slowtrain

Obama and Clinton sharing the presidency

2008-03-24T15:36:00.000-07:00

Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like, but I don't see Hillary Clinton coming second in any such arrangement. Obama, being the gentleman that he is, he would probably be pressured by the establishment to accept second in line, for the Democratic Party's sake.

Stuffs happen, you know. Obama, may find himself before his turn to assume the presidency, in some scandal, completely not of his making, but enough to make him politically in viable, at least in the court of public opinion, consequently voiding such arrangement and keeping Hillary on for the whole term.

I know America is not Kenya, but this is eerily similar to the ill-fated power sharing proposition, arranged under the infamous "Memorandum of Understanding" between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga of Kenya (Obama's paternal ancestral homeland), which was reneged on by Mwai Kibaki and plunged Kenya into a brutal political unrest that lead to neighbors killing neighbors and the once "stable and prosperous" country, a rarity in Africa, almost went up in flames, so to speak.

Obama’s pastor may have helped him on his spiritual path, but has he now hindered his political path?

2008-03-19T09:19:00.000-07:00

Every once in while I am “forced” to update my blog with a new post, this time, it is the incendiary preaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright that brought me out of hibernation. The last time I came out of hibernation, it was the incendiary comments of radio talk show host, Don Imus that got me to venture out of my humble hood.

Even though the comments by these two influential men on either side of America’s racial divide have in common the provocation they setoff and the offense they have caused, there is a difference, however. While Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s comment may have been borne of frustration, indignation and, perhaps, misdirected animosity, Don Imus’ comments may have stemmed from self-conceit, insensitivity, disrespect, contempt, and derision.

With regard to Jeremiah Wright’s comments, I have to say that he chose the wrong sermon to mark his retirement from thirty-some years of ministry. His comments were imprudent, unproductive, unedifying, and undermines what Senator Obama has been trying to do, which is develop a new approach to racial reconciliation and a new way to move America forward.

It could be said that, by the controversial comments in some of Pastor Wright's sermons, he has distracted from Senator Obama's message and may have diminished his non-confrontational "ecumenical" approach, consequently hurting his cross-cultural appeal, by inadvertently reviving the hitherto absent, usual presumptiveness that have typically hobbled the appeal of previous African American aspirants. Those comments may have cost Senator Obama the chance to, not only become the first African American President of the United States, but the opportunity to get America unstuck from the morass of a certain history and perception, and move her forward to the great country she can become. This is still the best country in world, in fact, the only country that could produce an incredible story like Barack Obama's. Yet, America's full potential still only lay ahead. Imagine all the possibilities that lie in America's potentials - immutable potentials that are inextricably bound in the immutable providential ideals upon which America was founded.

Even though, Pastor Wright appear to qualify his statement and the object of his anger with the phrase “rich white people” like “Hillary”, which would appear to suggest that he did not imply or direct his anger at all white people. Nevertheless, he, as one who professes to minister the word of God, ought to learn from Proverbs 15: 1, 2 and 4: "A soft answer turns away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools pours out foolishness. A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit." As Abraham Lincoln said, “When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a ‘drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.” We all recognize the wisdom in this in Lincoln's Gaithersburg address - a sermon that healed a wounded nation, rather than divide her on that premise.

As I have written elsewhere, racism, even the appearance of it, creates division, destroys the nation’s unity, and weakens her strength. Influential people, whether pastors, politicians, policemen, academics, media personalities, or social commentators, who make comments that lend themselves to racism or the appearance of it, in an environment polluted with distrust and suspicion, which perennially engender a charged sociopolitical atmosphere and frequently ignite explosive conflicts, are like occupants of a ship, who punch holes in its bow, while the rest of the occupants bail water out of the ship to keep it afloat. The vessel will inevitably sink with everyone in it unless the damage is repaired and the people responsible prevented from punching more holes. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “A small leak will sink a ship.” America is the ship in which we all journey; we must not allow racism or the appearance of it to sink her.

America cannot afford to postpone indefinitely, what needs to be done and must be done to move her forward. America is mature enough to deal with the issues of race in America once and for all, especially knowing that much of the issue is now to a large extent, particularly relevant in historical and symbolic contexts, since America, in my opinion, has a lot to show for the last forty years and difference to the previous four hundred years. “Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today,” Abraham Lincoln said.

We cannot afford to continue to live in fear of history. History is, perhaps, like medicine, sometimes unpalatable but able heal the body and make it well again or even better. History should not be read backwards, but must be used in the proper contexts to shape a better future.

Truth must be spoken in fairness, especially when spoken by a pastor, to edify the people and move them to righteous actions. Rather than rant and rave in bitterness and animosity, Pastor Wright needs to follow the admonitions of the Bible, and speak in a language that appeals to reason, not just emotion; a language that convicts the spirit and moves people to act in ways that would inspire repentance, forgiveness, healing and reconciliation - ways that bring out the best in people, not the worst. He needs to speak the truth with wisdom and fairness.

Joke or No Joke!

2007-04-12T10:35:00.001-07:00

Don Imus has apologized for his derogatory comments last Wednesday, in which he referred to the mostly African America Rutgers University's women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

Perhaps, it was an inappropriate joke as he claimed in his apology. My opinion is that it was an insult or meant as one, more than it could ever be a joke. Although, from what I hear about the man, he could have as easily and callously made equally egregious comments about anyone else -- Jews, Irish, Italian, Polish, disabled people, Women, and even his wife and has done so for over 30 years; with one exception however. I will leave that exception and the reason for it to your imagination.

Imus said “I am a good person”, may be so, but Jesus Christ said Matthew 12: 34, “generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Luke 6: 45, has it as “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.” As far as Don Imus’ racially pejorative comments about the Rutgers University Basketball team, I will live it that.

However, I am more interested in a much bigger issue, knowing that this will not be the last time a Caucasian American will say something that would convey unsavory sentiments, thus provoking the bruised sentiments of African Americans. Here is the question that presents the issue: will African Americans ever accept satire or caricature taken in or out of the context of the “blackface minstrelsy” and the “darky” iconography, in light of the collective oppression associated therewith, when rendered by a Caucasian American? I for one think it is possible but it will take a long time and a lot of hard work. Here is why I think so.
Essentially what it boils down to, is trust. Will the so-called “black people” and the so-called “white people” ever come to a point where they can trust each other enough, as to take satires in the supposedly proper context or accept caricatures as humor?

America’s history has been one dominated by the issue of race and racism, even more than the war for independence and the civil war. This is largely because of the misdeeds of the past – from slavery to segregation. Racism in America or the perception of it is a very difficult and seemingly intractable problem, particularly because there is a fundamental disconnection between the two main constituencies in the matter, resulting from unresolved issues associated therewith. On the one hand are those, predominantly the so-called “Blacks”, who suffered racism, and on the other hand are those, predominantly the so-called “Whites” who did not and, perhaps, are in one way or another culpable in inflicting it on the former group, at least from the stand point of collective responsibility.

The problem with this situation is the perception by African Americans, that there is a tendency for those who have not experienced racism to minimize it, by claiming that those who suffered it, and perhaps still do, exaggerate its scope and impact. This in turn leads Caucasians to view African Americans as stuck on the subject (the so-called “victim mentality”) to the point of romanticism and being hypersensitive about it — a perception that infuriates the African Americans, who, therefore, view the Caucasians as grossly insensitive to their sufferings. The different feelings provoked by the issue can be summed up by a phrase we have all heard before: “Who feels it, knows it.” The flipside of this phrase, or what it underscores being, “who feels it not, knows it not.”

Perhaps, some white people minimize the issue of racism out of ignorance . . . simply because they do not know what it feels like. After all, they have never suffered it, while others do so out of malice and bigotry. Equally probable is the notion that some African Americans tend to exaggerate racism, as if they see it in every circumstance and in every Caucasian — a self-fulfilling prophecy, one might say. Others may indeed experience racism frequently in their lives, which causes them to see it the way they do — all around them, albeit, sometimes perceptively.

Nevertheless, if America is to overcome this “mother of all problems,” Americans must “get unstuck” from the state of disconnect that exist between the two main constituencies (African Americans and Caucasian Americans) and move forward. To do so, those who suffered, and perhaps still suffer racism must work to inspire those who did not, to understand the damages and ravages that racism causes and the difficult-to-heal wounds that past acts of racism have caused. They must do so, not to inspire guilt or to blackmail, but to help Caucasians truly understand the effects of racism and how they might be inadvertently perpetuating it and how they might help end it. On the other hand, those who have never suffered racism, and perhaps contributed in perpetrating it, even by the inaction from indifference, must be willing to listen, see, and experience racism and its effects through the eyes of those who have suffered it. They must do so genuinely, not condescendingly or superficially and must be willing to understand and to help heal the land. This would establish a new consciousness upon which partnership toward reconciliation could be built. The reconciliation must not be superficial; it must be sincere and must come from genuine personal conviction.

Both sides must recognize that the dynamics of the experience of racism is, perhaps like a gunshot wound — the slugs may be out and the wound may heal, but a scar often remains . . . sadly so, as a painful reminder of the experience and sometimes rousing painful emotions. In the effort to reconcile ourselves, we must employ the resources of the head and the heart, through thoughtful and just actions and through the Christian virtues of repentance and forgiveness, or the so-called “technology of self.” A presumption of guilt tends to make people defensive and defiant, while a patronizing attitude toward others tends to make them feel humiliated and offended. Therefore, both must be avoided, in order to establish a genuine environment for positive change. Abraham Lincoln said, “When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a ‘drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.”

History is important and must remain relevant, we must never forget our history and must not allow it to be revised or truncated, but we cannot and should not read history backwards. Our history should not hold us back; it should ever urge us forward, as a force, compelling us and moving us forward, knowing where we have been as a people and knowing that we must never allow ourselves to be taken there again.

We cannot be the people we ought to be or get to where we ought to be, if we only engage in the psychology of projection—we cannot perpetually attribute our failures or externalize the blame for our problems. Finally, we cannot afford to be indifferent about our problems. In this life of inevitable recompense, of inescapable accountability for collective responsibility, indifference to problems is not an option; an epitasis it is, in this metaphoric epic drama of life.

Is America fighting a war in Iraq againts her enemies or building a nation of unwilling people?

2007-01-12T10:34:00.000-08:00

The thing that continues to befuddle and frustrate many people, me included, is the inability of the American leadership and press to speak clearly and candidly on this issue. This inability is largely the result of dubious politically exigent circumstances and the irony of political and diplomatic double talk, which is short-changing the country on what is really important. Now the public is effectively confused; not knowing what is meant when statements are made. The America public does not know exactly what we are doing in Iraq, whether we are fighting a war, as they have always known war or building a nation in the way they have never known.

There is a fundamental difference between waging war with another country and engaging in nation building of another country. In war, the objective is clear and precise – defeat the enemy militarily: decapitate and destroy the enemy’s army, extract the enemy’s surrender or truce and come home. In nation building, the objective is not so clear and certainly not as precise. The precondition necessary for successful nation building, as was the case with Germany and Japan is full realization and political will of the people to move forward and their desire for a better future.

Because the dynamics of war and nation building are incompatible, especially when conducted simultaneously, it is only logical and prudent to have different objectives and different expectations. The thing that makes the situation in Iraq very difficult, a difficulty that the America people have not been allowed to appreciate fully, is that a large portion of the Iraqis (Sunnis and Shiites alike), as General Peter Pace put it, are unable to love their children more than they hate their enemies. That is the reality of a society driven by revenge rather than reason and you can trace this directly to Islam or the language of Islam (Arabic), which has no word or real concept for compromise, in terms of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement.

Before the war broke, a former Israeli Head of Mossad broke with tradition and went public with his views and projections on how Saddam would respond. He outlined three strategies that Saddam would be inclined to employ:
1. Use WMD, assuming he has them. He concluded that it was highly unlikely that Saddam would do so, because if he did, he would be proving America right and would lose the international sympathy he enjoyed, in opposition to the war.
2. Use human shield to draw even greater sympathy, by making America look bad on account of potentially high civilian casualties.
3. The Iraqi military would decapitate or dissolve quickly, knowing that it has no chance against the greatest fighting force on the planet, but only to emerge as an insurgency (a gorilla army) after the real war is over.

Clearly, the third strategy is what is in now in effect and has been since Saddam was defeated and his regime toppled. Of course, the implementation of this strategy is not so much by the Baathists (The Arab Socialist Baath Party), as it is by Al Qaeda, which quickly established itself in Iraq, taking advantage of the chaos and momentary power vacuum that followed the unexpectedly quick defeat of the Iraq’s army. Of course, this strategy would have been of no effect, if our soldiers had come home after the war was quickly won. When it became clear to Baathists and al Qaeda that America was not going to leave Iraq in the ruins of war after winning the war, but was going to stick around to rebuild Iraq, they saw an opportunity to really implement this strategy.Al Qaeda, coming to Iraq with a rich experience, having cut its teeth and horned its experience in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, was off to a good start, and have remained ahead of our strategies ever since.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was quick and decisive, but the occupation proved more treacherous and turned out to be catastrophic. It began with Soviet soldiers getting killed one by one, day by day and in small numbers in sniper attacks, ambush, kidnapping, suicide attacks, and hit and run attacks. The attackers were very difficult to trace or spot before they attacked. Precisely because they blend in with the public, in mosques, market places and crowded places, which they effectively used as cover, making it very difficult for the Soviet soldiers to respond and when they did, innocent bystanders often got caught in crossfire, resulting in unintended casualties of civilians. The outcome reinforced the sentiments against the Soviets and the occupation. Whatever the reaction of the Soviet soldiers to those attacks, the purposes of the perpetrators ended up being served. Responding forcefully resulted in unintended casualties, making them appear heavy handed, oppressive and repressive. On the other hand, not responding forcefully made them appear weak, and encouraged their attackers.

In the end, public sentiments at home forced the Soviets to leave Afghanistan before their work was done, and without any form of government in place. This premature exit plunged the country into chaos and anarchy and created a perfect environment for a repressive regime and a haven for terrorists, which the Taliban and Al-Qaeda exploited to the extent everyone knows all too well. The coalition soldiers have seen these tactics used against them continuously since May 1, 2003, of course, with its new and most deadly arsenal, suicide bombers and IEDs thrown into the mix, al Qaeda hopes to achieve the same results in Iraq against us as it had in Afghanistan against the Soviets; that is the reality we are confronted with.

The six billion dollar question is what do we do, how do we respond, knowing that a quick exit from Iraq, before a “stable” government and one we can work with is established, holds extreme danger to the United States and the World as a whole, much more than anyone can fully appreciate at the moment. As has been rightly said, failure is not an option. It seems to me that what that means is we must remain engaged in Iraq, but we must come up with a better strategy and overall plan, one that is not just in reaction to events as they unfold, given the high unpredictability of all the dynamics at play.

All the smart people in our think tank institutions and study groups have all concluded that there is no one particular thing that can be done to achieve success in Iraq. It has been said by virtually everyone in charge of one aspect of the effort or another, from the soldiers to the generals, from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State, that no one can predict the effect of the troop increment or predict victory on account of the troop increment alone. Therefore, increasing our troop level by 21,000 or any number for that matter, must be accompanied by making clear to the region and the world that if we eventually pull out of Iraq without achieving our goal of a stable Iraq, it would not be because America is defeated militarily, it would be because the people we are there to help are so incapable of reconciliation that they would rather sacrifice their children and their future, just because they hate their neighbors more than they love their children. We have to make it clear to the Iraqis and the region as whole, that, though we have a lot at stake in Iraq, the stake is even higher for them. Eventually, we will find other ways of dealing with whoever controls Iraq, be it Iran or Al Qaeda. There is always another way to any objective; we just have to look further and work harder.

Right now, we have essentially constrained ourselves to thinking just within the box. It is high time we began thinking outside the box. We have to be true to ourselves, we owe it our selves, in admitting that there is a possibility that we may not be able to make Iraqis (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) to at least accept the proposition of one another’s right to coexist. The adage, “You can take a horse to the stream but you cannot make the horse drink from it”, holds true here as well.

It is prudent that we start developing levels of sensitivity analysis to an outcome in Iraq that may not be what we want or hope for. Such analysis would lead us to start thinking outside the box, in time, to come up with plans to deal with a situation that may result, if Iraq collapses on account of irreconcilable differences between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The one thing we cannot afford is to be unprepared or without a plan for another unexpected outcome in Iraq or one deriving from it. I am not against troop increment, but I would be very concerned if that is all there is to go with it and work with. The doctrine of clear, hold, and rebuild sounds very good theoretically, but if the Iraqis themselves (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) refuse to be reconciled, there is not much we can do to change the situation, even with additional troops of 21,000 or any number for that matter. We must make clear to them that the only option beside what we offer them (a chance to rebuild their country and to learn to live with their neighbors in peace) is the devil’s alternative.

America: More Than a Nation

2006-05-11T09:55:00.000-07:00

In the inauguration speech marking his second term in office, President George W. Bush made clear his vision for the world:

America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

The history and “the values that gave our nation birth” of which he spoke, lie in the circumstances and ideals that produced the nation we have come to know as America. America is an idea more than it is a place. It is a providential idea intrinsically and inextricably bound to the immutable worth of every human being. That idea inspired the declaration of independence and the constitution. It is the idea:

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall deem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

By virtue of its birth and ideals, America is an idea for all people. It is an idea that is synonymous with freedom for every human being. Freedom for all people is synonymous with democracy. To that extent, democracy is 'not a Western idea'; it is a good idea. It should not matter whose idea it was. What matters, is that it works. I am yet to see anyone who would personally refuse a procedure or medicine to cure a debilitating sickness just because it is a Western idea. The people who oppose democracy because it is “a Western idea,” are the same people who, without reservation or restraint, embrace every other good Western idea - telecommunication, transportation, medical technology, etc. An idea should be embraced or rejected on its own merit not on some sentimental hangovers.

When I hear people castigate the idea of freedom for every individual, regardless of place or position; I wonder what they would offer in its place. It has been said that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Such is the notion of standing for something and yet not wanting it to come about. One cannot claim to want freedom for all people, yet hinder the acts that will bring it about.

Speaking of America’s providential purpose: combating tyranny and bringing freedom to the world, Benjamin Franklin said, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind…We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.”

In establishing democracy in places where hitherto there has been tyranny, America - the country, is essentially extending “the prospect of asylum” -- America -- the idea, to those who love freedom, in their home lands.

In the end, America -- the country, may very well not be the best or greatest democracy, but perhaps America -- the idea, would have been an inspiration for such a place.

On the House Immigration Bill HR-4437

2006-05-03T15:05:00.000-07:00

George Washington, in his farewell address in 1797, urged his fellow Americans to foreswear excessive party spirit and geographic distinctions. True, the tendency for excessive party allegiance has been part of American politics since the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but it is increasingly acquiring a lethal dynamics and becoming a trend that threatens the legitimacy of America’s democracy and to undermine the security and stability of the country.

The double edged patronizing and victimizing politics of pandering, rife with inflammatory rhetoric for or against groups, takes advantage of people on the basis of their sentiments. This type of politics, inspired by the political numbers game that threatens to pervert America’s democracy, motivates people for the wrong reasons and drives them to develop strong in group loyalties, which undermines democracy and the unity of the nation. For some reason, the Republican Party has managed to appear recklessness in playing its hand on the all important issue of immigration and has suffered at the polls every time it did, much to the delight of Democrats who exploit the resulting situation. Americans left, right and center don’t like to see themselves as mean spirited; hence Republicans must not only be fair, but more importantly, must not be perceived by the public as mean spirited in pursuing their agenda, however right it may be.

The Republicans should have been deft in their approach. They should have adopted the incremental approach and should never have included the HR 4437 in the immigration reform bill in the first place, at least not at this time, because it appears mean spirited — the way democrats like to paint them and the same weapon the democrats have repeatedly and successfully used against them. There are better ways, that would not have been perceived as draconian, to achieve the intended results of the HR 4437. How is it that they could not learn from the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the experience of the 104th Congress?

One would expect that the Republicans would have learned from the last “fight” on the issue — the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the Republican controlled 104th Congress. With a manifesto titled “Contract with America”, the Republican controlled 104th Congress failed to play its hand deftly and was blamed for shutting down the government, by sending to then President Bill Clinton a budget proposal they knew was a potion he would not drink. As was expected, Clinton vetoed the billed just as he had said he would. Many observers believe that the Republicans’ judgment and objectivity were impaired by their “blinding hatred” for Bill Clinton. Some say that their hatred had turned into an obsession, and in their efforts to undermine a popular Democrat and president, they shot themselves in the foot — overreached and caused the country great harm.

Ironically, the Texas Democrats essentially shutdown the Texas government on May 14, 2003, when Texas Congressional Democrats, blaming the U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom they are now intent on bringing down, for the drive to redraw the state’s congressional districts, fled to Oklahoma to stymie a redistricting bill by preventing debate and preliminary votes on the bill before the deadline, in the hope to prevent the Republicans from gaining additional seats, which would give the Republicans control of the House.

The standoff that ensued from the 1994 immigration bill raised the trend of excessive party loyalty and antagonism to an unprecedented level and created a deep division between the two major political parties, and indeed between citizens, much of which still remains even today. Some say it caused uproar among the public and created a backlash that haunted the leadership of the 104th Congress and arguably cost the Republican Party the midterm election in 1996. Consequently, some republicans blamed their leader, Newt Gingrich, the architect of the “Contract with America”, who subsequently, perhaps consequently resigned from his leadership post and later left the House altogether. Well, guess what, it is that season again and it is looking like it would be déjà vu all over again.

The Republican Party and the Democrats appear to be getting more belligerent and always at odds with each other, hence very little is actually getting done. Debates are now more acrimonious and issues are being neglected amidst unrestrained zeal to have the party’s way. It seems the politicians in their excessive allegiance to their political parties, only know how to or seek to disagree rather than agree. It would seem they are no longer interested in seeking common grounds on which to operate for the good of the nation and all her inhabitants.

They have become like two farmers contending for a piece of land; one plants his crops and the other uproots them, and then plants his own crops in their place. The previous farmer in turn uproots the second farmer’s crops and then replants his own crops which the first farmer in the ensuing tit for tat uproots and then replants his own crops. On and on, the cycle repeats itself, and in the end both farmers accomplish nothing, because they have no crops to harvest, needless to say that neither of them can provide for his family from his wasted efforts. The two parties are essentially like these cantankerous farmers and the citizens are like their families; not getting fed.

Over and over, issue after issue; the Republicans and the Democrats have taken positions that appear to first and foremost, sought to benefit their respective parties and not the nation. It has become a tradition among the politicians to maintain party loyalty or seek party interests that overrides national interests, hence it seems that all that matters is getting party members reelected, winning more seats, and taking or maintaining control of power.

The whole democratic exercise is increasingly tending toward the ridiculously foolish state of perpetual mutual disagreement, in that when either party takes a position or holds a certain view, invariably the other must take an opposing position or view, even when it knows clearly that the position it holds is wrong or less viable and the other party’s position is right or more viable. It sounds ridiculous, but it would seem that if the republicans or the Democrats say that a certain object is black, by inclination rather than objective reasoning, the other party would say that it is not black or that it is white. It appears that the only way that both parties know to remain relevant is by antagonizing each other at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent. I fear that the partisan politics between the Republicans and the Democrats is accelerating toward a point of no return — a relationship that is no longer driven or sustained by the prudence of objective reasoning, mutual peace, common mutual decency, and fairness, but has become driven by malice, mischief and the desire to outdo each other in the vicious cycle of strife and vendetta.

In such a circumstance, a relationship is redefined to exclude the true essence of fairness, peace, and goodwill toward each other. What this leads to is perpetual mutual animosity and hostility toward each other, a situation that perhaps describes the Jews and Arabs (both descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Ishmael), whose relationships are no longer based on the purity of brotherhood but have become redefined to the point that they have become mortal enemies. You think I am being extreme, just ask Bill Clinton and Tom DeLay, to mention a few. Politics in America is increasingly becoming a “blood sport” or game of character assassination.

Too much time, energy, money, and intellect are being wastefully spent on seeking for ways to undermine each other. Their mission has gone through a rapid metamorphosis, first turning into ambition, then obsession to control the three branches of government. It would seem to the public that the two major political parties have forgotten their responsibility to the nation. Hence, more and more people on the “left” and “right” are becoming fed up and are becoming apathetic to the democratic process. Some in frustration are even resorting to ballot initiatives as an alternative to what they are increasingly regarding as leadership failure on the part of elected officials and career politicians, a trend cannot be good for America.

The lake of strife at the Hill is overflowing its banks. It is rapidly turning into a river of bitter water and flowing down the hill to the prairies, threatening to overwhelm the land with the polluted mentality of “them against us,” an attitude that could only divide this great nation.

The Dilemma of Immigration

2006-04-06T10:57:00.000-07:00

The events of the past few days, across America, as undocumented immigrants protest the new immigration bill that will criminalize all undocumented immigrants, highlight the dilemma of immigration in this country.

From the early seventeenth century to the twenty-first century, immigration to America has been borne out of two basic and fundamental necessities: liberty and life. In practice, one sometimes precedes the other, but in principle, both are often inseparable. To have freedom, one must have life, but to live life, one must have freedom. The pilgrims and founders came primarily for liberty; but they must have believed that greater liberty would ensure better life.

The primary cause of immigration to the United States, from very early in America’s history to the present, was a combination of factors such as social crisis, political discontent, religious discontent, and economic hardship. The degree to which these factors were the causes for immigration varied among immigrants. Nevertheless, they were fundamentally the same. These factors were the dominant reasons behind the unprecedented waves of immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany from the 1820s to 1860s.

During the fatal years of the potato famine and cholera epidemic (mid 1840s), the mass migration from Ireland increased more than twelve-fold. It was said that at least four out of every five people who left the shores of the “old country” to try their fortunes in the new were Irish. Overall, in the first half of the 1800s, the majority of the immigrants that came to America were from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. By 1860 and up till 1890, immigrants from the Scandinavian countries had also joined.

The tidal wave of Swedish immigrants, which began in the mid 1840s and lasted until 1930, was also triggered by population pressure, economic hardship, agricultural hardship, social crisis, political discontent, and religious discontent. By the 1870s, the steady stream of immigrants from Europe had been joined by immigrants from Canada and China. Between 1890 and 1910, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States had shifted to those coming from Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia. From 1920 to 1930, more immigrants came from Greece, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey. In the 1940s, Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution in Europe also joined the wave of immigrants to America. From 1965 to the present, immigrants from the rest of the world (who had been previously excluded) were allowed to join the great migration to the new world, courtesy of the Immigration Act of 1965, with provisions that granted asylum to refugees, favored immigrants with desired job skills, and allowed families to reunite.

There is a common invisible but real and ever-present force that draws and binds immigrants to America. As the wave of immigration shifted from region to region, one thing remained constant: the motive for immigrating—liberty and life. America is a nation conceived in and born out of these ideals. Indeed, the fundamental principles upon which America was founded rest on these ideals, the same way a strong house rests on a solid foundation and is given support by pillars of steel and concrete.

There is something about America with a universal appeal to people all over the world. That something gave birth to America’s independence and is enshrined in our constitution. It is the belief in the providential imperative “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

It is in the light of this legacy that oppressed and dispossessed people around the world have come to see America as a haven, even as a paradise on earth. This notion is practically immortalized in the famous proclamation on the Statue of Liberty in the words: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” The world took America at her word and has been giving America her tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free; however, not without the world’s best and brightest coming along too.

America has struggled to honor this perhaps exuberant commitment ever since. This is evident in her ambivalent attitude towards immigrants. It appears that America tries very hard to convince herself that she is not who or what she is, but never succeeds. However much America tries to suppress or deny her true nature as a guardian of liberty and an inspiration to the oppressed; frequently her true self gets the best of her. This is evident in the history of immigration legislation in America from 1790 to the present, which has been one of “to be or not to be.”

During this period, immigration legislation has been characterized by ambivalence—often seeming to discourage immigration, yet allowing it. It seems that measures to discourage immigration have always been reactionary and often preceded by public discontent supposedly borne out of fear of losing jobs and prosperity to new immigrants, and perhaps also for fear of losing the “American character” as a result of the infiltration or infusion of alien cultures, and now for security reasons, in the wake of 9/11.

Obviously, America cannot take in everyone who wishes to come to America, so what should America do? Abraham Lincoln said, “We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot.” This premonition would hold, if America fails to see the essence of the inexorable providential ideals that is her core. Benjamin Franklin spoke of these ideals when he said, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind…We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.”

America must realize that the cause of which Franklin spoke lies in the reality that America is more than a nation; that America is also an idea—founded on the virtue of freedom and individual prosperity. It is more realistic that America sees Franklin’s sentiments as a mandate to establish democracy and free enterprise in places where hitherto there has been tyranny. In so doing, America the country, is essentially extending “the prospect of asylum”, America the idea, to those who love freedom and seek prosperity, in their homelands. It has already happened in India, Japan, and South Korea.

For those with the fortune of welcome to America the country, America must more than ever demand from them the virtues that made America great. As Abraham Lincoln said, “I like to see a man proud of the place he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.”

Vice Pays Homage to Virtue!

2006-03-04T09:24:00.000-08:00

Sir Winston Churchill, perhaps the greatest leader in British history, said, "The British nation is unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst." Ever since the British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared his support to go to war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and since committing British troops to the coalition forces, contrary to the typical and predictable British attitude of apathy and self absorption, the extreme liberal British press has been beating the drum of ill tidings, in character to Churchill's unfailing assessment.

Added to its incessant gloom and doom depiction of the effort to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, the far left liberal press has been on witch hunt to advance the popular Arab and Muslim sentiments of equating the desire and effort to bring democracy and individual freedom to the Middle East as another Christian Crusade, led by George Bush and Tony Blair, both of whom are Christians. I have wondered about the motives of the British press, in its hypocritical quest to discredit Blair by his association with George Bush, a “born again Christian”. I have come to the conclusion that strife and hatred sometimes create strange bedfellows and induce self-destructive tendencies. This appears to be the case here; the far left liberal British press and political Islamists, both hate Christianity and wants it completely stamped out of England, Europe and the whole world, hence their unholy alliance.

The spin on Blair’s statement in an interview with THE INDEPENDENT, published on March 4, 2006 proves my point. THE INDEPENDENT wrote, “Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.” The article went on to spin Blair’s statement, in an attempt to discredit the Prime Minister. They must be saying to themselves, aha! He finally said it'. It is abundantly clear that they have been waiting for this time, now it has finally come and they are going to make the most of it. Alas, it is only to their inevitable peril.

It is said that in the eyes of skepticism, words become redundant. That may be so, but does common sense also have to become redundant? It is apparent that the liberal British press mirrors the general sentiment of the British people, afraid of the Muslims in their midst, afraid of the Islamic fundamentalists, who are ever so willing to commit suicide, create chaos, just to destroy as many innocent lives as possible. Muslims in Britain sensing this fear, as a predator senses the aura of fear emanating from its prey, are increasingly flaunting the symbolic power of their lethal weapon (suicide bomber regalia, etc.) and newfound power over the "infidels" —fear and uncertainty, of exploding buildings, trains, buses and airplanes. The suggestive conducts of those protesting the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed on the streets of London recently is a clear indication.

Feeling exposed and construing Tony Blair's support for the war as an open invitation to Islamic terrorists, the British press has been trying to discredit Prime Minister Tony Blair, by seeking to create the impression that his action on Iraq was directed by his Christian faith, absurdly implying that Blair and Bush are engaged in a religious war against Islam and against Muslims. But, I am comforted in knowing that a little over half a century ago, Britain was also gripped by fear of the Nazis, but one man was brave enough to rouse the latent courage of the British people, who built bridges with their bodies to beat back the evil that came knocking on their doors and steamed-rolled their tranquil towns and cities.

Prime Minister Tony Blair knew the British press has been on his case, right from the start of this war. Unfortunately, despite being aware of the trick questions the far left liberal British press has been incessantly fielding to entrap him, Blair failed to learn from Jesus’ experience with Pontus Pilate just before Jesus was crucified. Pilate asked Jesus the trick question, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus knowing Pilate’s motive for asking the question replied, "Are you asking this on your own, or have others told you about me?"

Someone once said that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Such is the notion of standing for something and yet not wanting it to come about. One cannot claim to want freedom for all people, yet hinder the efforts that will bring it about. How can anyone speak from both sides of the mouth—take refuge in the protective arms of good virtue, yet deny the essence of good virtue. It is akin to eating an apple and denying its existence or insisting that it is beef or something else. Such is the attitude of the far left liberal British press to Christianity and such can only be for no other reason except mischief or malice.

When I hear people castigate the idea of freedom for every person, regardless of place or position; I wonder what they would offer in its place. Those who engage in witch hunting to discredit George Bush and Tony Blair, by taking issue with their faith, as to castigate their desire to see freedom come to all people, are blinded by their hatred and antagonism to Christianity. It is really not about Bush and Blair; it’s all about Christianity. But these protagonist of existentialism and antagonist of Christianity must remember that the very idea of freedom for all is a Christian virtue, a virtue founded on truth—another Christian virtue. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Remember that? This is because it is the truth that makes one free.

It is in the truth that one is declared free or innocent, just as an accused person is declared free in the truth of his innocence, just as a person in bondage is set free in light of the truth of his humanity, and just as a person who is afraid of the unknown is liberated by the knowledge of the none existence of the very thing he feared. “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Remember that one too? This is because someone has to bring the truth to those who lack freedom that they might then have freedom. Look at the Iraqis, they are learning things they never could have imagined, doing things they never knew they could do—choosing who will rule them and saying what they would like to say. That is freedom and someone had to bring it to them. Democracy works and it should not matter whose idea it was or where it originated.

True freedom derives from truth itself, because true freedom can only be freedom in the truth. Indeed, there is no freedom without truth. True freedom is not found in doing what one likes, but in doing what one ought. The former is illusory, superficial, and fails to recognize the whole truth about the essence of humanity. To that extent, Bush and Blair are doing what they ought in Iraq, while the far left is cheering for the status quo—oppression and stagnation. They are the “do nothing bunch.”

No one, not even the most rabid liberals, who have become quite famous as antagonists of Christianity, can point to one thing that Jesus Christ ever said or did that is not to the benefit of all people, yet they seek to discredit Blair on his account. The problem the liberals have with Christianity is that they want and enjoy freedom, not the truth that underlies it. But freedom must have fidelity with truth, if it is not to become bondage. One may have the freedom to sniff heroin, but in the addiction that follows, one losses his freedom, ends up in bondage and quickly discovers that he never had the freedom he thought he had in the first place.

Obviously, the state of collective irrationality that the far left has found itself is in keeping with the essential postmodernist principle—the rejection of the very idea that language actually refers to something or signifies an actual existing thing, and the belief that the act of speaking gives reality (meaning and substance) to things and ideas, and that language is not a pure description of reality, hence the spin, the lies, and more lies—essentially whoever shouts louder or longer, regardless of what is being said. This consciousness is of course founded on the profusely divergent ideas of multiculturalism. It is a war of words, and words have power—the power to guide or misguide, the power to set the mind and body free or take them captive. The power of life and death lies in the tongue, the Bible says.

Under the guise of tolerance, the over zealous liberals have clearly shown that they are anti-Christian. In fact, Christian bashing has become a favorite pastime of the enforcers of multiculturalism and the Political Correctness horse traders; hence their convenient attacks on Bush and Blair. It is quite clear that multiculturalism and political correctness have become tools for persecuting Christians in Western societies.

All through time, Christians have been taken advantage of, persecuted and pushed aside, because of the very essence of Christianity – love (even for their enemies), peace, forgiveness, and justice. The notion of Christians as wimps that would readily turn the other cheek repeatedly and endlessly to be slapped on, has led Christian haters everywhere to essentially bully Christians, expecting no consequence or retribution. Yet they never fail to exhibit their wimpiness when it comes to Muslims, of course for obvious reasons.

In their growing disdain for Christians and apparent fear of Muslims, the left is catering to Muslims, in essentially promoting Islam by constantly making excuses for Islam and Muslims, while vigorously deriding Christianity and Christians. Clearly the application of the constitutional injunction of separation of church and state has become covert attack on Christians. They are ever willing to bend the rules, even abandon them for Muslims, but ever willing and eager to use the law to marginalize Christians. Of course, this is understandable, given that they scared to death by a few Muslims in the midst, but they have nothing to fear about Christians, except a troubled conscience inspired by the moral imperatives Christianity bears.

In their unrestrained and almost maniacal zeal to get at Christians, the far left Western media have shown that they will go to any length to do so, even if it means dubiously promoting Islam. Their ill fixation on Christianity is nothing short of a suicidal tendency. It is indeed a perilous premise.

Malcolm Muggeridge, in The End of Christendom, wrote "A strange thing I have observed over many years in this business of news gathering and news presentation is that by some infallible process media people always manage to miss the most important thing. It’s almost as though there were some built-in propensity to do this. In moments of humility, I realize that if I had been a correspondent in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord’s ministry, I should almost certainly have spent my time knocking about with the entourage of Pontius Pilate, finding out what the Sanhedrin was up to, and lurking around Herod’s court with the hope of signing up Salome to write her memoirs exclusively. I regret that this is true. Ironically enough, as the dramatization of the public scene gains impetus, so we move farther and farther from the reality of things and become more and more preoccupied with fantasy".

A Perilous Premise

2006-03-03T20:21:00.000-08:00

The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty. This response is eerily reminiscent of the tepid response to the rise of Nazism, not too long ago.

To most Islamic leaders, perhaps, many Muslims, Islam is still at war with the Christian Europe, "crusaders", as the Islamic extremists and terrorists like to portray the West. Hence, efforts by the West to establish democracy in the Middle East are viewed as Christians invading Islam. To the West, this is a paradox, but to many Muslims, this is clearly an attack on Islam. After all, democracy being another ideology is invariably in competition with Islam. Moreover, democracy originated in the West, the land of the "crusaders", all the more reason for jihad, hence, the mind bugling and most gruesome killing of innocent Iraqis by Islamic extremists and terrorists to stop democracy from taking root.

The incredulity that is at display over the fact that the London suicide bombers were home grown terrorist, is at best, naïveté and at worst, acute denial. The idea that assimilation is politically incorrect has led to the self-isolation of Muslims in European society and has encouraged the hostility towards the West that has emerged. Moreover, the added notion that life in the West is too good an alternative, and will inevitably dissuade and change the mindset of fundamental Islamists and terrorists, weaken their resolve to carryout the biddings of "Islamic holy edicts" ("fatwas") issued by clerics and regarded as the very word of Allah, is a perilous feel good notion.

Contrary to the expectations of the West, surveys continue to show that many western educated Muslims and Muslims dwelling in Western societies, including naturalized citizens and their descendants, are very resentful of the West. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs of danger that have gone unheeded. In the name of Islam, many of them have indeed taken up arms against their adopted Western countries and actively seek their destruction.

As they have shown, there is no question that Islam does not allow ijtihad (free play of the intellect - independent or innovative thinking) and qiyyas (analogical reasoning). After all, what is the need for those, if the only thing that matters is taqlid (imitation) of an act that took place in A.D 622 and A.D. 630. In Islam, the fundamental duty of each member is to submit to Allah and whatever Allah demands of him or her. Frequently, the "demands" that Allah makes of Muslims seem to be the unquestioned demands that Islamic clerics have presented, by way of fatwas (or holy edicts), which they issue to Muslims. Many of these fatwas are essentially calls to one "religious war" (jihad) or another, such as has been with Israel, and now is in Europe and America.

According to an article in the New York Times, about a year ago, by a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, who happen to be of the Islamic persuasion, "Many religious and community leaders were convinced that Islam would manifest itself in its truest form in this country. Some even proclaimed that one day America would be an Islamic state." In 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, an Islamic leader declared, "In the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it."

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both regarded as American allies, have committed to fund the spread of Islam in America. Saudi Arabia has for decades funded the Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been the breeding ground for most Islamic extremists and every Islamic terrorist that has attacked the West, from 9/11 to 7/7. This perilous and borderless new army, primed on unbelievably warped ideology, has taken aim on the West and has committed to destroy its essence. They have all come to the belief that the greatest weakness the West has is its civil liberties, hence they have committed to employ the same to carryout their agenda. Is any one truly surprised at what is happening? The Prophet Mohammed said, in this world there are only two houses, "the house of Islam and the house of war." The admonition in this is for Muslims to take the sword to non Muslims (the infidels) as he did in A.D 622 and A.D. 630. In Islam, tolerance of views that do not stem from Islam is an oxymoron. Tolerance of non Islamic views is as non existent in Islam as the word compromise is non existent in the Arabic language.

This is now emerging in Denmark, France, and all over Europe —countries where freedom of expression and tolerance have been the hallmarks of the society, and on account of which, Muslims from all over the world, in spite of their intolerance and propensity for violence, have been welcomed into these societies. Now, these values that are the essence of these societies are increasingly on the run, essentially being exterminated. A situation where Europeans would lose their ability to speak freely in their own country, for fear of being assassinated by Muslims, is no longer a thing to be imagined, it is now a stark reality.

Consider the fact that any citizen, even leaders in these societies, who says anything that Muslims don't like, is marked for death. In the Netherlands, Members of parliament who have been marked for death for their speech, fearing for their lives and the lives of members of their families, in light of the murder of Theo Van Gogh and terrorist attacks, are now practically living under house arrest and in exile in their own country for fear of their guests. What an irony, an irony that is eerily reminiscent of the Trojan horse.

As Muslims showed today in London and all over Europe, in the manner in which they are protesting the publication of cartoons about Prophet Mohammed, their value for freedom is only exploitative, only when it serves their purposes. They are destroying the freedom that enabled them to become part of these societies and they are using the freedom they seek to destroy, to achieve that end. Their expression of free speech is in incendiary statements like “Behead the one who insults the prophet,” “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust,” and the sporting of suicide vests, yet they are unwilling to respect the right of others whose expressions are totally innocuous. These are not “Islamic extremists” voicing these terrorist threats in the name of free speech on the streets of London and all over Europe, or are they? The very fact that they are able to express these extreme views nullifies the grievance they have over the expressions of others, which they protest.

(Originally posted on November 8, 2005, reposted on February 8, 2006 and on March 3, 2006)

"House of Islam and House of War"

2006-03-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

The fact is that Islam is a religion that has mainly been advanced by violence and intimidation, from Prophet Mohammed's Hijra in A.D 622 and A.D 630, through Islamic expansion by the Ottoman Empire, to present day Wahabism, notably Al Qaeda and Taliban. It is important to remember that the very essence of Islam precludes it from coexisting with any other religion, particularly Christianity or perception of it. The fact that any Muslim who converts to Christianity in most Islamic countries would be killed or run out of town is a reminder. The notion of coexistence, let alone assimilation is antithetic to the Islamic empowerment; the notion that Allah gave Mohammed Islam to rule over all other religion.

Hence, every country on planet earth with a significant Muslim population is either an Islamic state (intolerant and undemocratic) or has Islamic groups fighting to make it (or portions thereof) an Islamic state. It is interesting that European states and recently Canada have facilitated the laying of the essential foundations for the same to become of their societies in the future. In the name of multiculturalism and political correctness they have put the future of their children and grand children in serious jeopardy, as they have essentially ensured that their children and grand children will inevitably have to deal with Islamic extremism in their societies.

To understand the motivation of Muslims in Western societies it is important to remember a little bit of history. Following Prophet Muhammad's example—his violent triumphant return to Mecca in A.D. 630 and the establishment of the Islamic empire in AD 634, Muslims have conquered and imposed Islam on lands stretching from the borders of China and India to Spain's Atlantic coast. All of these conquered lands were compelled by force to embrace Islam, and as a result many (if not all) have become Islamic states. In his book Islam and the West, historian Bernard Lewis notes, "For almost a thousand years . . . Europe was under constant threat. In the early centuries it was a double threat—not only of invasion and conquest, but also of conversion and assimilation. All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers, and the vast majority of the first Muslims west of Iran and Arabia were converts from Christianity. North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe." Well, that fate is now on the verge of certainty, as indigenous Europeans are gripped by apathy and complacency, while Arab immigrants and immigrants from Islamic countries are on the march to take over Europe for Islam.

In 1801, two months after the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson as president, Tripoli (now Libya) which was compelled by the Ottoman Empire to become an Islamic nation, nearly two and half centuries prior (1535), declared war on the United States because the Americans had refused to pay tribute to raiding Arab corsairs. The ambassador from Tripoli had explained to Jefferson in Paris in 1786 that Muslims considered such raids their duty according to both the Qur'an and the Hadith, and that they were therefore bound to wage attacks (jihad) on all who refused to acknowledge Muslim authority.

In December 2002, a leading Sunni sheik, Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, in a fatwa posted on the website http://www.islamonline.net (in response to a reader's question), wrote of the "signs of the victory of Islam," citing a well-known Hadith: ". . . The Prophet Muhammad was asked: ‘What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: ‘The city of Heracles will be conquered first'—that is, Constantinople. . . . Romiyya is the city called today ‘Rome,' the capital of Italy. The city of Heracles [later to become Constantinople] was conquered by the young twenty-three-year-old Ottoman Muhammad bin Morad, known in history as Muhammad the Conqueror, in 1453. The other city, Romiyya, remains, and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered]."

Sheik Al-Qaradhawi went on to say "This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice—once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens." He qualified his statement thus: "I maintain that the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology . . ." (Source: Vancouver Independent Media, http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23883.php).

Following in Prophet Mohammed's footsteps, many Muslim zealots, such as Usuman dan Fodio, an Arab (Fulani) Nigerian, utilized the established Islamic practice of taqlid ("imitation") to ruthlessly establish the Sokoto Caliphate in northern Nigeria. Usuman, as Prophet Mohammed before him, established Islam in northern Nigeria, by putting the indigenous Hausa people to the sword, in much the same way the Abbasid rebel al-Bukayr had done in the eighth century. In Degel, before their migration, dan Fodio orchestrated an oath of allegiance to galvanize his followers and motivate them to wage jihad against their enemies. He invoked the memory of the prophet Muhammad's own migration in 622 (hijra) that had been preceded by an oath his allies had taken to wage jihad by his side, an oath remembered in Islamic history as Second Aqaba and still invoked today, by Islamic extremists all over the globe, under the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and Abu Mussab al-Zakawi.

According to Mervyn Hiskett, "By appealing to ‘tradition,' Usuman made it clear here that he intended to appeal to taqlid (‘imitation') alone, and, that he disdained all use of ijtihad, or, ‘free play' of the intellect. That is to say, innovative thought or independent thinking were forbidden. But, he went further in also ruling out any place for qiyyas (‘analogical reasoning'). In so doing, Usuman paved the way for appeals to jihad based on revelation and on religious authority."

Much of the Qur'an (the hadith) is based on tradition—imitation of Prophet Mohammed's views, actions and conducts. We know today that the invocation made by dan Fodio and many others of that era, are being repeated today by Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida. The notion that because extremist Muslims are in the minority, therefore majority of Muslims do not share their overall goal is a perilous premise. We must not forget that in their days, Mohammed and dan Fodio were supported by a few but highly motivated and dedicated people, as is Osama bin Laden and Abu Mussab al-Zakawi in present time.

The great commission for Christians is to make disciples of every nation through love; the great commission for Muslims is to conquer the world for Islam through Jihad. As many Christians are merely standing on the sidelines and not in the forefront of that commission, but would rejoice over a world where people of every nation are made Disciples of Christ, so would Muslims who are not necessarily in the forefront of the great Islamic commission, as it is carried on today, should the world become “conquered for Islam” by Islamists, through their Jihad.

Some Europeans like to engage in the perilous feel good notion of meaningless self-assurance, by arguing that the Islamic expansion ended in the 17th century or buying into the glib claptrap mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. Look around you, all over world, wherever there is a significant Muslim population, tell me what you see? Do you see peace and tranquility, do you see freedom, or do you see Islamic totalitarianism or the drive to establish it? For these Europeans, history has no relevance. They forget that the drive for Islamic expansion was not voluntarily ended by Muslims, who had sought to conquer the world for Islam, nor because Islam had undergone a progressive change, which inspired it to become more amenable. Indeed, Islam has remained virtually unchanged since then and so are the sentiments of that era, as we see even today in the deep desire to re-establish the Caliphates and in events around the world. The fact is that age of Islamic expansion was ended by the Western response to it. But, Muslim leaders through the ages have not given up on that drive. They have been waiting for the right time and the right opportunity. Don’t forget that every Muslim believes that Islam is superior to any other religion or any other ideology, for that matter, including democracy.

Many of them believe that the time has come, considering the unprecedented decline of Christianity in Europe and the Aristippulian consciousness that has gripped Europe. To them, Christianity, the old enemy that stood in the way of worldwide Islamic domination, has been weakened, and is virtually no more in Europe. Some even believe the “war” for Europe is already won .You see it in the attitude of Muslims in European societies. To them America is the final frontier for Islamic expansion.

Muqtedar Khan, an Islamic scholar, whom I have quoted elsewhere, wrote in his article, published in the New York Times on September 7, 2003, “Muslims in America. American Muslims. The difference between these two labels may seem a matter of semantics, but making the transition from the first to the second represents a profound, if somewhat silent, revolution that many of us in the Muslim community have been undergoing in the two years since Sept. 11.” He wrote further, “On its face, this shift would seem to threaten the very core of Muslim identity and empowerment. After all, in the decade before the events of Sept. 11, Islam was one of the fastest?growing religions in North America. Mosques and Islamic schools were going up in every major city. Groups like the Council on American?Islamic Relations and the American Muslim Alliance established chapters in nearly every area with a Muslim population.” He lamented the decline in the growth of Islam in America since the events of September 11, because “both sources of Islam’s growth—immigration and conversion—are now in jeopardy” as a result of the passage of the USA Patriot Act and anti-terrorism measures.

Khan also wrote, “Because we took our American citizenship for granted, we did not acknowledge its value and virtues. But now it is imperiled, the overwhelming desire of many Muslims is that America remain true to its democratic and secular values.” The question is, will Muslims in Western societies truly embrace democracy and those “secular values” and work to make inroads into their homelands for the same to take root. Or will their attitude to the West remain as smoke and mirror, cloak and dagger

Can America be all things to all people?

2006-03-01T22:27:00.000-08:00

Is America still a highway of freedom or has she become a “Pimps’ Paradise”?

To the extent that a pimp is one who facilitates sexual relationships between one woman and many men; men who, of course, have only exploitative interest in the woman, and to the extent that the woman, being exploited is made to be and do whatever each man wants of her; the woman becomes all things to all men. Some people may argue that the woman is equally exploiting the men that take momentary possession of her, but that is hardly the point to be made in the context of this subject or the preceding allegory.

One could also argue that for the most part, if not always, none of the men who take momentary ownership of the woman cares about her and none of them would value the real essence of her womanhood, as to treat her with respect. When she becomes used up, perhaps ravaged by all the diseases deposited in her by all the wayfarers that passed though her gates and drank from her well but never gave her any care, she is abandoned— like a dry well, like a plagued city or like a sunken pirate vessel.

For another allegory, perhaps I could also borrow an excerpt from Theodor Billroth’s description of statistics, which implies that a woman ought to be a mirror of “purest virtue and truth”, not a whore to “use as one pleases”. Likewise, American must be the same thing to all people—a country founded on individual equality and the freedom of each individual, a freedom that remains in fidelity to the truth enshrined in the essence of freedom itself.

America the idea and the America country, symbolized by the motto “E pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one) can not long endure as long as that providential idea of individual equality and outpost of freedom is increasingly marginalized by a substantive shift towards a position that is clearly antithetic to what the founders envisioned, a situation that could be equally described as “Out of one, many”; as each one and each group seeks to make America a profusely “multicultural society”, whether or not the culture is diametrical to the essential American ideal and whether or not the “freedom” that is exercised has fidelity to the essential truth of freedom.

As America continues on the path of becoming all things to all people, as she is remade in the many images of all that pass through her gates and drink from her well, she continues to lose a sense of her deeper self and continues to die a slow death of self-forgetfulness. As one group demands that the truth about the cast system that holds some people as untouchables be expunged from American history books, just because it is an embarrassment, hence offensive to them. In complying with their demand and to the extent that these are Americans who uphold the cast system, albeit outside America, the cast system, indirectly and by extension becomes one of America’s cultures.

There is another group demanding that freedom of speech be curtailed or suspended when it comes to issues concerning their religion, particularly with unsavory tendencies, such as the oppression of women. To them, any speech that questions such tendencies or practices inspired thereby; constitutes an insult to their religion, hence an offense to them. In complying with their demand too, and to the extent that they too are “Americans”, who support the oppression of women and violence against dissenters, albeit in far away lands, such oppression of women and violence against dissenters, indirectly and by extension becomes one of America’s multi-cultures.

There are as yet many more groups. Some deny the foundational principle for the declaration of America’s independence, the principle that also inspired the American Constitution. They believe that all men are not created equal, that they themselves are superior to others, a view that brought America so great a shame. They seek to redact the truth of that shame from America’s consciousness. Some seek to expunge the truth about life from the American conscience. Some deny even the basic concept of law. Some deny the essential nature of man and woman, and the natural imperatives that demand their union and the attributes thereof—attributes that under guard the stability of society and human perpetuity.

As yet, there are others who reject a common unifying language, instead seek a multi-lingual society as the vehicles of multiculturalism. Other “Americans”, remain citizens of many nations, to them patriotism holds a marginal value. And there are yet many more, over two hundred groups, each with its own demands on America, groups who should be transformed rather than transform the essential nature of America. Hence, America the melting pot of peoples and cultures has become America the salad bowl of peoples and cultures—all in the same bowl but separate.

For America to remain an inspiration to the world, which until America came into existence and hitherto has not seen anything like America the country or America the idea—a beacon of hope and inspiration for freedom, America must not forget her true self, by becoming all things to all people. America must remain the same thing to all people.

"Canadian court lifts ban on ‘swingers’ clubs"

2006-02-21T13:14:00.000-08:00

Is the Western civilization choking on the Aristippulian consciousness? Has the the Western civilization, as represented by Canada and many European societies, gone mad or inching very close to it? At this rate, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its own excesses. Societies that become morally bankrupt will inevitably become essentially bankrupt. In their quest for what is clearly the phantom of pleasure, a state of mind that would make even Aristippus turn away in shame, they are indeed chasing after the wind. As everyone knows, it will not stop here. Someday, it will be sex with children, sex with mothers and fathers, sex with siblings, sex with corpses, sex with animals, and sex with who knows what the crazed and insatiable pleasure seekers will come up with next. As Dylan said, "sons becoming husbands to their mothers, old men turning their own daughters into whores."

It is a proven maxim that too much of anything is bad, be it food, drug, alcohol, or sex. There is a consequence to every excessive indulgence, as alcoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, pornography addicts, and bulimics know. The Western civilization in its collective addiction may very well meet the same fate, if people in western societies don't "wake up and strengthen the things that remain". Benjamin Franklin once said, "Nothing brings more pain than too much pleasure; nothing brings more bondage than too much liberty". A philosopher of our time said, "The unqualified pursuit of freedom leads to unexpected outcomes". Samuel Adams said, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy". Yes, the issue in question is with regards to Canada; nevertheless, Adam’s statement is still ominous.

History is sounding the alarm, but those who are committed to an irrational end are like mad people, they will heed no warning. Even Physics sounds the alarm: for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction (Newton's Third Law). Freedom without responsibility is akin to implicit gradual suicide and freedom without fidelity to truth is akin to theft and self subversion.

Transfer of U.S. ports to Dubai firm: To be or not to be? ... Certainly not!

2006-02-21T13:02:00.000-08:00

There is a very old maxim that says "all that glitter is not gold". In the face of the persistent and imminent danger of Islamic terrorism facing America, and the sheer lethality of one terrorist act in a free society, globalization may hold more peril than profit for America in a circumstance such as this.

Clearly, the issue is not so much with Dubai as a nation as it is with the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai and the money to finance the operation was laundered through Dubai. Moreover, one cannot ignore the fact that Dubai is an Islamic nation, and one of only three countries that recognized the oppressive Taliban regime in Afganistan, where the 9/11 terrorists and others alike were trained and equiped for their dastardly deeds against America. In spite of its corporation in the war against terrorism, Dubai is a country where Islamists that seek to harm or destroy America, and those that support them abound.

One cannot be too careful in the face of a certain danger posed by a certain enemy, especially an enemy within - America or Dubai. Think of the difficulties the coalition forces are facing in Iraq, where terrorists infiltrate the police force and the military to gain information to aid them in terrorist plots and to carryout those plots. Everyone knows how destructive that has been to Iraq, in the number of lives that have been destroyed and how it has virtually crippled the reconstruction process.

America is already struggling with securing her ports and everyone knows the enormous challenges involved with adequately securing those ports. There are inherent and persistent risk factors associated with these ports, those risk factors will undoubtedly increase if this deal is allowed to go through. For one thing, Americans will feel less secure, even if it is only perceptively. And worry has its costs.

It is unwise to walk into a dangerous situation, just because your friend says it is OK. In the least, our leaders will do well to hearken to Ben Franklin's admonition, “Love your neighbor; yet don’t pull down your hedge."