Idiot Christians compete with Idiot Muslims: it’s a tie!

The great clash of civilizations continues its moronic advance in the ideological battlefield of children’s toys. About a year ago, a British woman ran afoul of foolish “Islamic” sensitivities in Sudan when she let her class of children name a stuffed bear “Muhammad,” which scandalized local narrow-minded zealots to the point of imprisoning her, calling for her death, and eventually deporting her for “insulting Islam.” The outcry in the teacher’s home country and the rest of “the West” was predictably, and rightfully, indignant. We shook our heads at how stupid these people in Sudan must be to take such an innocent situation and try to depict it as evil… as an insult to their sensibilities and an assault on their society, culture and faith.

And now, groups of drooling mouth-breathers in the U.S. – well publicized by Fox News – are pulling a page from the Sudanese hardliners’ playbook, accusing a babbling plastic doll of mumbling “Islam is the Light” and Satanic phrases. I can picture sensible people the world over shaking their heads at how stupid these Americans must be to take such an innocent situation and try to depict it as evil… as an insult to their sensibilities and an assault on their society, culture and faith.

Muslims should welcome criticism

It’s an unfortunate sign of Islam’s stunted intellectual development that vast majorities of its adherents regard any questioning of the status quo as blasphemy, apostasy, hatred, or “Islamophobia,” and now are trying to characterize it as a human rights violation. The Forward has run an insightful story on this phenomenon in an article noting that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is pushing the UN to recognize that freedom of speech ends where religious sensitivities begin.

Certainly there are cases in which criticism of Islam crosses the line into disrespectful, even hateful, discourse. But to categorize it as a violation of the rights of Muslims is so absurd as to be laughable.

If my religion is mocked by a cartoonist in Denmark, a novelist in London, or a blogger in Minnesota, how have my rights been affected? More importantly, how could those perceived insults possibly have any bearing on the life of one of the OIC’s citizens? Does a Bangladeshi farmer feel his human rights diminished by Salman Rushdie’s novels? If so, how?

What the OIC’s effort really targets is the preservation of the power of “Islamic scholars” (known as “Ulama” in the Muslim world) to dictate orthopraxy to hundreds of millions of people. If we, as Muslims and well-intentioned adherents to other faiths, are unable to critique Islam (as currently defined and practiced) without being branded rights-violators, then the status quo is maintained indefinitely, and the power of the Ulama continues to grow.

If I am unable to say what I believe about the Hadeeth and the Sunna (the alleged words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad) for fear of being branded a hate monger, that’s one more pressure that reformers have to endure, on top of the charges of “apostasy” leveled by our co-religionists.

From my point of view, the Sunna and the Hadeeth are predominantly lies made up by people after the Prophet’s death in order to reinforce their own worldviews, which often were in direct conflict with the Qur’an. This is bolstered by the claims of some Ulama that not only do the Hadeeth and Sunna help explain the Qur’an, but that they can, at times, supplant it.

This, in my view, is heretical and designed strictly to put power in the hands of misogynists, bigots and power-hungry zealots. So I criticize it.

If the Ulama are correct in their interpretations, then they should have no fear of taking on such controversy. The Qur’an, in fact, admonishes us all to use our logic and to argue well with each other. The Ulama, on the other hand, respond to such criticism by calling for executions and saying that such things must not be said. And now they’re trying to get the UN to agree.

If they succeed, they will prolong their already-protracted death throes. But in the end, they cannot and will not win. They are on the losing end of history, and the rest of the world’s Muslims will leave them behind.

When authority substitutes for thought

Having spent considerable time in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the MIddle East, it was easy to discern the complete lack of understanding regarding freedom of speech. Obviously, most countries in the region do not enjoy the ability to engage in open discourse about their governments or about particular interpretations of Islam. If they question the legitimacy of either, they face dire legal consequences.

The results are easy to see. Islamic traditionalists and hardliners – embodied by the Ulama – have become so used to having their authority accepted without question that they are intellectually lazy. Their ideas are vapid, incoherent, and frequently at odds not just with the societies in which they live, but also with the explicit dictates of the Qur’an, which they allegedly serve to uphold.

One unfortunate result of this mindset is the appalling lack of intellectual development in the Arab World, especially when it comes to Islam. Witness this story from the Arab Times of Kuwait, quoting Dr. Adel Al-Damkhi, a professor of Islamic studies. In it, he calls for Kuwaiti authorities to take legal action against YouTube until it removes all derogatory statements about Islam and Muslims. His rationale is telling:

“…uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world. Attacks on the values and tenets of Islam are extremely dangerous and unacceptable.”

Dr. Al-Damkhi’s gift for hyperbole is a sad statement on his morality. Governments in the region torture prisoners, deny citizens the right to speak out against wrongs, punish discussion of whether Islam can be interpreted in more than one way, and yet YouTube is the worst rights violation he can think of? I hate to think what was involved in his earning a PhD.

Fashion reveals an incremental reformation in Arabia and Islam

While living in Saudi Arabia (I lived there for about 20 years), it was interesting to watch the slow change in fashions that has taken place, representing a slow move away from the backward, restrictive “moral” code of the Mutawa’een – the self-appointed morality police who enforce their own interpretation of Islamic law on the masses. While there, I noted that women’s abayas (the long black cloak that is supposed to hide their feminine curves from men’s gazes) were becoming less like tarps and more like clothing, with decorative flourishes. I remember thinking that it was nice to see that people were becoming less austere and more willing to maintain modest dress while expressing individual tastes.

But I should have known that this would not be a society-wide movement. This story notes that abayas with little decorations like a fringe of lace or some glitter or sequins around the cuffs are in fact a form of “illegal” abaya, even if they cover the woman from head to toe. Here’s a quote from the always-enlightening Mutawa’een:

“You look around you and you find abayas that are embroidered, fitted or with wide sleeves. Most abayas now need abayas to cover them,” says a religious pamphlet available at malls in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. “When some girls go out they (look) like prostitutes who invite people to carry out lewd acts. How else can you explain how some women adorn themselves with their abayas … ?”

The Mutawa’een and like-minded supporters believe that abayas should completely obscure a woman’s outline, cover her face, and some even believe that no skin – even on the hands – should be exposed. I encountered more than a few women in Saudi Arabia who wore black gloves in addition to their abayas.

“This is our way,” said more than one Saudi I talked to about the tradition. But it’s certainly not the Islamic way, and has nothing to do with the Qur’an. It’s simply another made-up rule by the so-called “Ulama” – the “learned ones” of Islamic scholarship – based on willful misinterpretation.

Women in the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s life were relegated to the role of chattel – bought, traded, abused, and even inherited by a deceased husband’s brothers, if they wanted her. Islam gave women the right to own property that could not be touched by their husbands, gave them the right to refuse marriage to someone they didn’t want to marry and to divorce their husbands, allowed them to give testimony, inherit property, and generally allowed them to participate fully in society. This was no small change in Hejazi society at the time; it was cause for some followers of the prophet to dump the new religion and return to the backward ways of their forefathers. But the rules stood firm, even in the face of tremendous internal and external pressures.

Almost as soon as the Prophet had died, however, these rules were rolled back, despite the clear words of the Qur’an, and Hadeeth – alleged “sayings” of the Prophet – were used to justify these clear contradictions of God’s word. Combined with obvious misinterpretation of Qur’anic passages, the Ulama put their collective foot back on the necks of women, and there it has remained ever since.

Now, however, things are moving away from their narrow, unrealistic, and un-Islamic worldview. I can only hope they continue to lose ground, and that the globalization of the idea of women’s rights will continue to re-awaken Muslims to the remarkably forward-looking feminism in the Qur’an. If one thinks about Islam logically – which we are constantly reminded to do by the Qur’an – then it becomes clear that Islam is meant to be a progressive religion. Women were liberated by Islam centuries ago, so its prescriptions should be examined in that context. Until the Ulama concede that the Qur’an was revealed in and for a specific cultural milieu, their views will always be centuries outmoded.

Radicals strike again vs. free speech

Radical Islamists yet again displayed their ignorance of what it means to have confidence in their faith. This time, it was by attacking the British publisher of “Jewel of Medina,” a novel about A’isha, one of the prophet Muhammad’s wives. There are three important points to make here. One is that these people are faithless to the point of blasphemy. Two, they haven’t the slightest idea how publicity works. And three, they don’t know the difference between actual religious law and simple-minded rules made up by paranoid fools.

Regarding point one: I’ve said it before and it bears repeating – these pathetic individuals who carry out acts of violence against those they consider “blasphemers” are taking it upon themselves to defend their religion against what they believe to be assaults, but they do so through mute, brainless violence; the least intellectual manner possible, and least consistent with Qur’anic law. They are not only assuming that Islam is so fragile a belief system that cartoons and books can bring it to its knees, but they are also assuming that they, as allegedly pious individuals, are the ones who can right the perceived wrongs. And through violence and killing, no less!

The Qur’an, by contrast, admonishes us as Muslims to argue with those of other faiths respectfully, and to leave them to their own religious views if they aren’t actively persecuting Muslims. The publisher of “Jewel of Medina” is not persecuting Muslims, is not preventing any of us from practicing our faith. And if faithful Muslims believe the book – or any book, cartoon, etc. – is apt to cause people to stray from the path of righteousness, then they should come up with their own counterpoints rather than lashing out with knives, bullets and fire, which only serve to emphasize the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their views.

Some misguided Muslims believe that passages of the Qur’an exhorting believers to kill others are evidence that they are in the right to take the lives of “infidels.” But those passages are ALL specific to the context of the early Islamic community fighting against well-armed enemies that wanted to stamp them out of existence. Nobody can reasonably argue that Islam is in danger of being stamped out; it is, in fact, growing.

The second point is that these radicals, by their dimwitted “fatwas” and acts of violence against purveyors of books and cartoons, actually give these information-sources far more publicity than they otherwise would have gained. Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” became a global phenomenon after it was subject to fatwas and a death sentence to Rushdie. Similarly, “Jewel of Medina” will sell far more copies than it otherwise would have, thanks to the acts of violence by Islamic radicals. Ditto as regard the Danish cartoons of a few years ago. In effect, the Islamic radicals are serving to evangelize these sources of information and entertainment, giving them far more credence and distribution than they ever could have garnered through paid publicity channels.

And lastly, the Islamic radicals simply cannot use their critical-thinking skills to discern religious laws from ill-conceived edicts issued by feeble-minded iconoclasts in institutions of “Islamic thought.” The Ulama, as they are called, issue opinions and rulings on what is and is not right from an Islamic perspective, but much of the vitriol and uninformed claptrap they spew out is not based on the Qur’an at all, but based on tradition and the “Hadeeth,” the alleged sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (the fact that the Hadeeth were compiled decades – and in some cases centuries – after the Prophet’s death doesn’t seem to strike these people as cause to wonder about their authenticity, although they’re only too happy to note the Bible’s compilation as a single book well after the death of Jesus should be reason to doubt its provenance). So idiotic pronouncements – even those that are in direct contravention of the Qur’an’s dictates – are accepted by unquestioning, mouth-breathing zealots as God’s laws. High profile examples include the edict that owners of satellite stations that distribute “immoral” content should be killed, that Mickey Mouse is un-Islamic and that mice and rats in general should be killed by Muslims, that any reference to Muhammad that could be construed as unflattering earns a death sentence, that any reference to Muhammad’s wives that could be construed as unflattering earns a death sentence, that a man and wife who copulate in the nude have thereby annulled their marriage, and the list could go on for ages.

I feel better having got that off my chest. But my frustration as an observant Muslim will continue to simmer as these extremists continue to earn headlines by their actions, while calling themselves the vanguard of Islam.

Lame-duck honesty from Olmert

As with most folks who don’t have to worry about re-election to their position, Ehud Olmert has let his honest streak show in an interview with Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. During this interview, the recently-resigned Israeli prime minister said that in order to secure peace, Israel would have to give up “almost all” of the land it took over during the 1967 Six-Day War, and that territories it keeps will have to be compensated with land from inside Israel proper.

I can almost hear the outcry from here.

If negotiations do indeed result in an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank before 2048, it could cause problems for my speculative fiction novel “The Four,” in which Israel keeps that land as a buffer to the New Caliphate, which surrounds Israel on all land borders. Oh well, that’s what editing is for.

Israeli terrorists on the rise

As a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, I would naturally be accused of anti-Semitism if I were to say, “An evil wind of extremism, of hate, of maliciousness, of violence, of losing control, of lawbreaking, of contempt for the institutions of state, is passing though certain sections of the Israeli public.” This statement is in reference to Israeli terrorists who are threatening and attacking those who don’t agree with them.

But the statement was made by outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, so arguably, it’s not anti-Semitic but merely a statement of informed opinion based on facts.

And it’s interesting – and more than a little frustrating – that these extremist Israelis are not being called what they are: terrorists. For God’s sake, these people planted a bomb at the home of a prominent Israeli critic of the Settler Movement. This and other actions are described by Olmert as “threatening Israeli democracy and the ability of those in charge in Israel to make decisions, and the ability of people to freely express opinions without fearing that they will be hurt by wild and violent people, people who break the law and break the framework of normal democratic life.”

To any reasonable person, that is the definition of terrorism: causing fear and disruption of life.

But despite the fact that these people – the hard-core Settlers – are absolutely committed to wiping out the Arabs, think of them as sub-human, and see their killing as not just acceptable, but as a moral duty, they are somehow not called terrorists. And, just as important, they are not seen as characterizing Israelis or Jews as a whole.

This latter distinction is critical. Fear-mongers and racists like Daniel Pipes and Brigitte Gabriel look at the actions of radical Islamists and extrapolate them to all Muslims, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim; that any Muslim who really believes in their religion is necessarily in agreement with the radicals. But you can be sure that if the same logic were used to characterize Jews as being violent, racist, intolerant fanatics, they would (rightly) point out how absurd such a contention is.

Let’s be logical about this: if it’s indeed true that all 1 billion Muslims on the planet are as radical as the nut-cases we see publicized by the anti-Muslim folks, what chance would any country in the world have against them? The truth is that most Muslims see these radicals as so out-of-touch as to be beneath contempt. Most Muslims in Western nations are grateful for the opportunities afforded them. I know I thank God that my father came to the U.S. and that I was born here. The last thing on my mind is going to a “Muslim” country or changing the U.S. to be a “Muslim” country. As far as I’m concerned, the U.S. is just as Muslim as it is Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Pagan. Nobody stops me from worship or tells me I have to do it differently.

There are Israeli terrorists, just as there are Islamic terrorists. Most Muslims are moderate and want only peace, just as most Jews and Israelis are moderate and want only peace. It’s pathetic that extremists on both sides point to the evil elements in each others’ camps as evidence that an entire religion is worthy of contempt and persecution.

“Obsession” is biased, but so what?

Among those involved in the debate over radical Islam vs. “moderate” Islam, the film “Obsession” has become quite the spark for igniting fiery rhetoric. As a former journalist and a Muslim, I watched parts of the film as part of a Fox News report on it. Perhaps the report was not entirely unbiased (certainly the networked earned its stripes as a neo-con mouthpiece with that report), but nor did I find what I saw of “Obsession” to be all that egregious. It doesn’t purport to be a balanced look at Islam; it says right up front that it’s talking about the crazies – the ones that make me cringe when I hear them talk because they identify themselves and their views as representing true Islam.

The disclaimer that the film is not about the majority of Muslims – who it describes as peaceful – is derided by the film’s critics as hollow lip service, while the rest of the film “blurs the line” between the extremists and mainstream Muslims.

I suppose that’s true of viewers who aren’t discerning and apt to generalize inappropriately – and arguably that describes most of the American public, ignorant as it is about all things relating to Islam – but what would be the remedy to this criticism? Should the film’s producers have repeated the disclaimer several more times? Are they obligated to include just as many moderate Muslims in their film as they do radicals? Why?

Clearly, “Obsession” is a work of propaganda and fear-mongering. But it’s not the “hate speech” it’s being made out to be by critics like Hate Hurts America. It’s just plain-old free speech. And, as any red-blooded American knows, the answer to error is truth. Hate Hurts America is responding with detailed rebuttals and discussions about why “Obsession” is problematic for moderate Muslims, which is the way it ought to be. But I’m less enthused about it’s suggested remedies. It’s recommended action steps include badgering the newspapers into which the DVD was inserted (as a paid advertisement), and accusing them of carrying racist hate speech.

This, in my opinion, is unfortunate. It is taken from a page from the pro-Israelis’ play-book: accuse anyone with a concern about anything even tangentially related to Jews as being anti-Semitic. This, effectively, removes everyone’s ability to criticize the state of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism, no matter how egregious the behavior being addressed. If Muslims begin accusing people of “hate speech” for pointing out that there are hate-mongers in the Islamic world, it might end up being a successful strategy in the short-term, but it will stifle much-needed debate of radical Islam and its role in, and effects on, the rest of the Muslims throughout the world.

As a final note, I share the concerns expressed about those interviewed in “Obsession,” in that they are generally vitriolic, uncompromising and intellectually dishonest purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric that purposely seek to eliminate the demarcation between Islam and radical Islam. However, from what I’ve seen in “Obsession,” they largely kept the most heinous of those views under wraps, so the film should be evaluated on its face, rather than on its background.

Russia pokes America’s hemisphere

This story is a frightening development for the U.S. – while we’re bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and wrestle with our economy melt-down, we don’t have the spare capacity to deal with Russia’s rise in influence. Russia knows it, so it’s pulling as many levers as it can in order to position itself favorably for when we extricate ourselves and face them. This time, they’re tightening their relationship with one of our biggest oil suppliers, Venezuela. It’s not the arms deals that are nerve-wracking – Venezuela is not a strategic threat to the U.S. in that regard – it’s the oil and gas deals. We should be nervous.

This development fits well (although not perfectly) with the geopolitical evolution of the BRIC Bloc, which allies itself with the New Caliphate in my novel. I’d hate to think that any more of what I wrote will actually come to pass. It’s pretty ugly.

More “Islamic” idiocy – on mice

My disdain for the so-called Islamic “scholars” has grown over the years to such a degree that I generally assume it can’t get any worse… and then they top themselves. This time, it’s an Islamic “scholar’s” response to the bizarre pronouncement that Mickey Mouse is a minion of Satan and should be killed. This time, it’s in the context of a woman on Egyptian TV who is denouncing that ridiculous idea.

Unfortunately, she reveals herself to be almost as absurdly brainwashed as the target of her criticism: “Yes, mice should be killed when seen according to Islam’s teachings. But it is illogical to deal with a cartoon character as a live mouse and kill it.”

What?? Where in the Qur’an are Muslims told to exterminate all mice? Are we a faith based on pest control? When this kind of talk is what passes for advanced theological debate, it’s obvious that the Islamic scholars are so out of touch as to be worthless.