February 2012

This is the first installment of what will be a weekly column entitled Ask a Shiite. Our resident expert will be fielding questions of a philosophical, physical, and political nature in regards to Shiite Islamic belief and Middle East perception from his own eyes. Interested in asking a question? Send an email to alec.

Question: What is the overall effect of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict on Muslim perspectives of the United States role in the Middle East? And what is the general perception of America given the current political climate for Muslims?

Answer: The simple answer is that there is no difference on the US image in these circumstances except that the muslim sentiment and rage is building up and is giving us all the more reason to fight back. This question is kind of an easy one not too detailed. But I have still given a bit more of my opinion on this ‘topic’.

This Palestinians conflict has been going on for decades and as far as I know for sure, it will not end unless the Palestinians are given back Israel. Our opinion about the USA has been the same for quite some time. It creates wars between countries and has been backing up Israel since the beginning because of some conspiracy. Some of us who study this matter deeply, like me, believe that the USA and Europe are controlled by Freemasons and groups like that who want to bring about the New World Order. Thats why they are successful and some sort of religious reason is behind the occupation of Israel.

We believe that the Palestinian occupation is absolutely illegal and to tell the truth most of us cant understand how and why you actually support Israel. It seems to be like a no brainer to go against Israel, looking at how they were formed. A general sentiment has been created amongst the Muslims that they are being targeted by the west because Islam teaches us the most about standing up against oppression and because we do not want the American culture to be ‘imported’ into our community.

Now you might ask why do Muslims commit terrorism even though we say that we are the most peaceful religion? Well there are some Muslims who have different opinions and thats why we are not yet totally united as should be. Most of the terrorist attacks that take place areby a small sect called the Wahabbis. These people I can assure you have very messed up thoughts.

Their scholars are not exactly educated and are self proclaimed. They think they are doing the right thing but they are not because making a big decision like Jihad bis Saif (Struggle with the sword) requires a LOT of knowledge, experience and the matter needs to be thought out from many different perspectives with all the Islamic laws in consideration. This is not an easy job. There are only a few people in the world who have this ability. Some of them are Sistani and Khamenei. In fact I think these are the only ones who do have the ability.

So these terrorists are actually not even educated and their mental horizon is very narrow. They do not represent Islam and their ‘version’ of Jihad is flawed. For example, the 9/11 attacks were not jihad because killing travelers in jihad is not allowed, likewise todays civilian attacks are not allowed because women and children cannot be targeted and only those who openly come to challenge can be opposed back. Racism is not allowed in Islam so killing Americans because they are Americans is not allowed.

I read one of Usama bin Laden letter on a blog and it said that he targets American civilians because their tax money goes to killing Muslims. This is wrong because the Arab governments are the ones who actually invest in the USA, their oil money is stored in US banks etc. So why not target Arab countries?

Secondly during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (A.S) the enemy armies were surely built form tax money. So why did the Prophet also not target civilians? This shows that targeting Americans is wrong.

Now up until now the only Islamic government ever formed is the current Irani Government. It’s decisions are monitored by Ayatollah Khamenei. The only so called ‘terrorist’ group who opposes Israel rightfully is Hezbollah. One little proof: the Qur’an says that in jihad you attack them in the right manner and we will make you victorious. Its a promise. Now what is Hezbollah? A small group of highly motivated and trained militants who fought against one fo the worlds most powerful army and guess what? They won!

The Qur’an’s promise has been fulfilled. What are our Sunni brothers doing on the other hand? They have fought I think 5 wars and lost all of them. I dont really think thats jihad. Those wars were not thought out with Islamic guidance and so they lost.

       

Technorati Tags: perceptions of america, al-qaeda, middle east, osama bin laden, terrorism, israel, palestine, iraq, iran, afghanistan, mecca, military occupation, jihad, oil, united states, interference of the west

{ 71 comments }

Jihad on American Society

by Video of the Day on May 31, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   51 Views  

Given PBH’s recent success of declaring jihad on Natasha Mitra, I am ready to declare another jihad, this time on American society. I know, I know, it’s not Fatwa Friday, but alas, this 9 year old girl gets baked and fried to look like a fucking oompa loompa with the prodding encouragement of her mother. All so that she can look like Linsday drug-riddled, anorexic-harpy Lohan for her yearbook picture. I hate you America:

{ 4 comments }

Que the Curtains of Irony

by Word Of The Day on May 31, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   7 Views  

In today’s edition of Haaretz (liberal Israeli daily), there’s a rather pallid article called Shin Bet arrests three Hamas militants who tried to attack IDF troops. Nothing to see here — it’s your typical Israeli-Palestinian situation of shoot, retaliate, and arrest. But check out this gem in the Web 2.0 of Haaretz’s instantaneous discussion and feedback for articles, evidenced no greater than by the zinger at #7 titled ‘to all the ubove’:

Can any one of you(from your past experience in Europe)suggest few romantic,unhurtfull ways to resist militery occupation,humilation and seggrigation?please!!

Zinged to irony and beyond! Nothing like inflicting the same treatment on others like you received yourself for karmic reprisal, because when you suffer greatly, why bother learning from it? Because otherwise, you are entitled to a life of guilt-free mistreatment of anyone who gets in the way of your crazy nationalistic dreams!

{ 8 comments }

Perceptions of Terrorism

by International Relations on May 31, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   91 Views  

When a percentage of Muslims support civilian casualties, it’s called an internal threat and terrorism. When an even higher percentage of Americans support intentionally attacking civilians, what do we call it?

The past week, a highly publicized Pew Research Center poll was released on the beliefs and political perceptions of Muslim Americans. The survey concluded, that Muslim-Americans are “largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.” Yet on prominent mainstream media outlets, the survey was slanted as “Supporting Terror?” on a CNN crawl, on CBS News online, the headline incorrectly stated that 26% OF YOUNG U.S. MUSLIMS OK BOMBS, and in USA Today, more scare tactics: POLL: 1 IN 4 YOUNGER U.S. MUSLIMS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBINGS.

Yet the poll actually showed only 8 percent of US Muslims said suicide bombing can be justified with 83 percent saying suicide bombing can never be justified. Says Hussein Ibish, “I can almost guarantee that the overwhelming majority who were asked the suicide-bombing question were thinking about Palestine—not Iraq or America. They’re not willing to say it’s never OK because they think Palestinians have no other options. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think. It’s exactly the same kind of statistic you’d get if you asked young Israelis about torture, demolition of villages, assassinations—they’d say yes because they know the Israelis have done it but loathe to say it’s wrong. I’m sure, knowing the Muslim community, that if you resolved the occupation in Palestine, that number would go very close to zero.”

Most interestingly, on an international level Americans poll worst than every Muslim country in regards to attacks against civilians. From the The myth of Muslim support for terror in the Christian Science Monitor:

Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria…

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”…

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world’s most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are “never justified”; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent… Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.

46 percent of Americans think attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are never justified, compared to numbers ranging in the 70′s and 80′s for the majority of Muslim countries. Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers, and what does this say about the perceptions of Muslims versus the perceptions of ourselves?

Sources & References

Sample of poll results:

 Perceptions of Terrorism

Europhobia, Islamaphobia and American Muslims Surveyed, http://wsibrusselsblog.org/?p=136

Muslims in America, http://atlanticreview.org/archives/678-Muslims-in-America.html

The myth of Muslim support for terror by Kenneth Ballen, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

You Say Islamo-Fascist, I Say Militant Islamists, http://www.teambio.org/2007/05/you-say-islamo-fascist-i-say-militant-islamists/

Media Coverage of Muslims Bombs: A Pew poll on Muslims in America painted a positive picture. So why was the coverage so negative? By Lorraine Ali, MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18853924/site/newsweek/

{ 4 comments }

Do vampires need nails in their coffin??

by Article of the Day on May 30, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   7 Views  

The Article: The Last Nail in the GOP’s Coffin by David Frum of AEI. Yes, AEI.

The Text: The Republican party is hurtling toward disaster in 2008. The latest polls report that 61 percent of Americans think that the Iraq war was a mistake. More than 70 percent of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track”–an astonishingly bad number for a non-recession year.

Historically, Democrats have been perceived as the more caring and compassionate party; Republicans as the more honest and effective party.

Yet today, Democrats enjoy a 5:3 advantage over Republicans on the question, “Which party can manage government better?” They hold a 2:1 advantage on integrity and ethics. They even outpoll the Republicans on national security, for the first time since the Johnson-Goldwater race of 1964!

In this hour of gloom and danger for the GOP, the party leaders have just chosen to launch all-out war against the last remnants of their support.

In recent days, Republican and Democratic Senators acting with the support of the White House concocted a deal on immigration that grants amnesty in all but name to the 12 million illegal aliens inside the United States. The deal also proposes large increases in legal immigration, plus a temporary worker program to import hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers for two years at a time.

At a reception Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner eloquently expressed the feelings of many Republicans about the deal the Senators negotiated in secret: “I promised the President today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about . . . this piece of s–t bill.”

But it did not matter what profanities Boehner said or did not say. The voice of protest was taken up by Web sites and radio stations. The President’s poll numbers tumbled to some of the lowest levels seen in his presidency, under 30 percent.

Bush is in trouble because his own party does not trust him to enforce border security.

Of the estimated 12 million illegals in the United States, four million have arrived since he became president. Bush has made clear in hundreds of speeches that he would prefer to solve this problem with an amnesty in all but name for existing illegals–and higher limits on future immigration.

By working so hard for an amnesty, the President sent a powerful signal to would-be migrants all over the planet: Get in while you can, your green card will arrive soon.

The post-2000 surge of illegals has imposed heavy costs all over the United States. The median American worker earns less today than in 2000, in considerable part because of the wage lowering effects of immigration.

Taxpayers have had to bear heavy new burdens. The state of North Carolina paid an estimated $10 million to educate the children of illegals in 1995; $210 million in 2005. Illegals cost every household in the state of California an estimated $300 per year in extra state and local taxes.

Illegals present serious security threats. Between 1990 and 2005, 94 foreign- born terrorists plotted or attempted terrorist attacks inside the United States. Earlier this month, the U.S. government foiled a plot by six Kosovo-born terrorists to attack Fort Dix, NJ.

Above all, illegal immigration raises issues of disrespect for law that deeply offend the conservative values of Republican voters.

President Bush and the Senate Republicans have had ample warning of the deep unpopularity of their approach within their party. They tried to pass similar measures in 2001, 2004 and 2006, and had to give up every time. They are trying again now only because they sense that it will be easier to pass their quasi-amnesty through a Democratic Congress.

They are right on that last point. Hispanics vote Democratic by majorities of 60 percent and up. So, naturally, Democrats are eager to welcome and register as many as possible as fast as possible.

And Democrats also recognize what President Bush would not–that the attempt to pass a quasi-amnesty through Congress would trigger a bitter debate within the Republican party–which would thereby alienate Hispanics from Republicans even further.

All of this has come to pass. Senate Democrats, watching Republicans tear their party apart over this issue, must echo Cleavon Little’s smug comment in Blazing Saddles: “Oh baby, you are so talented–and they are so dumb.”

I spoke yesterday to a Republican congressman. He had been given the thankless task of dialing donors to invite them to the President’s Dinner, the GOP’s biggest fundraising event of the year. “How’s it going?” I asked. “Worst ever,” he answered.

Conservatives think the Republican party has betrayed them. Hispanics–America’s largest and fastest-growing minority–think that the party has turned its back on them. Ordinary voters now say by 2:1 margins that the Democrats care more about “people like them.” All signs point to a GOP debacle in 2008. And this immigration bill looks like the point of no return.

The Analysis: Am I the unsuspecting victim of a modern Twilight Zone? Or is the Republican base going Pat Buchanan ape-shit about immigration and I haven’t been paying attention? Either way, it’s affecting the Republican Presidential hopefuls already with the loud outcry from dey took der jobs section of the party. And I will roll in my pig shit until told otherwise.

{ 2 comments }

Post Modern Feminist Linking

by Word Of The Day on May 30, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   29 Views  

woman Post Modern Feminist Linking

BabiesCreepMe Post Modern Feminist Linking

AskAbortion Post Modern Feminist Linking

PrePregnant Post Modern Feminist Linking

shootback Post Modern Feminist Linking

wp 2 Post Modern Feminist Linking

wp 4 Post Modern Feminist Linking

flir 17 Post Modern Feminist Linking

conf 9a Post Modern Feminist Linking

flir 31 Post Modern Feminist Linking

{ 0 comments }

The Women’s Rights Essay I Spent Nine Mostly Painful Hours Forcing Out

Women: Some just say “Sure, they’re those things with vaginas in ‘em.” others understand the feminine identity as an endless majesty of intellect, strength, and fashion sense. All throughout history, differences between males and females have shaped the way society looks at the shapelier sex, and the unfortunately common patriarchal societies have pushed the female potential-sometimes all too literally-to the back burner. However, with the 19th and 20th centuries came the blossoming of social, technological, and medical advances. These changes became the mother’s milk of progress, and birthed the modern Women’s Rights Movement. In this essay we will expose ourselves to the legal background of one of the most titillating issues surrounding women’s movement in America: Reproductive Rights.

The post World War 2 era was a turbulent time for America. Increasingly tenacious currents of a liberalizing society began to stand up to the status quo’s sentimentalized notions of the way things used to be and challenged their legal manifestations.

Throughout the country, seldom enforced, socially restrictive laws, known as Blue Laws, became the main attraction for progressive ire, and, in the mid-twentieth century, no state’s laws were quite as Blue as Connecticut’s. Indeed, it was from the “Nutmeg State” that one of the most famous showdowns in the history of Reproductive Rights emanated, in Griswold v. Connecticut.

In 1879, Connecticut passed a statute demanding that doctors not provide “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” In the almost 100 years following law’s passage, it was almost never enforced. However symbolic it may have been, several failed legal attempts were launched aimed at overturning the law culminating with a case known as Poe v. Ullman.

Oddly enough, the insurmountable hurdle for these attempts, and particularly for Poe v. Ullman, was that, because Connecticut filed no charges against the plaintiffs in these cases, the Supreme Court felt that issue was not “ripe” for judicial review. In other words, one needed to break the law and be recognized with legal sanction before the Supreme Court would take the case.

The Court’s dismissal of Poe v. Ullman provoked Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold and professor of Medicine at Yale, Dr. C. Lee Buxton to test the law, by opening a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. Such flagrant violation of the law succeeded in landing both founders in the kind of legal controversy that lacked in Poe v Ullman, and when their $100 fines were upheld by both the Appellate Division of the District Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, the case made its way onto the docket of the Supreme Court.

The case was argued before the Warren Court on the dates of March 29 and 30, 1965 and was decided June 7 of the same year. The decision was 7-2 in favor of invalidating the Connecticut law.

Justice William Douglas, writing for the majority, contended that the Connecticut law stood in opposition to the right of privacy, which, though not specifically enumerated in the constitution, existed in what he called “penumbras” of other constitutional provisions. In his argument, he cited as precedent for unenumerated rights, the courts protection, in NAACP v. Alabama, of freedom of association “and privacy in one’s associations” as a peripheral virtue of the First Amendment.

Justice Douglas maintained that, in addition to the First Amendment, penumbras regarding privacy existed in the Third Amendment’s protection against the quartering of soldiers, the Fourth Amendment’s provision for “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Fifth Amendment’s assurance that one need not incriminate one’s self, and the Ninth Amendment’s assurance that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Several other justices joined Justice Douglas with concurring opinions. The most notable of these was written by Justice Goldberg, who held that the “language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.” To support his assertion, Justice Goldberg cited both a wide array of legal precedent, and a very relevant statement by James Madison that went, “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.”

If Connecticut v. Griswold was the child of the Reproductive Rights Movement, surely Roe v. Wade was the afterbirth. Eight years after the decision in which Estelle Griswold and Dr. C Lee Buxton were absolved of their $100 fine, Norma L. McCorvey, better known as “Jane Roe,” won a case against Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, and, in doing so, increased the legal support for reproductive rights an entire proverbial bra size.

Roe v. Wade, while far and away the most recognized Supreme Court case in history, was more or less a reiteration of Griswold v. Connecticut. The District Court (which actually ruled in favor of Roe, but declined to grant the injunction against the Texas criminal abortion laws that Roe sought) cited Justice Goldberg’s concurring opinion in holding that the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth, provides a fundamental right for women to decide whether to have a child. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, contended, much as Justice Douglas had when ruling against the Connecticut law, that Roe’s right to privacy existed in the “Fourteenth Amendments concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action”

Even so, Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v Wade is distinctly illuminating. He writes, almost as a side note, that legal restrictions on reproductive rights are a fairly recent development. With few exceptions, the regulations on abortion and contraception that pervaded the United States in the latter half of the 19th century had no foundation in either the ancient or common law on which the American legal system is based.

This is significant because it emphasizes the culturally entrenched expectation of reproductive choice as a “fundamental right”. That argument, though only parenthetically recognized, is, in fact, the underlying principle for the decisions in both cases: It is a culture’s expectation of rights that secures its liberty, and it was when the champions of the Reproductive Rights Movement demanded that their rights be respected, that they got their liberty.

The success of the Reproductive Rights Movement paralleled the successes of the larger
Women’s Rights Movement. 1950’s America returned home late in the twentieth century startled to find dinner absent from the table—startled to find that women wandered off the well beaten path between the kitchen and the bedroom to find lives outside of making pies and babies. In the wake of America’s dismay, the movement succeeded in turning a once a month complaint into a permanent menstrolution.

{ 2 comments }

If you get erections from political sellouts, this week was your week to shine (with hard-ons). No sooner did the Democrats get control of the House and Senate on the anti-War, anti-Bush platform did they cave in to have their pockets lined with delicious government money. Oh boy, the sea of change:

We are in the midst of an intellectual crisis in this country where certain dogmatic and incoherent beliefs are allowed to dominate the discourse in spite of the fact that they are demonstrably false. It’s one of the most difficult problems we ace.

Other things worth checking out: War Crimes at Waiter Rant, where he dissects the idea of fellatio practicing and chocha shaving, Think Before You Post (or you may have hot 40 year old males waiting for your underwear), and yet another funny/sad example of Fox News “interesting” take on the world.

{ 9 comments }

Page 1 of 9123456...Last »