ok, now can we call israel an apartheid state?

Tel Aviv Rabbis: Renting apartments to foreign workers violates Jewish law
(From Haaretz by way of Loonwatch)

Twenty-five rabbis from Tel Aviv have signed an edict forbidding the rental of apartments to “infiltrators” and illegal foreign workers.

In a public announcement, the rabbis said that “in the wake of the severe pressure that the neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv face and their abandonment by the government, that begins with the Israeli-Egyptian border and ends with the lawlessness and violence that is taking over south Tel Aviv, the residents of the neighborhoods have decided that the present situation cannot continue”.

The authors of a petition on the subject added that “they will not let the neighborhoods in which they grew up to turn into Sudanese neighborhoods, something that has already happened to the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood. After many attempts using acceptable legal means, the residents decided to have the rabbis sign an ‘Edict Forbidding the Rental of Apartments to Infiltrators,’ and hope that this will halt the deterioration of the
neighborhoods.”

An announcement that activists intend to post on bulletin boards around the city states that “we, the undersigned, neighborhood rabbis and synagogue rabbis, hereby warn the public of the religious prohibitions and the foreseeable dangers that would result from renting apartments to these people.” The rabbis added that “may the efforts of those that toil to defend the Jewish character of the City of Tel Aviv be strengthened.”

“This is a sad day for the citizens of Israel, when racism receives legitimization,” said Ran Cohen, the Director of the Migrant Refugee & Non-Status Division of the organization Doctors for Human Rights. “We call upon citizens to fiercely reject this petition and courageously stand in opposition to this display of fear and xenophobia that is gaining traction within our society.”

Meretz MK Ilan Gil’on said that “again, we are witness to racist incitement on the part of the rabbis. The same rabbis that should be preaching love of Israel and all of humanity are attempting to incite hatred and arouse fear among Israeli society. The Attorney General must investigate to find out if these rabbis are on the government payroll.”


spilling the beans
the green party supports divestment
churches call for divestment from israel
juan cole on borders, both ancient and modern

oneness of being, oneness of witnessing

I've been in a studious mood lately. Mostly I've been going over some basic fiqh by trying to see how much of Molana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Bahishti Zewar I can read through before Ramadan comes in. (tick, tock) But I've also been trying to go deeper into some topics in aquidah and in the process I picked up a CD of Nuh Ha Mim Keller discussing what it means to be an Ashari where he mentions wahdat al-wujud. It just moved me to try to see if I could find a clearer exposition of the topic online and I found: Wahdat al-Wujud, Wahdat al-Shuhud and the Safest Position by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani.

see also:
nothing unreal exists

muslims against sharia? (part three)

The following is a rehash of an exchange which was originally in the comment section of Planet Grenada under mccain's spiritual advisor hates muslims and islam between myself "A" and someone using the username Muslims Against the Sharia "B". I'm reposting it mainly because the person behind the username apparently disappeared along with their comments (fortunately they were preserved in e-mail). Also, since that initial exchange, I've learned that Pamela Geller is one of the main people behind Muslims Against Sharia and she has also been popping up in the news for various Islamophobic activities (trying to stop Cordoba House, putting anti-Islamic messages on buses in major cities, etc). Another figure behind the site is named Khalim Massoud who serves as president of the organization. I'm not sure who exactly is the person behind the username in this exchange.

see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)

A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?

B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".

A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.

B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?

A: All of them.

B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.

A: [online definitions deleted]

So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.

So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"

So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.

B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.

If you check out
http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html

You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.


B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?

A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.

9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.

9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.

9:6 says: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?

B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later verse.

9:13
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?

So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?

B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.

A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.

B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.

A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?

B: Yes / Most of it

A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?

B: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php

A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.

B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.

A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.

B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.

A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.

I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.

Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.


B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."

So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?

The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.

A:
Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

[...]

[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.

So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.

To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:

Deuteronomy 7

[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,

[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.

And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.

In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.

And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.

For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."

Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?

B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.

"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"

If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?

A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.

So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?


B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.


A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.


B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."

It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.


A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.


A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.

in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.

In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.

Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)

Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.


B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"

As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.

As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.

"Also, no need for name calling"

Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.

A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-fourth.html

If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.

B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.

A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.

Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.

B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."

One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!

"Also, he's never been a Muslim."

So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.

If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.

A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.

B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.

A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.

For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."

That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.

reyes de las calles - el mundo va acabarse

Just some amusing Afro-Cuban, Afro-futuristic, anti-racist, apocalyptic hip-hop. If I had more patience I would transcribe the lyrics along with the translation. (And I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed that no one else out there seems to have done it already.) The group's name means "Kings of the Streets" and the song's title means "The world is going to end". The lyrics tell the story of what happens when God (and the Martians) come down to Earth to set things right.

steele and afghanistan round-up

I have to admit that I like Michael Steele a bit more than I "should". It's not just the entertainment value of his gaffes but I actually think adding his voice to the mix is healthy for the Republican Party and, in the very long term, for the country as a whole. Don't get me wrong... he's Republican, so on average I'm going to not like his positions. But I also wholeheartedly agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's observation:

For now though the RNC still needs Steele for the very reason he was plucked for the lead role in the first place. In the wake of Obama's smash White House win, he was the best hope to prevent a battered, beaten, and demoralized GOP had from being shoved to the netherworld of national politics. The GOP is still widely sneered at and dismissed as an insular party of unreconstructed bigots, Deep South, rural and, non-college educated blue collar whites. Steele gives the party an image sheen that is anything but white, rural and Deep South.

I would even say I'm slightly optimistic that the growing prominence of Black (and also Indian-American) conservatives might help turn the image into a reality. In the healthiest case, the Republicans would dump their race-baiting, Southern-Strategy-playing xenophobic elements and morph into an honest pro-business libertarian party.

I would also mention that this episode shows how Ron/Rand Paul style libertarianism is not uniformly scary but is more of a mixed bag. Yeah, they have their reservations about the Civil Rights Act (which is not a trivial problem) but they are also more critical of the US various "adventures" in the Muslim world and elsewhere (which is also not a negligible thing).

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Steele got it Right about Afghanistan, But for the Wrong Reason
Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War On CNN
Ron Paul Praises Embattled RNC Chief Michael Steele For 'Leadership' On Afghanistan
Jon Fleischman Is Latest GOP Official To Criticize Afghan War
Steele Summoned to Limbaugh's (Extremely) White House
Steele's Resignation Would Be a Catastrophe for Obama
Rethink Afghanistan

danny glover asks "what to the slave is the fourth of july"

I've referenced this speech by Frederick Douglass before (see below) but here is a performance of an abridged version by Danny Glover:



"when in the course of human events..."
"patriotism" is a way of saying "women and children first"

christian book touting manly aggression inspires violent fundamentalist meth trafficking cult

To be fair, John Eldredge, the author of the book Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul is probably not happy that his book has become required reading for a "a ruthless cultic Christian paramilitary fundamentalist crime syndicate that controls most of the Crystal Meth traffic in the US and is fond of tossing severed heads into Mexican discos". Furthermore, it isn't as if the meth gang (La Familia) had been selling Girl Scout cookies before Eldredge's book came out.

On the other hand, the book does say things like:

Aggression is part of the masculine design, we are hardwired for it. If we believe that man is made in the image of God, we would do well to remember that “the LORD is a warrior, the LORD is his name.” (Ex. 15:3)

and

The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,” Jesus said, and violent men take it by force.” (Matt 11:12 NASB) Is that a good thing or a bad thing ? Hopefully by now you see the deep and holy goodness of masculine aggression and that will help you understand what Christ is saying.

and

(quoting Tremper Longman, author of God is a Warrior) Virtually every book of the Bible–Old and New Testament–and almost every page tells us of God’s warring activity… what would Miss Manners have to say about taking the promised land ? Does wholesale slaughter fit under “Calling on Your New Neighbors.”

In a lot of ways Eldredge is a fairly mainstream evangelical who happens to be less apologetic than most about the patriarchal and martial aspects of the Bible. In any case, even apart from Eldredge's influence, the cartel also has ties to a Traditionalist Catholic community called New Jerusalem with its own history of latent sectarian violence which bubbles to the surface from time to time.

The Arizona Republic: Government, leader deaths reshape apocalyptic sect in Mexico
NarcoGuerraTimes: More on The Faith-Based Cartel
Alternet: Christian Book Touting Manly Aggression Inspires Violent Fundamentalist Meth Trafficking Cult

see also:
all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't
on joe (joseph) stack
claim that all terrorists are muslims ignores history
the murder of george tiller
thoughts on the hutaree

maybe michael steele just really likes the princess bride?

Michael Steele on Obama's shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan:
Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed.

Huffington Post: Michael Steele Says Afghanistan Was 'War Of Obama's Choosing,' Not Something The U.S. 'Wanted To Engage In'

i'm more of a buffy/angel fan myself...

Al-Qaeda Calls Off Attack On Nation's Capitol To Spare Life Of 'Twilight' Author

more on the ex-muslim industry

In the current political and cultural climate it has become lucrative for many individuals from Muslim backgrounds (and the corresponding cache, authenticity and authority which comes with that) to become critics of Islam and the Muslim world. Recently some of my fellow bloggers have commented on some recent events regarding the ex-Muslim industry.

Marc Manley over at the Manrilla blog, in his entry "Oh, if only I were Dust!" shares a clip of an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Tavis Smiley. In a refreshing change of pace, Tavis refused to endorse Ali's generalizations about Islam and counter-balanced her comments with violence carried by Christians in the West. To watch or read the transcript for the entire interview, click here.

The blog Islamicate also had a recent post simply titled: the ex-Muslim industry

Finally, following up on a post of mine, also entitled the ex-Muslim industry which focused on Ergun Caner, then Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary; Son of a Turkish father and Swedish mother, he converted to Christianity as a teenager and became a minister. But after 9/11 he rose to prominence by exaggerating the Muslim aspects of his biography. After a number of both Muslim and Christian bloggers were able to detail inconsistencies in his biography and the story was picked up by the mainstream press, Liberty University was moved to formally investigate the matter and the results were announced this Friday. Basically he lost his position as Dean but he will still be a Professor in the Fall.

I wonder if the fallout from this will affect his brother Emir Caner? Emir is currently President of Truett-McConnell (a Baptist school). I've seen clips of Emir and Ergun appearing together and telling a shared story backing one another up. But as the younger brother it is possible that he was less willing/able to embellish (he was definitely born and raised in Ohio so it was harder to talk about being raised in Turkey).

See also:
the trouble with irshad manji for a take on someone who taps into the same ex-muslim industry money while still asserting a muslim identity.

umar ibrahim vadillo on gold and paper money

I've read about Umar Ibrahim Vadillo for a while now but I've actually never seen or heard him until recently. He's a part of the Murabitun movement which I've referenced before. In this clip he speaks on the importance of zakat. He is also critical of the use of paper money and favors currency based on gold and silver.



See also: Paper Money: A Legal Judgment by Umar Ibrahim Vadillo

I started to do a little bit a "research" on this subject online and apparently Vadillo's argument has more weight behind it than I first realized. Previously I more or less assumed this was an odd minority opinion only held by the Murabitun. (In some ways that it is still the case, at least in terms of people who are willing to say that paper money is out and out haram) But one can also find older scholars who seem to treat the use of paper money as at least questionable, especially when it comes to paying zakat. It makes me wonder what a truly Shariah-compliant economic system would look like?

an analysis of the green book

Both Ashaheed M. Muhammad's An Analysis of the Green Book and Why America Hates Qadhafi by Husayn Al-Kurdi give positive uncritical glosses of the Libyan leader and his ideology. The ideals are arguably noble, but I have to wonder how effectively they are being implemented?

al franken on the supreme court

As someone who would have been counted as 3/5 of a human being at the time, I've never really been a fan of the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. But in a recent speech, Senator Al Franken does an excellent job of debunking conservative talking points on Originalism (which is actually a novel perspective in American jurisprudence) and so-called activist judges.

doubleplusungood

Between the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, the widespread presence of camera phones and the vanishing (or non-existence) of privacy on the internet, it has been "1984" for a very long time now. But now, in yet another Orwellian milestone, 'terror cameras' (i.e. telescreens) have been installed in Muslim neighborhoods in the UK. Originally the government gave the impression that the cameras were for more conventional "crime prevention" but it turn out that the money for the cameras came from a counter-terrorism fund and the cameras were placed primarily in Muslim neighborhoods in Birmingham. Due to local outrage, many of the cameras are currently covered with plastic bags until more discussion can happen with the community... except about 70 of the cameras are hidden and so were not covered so as to not reveal their locations.

BBC News: Birmingham terror cameras

"i guess, michael jackson was right, you are not alone" (part two)
"i guess, michael jackson was right, you are not alone"
who watches the watchers?
you are not alone

imam zaid beyond petroleum

In Beyond Petroleum Imam Zaid Shakir writes:

[T]he Qur’an not only encourages a large degree of ecological consciousness and enlightened practices, it also warns us of the consequences of our neglect. We read:

Corruption has appeared in the land and sea because of what the hands of humans have wrought. Thus, that He may give them a taste of what they have perpetrated, in order that they return.
(Q. 30:41)

The eminent companion, Ibn ‘Abbas, mentioned that one of the meanings of this verse is that the sea would cease yielding its harvest because of the sins of humans. We live in a time when we have already seen a precipitous decline in the yield of the sea. The evolving crisis in the Gulf of Mexico threatens to destroy the seafood industry of that region. This decline can be attributed to our sins in both the metaphysical and physical sense.

imam zaid shakir on marriage

A number of other bloggers have linked to this piece under the name "The Ethics of Chivalry" but it appears on Zaid Shakir's own website with the title: Higher Ground for Our Marriages. Here is an excerpt:

Marriage is not a playground where the ego thoughtlessly pursues it vanities. This is something the chivalrous young man mentioned at the outset of this essay understood. It is an institution that helps a man and a woman pursue the purpose of their creation: to glorify and worship God and to work, within the extent of our capabilities and resources, to make the world a better place for those we share it with and for those we will leave it to. This role is beautifully captured in the Qur’an, The believing men and women are each others supporting friends. They enjoin right, forbid wrong, establish regular prayer, pay the poor due, and they obey God and His Messenger. They expect God’s Mercy. Surely, God is Mighty, Wise. (9:71)

takin' it to the streets 2010

Wow, I was actually blessed with being at the very first Takin' It to the Streets many years ago and it is amazing to think about how much it has blown up since then. As some have been suggesting, the time/space continuum may tear and Chicago will ascend into a ball of light...



Takin' It To the Streets Website

Summer events celebrate Muslim American spirit

more on helen thomas

Just a round-up. The first two items make the double-standard faced by Helen Thomas a bit more obvious by pointing out "acceptable bigotry" by other talking heads in the media. The third is self-explanatory. The fourth gives a more comprehensive transcript of the original exchange with Helen Thomas.

Also, just so that it is said in the universe, I was struck by how ageist the original negative reaction to Helen Thomas was. It was more than bizare to me how much those claiming to be responding to one form of prejudice were willing to engage in another.

1. Retire Ari Fleischer, Chuck Schumer & More: Bigots & Hypocrites Who Sent Helen Thomas Packing Now Need to Pack Their Own Bags
2. Helen Thomas – Double Standards Running Rampant
3. Anti-Israel Does Not Mean Anti-Semitic
4. Lazy Reporters, Politicians and Comedians Bring Helen Thomas Down as an Unquestioning Project Cheers

thoughts on the karate kid

I just saw the remake of The Karate Kid the other night. Themes of globalization were front and center. An African-American single mother from Detroit has to move to China due to her job being transferred. The film was full of beautiful scenes of the Chinese countryside as well as city life. Temples, the Forbidden City, crowds of people doing Tai-Chi in the park. Plus there were a few obligatory humorous outcroppings of Western culture in the film: Spongebob Squarepants on television (dubbed and subtitled so that Jaden Smith's character couldn't understand). And the demure violin-playing Chinese girl getting her groove on to Lady Gaga.

Jackie Chan's performance was competent but I felt his own martial arts skills were wasted against the teenage bullies. I would have wanted to see at least one face-off between him and the head of this film's version of the Cobra Kais.

Jaden Smith's performance was also respectable. My main complaint: I wish his character was more likeable but he ended up acting like a brat for much of the movie, especially in the beginning. Also, his reluctance to learn Chinese in China was not a good look. (I mean, even the blond American kid who befriends Jaden's character early in the film manages to learn Chinese! Jaden's character doesn't speak any significant amount of Chinese until he needs to be nice to the cute girl's parents.)

In fact, that leads me to an intriguing question: Does the film end up being an (African-) American version of Avatar / The Last Samurai / Dances with Wolves where the (African-) American boy who knows nothing about Kung Fu (or Chinese) ends up beating the natives in a Kung Fu competition? Is this really an old story in blackface? Or is something fundamentally different because the character in this role is Black? (Some leftists might ask the same question about Obama and U.S. foreign policy) When I stop to think about it, previous martial arts films with black protagonists (Red Belt, The Last Dragon, Ghost Dog, etc.) tend to have a different sort of dynamic; the hero respectfully uses an Asian tradition against either white or black opponents.

Some other questions which are created by transposing the story to China: In the original film it was easy to argue that the Cobra Kais, led by a racist American Vietnam veteran, were teaching a distorted form of karate. But in the remake's portrayal of China, knowledge and practice of martial arts is shown as ubiquitous, and the "Cobra Kais" are quite popular. So are they practitioners of "real" Kung Fu? Also, in one key sequence Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) takes Jaden's character to a temple to learn the source of his Kung Fu and drink from the mystical dragon well. But again, they are in China, don't the other Chinese kids in the kung fu competition have teachers who can tell them where the dragon well is?

Wikipedia:
Chinese Martial Art
Karate

Hyphen Magazine: Pat Morita's Daughter Calls for a Boycott of the new Karate Kid movie

thoughts on helen thomas

Here is the exchange that got Helen Thomas into trouble and led to her "decision" to retire.

Rabbi DAVID F. NESENOFF (Founder, RabbiLIVE.com): Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?

Ms. HELEN THOMAS (Former Columnist, Hearst News Service): Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

Rabbi NESENOFF: Ooh. Any better comments on Israel?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Unidentified Woman: Helen has one.

Ms. THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land. Not German. It's not Poland.

Rabbi NESENOFF: So where should they go? What should they do?

Ms. THOMAS: They can go home.

Rabbi NESENOFF: Where is their home?

Ms. THOMAS: Poland...

Rabbi NESENOFF: So the Jews...

Ms. THOMAS: Germany.

Rabbi NESENOFF: You think Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

Ms. THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

1. I believe in free speech. I'm even happy to live in a society where individuals are able to make bigoted remarks without legal repercussion as long as there is space for more progressive voices to call out bigots on their bs.

2. Unfortunately, in terms of mic access in the popular media, there is an imbalance and some voices are constrained while others are not. Most recently, of course, we see this in the recent situation involving Helen Thomas where she is "encouraged" to retire while on a regular basis (Patrick Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, and others are able to make bigoted comments, especially against Arab/Muslims, with a great deal of impunity.)

3. I actually didn't know that Helen Thomas was Lebanese-American until this controversy came up and I'm not sure how I feel about how it is being used now. Several of the articles, columns and pieces have been mentioning Thomas' background and one can argue that it is relevant to the subject matter. On the other hand, one could argue that it is an example of playing the "race card" in order to discredit her objectivity much in the same way that anti-Obama folks would emphasize his middle name.

4. Thomas' comments were so offensive, primarily because they evoked the memory of the Holocaust but in reality, that was entirely unintentional. TODAY, there is no Holocaust in Germany and Poland and there certainly isn't one in America.

5. In spite of the offense, I think there is something salvageable in what Helen Thomas said and it would be worthwhile trying to find ways to express it more diplomatically.

6. The simple question: Where are you from? can either be answered briefly with a country or city. Or it can be answered with a 5 minute historical ethnography. In the case of Jewish citizens of Israel, answering the question can involve a rather tangled story. The oversimplified version would be to say that Jews are originally from ancient Israel. They left for a while. And now they are back.

7. Of course, in most cases "a while" is the nearly 2000 year period book-ended by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and the founding of modern Israel in 1948. So the ancient Jews spent hundreds, if not thousands of years, in different countries, learning new languages, intermarrying into new nations, adopting new cultures, etc. In addition, some Jews are descended from groups like the Khazars who converted to Judaism in large numbers and actually have little physical connection to the people of ancient Israel.

8. So how many centuries does it take to be "from" somewhere? Is 100 years enough? 500? 1000? 1500?

9. At least in the case of Ashkenazi (literally German) and Sephardi Jews (literally from the Iberian Peninsula), at some point, they became European and have been that way for centuries. So Zionist project is arguably the last vestige of European colonialism in the region. This would especially be true in the case of Jewish settlement in the Occupied Territories which is actually a violation of international law (and is probably what Helen Thomas was referring to when she said that the Jews ought to go back home).

10. As a thought experiment, I wonder what the reaction would have been if , during apartheid, in the wake of some move by the South African government analogous to the flotilla attack, especially one where a US citizen was killed, an American journalist said that white South Africans needed to go back to the Netherlands. How would that have been received? How should that have been received?

(more thoughts later...)

Daily Kos: Helen Thomas Referring to Ashkenazi in "Poland', "Germany" Remark

Real News: Nader says reinstate Thomas

Huffington Post:
In Defense of Helen Thoms: On Apologizing to Apologists
If Helen Thomas, Then Why Not Pat Buchanan?
Good thing we've got a "free press" here

Haaretz:
Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says

Guardian:
Helen Thomas went over the top, but why is she gagged in the land of the free?

Mondoweiss:
In Helen Thomas case, the world sees a taboo being enforced

Al-Jazeera:
The cautionary tale of Helen Thomas by Mark LeVine

100,000 Former Soviet Jews In Israel Return To Russia
Where Do France's Jews Belong?

Wikipedia:
Hebraization of surnames
Ashkenazi Jews
Sephardi Jews
Mizrahi Jews
Arab Jews