Was the Invasion of Iraq justified - Part Two

Is it Justifiable to Invade a Sovereign State?

Was the Invasion of Iraq justified?

What about sanctions? What about the War?

Is it justified to kill innocents, to try to bring down a dictator?

These are questions many people don’t think of, except in the most general terms; they don’t want to think about the fact their government justifies torture, or the murder of innocent children and babies. These are questions which everyone wrestles with, who has some stake in the future of America.

Islam doesn’t permit war crimes, in general. But there are also specific sayings of Mohammed bin Abdullah, pbuh, that specifically warn Muslim soldiers not to kill women and children, rabbis or monks, or old men who do not participate in fighting. When it happened that some women or children were killed, he said, “They are with them.” This suggests that in some cases, when a situation is not the most ideal, that there might be some civilian casualties. That is a far cry from justifying purposeful targeting or otherwise blatant human rights violations. Genocide is not permitted in Islam, nor is rape or pillage.

On the other hand, the hadith that the holy Prophet killed some pagan woman while she was breastfeeding is not something I am familiar with, and can’t comment on that. It isn’t surprising that Christians against Islam preach such things in the open and say this is why Islam is dangerous, and so on. But from the teachings I have I don’t believe that such a thing likely ever happened, and probably the hadith/report is not trustworthy, no matter which hadith scholar reported it, or had it under some authority to include in his hadiths collection. Not all the hadiths in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim are in fact “sahih”. Sahih suggests that the hadiths are trustworthy, but many weak or abrogated (daif, or mursal) sayings are included in the collections, these two in particular I mention because they are the most authentic writings after the Quran. Of course, they do not at all come close to the Authenticity or authorship of the Holy Book, but they are often referenced by Muslims, particularly scholars and students of Islam.

When a country today invades another, especially when America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost is immeasurably high in terms of lives and money. The fact that Bush waited for Senate approval before invading shows that he knows it is wise to have the backing of a majority of the government or the most important peoples’ approval, as well as a big percentage of the public’s approval going into a war, or else he wouldn’t have done it. He didn’t need all of the people to support the war, of course, and eventually when Americans got tired of the war, or decided that they didn’t agree with it, more and more, then that led to their questioning of the real motives of the Bush administration. But it is correct to say that the war was not only orchestrated by Bush’s administration or a few important or influential people at the top, but also it was agreed that once they were in Iraq or Afghanistan they wouldn’t be leaving for a long time. It’s incredibly naïve to believe that the government thought they would just go in and out as quickly as possible. That can’t be true, because the cost of deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere overseas) is so great; the American government is in debt, partly as a result of the wars it has fought. The government realizes and so do many of its people that they have to recover their losses, and even start to benefit from their overseas exploits. If they don’t their economy is destined to spiral downward for the unforeseeable future. That appears to be happening all over the country, in many parts, but of course the leadership can take a little belt tightening in stride, it is the poor and middle class who take the brunt of suffering when a deep recession happens. In fact when they are in a depression, the government leaders likely will run for the hills, and it appears that may be what’s happening already, since the Gulf Wars. In fact, cushioning their politicians in built into the system, with the large sums of money they earn, which many say is deserved, but even after they leave office, they are provided for the rest of their natural lives, unlike the rest of the population who must take their chances with whatever they can siphon away for their meager retirement funds, on average not even a tenth of what the rich will comfortably retire on.

For strategic and economic reasons, the Americans are not going to leave Iraq, or Afghanistan, probably any time in the near future. They may redeploy soldiers to other places, but part of the incentive for going to war is economic. For the troops their reasons for joining the army or military, also always include economic incentives; a desire to have steady employment and often the wish to benefit from other programs. While many believe their government is doing the right thing, they also want to know that their families will be taken care of if they don’t come home. Unfortunately for them, the truth of the matter is, many ‘army families’ are suffering and cannot even live without food stamps or charity. The administration’s quagmire is Iraq; it has been none too easy for soldiers and their families to hunker down as they are commanded (as good foot soldiers) literally in fact; but they are the pawns in the big “game” of Middle East Monopoly; it would be easier if they didn’t also have the quagmire of their own disillusionment with the reality of politics and their personal responsibility in some cases for their role in the seedier side of the war on terror, strategies which have placed many of them in the distasteful role of a greasy, small town jailer, which is how many Muslims and Arabs now see them. The animosity has become up close and personal, which is the drawback to controlling people on the ground when you occupy someone else’s country, cities and streets.

Especially in a large and cavernous country like Afghanistan, there is hardly another option to old fashioned hand to hand combat, or house to house searches. Hence, the necessity of the techno savvy administration’s use of unmanned drones, which is much more sanitized and impersonal, meaning the war in Afghanistan and neighboring countries (possibly comfortably settling into Pakistan as well) will be the techno**(meets) Sgt. Slaughter/or/Big Boss Man vs. Chemical Ali* (meets) Iron Sheikh (hometown, Tehran) version of a “Mexican standoff”***.

Note: Readers might not be aware that pro wrestlers often are not what they appear; American wrestler was Muhamed Hasan, while Iron Sheikh, now Col Mustafa, is actually Iranian, so I think it’s okay for me to pit an Iranian (aka) Arab Sheikh/Col against an American (Sgt. Slaughter) even if it isn’t representative of the statistical/political reality.

*Chemical Ali was of course a terrorist, the brother of Saddam Hussein, so not from Afghanistan or Pakistan, either. I just thought if Iron Sheikh wanted someone on his side, maybe someone who could get chemical weapons might prove useful against the enemy. Not that I’d endorse anything like that.

**Techno (e.g. techno pop) is music, which Americans like. But I wasn’t being funny; Techno means technology here, as in weapons technology (e.g. techno weapon)

A ***Mexican standoff historically, means you have three or more groups with opposing interests with the other groups, so all of them have their guns trained on everyone else. It isn’t meant here as any kind of racial slur. I’m all for a good “shoot out”, at least in the movies.



From Here to Eternity - Women - Part Two

-          The non-Muslim complains that women’s flirtations will be minimized, or non-existent or she will never be able to leave her husband for another man, if he is abusing her. This is very absurd on the surface, but if studied more in depth reveals unfounded criticism of Islam’s treatment of women…. How so?

Well, it suggests that men and women only marry to abuse or hate one another. In fact, the opposite is more than certain the reality. Men and women, in the short engagement period that precedes the marriage, usually find that they enjoy each other’s company, and find each other attractive. If the engagement lasts as long as one year, what is often the case these days, there is ample opportunity for either party to a marriage to quit because of “cold feet”. I’ve heard this happen more than once, in our circles of friends and acquaintances. In this situation, no harm is no foul.

Non-Muslims inevitably return to the scripted story of “unrequited love” which is an old idea (not necessarily only a Western one).There is a touch of the amoral, unknown danger, an evil villain, or conflict and the climax, or a resolution, such as the poor girl finding love and then tragically dying (suicide, or consumption are good for a tragic ending). Think Romeo and Juliette, or King Lear’s daughter, who though loving her father to death, literally, her love for her father is unrequited; one of those situations known in psychology which means she will never be able to love another man, or have a happy marriage. Contrast this to Islam, which honors the father daughter relationship, which requires men to treat their children whether male of female with equality. This means not favoring one child over another with more attention or material things.

 Non-Muslims often will discuss love and marriage of Muslims as something which must be against all social norms seen in other cultures. Much the way they see the relationship between fathers and daughters in Islamic or Middle Eastern or Asian cultures. Like their saying, “Muslim women are forced to marry someone they don’t want”.  I remember a program on television, which delved into the subject of Muslims’ marriages, including some insight into how Muslims go about finding someone to love. One man’s story told how he used to watch a woman (who would be completely covered in her Islamic dress) every day on her way to work, or school for six months. Even though he couldn’t see her, he might perhaps have known something about her or her family. Eventually, they did start some kind of conversation. This is obviously not going to be a typical story, in that it is often the family who encourage and arrange meetings between men and women seeking a marriage partner. In this case, though I don’t remember well, I think the man, and even maybe the woman were both mature, at an age where they should already have at least been seriously occupied with the task of who to marry. Rightly or wrongly, there are many ways for couples to meet and decide on marriage. The correct Islamic boundaries are well known, that men and women are never to be alone, for example. This is why even couples who are perhaps not so serious about Islam will at least put up a façade of socially acceptable behavior in public.

I discussed in Part One how previously married women have more right to conduct their own affairs. Even Saudi Arabia recognizes that mature women have more right over their own person, which is why the government has no qualms about giving women over fifty visas for entry to perform their religious duties, such as greater or lesser pilgrimage, or allowing them to travel without Mahram men.  Instead these women travel in groups of other women, to perform their Hajj or Umrah. The government still retains a sense of “parental protection” over all Muslim women, but believes that chances are that nothing untoward or even dangerous is likely to happen when many women are travelling in a group. These women generally will be past the usual age for marriage or sexual exploitation.

Also, women are permitted by Islam to reside in their own homes, if they own a home, or a domicile, whether someone or herself is paying the expense for her. Newly divorced women must wait three periods before they can return to their father’s home, or should be allowed to remain in their husbands’ home so as to determine if she is with child, or not. This is the case of women who are divorced with a chance for reconciliation. If the divorce is a final or third divorce, then the divorce is of the irrevocable type, and she can do as she wishes, either returning to her father, or in her own place. The treatment to women should in any case be kind, as mentioned in the Qur’an, because they have at one time been a married couple sharing the same bed. It becomes the duty of her male relatives to provide for her, if she has no husband.

In practice, many women do travel alone, and even some girls travel alone to other countries, but with friends, or to their relatives in another country. Some travel for school to European cities, or America or Canadian Universities, etc. Women who have studied are not afraid of anything, or meeting any challenge. They are completely free, in terms of life choices, and even in many Muslim majority countries, they are often times socially liberal. But this is none to do with Islam. Yes, Islam does encourage women’s education, just as it encourages men’s education. Islam does encourage women’s freedom as much as it encourages men’s freedom, but there are differences. Some Muslim women exert a lot of influence in their societies, which is much like what life was in pre-Islamic Arabian culture.

Just as the Qur’an stipulates who men and women can marry, it also stipulates, when, how and why. In other areas, such as education, Muslim women don’t feel anymore that they can’t study science or medicine. They are much like Western women in terms of their goals and aspirations. And many non-Muslim women might secretly envy Muslim women for the rights that they do have in Islam. Islam never sanctioned bad treatment of women. There is sufficient proof of this in the Qur’an and Islamic traditions.
http://www.idristawfiq.com/

Quran,] 2:235]

“There is no blame upon you for that which you] indirectly] allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying.”

Quran,] 2:236]

“There is no blame upon you if you divorce women you have not touched or specified for them an obligation] dowry]”

Qur’an,] 2:237]

”And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then give half of what you specified – unless they forego the right or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract forgoes it. And to forego it is nearer to righteousness. And do not forget graciousness between you. Indeed Allah, of whatever you do, is Seeing.”

Women's Dress and Modesty

• RedShirt77 Practices of "modesty". As disproportionately applied to women are a practice designed to limit the sexual options of women. In societies where men are often the economic drivers it prevents women from forming even minimally flirtatious of relationships with men that might be alternatives should their primary love interest turn out to be abusive or mistreat them. Its common in patriarchal societies, particularly those that are religiously orthodox and/or allow polygamy. forgive me if I don't stand up to applaud the "modernization" of the practice of treating women like a sports car you keep under a cover to keep the neighbors from coveting it.

From a website and comments there about how the market for hiijab and “wrappings” for Muslim women are invariably turning into another source of discomfit for women, who do not want to be exploited, as objects, so others (even Muslim businesses) can make money.

I disagree with the comment above from that discussion, because it is not (as the non-Muslim believes) that the society insists on the women to be covered (although Saudi Arabia does), but that women choose to cover for religious reasons. Hiijab is first and foremost a religious duty, ordained by Allah in the Qur’an.

As for women’s “sexual options/promiscuity” being hindered, that’s exactly one of the results. If only some of the Muslim women cover and others don’t; esp. if those uncovering are wearing less and less modest clothing, what happens is that the same problems in the West with promiscuity, fornication, adultery, dating, date rape, and the list goes on, will happen to Muslims to the same degree it happens presently in non-Muslim countries. That would be a downward moral spiral, not a good thing, nor “freedom of choice”. Muslim women and men generally don’t want that.

Hiijab is not only to protect from harassment of a sexual nature, or cover the woman wearing the hiijab, but to protect the general society from these real dangers. I find this nothing short of a miracle, in this day and age.

For women who have been married, and then divorced or widowed, there is more freedom (her right to seek a spouse, not a boyfriend) than there is for the virgin girls. Mature women (those who have been previously married is the idea here), have the right to marry anyone of their choosing of the category of permissible men; Muslim, responsible age, similar interests and level of education,body type, and any other criteria she believes will help her to choose a compatible husband are all reasonable considerations.

As for the virgin women (or “girls”; a commonly used expression in Arab Muslim societies) they are given the choice to accept or reject the proposal of anyone within the category of permissible youth/men. “And her acceptance is her silence”, while her rejection must be said aloud, as clearly stated in the traditions.

- DD

http://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoverIslamTV

Arab unrest and the US response

(I will be publishing many posts I had written from the previous 6 months while I was away)

“The west ravaged and destroyed Afghanistan for years “, says Brzezinski in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Libya, and Yemen and Syria are thorny issues.

It has approached the Libyan crisis well”, he had said at the time about Obama administration’s role in the conflict before the lynching of the late leader (Gaddafi) by rebels.

ON the other hand, in other conflicts, the US should not be in the forefront of the military initiative.

“There can be a slight gap between (our) words and actions”, he had said.

The West totally ignored Afghanistan (after the end of the war with Russia) and then Taliban appeared, he explains.

Concerning future relations in the region; “Iran is more hostile while Egypt will be more difficult”, he says.

Fareed Zakaria explains, we approve of the Arab uprisings, but may make things more difficult for American foreign policy issues.

The masses are more driven and less patient, explains Brzezinski.

It’s in Israel’s interest to move forward (now).

I particularly have in mind Egypt and potentially Jordan.

The New York Times “story of a showdown likely in the UN” is worrying. Will the UN vote for Palestinian independence? He asks.

“The time is against us”, he said. US voted against UN resolution despite the wording being like the American position, “conveying that it is powerless,” but it is a “redeemable” mistake, he points out.

American Interference And Life (Part One)

More summer reading by DD

It’s Inappropriate for AI to speak of Shias Freedom of Expression and Association

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa director, says, the Bahrain government “must not make the same mistake” it made in the February – March period, when “largely peaceful” protests were stopped. He is speaking without correct information. It is just like the Westerners to stick in their noses where they don’t belong. This is “meddling” and a dangerous precedent here.

In the earlier protests, the government waited till the following month, from Feb. 16, until early March, to dismantle the protests. There were found machetes, knives, Molotov cocktails, and iron rods, etc as weapons used against the government police and army personnel. The Shias burned sections of their makeshift ‘tent city’ at the Pearl Roundabout when forced to disperse.

Therefore, telling the King of Bahrain or the government to again allow protests is not any of Smart’s business. If protests seem in any way a disruption to the government, or the normal running of the country, hurt businesses, or affect tourism, etc. of course the government will have to cease the actions. Bahrain is hoping to get the F1 again; it is not going to be possible if the Shiites insist on demonstrating at this time. The local economy is already in worse shape since February and March. Tourism by Cruise Ships and tourism companies’ business has been badly affected. Just as George Bush junior told the Americans, and New Yorkers to “go shopping”, Bahrainis can see the F1 back, if that’s what they want.

While martial law has been lifted, everyone in the society should try to allow some normalcy to prevail in the Kingdom again. We can see that the situation in Bahrain was not what it was in the case of other countries in the Arab Spring. For one thing, this is not an Arab Spring type protest, by Arabs, but a Shiite led protest, with Iranian backed leaders. It is a ‘foreign’ protest, for all practical purposes. Recently, an Iraqi flotilla was planned, but the Iraqis in demonstrations here demanded Iraq’s “hands-off” approach to mediation. It is just another attempt at ‘propaganda’ by Shias not directly involved.

Now some, such as Wefaq are calling for “Shiite and Sunni” demonstrators, “sons of both honored sects”, to join the next planned Peaceful demonstrations to “take their right…of self- determination” AFP. They know full well, however, that the Sunni Muslims do not want to be involved in their demonstrations ‘calling for reform’ (now), which is just a “whitewash”.

The government should allow the people to “’peacefully’ exercise their right to freedom of expression and association”, says Malcolm Smart, of Amnesty International. It’s a little late for that AI, don’t you think? Most likely, there would be less support for these protests than there was in February and March.

Still, Al Wefaq, says the “revolution has and will not end”. AFP