Friday, December 28, 2007

fall of a corrupt puppet

"I had the chance to meet her (Benazir Bhutto) on several occasions, in which she expressed interest in Israel and said that she hoped to visit upon returning to power." -Shimon Peres (President of "Israel", pictured above with Benazir Bhutto at a "socialist international" (sic) conference) read more here

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Muslim women and the discursive machine of hegemony

Soumaya Ghannoushi writes:

It seems that Muslim women - particularly those living in western capitals- are destined to remain besieged by two debilitating discourses, which though different in appearance, are one in essence.

The first of these is conservative and exclusionist, sentencing Muslim women to a life of childbearing and rearing, lived out in the narrow confines of their homes at the mercy of fathers, brothers, and husbands. Revolving around notions of sexual purity and family honour, it appeals to religion for justification and legitimisation.

The other is a "liberation" discourse that vows to break Muslim woman's bondage and free her of the oppressive yoke of an aggressive, patriarchical, and backward society. She is a mass of powerlessness and enslavement; the embodiment of seclusion, silence, and invisibility. Her only hope of deliverance from the cave of veiling and isolation lies in the benevolent intervention of this force of emancipation. It will save her from her hellishly miserable and bleak existence, to the promised heaven of enlightenment and progress.

The truth is that just as there is a military machine of hegemony, there is a discursive machine of hegemony. When armies move on the ground to conquer and subjugate, they need moral and ideological cover. It is this that gives the dominant narrative of the "Muslim woman" its raison d'etre.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Who is Akbar Ganji?

Akbar Ganji is one of a whole slew of self-styled Iranian dissidents who spend their time in the US on a speakers circuit - where they pose their liberal credentials - while in effect calling for regime change in Iran.

Ganji, like some other Iranian liberals, position themselves as being against military attacks on Iran, but nevertheless use the American establishment to pressure for regime change. Ganji does this by taking a neo-conist type negative attitude towards the present government, and political system of Iran. Because Ganji does not call for direct US government intervention or military action against Iran, he is viewed by the, often Islamophobic, liberal-left of the US as a "dissident." Ganji, however, like other such faux "dissidents" want to overthrow the present system, and install what he calls "democracy." (The fact that Iran, during elections, has the highest turn out in the region, if not the world, seems to escape his notice).

It should be noted that while Ganji does not particularly favor Bush, he would never make a public call for an overthrow of the US constitution - he would be deported, or shipped off to Guantanemo immediately if he made such a call. But, if we are to measure the amount of human rights violations, invasions, and the amount of killings that the US has engaged in just the past six or so years - whatever Iran's faults maybe - they are practically non existent when compared to the US human rights violation. So, then why does Ganji insist on the overthrow of the Iranian government, and of the Islamic Republic itself (to be replaced with "democracy") - but does not call for the same for the US during his tours?

An even larger question to examine is why the US liberal-left should call for the internal overthrow of the Iranian government ("regime change" ) while not calling for the same for the US, if indeed "human rights" is the only criteria being used? Remember that the liberal-left and Ganji are not merely suggesting that Iranian people vote for another candidate for president, the "regime change" in the context means overthrow of the present political-economic system itself. The same liberal-left would never ever call for a similar overthrow of the constitution of the US.

The reason, I think, should be obvious - and the name of this blog provides an explanation. This brand of so-called "progressives" and "liberals" are, in reality, imperialists themselves, and they feel that they have a moral superiority - and can make all kinds of calls that they think are "non-violent" and for "democratic change" but infact, these kinds of calls are nothing more than liberal imperialism of another kind.

And so it is no wonder that Ganji has been presented awards by neo-con types sympathizers who recognize him as one of their own, irrespective of his appeal to the liberal imperialists (with whom they only have a difference of tactics, not goals).

Akbar Ganji was recently given an award from the Right and Democracy (or International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development). This is a Canadian version of the US imperialist project of the National Endowment for Democracy, that has been involved in destabilization campaigns wherever and whenever any country or people exert their right of independence from US colonial and neo-colonialism

The award was given to him by Saad Eddin Ebrahim one of the most avid supporters of the now-defunct Neo-conservative plans to spread democracy in the Middle East, who has also been the director of Rights and Democracy and now sits on its board of directors. (Ibrahim was previously the director of the (neo-con friendly) American Islamic Congress and is still on its board, is on the advisory committee of the Journal of Democracy, published by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Ganji was also heaped praise by George Bush for his anti-Iranian government's activities in 2005, and said in a White House statement: "Mr. Ganji, please know that as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," While Bush is often dismissed by liberal-leftists as "stupid" etc. --- he does know who it is that serves his imperial project. Indeed Ganji himself only opposes Bush's intervention because he knows just how angry the people of Iran would be towards any such move - and probably it would mean he would not get the kind of support he does now from the anti-Bush liberal imperialist crowd.

Monday, November 26, 2007

moderate quote of the month

Benazir Bhutto - the wannabe moderate-proggie puppet in waiting of Pakistan - said an alliance of moderate parties was also being pushed by the United States. “In the past the United States would support dictatorships but now it is supporting democratic forces, which is a sign of encouragement for all the democracy-loving people,” she added. source (pdf)

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Progressive Opportunism

Riffat Hassan has written a letter to the puppet Musharraf complaining about his no longer being very supportive of the proggie-reactionary institute she founded in Pakistan to bring about an "Islamic Renaissance." Readers of this blog may remember that Riffat Hassan, in a fit of progressive hypocrisy, had defended puppet Musharraf when he had stated that women in Pakistan were bringing charges of rape to get a green card.

This particular letter by Riffat Hassan is revealing in many ways, because she talks about how she viewed Musharraf, and more importantly, why she had a positive view of this puppet: apparently this all had to do with the puppet's support for her bleak vision of Islam. A lot of what she describes has little to do with the Muslim umma, and more to do with her personally - i.e. when the puppet supported her personally, and her project, she was happy do be a puppet's puppet. Read the letter here..

Those who still hold out on the notions of Progressive Islam and Progressive Muslims (now mainly confined to the super elites of Muslim countries, and Ivy League Imperial Universities such as Harvard) really need to get a grip: As the name of this blog clarifies, Progressive Muslims are nothing more or less than friends of imperialism and neo-colonialism - their affiliation with puppets and with Imperialists have completely discredited them.

Yes, they still have some credibility amongst liberal-leftists, who can identify with the often Islamophobic, and stereotypical image of Muslims societies that these proggies love to perpetuate.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Pakistan's next enlightened moderate puppet

Benazir Bhutto is expected to become the next liberal-moderate-proggie puppet of Pakistan. Benazir is seen here praying to her masters: ya condoli , ya bush.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Who is Raquel Evita Saraswati?

Well, I'm sure about 99.9% of readers of this blog have never heard about this individual who is the Human Rights Coordinator of something called "Muslims for Progressive Values." This group is basically a rehash of the Progressive Muslim Union North America - minus Tarek Fatah - who was giving the proggies a bad enough publicity that they had to dump him (or, maybe Fatah dumped them... or each other).

Here are the names of the executive board of this proggie organization - I'll say one thing for 'em they're good in coming up with self-appointed titles for themselves.

Pamela Taylor (Chair, former PMU co-chair, and chair),

Kareem Elbayar (Vice Chair),

Zuriani "Ani" Zonneveld (President, former PMU executive director), Noreen Dabbish (Secretary),
Vanessa Karam (Interfaith Coordinator),

Raquel Evita Saraswati (Human Rights Coordinator),

and Sabahat Ashraf (New Media Coordinator, former PMU techie or something).

So, now lets take a look at Raquel ---- well, turns out that she is an Irshad Manjist... remember how initially the proggies tried to distance themselves from Manji? Omid Safi, the then chair of PMU, even claimed that she was not a proggie.

Well, this group is not carrying on that charade anymore --- Raquel is Vice-President of Manji's pro-zionist, "Muslim Refuseniks"/"Project Ijtihad." And her website links directly to Manji's website (warning: the front page has a soft-porn photograph of Raquel).

There's more - but I think readers get the idea 'bout what this new (old) proggie group is all about, and what kind of "human rights" they gonna be promoting (google her name if you really wanna know more).

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The absurdity of "Muslims for Obama"

The race for the "leader" of the so-called "free world" has begun. The race is, of-course, all about who can be the most jingoistic and play to the worst fears of the "free world" extremists.  

So, Obama says he gonna take the war on Muslims, now, to Pakistan. The country has already been under the rule of a puppet who has slaughtered his own people. But Obama takes it up not just a notch, but to a whole new level. The dude wants to basically complete the job that Bush started: destroy one Muslim majority nation after another.

Oh, yeah - he don't want to nuke Pakistan. But Hillary - she's gonna prove herself to be a real man - she has no qualms 'bout nuking anyone anywhere --- no ruling out nukes for her - none of that fuzzy warm smart bombs, if nukes are what it takes, then nukes it will be. 

Here is what the "Muslims for Obama" group says (created by Shahed Amanullah, the guy who recently had a chit chat with the extremist Homeland Security dude: Chertoff): 

He's not just a change from George W. Bush, he's a change from the emerging crop of Democratic presidential nominees, all of whom are still equivocating on the war in Iraq. Obama is the only candidate who was on the correct side from the beginning, and unlike most politicians, understands our concerns because of his unique background.

Through this group, we hope to work Muslim Democrats to ensure Obama gets the party nomination, and then work hard to get out the vote in key districts throughout America.

OK - so let's see - they wanna get this maniac Obama into office with Muslim vote, and then Obama will go bomb Muslims --- good plan.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

shame on the moderate extremists

a protest against the Lal Masjid massacre in Pakistan - the massacre was ordered by
 Mr. "enlightened moderate" himself. 

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Zionist "Sufism"

Well, we know about neo-con "Sufis" ... but now we got Zionist "sufis" !

This so-called "conference" is being sponsored by "Israel" :

Islamic Fundamentalism and Sufism: Continuities and Confrontations through Modernity and Globalization Research Workshop of the Israel Science Foundation

Have fun looking through the list of participants.

Monday, June 25, 2007

A Progressive "expert" speaketh

via The "expert" is one Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford --- their proggie dodgy website is worth a look.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Who is Reza Aslan?

Aslan counts himself as one of the “reform Islam scholars” - who believe, as do the neo-cons, that Islam must be reformed - for the religion to “co-exist” with the American empire (or, as they call it, “civilization” “west” and “democracy”). In this respect, Aslan serves the insidious role of corrupting Islam - re-defining, and providing an interpertational framework that would re-fashion Islam into an empire friendly religion.

Aslan, like his collegue, Vali Nar is a member of the notorious neo-con Council on Foreign Relations.

Aslan got his so-called “education” from Harvard University. Harvard has been at the forefront of advocating “reform Islam” -and has supported some of the more notorious pro-empire Muslim groups such as the (now defunct) Progressive Muslim Union North America.

Aslan is also one of four original participants in meetings with Homeland Security's chief extremist Michael Chertoff, ostensibly to counter "homegrown radicalism." (Extremist Chertoff's mission, is, of-course, to silence Muslim dissent (and really all dissent) to the US's imperial project.)

A few comments by Aslan reveals his ideological leanings:

“Despite the apartheid state that has resulted from over half a century of bloody territorial conflicts with its neighboring Palestinian territories, few would deny that the state of Israel is a democracy.” (Perhaps this is one reason why most Muslims now find the word “democracy” to be just another name for hypocrisy).

“And it’s up to us as Muslims in the US to give voice to that (reform-Islam) for our brothers and sisters who don’t have the voice or the same ability to speak out as we do”

Well, yes, so long as you are speaking for an empire friendly Islam, from Harvard, and from the Council of Foreign Relations, yeah you can speak. Try seriously speaking out, and acting against imperialism outside of such institutions, and see how quickly you are first placed under surveillance, with Homeland knocking on your door next.

Aslan has contributed an essay called ‘The Struggle for Islam’s Soul’, in With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, Will Marshall, ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006.

If one takes a look at how these terms are defined - we will find that “jihadism” is resistance to imperialism, and “liberty” is American style “democracy promotion.”

infact the cover of the book says it all:


Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Dance puppets dance!

Dance, dear puppets, dance - dance with the extremists!

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

The Rand Report In Action

Muslim Matters has a very good post on the collaborative meetings between self styled saviours of Muslims and Islam, and the imperial Homeland Security's secretary Michael Chertoff.

While I agree with most of the post, I don't agree with the post-script, where he suggests that the DHS should be talking with other "mainstream Muslims."

Muslims should not be engaging with these types (period). The problem is not "extremism" in the Muslim community - the problem is with the extremists who are in the White House, and who have orchestrated a never ending "war" based on lies upon lies. A war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Muslims being killed in just the past four or five years. That is the kind of extremism that is the real problem.

To understand the context of this collaborative meeting - a bit of a background on the extremist Chertoff:

Chertoff is credited with authoring the Patriot Act, the 300-plus page blueprint for the modern National Security State; patterned to great extent on the successes of the KGB in the Soviet system. He's admired among his Bush cadres for making sure that government surveillance operates at maximum efficiency. Under his stewardship at the Dept of Justice, the 4th amendment has withered like summer grass. The long-held belief that citizens, have a right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" has buckled under the demands of "Big Brother" and the new "intrusive" security paradigm.

And now the post from Muslim Matters:

It hasn’t been too long since the release of the RAND report part II, and it seems that the government is already following suit. San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), otherwise responsible for spying on, harasing or setting up Muslims (watch out for the friendly neighborhood informant as he joins the government to make big $$ or arrange for his past-crimes to be forgiven) is now actually working with Muslims to “rebut radicals”. I am sure DHS has good intentions, but they have to produce something to show for all the $$ they are spending… it’s all part of the job.

1) Shahed Amanullah: He is from Austin, Texas. He will be DHS’s friend in the blog world. That of course holds special meaning to us, because we too reside in the blogosphere. Mr. Amanullah runs the notorious (for normal Muslims) website He wants to push forward an ‘alternate’ Muslim opinion, which is just a proxy, softer terminology for progressivism.

Well, let’s get it it clear: AltMuslim is nothing but a Muslimwakeup, PMUNA, eteraz, or other ‘we know better than the Sunnah’ websites in disguise. In fact, the folks there are not too shy about espousing the ‘opportunity’ to follow RAND’s guidance.

Also, browse the list of guest-writers. Don’t miss out Muqtedar Khan, the owner of the website called ‘’… a personal favorite since he resides in the local community, in which he is mostly shunned because his views are so progressive that not even the nutty ones in the community can stand him. Ali Eteraz, the writer of classics such as ‘how to denude the niqabis’, and other sick perversions, is also a star writer. These pro-regressive (shout-out to Dr. M) websites usually generate a lot of hits, because normal, mainstream, average Muslims like us, usually go there to check out what the newest wacko opinion is. It provides for a good laugh and some stomach muscle movement, which can only help burn some calories for the stagnant web-surfers (ahem abu ameerah )

read more here

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Imperial "academics" and "scholars"

The notion that academics and scholars are honest intellectuals who strive for objective research, and are independent of government (and other) influences is nice sounding, but is nothing more than a myth.

This is especially the case post 9/11/01: The US led War on Islam and Muslims, has resulted in an increased demand for "scholars" and "academics" of Muslim and/or mid-east backgrounds who would willingly act as "researchers" and "policy writers." These "scholars" then produce, and/or facilitate the production of articles, books, and magazines that attempt to justify American Imperialism to what, in their racist assumption, is an ignorant, and unwitting Arab and Muslim population.

click here to read more

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

around the world of blogs

Jinzaman has a good article on RAND, "Reform" and Revolution

Regarding the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa controversy in Pakistan, and the liberal elite's reactionary attitudes read Lal Masjid What Do They Want?.

Dr. Maxtor has a couple of good recent entries on his blog: Turkey's secular fascists and a brief note on Eteraz -the proggie hiding in mainstream Muslim clothing (my heading not Dr. Maxtor's :-)) read the comments on that one. (Why do proggies get all bent outta shape when someone happens to just write a few sentences critiquing 'em, but they think they can slam/damn every other Muslim that crosses their path? - I don't get it...)

Thursday, April 12, 2007

school for puppet "Imams" in Jordan

The British (neo-colonial) Ambassador looks on approvingly as the Jordanian ministry opens a school for "Muslim preachers."

Apparently, this "school" to create puppet "imams" has the approval of the British Blair regime.

(Actually, the Jordanians were probably required to get the British approval before starting this "school." )

Monday, April 02, 2007

Welcome US Department of State

As you can see, your little puppet "Imam" did not do all that well in that little tour you had going for him... was he at least worth the cost of his flight to India? (U.s. Department Of State)

District Of Columbia, Washington, United States, 0 returning visits

Date Time WebPage

2nd April 2007 01:23:19 No referring link


Tuesday, March 27, 2007

A Declaration of Cold War: Rand Report.

A brand new Rand Report is out on the stands - that is nothing more (or less) than a formal declaration of Cold War on Islam.

The specifics outlined in this report has already taken shape in Britain with the so-called Radical Middle Way group that presents itself as a "moderate Muslim" outfit, but, in reality, is funded by the extremist government of Blair and his Home office. For more on how the moderates are, in reality, extremists - click here.

The Rand Report points out that the USA support and financing of the "moderate" (i.e. extremists) groups should be covert, and not too "obvious." It is thus, the responsibility of Muslims to investigate the source of funding and support of Muslims groups in North America, Europe, Australia, and also in the Muslim majority areas. Those groups and/or individuals who are being funded and/or otherwise supported by the extremist US and/or British governments and/or their affiliated extremist "think tanks" should be boycotted, and questioned publicly as to why they are collaborating in this extremist anti-Islam project?!

Partners in this network-building effort should be those who share key dimensions of democratic culture, the study says. The report recommends targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young moderate religious scholars; community activists; women's groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and scholars.

As America learned during the Cold War, moderate groups can lose credibility – and therefore, effectiveness – if U.S. support is too obvious. Effective tactics that worked during the Cold War include having the groups led by credible individuals and having the United States maintain some distance from the organisations it supports.

“This was done by not micro-managing the groups, but by giving them enough autonomy,” Rabasa said. “As long as certain guidelines were met, they were free to pursue their own activities.”

To help start this initiative, the report recommends working toward an international conference modeled in the Cold War-era Congress of Cultural Freedom, and then developing a standing organisation to combat radical Islamism.

more here

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Liberalizing the Qur'an: The Case of Laleh Bakhtiar

I have to say I am dissapointed in Laleh Bakhtiar that she is allowing herself to be used in this way - to make it appear as if she is some ground breaking woman of Islam --- same as some of the progressivist Moslems claimed in their drive towards "reform Islam." I am dissapointed because I have a number of Laleh Bakhtiar's translations of Islamic books (Farsi to English translation) and have found them very useful, and carefully translated.

But, in the case of this "new translation" of the Qur'an by Bakhtiar, there are way too many problems, not the least the kind of coverage she is getting from the American corporate media.

Why is it that when A’isha Bewley, who actually speaks Arabic, and is a known and respected translator of classical texts, published a translation of the Qur’an the NYT didn’t profile her? Heck, most Muslims didn’t even know she’d done this, and you have some people today talking about “the first translation by a woman” wrt Bakhtiar (and prior to Bewley’s, there was at least one other version that was done by an Egyptian woman). Is it because Bewley doesn’t fit the image of what Cheryl Benard and Rand told us “friendly” Muslims look like? Scoff all you like. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, but more and more coverage of Islam and Muslims seems to take a page from the infamous Rand report. And we go along with it.

Or is it because Bewley didn’t set out with the mindset that she was going to change what the Qur’an meant to English readers or not do it?

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating.”

What Bakhtiar is doing, then, is a grave, grave disservice to those people who pick up her version. She is doing what liberal Muslims accuse the ‘ulema of having done for 1400 years. It’s not a translation if she decides what the meaning is based on what she wants. It’s wishful thinking. Alhamdulillah, it doesn’t change the meaning of the Qur’an… but saying that English speakers are alienated by Arabic names, deciding yourself to do tafsir, even though you don’t really know Arabic and you admit to having no classical or scholarly training is changing how people who pick up your book will perceive the capital-T Truth, and this can lead one into spiritual territory where one would not want to be caught on the Day That Counts.

more here

Thursday, March 15, 2007

US State Department Moslem: "Imam" Yahya Hendi

The article below is from ultra-neo-con friendly Washinton Times, so they are trying to put a good face on this absurdity, but the readers of this blog are savvy enough to read between the lines, I am sure!

The chaplain, Imam Yahya Hendi, was in India for three days late last week to debunk myths about the status and treatment of Muslims in America, much as he has done in State Department-sponsored trips to the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

The visit, arranged by Karen Hughes' two-year-old public diplomacy office at the State Department, did produce successes.

At our mosque the imam wanted to lead a mass prayer and interact with the people," said Hyder Ali, a spokesman for the Baitul Aman Mosque, the largest in West Bengal. "But we turned down the request ... because he was acting on behalf of a government which for long years has been responsible for killings and sufferings of innocent Muslims in many countries including Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. We did not want to betray our brothers and sisters in those countries by extending him hospitality in our mosque."

Nur-ur Rahman Barkati, the chief of another prominent Calcutta mosque, said he would be pleased to allow Imam Hendi to conduct a prayer at his mosque had the American been on a "purely religious mission, with no connection with America's foreign diplomacy."

"He is a Muslim -- he is our brother. But we could not take him in our arms because he was here as a representative of the American government and George Bush -- the enemies of Islam and the world's Muslims," he said.

"We took part in this ... prayer only because we knew an American imam would conduct it. Had we known that he was sent by the American government we would have never dreamed of standing behind him on this prayer," said Rifat Hossain, a 21-year-old student. A dozen of his friends nodded in agreement.

click here to read more

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Who Is Vali Nasr?

Vali Nasr has become the US media's new favorite Muslim expert - especially on Shi'a Islam, Iran, and sectarianism. He has also become a favorite of some liberals, who like to quote him authoritatively from a couple of his books, again, especially when discussing Shi'as.

For these liberals, quoting a Shi'a Muslim scholar (i.e. an Ayatullah) on Shi'a Islam, would be anathema, because they are all considered to be "fundamentalists", and "backwards." And also because many liberals have adopted the neo-con hatred and Islamophobia for scholars of Islam, so they now have a supposed "liberal" American educated dude, who they can quote safely as a supposed representative of Shi'as.

So, now lets take a closer look at this guy. Who exactly is he? Who is he speaking for, and what are are his affiliations?

A glance at Vali Nasr’s career shows where he is coming from — and whom he is serving. In January 2006, Nasr was named the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, the main Neocon Think Tank, focusing on foreign policy. He is currently Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). He joined NPS in 1993. The Naval Postgraduate School's Department of National Security Affairs (NSA) specialises in the study of International Relations, security policy, and regional studies. The NSA, according to its Web site, ‘brings together … faculty, students from the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard and various civilian agencies, and scores of international officers from dozens of countries for the sole purpose of preparing tomorrow's military and civilian leaders for emerging security challenges’.

The Wikipedia entry on Vali Nasr offers some interesting insights that are worth examining:

First, Nasr, in January, 2006, was named the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Now, I've talked about the awful liberal Brooking Institute.. But, if that is not bad enough, the CFR is like plain rotten - amongst its members are the following:

Dick Cheney
Condoleezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert M. Gates
John D. Negroponte
Richard Perle
Leslie Gelb
Colin Powell
Alice Rivlin
Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry Kissinger

Nasr is often quoted as an expert on Shi'as of Middle East - so, what does he have to say about Iraq? Well here is an interesting bit:

By liberating and empowering Iraq's Shiite majority, the Bush administration helped launch a broad Shiite revival

and again:

Iraq's liberation has also generated new cultural, economic, and political ties among Shiite communities across the Middle East.

So, now we understand why Nasr was chosen to be a senior fellow at the CFR - he, like his neo-con buddies, regard the invasion and destruction of Iraq a "liberation" ! (heee hawww).

Now, it also turns out that Nasr "briefed" Bush on sectarianism in August 2006. It is quite possible that this guy is totally naive, that he thinks that the neo-cons are just ignorant, and are not doing anything deliberately to fan the flames of sectarianism to their advantage. It is possible that is what Nasr was thinking when he sat down for his chat with Bush.

But it is rather strange that Nasr was not familiar with the Rand Report that explicitly called for using sectarianism to divide Muslims and that he was not aware of other articles that also called for using Shi'a Sunni divisions to create a civil war situation amongst Muslims.

What exactly did Bush learn from Nasr, one wonders?

Nasr, is unfortunately just one in a whole slew of Muslims who have allied themselves with the neo-cons, and like other liberal imperialists, are not so much as opposed to the invasion ("liberation") of Iraq - but rather, how it was done, and that it could be done better. So, he is not opposed to the supremacy of the United States, just that it could exert its supremacy more efficiently.

In this respect, Nasr fits into what Saba Mahmood describes as one of those with whom

the U.S. strategists have struck a common chord with self-identified secular liberal Muslim reformers who have been trying to refashion Islam along the lines of the Protestant Reformation.

There is a fair bit of material available on this guy on the web, and I'll be updating this entry...

Sunday, March 04, 2007

the intelligence (not) summit

I really do not have much to say about the "secular islam summit" --- other than check out their absurd program and this little bit:

Mediterranean Reception---sponsored by the Secular Islam Summit in conjunction with The Intelligence Summit

Irshad Manji, Amir Taheri, Ibn Warraq

***(cash bar)***

Saturday, February 17, 2007

another article on the death of "progressive islam"

This article on the "death" of "progressive islam", I am much more inclined to agree with - especially with regards to how this so-called "movement" manifested itself. A much more accurate name of this form of "islam" might be "US empire friendly islam."

According to Hannah Arendt, the two key characteristics of colonialism are racism and bureacracy. The professional elites were clearly created to support the colonial bureacracy, and is also not surprising that they adopted, in essence, the same disdain for their fellow Muslims (especially the 'Ulema) which more likely than not, was due to absorbing British racism. The professional elites often adopted the same purported "reformism" that was used to justify imperialism in the first place. Just like the "White man" had reached the pinnacle of human evolution and it was his duty to uplift the lesser races from their anthropological shortcomings, so did the professional elites view themselves as the pinnacle of Islamic history and had achieved material success and, thus, it was their duty to uplift the Muslim masses from their decadent superstitious faults.

Read the entire article here

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Announcing the death of Progressive Islam

An article that announces the death of Progressive Islam can be found here

Unfortunately, in the view of publicdebate, the neo-con type native informant/good Moslem role that pro-regressives took on as their mantle is not quite dead.

At this time only the lables have changed. The same proggie types have, in some ways, become even more insidious. Stay tuned...

Saturday, February 03, 2007

"secular islam summit"

Here they are, and they are going to have a summit: click here to view the speaker list.

***Disclaimer: This blog is not responsible for any emotional and/or physical health issues that may arise due to viewing the above web site. View at your own risk. -The Management of PMUNA DEBATE.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Secularism, Hermeneutics, and Empire:

The Politics of Islamic Reformation by Saba Mahmood

"Taking the U.S. government’s current project to reshape and reform Islam on a global scale as my focus, I want to think about the place of the secular in relation to the current strategies of domination pursued by the United States. As I will show, over the last two years, in addition to its military “war against terror,” the United States has embarked upon an ambitious theological campaign aimed at shaping the sensibilities of ordinary Muslims whom the State Department deems to be too dangerously inclined toward fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

As such, it is the ideological arm of an otherwise military campaign to subdue and discipline the vast population of Muslims who, in their religious beliefs and lifestyles, are judged to be the recruiting ground for more extremist and fundamentalist forms of Islamic opposition to U.S. strategic interests and what are now loosely termed “Western values.” In this elaborate undertaking, the U.S. government has found an indigenous ally in the form of moderate or liberal Muslims who, in the opinion of State Department planners, are most open to a “Western vision of civilization, political order, and society.”

The core problem from the perspective of U.S. analysts is not militancy itself but interpretation, insomuch as the interpretive act is regarded as the foundation of any religious subjectivity and therefore the key to its emancipation or secularization. In this understanding, the U.S. strategists have struck a common chord with self-identified secular liberal Muslim reformers who have been trying to refashion Islam along the lines of the Protestant Reformation.

Aware of these recent setbacks, the White House National Security Council (NSC) formally established a new program named Muslim World Outreach in 2003, with as much as $1.3 billion at its disposal (and with more allocations to come). This is a project aimed at “transforming Islam from within”:

Among the reformers the Rand Corporation mentions are Khaled Abou El Fadl, Serif Mardin, Abdulaziz Sachedina (United States), Bassam Tibi (Germany), and Muhammad Shahrur (Syria). They are upheld as “good Muslims,” distinct from their “bad” counterparts.

more here (pdf document)

Thursday, January 04, 2007

the problem with CAIR

Yes, I know CAIR sometimes does good work. Yes, I know the Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra is a good guy - and has done decent advocacy work in the area. And yeah, I know proggies love to pick on CAIR. OK - now that you know that I've said all that...

See, CAIR has this problem of insisting on inviting FBI and Homeland Security dudes to their conferences - so that they can be seen as one of the good guys. But then who are the bad guys? Those who have some awareness of COINTELPRO? Those who know how these agencies have actively played the divide and conquer game to destroy the activism of African Americans, Latino, Native Americans - you name it... ?

So, now CAIR is all shook up - 'cause guess what? Even with all these invitations and cozying up with the FBI - Boxer, the liberal senator from California, decided to rescind an award that she gave to CAIR. Now, I understand that there is Islamophobia at play here... But you know, at the same time - CAIR had it coming to them. Did they really expect that their FBI contacts was going to save them? Did they really? Do they really expect, that if/when the time comes, that their FBI/Homeland security contacts are going to save the day for Muslims in America? It is time to seriously wake up and smell some real strong coffee dudes and bros. That is not the way the US system works.

check malangbaba's blog for more on this sordid affair.

and Angry Arab offers a word or two on this affair also...

Monday, January 01, 2007