for a scuffle which he quickly lost. American officials were soon in "talks" with the Iranians, after which the levels of violence in the region dropped sharply - coinciding with the American "surge". Syria obligingly tightened its control over the border and it became more difficult for fighters to cross over to Iraq. The United States also dropped its heavy criticism of Iran and Syria in the media, which had reached fever pitch, unless in passing. An unsteady compromise was reached over the situation of Iraq. When entering a foreign arena, always ally yourself with the weaker party rather than the stronger, who will always be grateful for your assistance but will not be able to turn on you. The combined strength would be more effective against the stronger power and, should you win, you would still be in a position of strength now that they are defeated and with an ally grateful for your assistance in their time of need. This needed to be done with unwavering resolve and the same principles apply with regards to Palestine as they do to Iraq.
Syria, through its support of Hezbullah and its patronage of Khaled Meshaal, made sure that Hamas remained a strategic asset for itself and Iran. Israel's last ditch effort to clip Hamas' wings showed just how low it has fallen in its expectations when it has to fight a powerful and dug in opponent that is virtually within its own borders - and still fail. The ensuing civilian casualties helped bolster Assad and his angry speech at the time of the Gaza invasion made full use of the anger and dissatisfaction felt amongst the people at the time.
Now that he has beaten the bully back, Assad wants the bully to sit down and have a chat. In his interview, Assad had "noticeably unclenched fists", a reference by Ian Black to Obama's earlier call for America's enemies to do so. Criticism of internal policies in Syria is brushed aside, Gaza has been useful in that regards as it is blatantly obvious to the Arab world that the West did give a nod to the slaughter of 3000 Palestinians by their ally Israel, or in Iraq, which has over a million dead because of the American invasion. Besides, there are no credible figures left who could mount any sort of threat to the regime internally therefore when it comes to domestic policies, the Syrian president knows his position is impregnable. As for the Israelis, Assad was dismissive, whoever leads Israel's next government is irrelevant, there will be others later and in the meantime Israel's might is useless as was demonstrated in the 2006 defeat in Lebanon and their impotence against Hamas. Syria will send an ambassador to Lebanon when it is good and ready, the West knows this. It is the Saudi intelligence chief, the Jordanian satrap and other minions who are making their way to Damascus to mend ties and not Syrians going the other way. It is Syria which is telling the West to talk to Iran, to stop being ridiculous about thinking that the Islamic revolution is going anywhere. The Hariri tribunal is going to be forgotten by the West, a small price to pay and a tool past its usefulness. Those who were involved in this incident in Syria are now either dead, in exile or safe, so again, this is the least of anybody's concern. It is America who is now considering resending an Ambassador to Damascus, and it was Jimmy Carter who came to Damascus, the doddering old fool, to pave the way for this, even deigning to give an interview to a local English language magazine. For the student of politics, these are lessons to be learned, for the ignorant, they simply shake their heads and wonder what on earth we are talking about, or they get smart and say that Syria is "back in from the cold", which actually sounds ridiculous once recognise what really happened, and betrays a narrow and Westernised view of the world. What nobody can dispute at this moment in time is that Assad has played his cards right and that he is the king of this jungle and you will deal with him on his terms:
"We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace, you can't advance without Syria."
.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Decline of the West
Johann Hari is at it again. I've noticed throughout the past few years how his articles (and vitriol) have grown against Islam. I'm not angry about what he writes anymore, in fact I don't even blame him. He is a product of his times, his culture and of his own 'faith' - liberalism. The English, along with spreading their empire, also sowed the seeds for their own brand of political thought which finds its most articulate expression in the writings of John Stuart Mill, a lapsed utilitarian (a utilitarian believes, in a nutshell, that all actions should be judged on whether they contribute the most and to the "greater" happiness for all). The golden rule for Mill is that society can only interfere with an individual once their actions actually lead to harming others, in all other cases the individual is entirely sovereign over their own bodies, actions and interests. Does this sound familiar? It should, this message is ingrained in almost every Western media production and accepted as common sense by generations of people throughout the world who have grown up in the post-independence era. The logic of it appears flawless, universal and common-sensical so what could possibly be wrong with it?
The answer is quite simple really. Liberalism, just as utilitarianism before it, is part of a tradition of modern European philosophies which failed to articulate "the good" for normal, average human beings going about their daily lives. These ideologies had much to say about the relationship of the individual with the state (since the lasting political legacy of European empire is the state system) but nothing at all to say about how an individual was supposed to 'live well' and to what end. This actually was opposed to almost every major philosophical view that preceded it in history. In my view this was a shortcoming and not a development for European political and ethical philosophy. Even amongst other thinkers of the time, utilitarian views, of which Mill was a strong proponent for the first part of his life, were strongly criticised. Nietsche said, "Man does not desire happiness, only the Englishman does" whilst Marx also remarked "with the driest naivete, Bentham takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man" (Bentham was a famous proponent of Utilitarianism and friend of Mill's father, who raised Mill as a utilitarian).
In fact in Europe it became extremely unfashionable to espouse any philosophy that claimed to know how people should live there lives especially in the wake of the religious wars and the Roman Catholic Church. After the Second World War, a Europe which at first admired Nazism as a bulwark against Communism quickly became mortified with itself for having given birth to such a monster. As a result the ideals of liberalism and democracy became enmeshed in Western European thought and were the cornerstone of its faithful, both conservative and leftist. With the end of the Cold War, the West thought this was the end of history and the beginning of a new age of prosperity. It was a shock to their sensitivity to realise that not everybody shared these 'values' which they had previously thought were universal and had now triumphed. Whilst this was happening, the age old competition for resources between countries continued as it always has. The First, Second and Cold Wars were all to do with how resources were best allocated and by whom. They were about economics and at the centre is the human being as a unit of production whose happiness is measured according to material possessions.
What is interesting to see is that the disbelief of those people who believed that their values were universal and perfect was harnessed by the state to fit in perfectly with their grab for resources. Those barbaric and backward peoples who rejected the West's universal message of harmony also happened to provide most of the energy that their civilization ran on. They needed to be saved from themselves and made to see the light. In many ways, we see that Bin laden wasn't far off the mark when he describes the West as crusaders. In this new incarnation of these wars the West threatens its enemies not with hell and brimstone, but with shock and awe. Rather than "save" the Muslims from damnation, the West came to "liberate" them. What was not considered was that liberalism itself now protected Muslims in Europe and America from liberalism. This is what enrages people such as Hari and others who used to identify themselves with the "left" and this explains the gradual resurgence of fascism in the West.
Reading the newspapers today, you can get shocked at how the comments sections of even the "broadsheets" in the UK are now littered with views about Muslims and Islam that are downright racist, offensive and ignorant. Caricatures which would have had their artist crucified had he depicted Jews were now championed by the "thugs" of this re-emerging fascism as an exercise in "freedom of expression". I think that should another 9/11 scenario emerge, we will start to see full scale arrests and internments of Muslims throughout the Western world, followed by pressures to emmigrate. Had there not been a major financial recession taking place, I would not have said this, but with the core faith of so many in the Western political and economic establishments shaken so badly, anything can happen - and it will. In the newspapers, and other media, there has been a steady drip of anti-Muslim stories that continue to cause inflammation with the average people and when unemployment figures start hitting their millions in double digits -which they will - there will be a huge backlash against foreigners here.
Johann Hari and many like him are watching their world system collapse around them and, along with it, the core beliefs and values which they thought would help them. The stock market, capitalism and greed were always pillars of their economic system and these have been let down spectacularly. Once they do recover, which won't be till another four or five years, there will have to be some serious rethinking to do for many people.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
News flash!
"Menacing stray dogs being killed in Baghdad", the headline is actually misleading as they weren't actually referring to American soldiers. Unfortunately...
I think I will keep a regular Dogwatch, where colonial news outlets give more coverage (and regard) to animals than they do to Arabs and Muslims.
If you have spare time please do read al Ghazali's work "My Dear Beloved Son", or in Arabic ايها الولد
- it is wonderful.
.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
خالد عبد الرحمن - ليله.. غريبة كانت الليله- مرحبا فيكم
Some great singing and oud playing by the artist Khaled Abed al Rahman. Enjoy.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Ibn Sina: The Proof of God's existence
There have been numerous proofs for the existence of God, for Ibn Sina, we have to bear in mind that his view was cosmological in character. This means that he would have begun from the universe and existence as we experience it and continued all the way to a First Cause. Philosophers of his era would also have believed in the impossibility of an infinite regress in anything actual in the world.
My previous post mentioned the essence-existence innovation that Ibn Sina had made and how essences are neutral with regards to existence. Also with regards to modality, we remember that everything which has a necessary essence must exist, anything which is impossible has an essence which precludes existence. That with a contingent essence has no reason to lead us to the belief that it exists or does not exist.
When an essence which is contingent (possible) receives existence, then it must receive this from some external cause to it. According to Ibn Sina, when this happens the contingent object becomes necessary, but only through something else. It's not necessary through itself. Therefore, everything which is contingent is necessary and could not be otherwise, similarly what could not possibly exist is impossible and so lacks existence, something which makes Ibn Sina a determinist. So the contingent is in a state of possible until a cause makes it exist, and it becomes necessary, or it turns out that the cause for its being is absent, in which case it becomes impossible.
The question must then be asked, how do we know that there is anything which is necessary of existence through itself and not through another? Basically, could all existents be contingent? For Ibn Sina, the answer is a clear no. He tells us that if we consider all contigents, ALL contingents in existence. Let us say that we have all of them in a set or aggregate. We can then argue as follows:
- Each of these has a cause because it exists and also because it is possible.
- The whole aggregate is possible because it is made up of things which are themselves possible.
- The entire set needs something to keep it in existence, to sustain it.
- No member in this aggregate could be the cause for the whole set
- So the only way the aggregate can exist is through an external cause. One external cause.
Now one could argue that suppose the One itself is also merely necessary through another, wouldn't we just get One+1 and so on? Well, Ibn Sina says that we cannot have an infinite regress of causes of causes of causes. At some point, something will emerge which will stop this regress. It will not be contingent, it exists so it is not impossible, therefore it is necessary. This is what Ibn Sina calls, "The Necessary Existent" (the rest of us mortals just say Allah or God).
So there you have it, all existence must have a necessary existent in order for us to be here. Since we are here, then that is because there is a necessary existent. Therefore there is a necessary existent. Marvelous isn't it? You can understand now why they didn't call him the greatest medieval philosopher the world has ever seen for nothing.
If you want to read more then you can check out the Metaphysics of the Najat, written by The Man himself. Just a small note on what remains of Ibn Sina's work, there is a lot, however there isn't a person alive who has read all the remaining texts that he wrote, he was a prodigous writer and his works would take a lifetime to go through. One of these works which was most famous is called the Canun (قانون) of Medicine which medical practitioners relied on right up until the mid-seventeenth century.
Ibn Sina: what's all the fuss about? (Essence vs. Existence)
I think I got over excited previously when I had mentioned that Ibn Sina's "floating man" thought experiment might have been a precursor to Descartes Meditations. In the Meditations, Descartes is aiming at answering the skeptics by proving that there is one thing of which a human being can be certain of. This certainty is based on the understanding that whilst everything around us could be doubted initially if we wanted to, including our own bodies, the one thing which cannot be doubted is that we think. Even if all else is a deception, this fact alone cannot be in doubt. For Ibn Sina, the purpose of the "floating man" example is actually aiming for a completely different target. Its primary purpose is to help someone explain to materialists that it is possible to conceive of a soul with absolutely no sensation whatsoever. He tells us to imagine that a fully grown man is brought into being instantaneously, flying in the air in such a way that air resistance would not be felt, his arms, legs and fingers completely stretched apart so that he cannot feel anything. There is no sound at all and his eyes are covered by a thin membrane which would prevent him from seeing anything. Ibn Sina tells us that this man would still, in spite of having no previous experience, be aware of his own existence, that he is alive somehow. This, according to Ibn Sina, is the soul, this "thing" which is deep inside us. He is adamant that the soul is not an organ or part of the body (just like Aristotle), but that it comes into being because the body is suitable for it to exist, sent down by the "Active Intellect". His psychology of the human being was rooted in his neo-platonic understanding of the cosmos and on closer examination it isn't as far fetched as one would think. This is probably more astonishing in that he lived in the 3rd or 4th century Hijri. The man was a polymath and a genius and he also knew it. Arrogant, full of himself and extremely pleased of himself whenever he knew he was onto a good idea, reading his texts is actually really enjoyable. He was once criticised by someone knowledgable in Arabic grammar over the fact that he was originally Persian. In response, he spent a whole year gather the most obscure texts and knowledge about Arabic grammar, compiling these into one work and then questioning the man who insulted him about these. When the man couldn't respond, he then smugly proceeded to bring out the work which he had compiled and learned in front of everyone gathered, humiliating the man for his lack of knowledge. I mean that's just plain mean - but still a brilliant move from Ibn Sina.
Essence and existence.
One of the issues he dealt with was on the difference between the essence of a thing and its existence. This was an argument about what some thing actually is and then whether it exists. For example, when we talk about unicorns how can we make sense of this? Ibn Sina tackled this problem and tried to give us an answer but first we have to remember that Arabic philosophers were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and Aristotle in particular, through what are now called the Neo-Platonists. Aristotle distinguished between "what" something is and "whether" it existed, but he never considered the idea of existence as a general concept, so a bear and a man both had "existence". The problem arose when the Mutakalimun (speculative theologicans) began discussing the relationship between the essence (ماهية الشيء) and thingness (الشيئية). In the Qur'an there is a surah describing where Allah creates the universe by saying to it be and it is. What is the "it"? Did it exist in some form before being actualised?
For Sunni theologicans, something is if it exists, it is not if it does not exist. But this leaves us with the problem of mental objects and what are these then? Saying that a unicorn does not exist at all, even though we can conceive one, is different from saying that there are square circles. The first can be thought of, the second is not even thinkable and so does not exist. Avicenna believed that it was possible to conceive X separately from whether something actually existed or not. Existence (وجود) is what we describe it as when we know that thing is actually real. For him, essence had three aspects: a concrete existent, a mental existant and then finally what is neither of these two. Essence itself has a neutral meaning in relation to the existants. Square circles would be neither mental nor concrete existents and so they simply do not exist, nor do they have an essence.
It is a tribute to Ibn Sina that the stages of Arabic philosophy are divided into the pre-Ibn Sina era, himself and then everything that came after him. Every great Arabic philosopher had to respond to Ibn Sina in one way or another after him. Following Ibn Sina, there was a big debate concerning whether existence or essence took primacy over the other. One one extreme, Suhrawardi believed that the essence was prior to the existence whilst on the other extreme, Ibn Arabi (the Grand Master of the Sufi's) held the view that only existence was real and essences are how existence presents itself to us. Ibn Sina is unclear on this, he holds that both are equally real and that they relate together somehow.
A question of modality
Another area that Ibn Sina built upon was that of modality. For Aristotle, and Greeks in general, modality had a "statistical" understanding. Frequency had three modes:
Necessary - what is always the case
Possible - what is sometimes the case
Impossible - what is never the case
The implication to these modes as understood by the Greeks is that all "possibilities" will be realised at some time. Then again, Aristotle does give us the implication at times that things might happen, but then again they don't have to. This is different. Where Ibn Sina innovated on this was to break the link between frequency and modality. He gave a different explanation of the necessary as that whose denial involves a contradiction (that whose essence implies existence). On the other hand, the impossible is that whose essence rules out existence. As mentioned previously, this was the domain of things which could not even be thought of because to do so would be a contradiction.
What we are left with is the possible-through-itself whose essence implies neither existence nor non-existence. It is something whose existence or non-existence needs a cause.
For example, we are told that 4 is necessary of existence not by itself but because there is 2+2. Burning is necessary of existence not by itself, but because we join together what burns with what is burned.
So the possible is whatever has an essence that does not necessarily exist on its own and it is also not impossible. It is completely neutral as to the frequency it happens and its necessity is through another.
If we understand these key concepts, we can then go on and understand Ibn Sina's proofs on God and also on the Soul, which I spoke about in the beginning. Ibn Sina had interesting views on religion and was an extremely devout Muslim, but his conception of what Allah is and how the soul relates to all this are truly out of this world for any person with traditional notions of spirituality. Still, as convincing as this is, I defer more to al Ghazali, who built his criticism on the philosophers from the arguments that Ibn Sina and his teacher, al Farabi, had built upon. I've just started reading what Ibn Rushd did to refute al Ghazali, but so far it seems the two are talking past each other rather than debating. If you want to read more on Ibn Sina, you could check Wikipedia, (warning: it is mainly from a Western perspective) but another place you could read about him is on Muslimphilosophy.com which actually has his texts in Arabic (pdf format) along with commentaries by Muslim philosophers and scholars. In my next post I'll go through Ibn Sina's proof for the existence of God, which gets very interesting!
The American media is on a roll, another story from Tehran:
"Diplomat arrested in Iran on car sex charge."
"The "sexual relation" occurred after the diplomat, who was not named, promised he would marry the woman, Press TV reported. Both were released on bail. It was not clear what charges were filed against the woman."
.
Colonialism and invented religions
"Iranian professionals post public apology to the Bahai'i"
What a ridiculous story. The Baha'i, like the Ahmadi's, are sects which were actively cultivated during the 19th century to further increase schisms and divisions within the Islamic communities occupied by the West, who naturally gave them great sympathy and support and continue to do so. Every now and then another story about the oppression of the Baha'i is wheeled out by American or European media just to keep the pressure up on Iran. By the way, London is one of the best places to meet an example of these "Iranian professionals", or gharbzadegi's (what a great name!). If there were any two religions which deserved to be oppressed it would be these two "faiths".
The Bahai'i headquarters are based in Haifa, occupied Palestine as a gesture of support by the Zionist state and with the encouragement of the British Empire. Incidentally their highest authority severely discourages providing any information that would encourage an Israeli to become a Baha'i. Why is that?
.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The downfall of the Peacock throne
I didn't realise it, but on the 1st of February 1979, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by angry crowds throughout Iran. It was unprecedented in the age of modernity that a popular revolution would put in place an Islamic Republic rather than any party motivated by the ideologies of the European enlightenment. Saddam Hussein, then the darling of the United States, was encouraged to fight a devastating war against Iran, thinking it was in a weakened state and eventually reducing his country from a modern and developed nation to a debt-ridden and weak country which would eventually invade Kuwait and threaten his former backers in the Gulf. Of course we know what the United States then did to Iraq and Saddam and the result is as we see it today. I've supported Iran as an Islamic state, as well as in its position against the United States and Israel, but I haven't the stomach for the harsh and sometimes brutal austerity Khomeini brought with him. Still, he was no fool and chain of events he set in motion since then are being felt right up to the present. The United States (as well as Israel) still don't know what to do with Iran, which is a good thing. Also, I discovered a new word today that I quite like: Gharbzadegi. I have come to realise many Arabs have that same disease.
"I say that gharbzadegi is like cholera [or] frostbite. But no. It's at least as bad as sawflies in the wheat fields. Have you ever seen how they infest wheat? From within. There's a healthy skin in places, but it's only a skin, just like the shell of a cicada on a tree."
Hama: the whisper of a memory
An entire city was almost exterminated on a day like this, twenty seven years ago...while the Arab world looks over with astonishment and anger at the death and destruction which has struck Gaza, the people of another city will today be reflecting on a similar calamity that befell them but was many times greater. It is estimated by the Syrian Human Rights Commission that almost 40,000 of the people of Hama were killed during the crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood's uprising. Large swathes of the historic part of the city were completely obliterated, including mosques and churches. We have read reports by Patrick Seale, Robert Fisk and Thomas Friedman (of all people), but the human element has always been missing. Over the years I have spoken to many about what happened there and how the massacre affected them. Here are some first hand accounts from ordinary people who were there at the time - though I have changed their names to keep them anonymous:
.
Zayd: I was a little boy at the time, raised by my grandmother. One morning we heard the call to prayer but it was not prayer time. There was a call from all the mosques, Hayy 3ala al Jihad (Arise to Jihad) over and over, along with Allahu Akbar. The city came under attack and shelling. I don't remember how long we stayed hidden in our home. We had no food or water, only hearing gunfire. I remember hearing machine gun fire, grenades going off. I heard that mingled with cries of Allahu Akbar (God is Great!). When these stopped, we'd know that another young man or group of men had been killed whilst fighting the soldiers. Eventually, this grew less and less common as they were gradually wiped out. Some soldiers also turned on their comrades, unable to to take part in the massacre. They too were cut down in gunfights. When we first left the house to look for food or water, I saw body parts strewn everywhere. I could see hands and feet and heads on the road as clearly as I see this cup of coffee in front of me now...If the regime ever fell, there will be a bloodbath in Hama as scores are settled with those who betrayed their neighbours and collaborated with the government.
.
Wa'el: I was a little boy, we knew the shelling started but then I heard that my uncle had come to rescue us. He was an officer in a special army unit, he had been wounded twice before in his career and fought the Israelis in Lebanon. He had also been captured by them and wounded but his friends came and broke him free from the clutches of the Israelis, his best friend carried him on his shoulder as they escaped under heavy gunfire. Anyway, my uncle commandeered an armoured troop carrier, drove right up to our home, took our family in and then drove us out through the front lines. He waved his machine gun at a bus driving past Hama and ordered the driver to take us to Damascus, warning him not to stop or betray them. Later I heard that my uncle had been reported as a Brotherhood sympathiser by some of his rival officers who wanted to see him executed in a field court. They said he smuggled out Muslim Brotherhood fighters, which was not true, it was just us he got out. Luckily he had contacts high up in Damascus who could vouch that he was not with the Brotherhood and he was not shot. My grandmother was not so lucky, she was killed by gunfire before he could reach us.
.
Zeyad: I never met my father, my mother was still pregnant with me when the uprising began. I heard that my father was out of the house, probably looking for food or water and he was held by an army patrol. They lined him and several other men up against a wall and machine gunned them. Just like that. I was raised by the rest of our family in Damascus.
.
Malek: We are not from Hama, we heard whispers of what was happening at the time in Damascus. I also heard that the soldiers were selling household goods and furniture under the President's bridge in Damascus for outrageously low prices. I went to my father and told him about this, saying we could get a fridge or a washing machine for a bargain. My father refused, he said this is all Mal haram (Money which is haram). "These things have been looted from Hama during the massacre.", he told me. We didn't buy anything from there and I didn't go near the area whilst the things were being sold there, al hamdulilah (Thank God).
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
