The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 25: Monday 1 August 2005

New Name, Same Old Game

New Bush PR Campaign

Common Humanity - Abu Ghraib Style

Moderate Muslims

Definitions

Foreign Policy Anger

Unity And Common Humanity

Islamic Law

The Context

Qur'an, Law And Penalties

Jesus, Law And Penalties

Last Words

Listen To Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

NEW NAME, SAME OLD GAME

NEW BUSH PR CAMPAIGN

According to the FT, Washington is working with London and Paris on a new national strategy in GWOT - the "global war on terror" - to be renamed SAVE - the struggle (or strategy) against violent extremism. Saints preserve us.

Apparently, 'Philip Zelikow, special adviser to Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, is leading the effort at the head of a 10-member US committee... [his] goal, according to a US official who asked not to be named, was to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to discredit and demystify extremists' ideology and promote moderate Islamic voices".'

'Mr Zelikow wants to come up with a "single narrative" that crafts a message to moderate Muslims of a "common humanity" to counter the Osama Bin Laden message. The principles of the strategy appear to draw on the findings of the 9-11 Commission in the US, whose report, issued a year ago, was authored by Mr Zelikow.'

'A former senior intelligence official who served in the Bush administration commented: "Conviction has been growing steadily and strongly here that we needed to come out of the tactical phase of this war and into a strategic phase which would include this outreach to the Muslim world and it would make sense to structure this some way with a couple of allies, particularly the French, who understand that world so well." '

The 9/11 Commission recommended 'public diplomacy' to undermine the appeal of bin Laden and his colleagues. Michael Scheuer, former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA (1996-1999), and 'special adviser' to the unit after 9/11, comments: 'The 9/11 Commission suggested that we have to do a lot more to train and educate Muslim youth, as if some sort of a New Deal was the answer for the Islamic world, and I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that. I also think the idea that public diplomacy, which the 9/11 Commission Report recommends as way out of this box, is also mistaken because we’re not going to talk these people out of what they’re up to.'

'I think it’s a mistake to think the Muslims don’t understand our policy. Whether they understand it correctly or not is another question, but it’s certainly viewed as predatory policies in terms of the exploitation of natural resources in the Islamic world, in terms of supporting police states across the Islamic world, whether in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or in support for Israel against virtually everyone else on any Islamic world.'

'Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.'

COMMON HUMANITY - ABU GHRAIB STYLE

The US is talking about a 'single PR narrative' based on 'common humanity'. At the same time, the US government is struggling to suppress photographic and video evidence of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Seymour Hersh, who broke the Abu Ghraib story, revealed in talks, but not in print, that there was much worse to come. He told a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union in mid-2004:

'Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.'

The ACLU subsequently initiated a Freedom of Information request to access these photographs and videos. A court ordered the Pentagon to comply with the request. The Pentagon has refused to comply, and broke a deadline to release the images ten days ago, as was reported in the very excellent New Standard News, a radical online hard news outlet.

Editor&Publisher ran this: 'So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added. A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

If and when these images are released, and the "common humanity" of the United States, Britain and their allies is demonstrated in moving pictures, a new wave of human bombs will be created in an instant.

The FT reports that in the Zelikow public diplomacy working group, 'The buzz is moderate Muslim outreach.'

How many "moderate Muslims" will there be if we go on this way?

MODERATE MUSLIMS

DEFINITIONS

There are several possible meanings to the term 'moderate Muslim'. One might be: 'a Muslim who rejects the use of inhumane punishments, the systematic subjugation of women, and so on, as laid down in scripture.' In other words, a liberal Muslim.

(Just as a liberal Christian might reject the following injunction in the New Testament: 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting. [1 Corinthians 14] Or 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman's head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered. [1 Corinthians 11])

Another meaning of the term 'moderate Muslim' might be: 'a Muslim who rejects the use of violence for political purposes - unless the purposes accord with the wishes of the United States and Britain.' In other words, a collaborator Muslim.

Political 'moderation' in mainstream Western society means service to power, even when that power is used for immoderate ends, and by immoderate means, as in Iraq.

Noam Chomsky notes that Hitler was regarded as a 'moderate' in this sense: 'As late as 1937, the State Department was describing Hitler as a moderate standing between the extremes of right and left, who we must support, or else the masses of the population might take power and move in a leftist direction.'

Another meaning of the term 'moderate Muslim' might be: 'a Muslim who stands in the mid-stream of world opinion regarding current affairs'. In other words, someone who is outraged by the unilateral exercise of extreme violence by the United States and Britain. The mid-stream of opinion was well-articulated by Nelson Mandela in the run-up to the Iraq war: 'I criticise most leaders all over the world for keeping quiet when one country wants to bully the world.' (18 September 2002) In other words, an angry Muslim.

It is possible to be a liberal Muslim and an angry Muslim. It is also possible to be a liberal Muslim and a collaborator Muslim. It is possible to be angry in private and a collaborator in public. It is even possible to be just a bit angry in public while remaining a collaborator.

FOREIGN POLICY ANGER

The anti-semitic and extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir party held a conference yesterday in London. Today's Times reports:

'A senior member of the party, Abdul Waheed, told the delegates to speak out against British and American foreign policy. "Foreign policy anger is there. There is an attempt here to silence Muslims," he said.

' "Go back to your communities and go to your mosques and ask the leaders do they not think there is going to be more frustration in the Muslim community, young and old alike, if the mosques cannot be used to discuss these issues in a calm and rational way. If we are not allowed to discuss the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . I fear the frustration builds up more, not less." '

While the party is (thankfully) a fringe phenomenon which mainstream Muslims distance themselves from (it aims to establish a new Islamic mega-state or 'caliphate'), these are pertinent comments.

If being 'moderate' and 'uniting against the extremists' means silence on foreign policy, there will indeed be more frustration, and more bombs.

The Home Office/Foreign Office report on Young Muslims and Extremism referred to 'A lack of any real "pressure valves", in order to vent frustrations/anger/dissent' as a factor in creating extremism. The report also noted that, 'Some young Muslims are disillusioned with mainstream Muslim organisations that are perceived as pedestrian, ineffective and in many cases, as 'sell-outs' to HMG.'

The policy recommendation? To cosy up to more mainstream Muslim organisations, and induce them to sell out.

UNITY AND COMMON HUMANITY

'Uniting against the extremists' must mean 'uniting against those who bomb the underground and those who bomb Fallujah'. It must mean 'uniting against those who bomb the bus and those who bomb Grozny'. It must mean 'uniting against the extremists with nail bombs and the extremists with cruise missiles'.

It must mean voicing our anger as human beings faced with a world of violence, as people of all faiths and none.

'Moderation' must mean standing in the mainstream of world opinion, being part of the majority who reject the Bush /Blair agenda and who stand for common humanity.

'Moderation' must mean struggling against the violent extremism of al Qaeda and the violent extremism of abu Ghraib.

'Moderation' must mean standing apart from the collaborators who serve power and who betray our common humanity.

ISLAMIC LAW

THE CONTEXT

It is a simple fact that the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition contains a hideous legal tradition (Muhammad draws explicitly on the Torah in his own revelation, and accepts the Jewish prophets and Jesus as his predecessors).

To take only one example, in the Torah/Old Testament, it is written, 'And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.' [Leviticus 24:16]

Recall that Jesus did not abolish the Jewish laws. He said, 'For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' [Matthew 5:18-19 RSV, also Luke 16:17]

The death penalty for blasphemy is therefore also part of Jesus' tradition.

Karen Armstrong offers this historical context for Qu'ranic law:

'Muhammad, like all his contemporaries, was deeply rooted inthe tribal system and accepted its basic principles. Itwas the only kind of polity and system of social security that he could imagine... In the social legislation of the Qu'ran, therefore, Muhammad does not break with tribalism completely. The Qu'ran sees revenge as a mark of virtue and a social and religious duty. Muslims must retaliate exactly, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.'

'It is difficult for people who have been brought up on the Sermon on the Mount to accept this. We find it abominable that a sacred book should recommend that a thief should have his hand chopped off, and we cannot understand why Muhammad does not outlaw revenge and preach a message of forgiveness.'

'But we must remember that Jesus was not head of state, as Muhammad had become after Hudaybiyah [establishing peace with the Meccans]. He did not have to concern himself with the maintenance of public order, a job carried out by the religious establishment that he is said to have reviled, and by the officials of Rome. If he had been responsible for social legislation, he would in all probability have been forced to resort to similarly draconian methods because inmost pre-modern socieites the law has had to be enforced with a severity and brutality which seems horrific to us today.'

'Even in Britain until relatively recently we did not merely mutilate a thief: we either killed him for quite trivial offences or sent him off to the colonies as a slave. It is certainly regrrettable that some Islamic countries, though by no means all, have preserved these old punishments but it is unfair to stigmatise the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition as brutal.' (Muhammad, pages 227-228)

Karen Armstrong also observes that 'the Qu'ran shows that it is an act of virtue to be satisfied with less than was due.' (page 228)

QUR'AN, LAW AND PENALTIES

In this connection, it is interesting to cast an eye over the opinion of Muhammad Sa'id Al-Ashmawi, an Egyptian chief judge, who wrote in 1987:

'In penal matters, the Qur'anic penalties (hudud) strictly speaking are four: theft (amputation of the hand), calumnious accusation of fornication (80 lashes), adultery (100 lashes) and brigandage (execution, crucifixion, banishment or jail). The penalties for apostasy and drinking alcohol are not strictly speaking Qu'ranic penalties, as the first is based on the two hadiths [stories of the Prophet] and the second was set by 'Ali ibn Abi Talib [the Prophet's son-in-law and fourth caliph, reigned 656-661] by analogy with the penalty for the calumnious accusation of fornication.'

'At any rate, many conditions must be fulfilled in order that these Qu'ranic penalties be applied. The most important is that one be in a community of pious and honourable believers who have installed political, economic and social justice.'

'This is necessary so that the judgement rendered in the name of religious law not be utilized for other purposes, and that the chastisements imposed in the name of Islam not be applied to Muslims by unjust governments or by harsh tribunals on the basis of arbitrary arrests or false witness, as has been too often the case throughout Islamic history, and even more so in our day.'

'Contrary to a broadly accepted idea, Islam does not require that society apply systematically the Qu'ranic punishments. On the contrary, it enjoins it to show tolerance and clemency. Thus, Muhammad said: "Strive to be merciful one to another in the application of Qur'anic punishments."'

'Each time society, by tolerance, avoids the application of Qur'anic punishments, it acts according to the spirit of Islam and the request of its Prophet.'

'.... These Qur'anic punishments are so surrounded by conditions that in practice they are practically inapplicable; moreover, to these general conditions are added particular conditions for each penalty. Take, for example, theft: the object of theft must be marked by the seal of the owner and be in a well-guarded place, which excludes pilfering, open plundering and pickpocketing; it must have a money value; the robber must not be in great need; finally, for the majority of jurists the Qur'anic punishment for theft cannot be applied if the robber has some "quasi-ownership" on the goods stolen, as is notably the case with public goods.... all schools of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) agree that it should not apply if the bandit repents before having been apprehended, in conformity with the end of the verse regarding that punishment: "except for such as repent, before you have power over them" (Sura 5, Verse 34).'

Judge Al-Ashmawi disagrees with the assertion that 'an eye for an eye' is a religious prescription: 'The law "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was introduced in Islamic law by jurists on the basis of the adage "the Law of our predecessors binds us as well except for what was abrogated" and a prophetic verbal tradition (hadith) which alludes to it without mentioning it explicitly.'

'Thus Islamic law confuses shari'a - that is to say, the Qur'anic norm - with Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) - that is to say, what results from the free opinion (ijtihad) of jurists. As a result it has thought the law "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" to be a religious prescription and an integral part of the shari'a.'

'In fact, if that law was a fundamental law which God wished to impose on Muslims it would not have been left to the evaluation of jurists, but clearly stated in the Qur'an. Further, jurists who cite the adage "the law of our predecessors binds us as well except for what was abrogated" use it in a selective manner. They ignore it in the case of numerous earlier prescriptions which were not abrogated - for example, that which condemns to death one who strikes his parents.' (Taken from Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, edited by Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 53)

In other words, this basic principle comes from human beings, not from God.

JESUS, LAW AND PENALTIES

Incidentally, on this score, Jesus referred to a similar injunction in relation to disobedient children, approving the law that children should be executed for speaking evil of their parents (not striking them):

6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'. [Mark 7]

This is an example of Jesus confirming the continuing relevance of existing Jewish law.

LAST WORDS

LISTEN

'This outreach work is of no use if the government doggedly refuses to take seriously the anxieties and anger of Muslims who detest the war in Iraq and our blind loyalty to the neo-cons in the US. How dare Tony Blair lecture Muslims on the dangers of fundamentalism while remaining blindly insistent of the special relationship with the US? If integration means having to consent to that fundamentalist foreign policy, I'll have none of it. If it requires of me acquiescence in human rights violations, you can count me out.'

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the Independent, page 31.

JNV welcomes feedback.