A Comment On Style and Faulty Expression

In Roger Cohen's New York Times column "Change Iran At the Top" today, he recognizes the intense level of resistance among the Iranian people on the streets these days.

He also recognizes the hypocrisy of a self-described religious government (yes, we've all heard that "Islam is a religion of peace") and the violence they are committing upon their people.

It has come to this: The Islamic Republic of Iran killing the sons and daughters of the revolution during Ashura, adding martyrdom to martyrdom at one of the holiest moments in the Shiite calendar....a militarized coterie bent, in the name of money and power, on the bludgeoning of the Iranian people. A false theocracy confronts a society that has seen through it.

Most of us want the best for the Iranian people (I don't know who doesn't). There is the temptation, however, to say that something "must" change. I find the role of the optimistic prophet to be tedious.

Cohen goes on to say, "Something has to give, someone has to yield." Really? It would be nice if there were such a rule. However, we know from history that there is no such imperative. The government may crack down harder (as yesterday they promised to do), quash the protesters, and reinforce their theocratic tyranny.

Two paragraphs after his first platitude, he repeats it, "Yes, something has to give." If only something had to.

Cohen's way of expressing himself might be a matter of style. Most people tend to use these imperatives when they want something badly. However, the language and the thinking it encourages is faulty. Just because we want something badly doesn't mean is has to happen.

Effort To Build Muslim Protest Against Terrorism

Today on CNN's The Situation Room (with Suzanne Malveaux instead of the usual Wolf Blitzer), it was reported that Dearborn, MI attorney Majed Moughni is has been approved to hold a rally outside the courthouse the day the Nigerian terrorist's trial begins.

I pulled this statement by Moughni from al Arabiya:

For eight or nine years Muslims are attacked by the media and by terrorists who pretend to represent us. It is time we take a stand and show Islam is not an evil religion, it is a religion of peace. Those who would commit terrorism do
not represent Islam.

Other imams in Detroit were interviewed and they said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up Northwest flight 253 was an "embarrassment" and a "disgrace."

It is important these condemnations are getting out for Americans - and other Muslims - to hear. Often Americans wonder at the silence of Muslims about acts of terrorism (or attempted acts).

Majed Moughni made the important point that Umar (under the training and guidance of Yemenese al Qaeda) made this attempt over the air of the largest Muslim population in the United States, and Moughni seemed to take personal offence at this.

Christmas Terrorist

On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year-old Nigerian, tried to blow up Northwest flight 253 (Amsterdam to Detroit). The bomb fizzled in his lap.

Apparently, our government had "intelligence from Yemen" that there was someone being prepared for an attack, but our Homeland Security blew it.

Had Farouk's attack been successful, this would have been horrible, of course. Thank goodness it wasn't.

I hope this will serve as a serious warning to the people we have in place that are supposed to protect us.

To be honest, I've wondered why this kind of thing hasn't happened more often. I expected a lot more after Septermber 11, and I think we have just been lucky that, for whatever reason(s), there was a reprieve. However, I'm afraid we're in for more of the same.

Because we're just human, it is inevitable that sometimes our defenses will not work. However, Americans have a high expectation for rigorous and tight protection, and I do think our government can run an extremely efficient and protective system for us.

Protests In Iran

The situation in Iran is reaching an excruciatingly critical level. Passionate and violent protests have broken out in major cities throughout the country: "Protests and clashes were reported not only in Tehran, but in the cities of Isfahan, Mashhad, Shiraz, Arak, Tabriz, Najafabad, Babol, Ardebil and Orumieh" (New York Times). Eight to ten protesters have been killed, and in some cases protesters have beaten back the police.

Why do I care about what's happening in Iran? I care because the Iranian people are against the government of Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadenijad, who want to acquire nuclear weapons, and who are incredibly hostile to Israel (and who arguably pose a threat to Western Europe and America), and who are among the most repressive governments towards women in the world.

It would be good if the people could overthrow the government and replace it with one more to their own liking, and to the world's.

Iranians have liked Americans (unbeknownst to most of us) for a long time. Do an search on Google or Bing and you'll find articles with statements like this one: "Generally speaking, Iranians like Americans — not just American products, which remain very popular, but Americans. That is not entirely new: Iranians on an individual level have long expressed a desire to restore relations between the countries. But the sentiment seems much more out in the open now" (Michael Slackman, New York Times, 2008). The article goes on to say that there is high demand for American products, and I like to think that it's because they value rights that we have, and that they want for their own, such as equality for women and freedom of religion.

I find it gripping and painful to watch their protests, and I hope for the best for them.

Checking Iran: 2

Michael Slackman offers us another view of the situation in Iran. Unlike the Times editorial of yesterday, this journalist is much more cautious about any action to be taken against Iran: "It is not clear what the West can do about the problem." He gives this single statement added weight by making it its own paragraph.

Slackman contemplates whether or not Iran will pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as North Korea did. On the one hand, it seems that China and Russia are less than eager and clear about supporting further sanctions against Iran. Slackman also points out that the government, since the disputed election, feels isolated and paranoid, feeling pressure from its own people, and internationally.

Still, pulling out of the treaty would be a big step. Slackman reasons that, "Pulling out would undermine Iran’s central claim that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature. It might also erode the willingness of China and Russia to continue to support Iran at the United Nations Security Council, and it might encourage Israel to wage a military strike with the silent approval of the West."

Somehow I feel that the situation with Iran will not explode, but some compromise will be reached. Iran has an educated population that looks favorably on the U.S., and we're not in the best shape to start any new kind of conflict. Let's hope it can be resolved peacefully.

Checking Iran

Today's editorial in The New York Times, "There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran," surprised me. It recommends bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since Pres. Ahmadinejad rejected Pres. Obama's proposal, the editorial asserts, "the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

The editorial goes on to reason:

history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel’s 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq’s rapid acquisition of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual, uranium-based bomb program. A decade later, the Persian Gulf war uncovered and enabled the destruction of that uranium initiative, which finally deterred Saddam Hussein from further pursuit of nuclear weapons (a fact that eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion). Analogously, Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

What would the consequences of this course of action be? Anti-Americanism is mentioned, but that is hard to measure, and it seems to wax and wane no matter what we do (this is my reasoning). The editorial speculates, "Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway."

The editorial's final statement:

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

I want to agree with this prescription, but I'm wary. The U.S. military is overextended as it is.
What if the bombing then led to further obligatory actions? I think it would be best if we could at least wait until we were totally removed from Iraq.

"Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam"

The title for my blog today comes from Thomas Friedman's December 16, 2009 article, "www.jihad.com". Friedman begins his article by making a distinction between Afghanistan and online, or "Virtual Afghanistan." Friedman's Virtual Afghanistan stands for the extremist Islamic network that exists on the World Wide Web for spreading their ideas and recruiting new members.

Something I taught in my class was that there is a fitnah (internal struggle) in the Islamic community, between the Muslims who believe that "Islam is a religion of peace," and the Muslims who are violent. No one really knows if or how this struggle will be resolved. In his article, Friedman says, "Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam."

But what I came to realize in my class is that not all Muslims are aware of any struggle going on within Islam. In fact, they seemed blissfully unaware. Most of them held two points to be principles: that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it is the most misunderstood religion in the world. As a result, I believe a non-Muslim can engage in helpful dialogue with Muslims; non-Muslims can be of help in the war of ideas. Ultimately, of course, Friedman is right, only Muslims can choose what the character of their religion will be.

Friedman goes on in his article to propose that most Muslims are silent when it comes to the violent minority's belief that "it is O.K. to not only murder non-Muslims - 'infidels,' who do not submit to Muslim authority - but to murder Muslims as well who will not accept the most rigid Muslim lifestyle."

"How many fatwas [religious rulings]," Friedman questions, "have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda? Very few."

Two out of five letters to the [New York Times] editor disagreed with Friedman's assertion that, for the most part, Muslims are not critical of the extremists among them, however, I agree with Friedman. It seems that there are three possible reasons for Muslim silence on this matter: 1) from simply being unaware, 2) from being afraid of harm coming to them for speaking out, and 3) from tacit agreement with the methods of the extremists.

A Death In Iran; the People Still Waiting

Most of us hear about the Ayatollah Khamenei, the most powerful cleric in Iran, but a long-forgotten and only recently remembered Ayatollah died in his sleep yesterday. The funeral for the 87 year old, rebellious cleric - Hossein Ali Montazeri - was held in the streets of Tehran today, and there is speculation that "he may turn out to be more influential in death than he was in life" (Worth & Fathi, New York Times).

Montazeri was Iran's most senior cleric. He broke with Ayatollah Khomeini sometime in the 1980s, thereby sidelining himself from politics, although criticizing the goverment over the years. Since Iran's election, he has sided with the protesters against Ahmadinejad's government. Three weeks ago he issued criticism against the Basij, the militia that has been cracking down on protesters and jailing them.

Michael Slackman reports in his November 22 New York Times article that Montazeri asserted that, “Independence is being free of foreign intervention, and freedom is giving people the freedom to express their opinions. Not being put in prison for every protest one utters.” This statement in protest of all the jailings of protesters that has happened since Iran's June 12, 2009 much-disputed election.

It seems to me that unlikely and unadvised that the U.S. should involve itself in Iran right now. We are busy enough pulling out of Iraq and committed to trying to achieve some kind of success in Afghanistan.

Most people in Iran want reform or revolution, but how does the populace make this come about? The people are a giant body without a head. The government of Iran is too fearsome (and effective) right now for any individual to step into a leadership position - a position of revolutionary - and tell the people what to do. From the news, it looks like this is what the people of Iran want most right now. They are showing this by taking to the streets at almost every opportunity, and by showing their willingness to be beaten and arrested, in spite of their knowledge that horrible things can happen to them in their government's prisons.

Something To Follow

A bill has been proposed in Uganda that will criminalize homosexuality. The U.S. has urged Uganda to not pass the bill. If passed, the legislation provides for the death penalty for "serial offenders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/world/africa/19briefs-HOMOSEXUALIT_BRF.html?ref=africa

Note: Irshad Manji is Muslim, gay, a writer and political activist, and was born in Uganda in 1968, but immigrated to Canada along with her parents at age 4, due to ethnic oppression. In 2003 Manji published The Trouble With Islam.