WARNING: Heavy Sarcasm Zone. USA Sucks. Jews Not Welcome. Religion Is Infallible. Reader Discretion Is Advised, and Again, Seriously, Heavy Sarcasm Zone.
In her first interview, she made numerous valid points even though she wrongly implied that Islam itself is the problem. In this new one though, she’s just outright angry and nasty, making a very passionate anti-Islam rant by suggesting that the terrorism supposedly started 1400 years ago.
Right.
1) Calm down
2) Stop the broad strokes of your brush
The whole thing was one big silly shouting match. These people should learn a thing or two from the Doha debates. If they can’t, I suggest we give them some Xanax pills but I don’t think it will help because it seems to me that al-Jazeera purposely loves holding heated “debates” like this one between passionate individuals from extreme sides of the spectrum.
A few days ago a prominent rebel leader in Darfur, Abdel Wahid Al-Nur, the head of the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM), announced that his group was opening an office in Tel Aviv, Israel.
… A few days ago, in the town where I now live in Darfur, the government went to great lengths to make sure the entire population knew of Abdul Wahid’s terrible transgressions and put all its power into organizing a street protest. Sound cars were sent down every street in every neighborhood - including the refugee camps - in an effort to stir up the population. And, as seems to be common practice in autocratic countries, the government strongly suggested if not required that its employees attend the planned protest.
Well, I think the government minions were probably the only ones who ended up going. The protest collected about 700 people – many half-heartedly chanting and carrying banners. State radio broadcast the speeches that followed.
No surprise there really. Just like I expected. The following also doesn’t shock me since I knew for a while that this was going on in Darfur:
… I talked to one of my Sudanese co-workers, a “non-Arab”. He said, “The government thinks that we will be upset about this because Israel has killed Arabs. But we don’t care. We’re not Arab.” Not very diplomatic… but again, the people of Darfur seem to feel very little loyalty to or identity with the Khartoum government. Oh, and the religious manipulation didn’t seem to get very far either.
There’s nothing wrong in being an Arab. I myself am an Arab… a Nubian-Arab, so it’s not like I’m overjoyed by things like this (and I’m not necessarily saddened either). If I am a little saddened then it’s because of the guy’s blunt reply. Just because I’m an Afro-Arab doesn’t mean I don’t care about the plight of Kurds for example, but I guess Darfurians have way too much to worry about to care about the plight of other people, so it’s understandable.
If anything, I think it’s interesting that Arabized African Muslims in Darfur are increasingly shedding their political Arab identity. It’s expected anyway. The policies of forced Arabization carried out by Khartoum governments for many years since Sudan’s independence will continue to increasingly backfire if the regime keeps up what it’s doing in places like Darfur and Nubia.
You can read more about Irshad’s Moral Courage Project here in this PDF document.
I haven’t read An-Na’im’s whole book yet, only the first chapter of it for free after he pointed out to me by email where I can download it. Nonetheless, from what I’ve read so far I know it will be super juicy.
These are some of the ideas Abdullahi presents in it:
* “I do believe that it is possible, indeed necessary, to reinterpret Islamic sources in order to affirm and protect freedom of religion and belief. This is my position as a Muslim, speaking from an Islamic perspective, and not simply because freedom of religion and belief is a universal human rights norm…”
* “The possibility of belief in anything logically requires choice in the matter, as one cannot believe in anything without the freedom and ability to disbelieve it.”
I don’t know about you but this certainly excites me - a book full of concrete Islamic arguments challenging the current Islamist status-quo of the Muslim world. Expect the event to be streamed by video at Irshad’s website soon.
UPDATE: Ali Eteraz attended the launch and live-blogged the session.
UPDATE II: Check out the upcoming conference which will feature An-Na’im’s work. It’s called Heretic Muslims - A Celebration of Heresy Conference: Critical Thinking for Islamic Reform. I love the whole idea behind the “heresy” theme. Very interesting and deeply though-provoking.
I too, found it troublesome that Muhammad Ali arranges the way he sees himself as follows:
When I came to Washington , D.C. , in 1980, I was ambivalent about the racial divisions in America . After I became a U.S. citizen 10 years later, I started searching for my identity. I didn’t want to be part of the “white guilt - black victimization” syndrome. It took me 10 more painful years to realize that the color of my skin is not part of my identity. And that faith (Islam) is the core of my identity. Then my culture (Arabic) and my citizenship (American).
A catastrophic problem in Sudan is that the vast majority of us place citizenship last. There is hardly any loyalty to the country itself.
March 3, 2008 (LONDON) – Darfur rebel movement has accused the Sudanese army of painting tanks of UN Hybrid force saying it plans to attack its position in West Darfur.
Hehehe, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true. Yaay to the Sudanese army!
Mahagoub, 41, enlisted in September 2003, shortly after becoming a U.S. citizen and after living for nine years as a political refugee in Japan, where he had fled from his native Sudan.
He said he felt it was time to pay back all that the United States had given him.
… Mahagoub said he found himself immersed in the Midwest’s culture of “beef, beer, football and country-western music.”
Until then, “football” meant “soccer,” and when asked by his new neighbors if he liked “country” music, he replied, “Which country?”
He found himself accepted by his neighbors, and keeps the tenets of a Sufi Muslim by eating at kosher restaurants.
During his tour in Iraq, Mahagoub rode with supply convoys as a linguistic analyst tasked with interrogating bystanders when convoys came under attack or were struck by roadside bombs.
… “The locals would see me in a U.S. uniform, and I spoke their language. I’m one of them, one who brings peace,” he said.
A few considered him a traitor for working for the Americans and wearing the uniform, he said, so “I had to be careful.
Most of the Sudanese I know who enlisted in the US military did so purely for the money. They say so themselves. There are a few however like the guy in this story who join up for genuine reasons of gratitude. They can easily find well-paying jobs but instead choose to serve in the military, a move that causes divisive reactions within the Muslim Sudanese Diaspora in America. In the eyes of those who have lived in the United States for a long time and are well integrated, it’s normal but in the eyes of those who recently arrived, putting on the uniform is at best “sinful” and at worst a huge betrayal. The reason for the latter is confused and divided loyalty between the country of origin and the new adopted home.
As a Muslim, I found it upsetting (and I’m sure Israelis will too for their own reasons). Frankly, I’m actually very dumbfounded that someone who used to be in the CIA has these kind of ludicrous opinions.
Apparently, Michael thinks Bin Laden is not a terrorist but a resistance fighter. Yes, an insurgent and a freaking “resistance fighter”. Oh and guess what his solution is in a post 9/11 world - killing more of the enemy without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties!
Yes, dear Michael, that’s exactly the solution. No need for putting any effort whatsoever in winning hearts and minds. Screw the civilians too!
The foreign policy of the United States has a lot to answer for in the Middle East but it’s not really the reason for why Bin Laden is waging his war against America and the West. It has everything to do with al-Qaeda’s ideology and goal of establishing (through means of violence) a global Caliphate which enforces their vision of “holy laws”.
If today America withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantled its military bases in the Gulf, stopped supporting dictatorships like Mubarak’s and the House of Al Saud,stopped backing up Israel, and Palestine finally got fairly established, many, many Muslims and Arabs will be very happy. They won’t march in streets and call for America’s death anymore. However, for the Bin Laden types, it will never be enough.
Ali Eteraz too, shares a similar view in the second block-quote of his post “The Fanatics, Not Foreign Policy” which I encourage you to read.
Knock, knock Micheal Scheuer. It’s time to wake up.
Sometimes I receive emails from Americans who are curious to know whether I support Donkeys or Elephants. The the truth is, I support neither, at least not in the sense that those asking are implying. I don’t say this to play safe and please people or seem “fair”.
Thing is, I’m not a fan of the Donkey-Elephant paradigm. Why do I have to support either one or the other? Why not look at issues and see who has the best solution to address them regardless of party affiliations?
I’d rather be independent. Actually, if I were an American, I would be an Independent, one who’d have a lot in common with liberal Elephants and conservative Donkeys. Like I said before, my ideal candidate would be the best of an Obama-McCain combination.
I realize I’ve never stated explicitly before which American party I support. Now you know the answer.
Thomas Barnett is an international security strategist who has advised US leaders on national security since the end of the Cold. In this funny lecture, he explains how the United States has an amazing capability to wage war and win it but isn’t particularly good at everything else. By “everything else” he means stabilizing a country and winning the peace. Good talk.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has been listening closely to the TED conference. He’s figured out that this is a pretty liberal group. And he asks the group to try a thought experiment - two Americans are in Italy looking at the famous statue of David. One is amazed by the beauty of the form; the other is embarrased by the naked penis. Which one is more likely to have voted for Bush?
Our prejudice is right, as it turns out. Liberals are much more likely to be open to new experiences. Conservatives are more likely to seek familiarity and comfort.
If I were asked the same question, I’d say the one embarrassed by the naked penis more likely voted for Bush. I’m not sure why that would be considered prejudice though. Hello, I have to pick an answer.
Anyways, the next part is what I found really amusing.
… Haidt argues that the brain is well organized at birth with certain moral values, held in place by neural and hormonal programming. He identifies five basic values:
I’m skipping to the third one.
- Ingroup loyalty, our allegiance to our tribe. “When we don’t have tribes, we make them, because it’s fun” - think sports teams.
- Purity/sanctity - The right does it with sex, but he reminds us that the left does it with food
- Authority and respect
I don’t know about you, but the I think he nails the purity/sanctity observation.
I was surfing random stuff online a while ago using StumbleUpon and arrived at this page containing the following:
rule of thumb -No, this phrase is definitely NOT “P.C”! Who knew? “Rule of thumb” derived from the days when woman were sometimes beaten with a switch. To be “kind” the switch could not be thicker than a thumb’s width. This was made law in 1782 when an English judge stated that men were allowed to beat their wives but that the stick could not be thicker than one’s thumb.
The “rule of thumb” was referenced in at least four legal cases from 1782 to 1897, and in each of the known cases it was referred to only to state its invalidity, with one judge calling it “… a barbarous custom which modern authorities condemn.”
… “It’s certainly the case that, although British common law once held that it was legal for a man to chastise his wife in moderation (whatever that meant), the ‘rule of thumb’ has never been the law in England.”
Location: Deep, Deep Down the Orgasmic Rabbit Hole of Epistemology.
Bio of Awesomeness: Traditionalist Muslim, Turned Free Thinking Sufi Lover. Social Media Consultant to NY Times Best-Selling Authors. Author of Upcoming Memoir. Belief Systems Junkie. Afro-Arab Libertarian Music Freak. Vehemently Anti-Islamist. Loud and Drop Dead Gorgeous. The High Priest of Mischievous "Blasphemy." Read on and Have Your Brain Spun. You've Been Warned!
"If I don't have the freedom to disbelieve, I cannot believe."
— Abdullahi An-Na'im
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear."
.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
