Not so long ago, the Church Committee investigated the executive branch rot generated by a long-standing lack of congressional oversight. It was this committee that gave us among other things FISA, serially ignored by the Bush Administration.
That the committee's work brought about the existence of the current Senate Intelligence Committee makes it doubly shameful to witness the silent complicity by the likes of current committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
The revelation that the CIA in 2005 destroyed interrogation tapes and that Rockefeller, among others, knew not only of the existence of the tapes as early as 2003, but the intention to destroy them, has shown us how utterly irresponsible (if not complicitly criminal) and ineffectual the Intelligence Committee has become.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley: "Democratic members appear to have had knowledge of both the official use of torture (which is a crime) and the stated intention to destroy evidence (which is also a crime). Yet, again, they remained totally silent and passive."
Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman: "Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel Committees were not ‘consulted’ on the use of the tapes ‘nor the decision to destroy the tapes.’ But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency’s intent to dispose of the tapes, and he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago, in November 2006. And this is the first time he has said anything about it. Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) C.I.A. intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity — but reveals nothing. Really, isn’t it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the C.I.A. program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?"
And to think this post isn't even about illegal wiretapping or telecom immunity. That congressional oversight is this non-existent ought to be a crime in and of itself.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Sen. Feinstein's Definition of Transparency
Se. Feinstein (D-CA) has further (un)distinguished herself with the NY Times revelation that the CIA destroyed in 2005 "at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody." The Times adds, "the tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said."
****
As a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, Feinstein must have known about the tapes (along with fellow Intelligence Committee member Sen. Rockefeller who said, "we were provided with very limited information about the existence of the tapes"), yet not a word about them was uttered--or any other substantial, tough questioning with sufficient followup during Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearing.
On this issue, silence.
****
Mukasey said (during the hearing) regarding torture:
"I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical."
Hypotheticals. The CIA tapes contain no hypotheticals. The show interrogation/torture (why else destroy them?).
****
So what to make of her remarkable statement in support of Mukasey's nomination, that voting against him would allow "the Administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress"?
Transparency and oversight. Hallmarks both of Feinstein's career.
****
As a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, Feinstein must have known about the tapes (along with fellow Intelligence Committee member Sen. Rockefeller who said, "we were provided with very limited information about the existence of the tapes"), yet not a word about them was uttered--or any other substantial, tough questioning with sufficient followup during Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearing.
On this issue, silence.
****
Mukasey said (during the hearing) regarding torture:
"I was asked at the hearing and in your letter questions about the hypothetical use of certain coercive interrogation techniques. As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical."
Hypotheticals. The CIA tapes contain no hypotheticals. The show interrogation/torture (why else destroy them?).
****
So what to make of her remarkable statement in support of Mukasey's nomination, that voting against him would allow "the Administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress"?
Transparency and oversight. Hallmarks both of Feinstein's career.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Romney's Religious Test
Mitt Romney's widely anticipated speech on his LDS faith proved to be a monologue on religion's supposed indivisible role in American government and society. Among others are these nuggets:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Oh? There are a multitude of non-religious people out there who seek freedom with a passion equal to, at least, that of any religious person. In fact, many such non-religious folk can be more passionate about guaranteeing those freedoms to others of minority faiths or no faith at all.
"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
But he will, apparently, put the doctrine of religiosity above those "plain duties."
And this,
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
And what is the "original meaning" to which he refers? Article VI of the Constitution says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now Romney, I'm guessing, must subscribe to the "original intent" camp. Article VI is clear enough. What, then, is this about "the religion of secularism"?
This falsehood which has permeated the land is not a "religion" by negation but a reflection of that original intent. Romney says, as if it's an affront, "religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."
By public life, I take his meaning to be regarding public policy. If so, then yes. Unqualifiedly, yes. He (and so many others) ought to consider the words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As a newly-minted staunch conservative, Romney ought to consider that a successful government is one that doesn't impose religious belief (no matter how benign) on its citizens. It's also one that doesn't drive to the margins those whose beliefs fall well outside the majority.
It would be remarkable that anyone could not see the danger implicit in Romney's speech. This is particularly so given the current global environment. Romney hasn't been excluded as a participant in public life because of his belief. The shame of it is that by seeking to prove his Republican credentials, he rhetorically excludes others not like himself.
That's a fine way to demonstrate fitness for office.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Oh? There are a multitude of non-religious people out there who seek freedom with a passion equal to, at least, that of any religious person. In fact, many such non-religious folk can be more passionate about guaranteeing those freedoms to others of minority faiths or no faith at all.
"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
But he will, apparently, put the doctrine of religiosity above those "plain duties."
And this,
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
And what is the "original meaning" to which he refers? Article VI of the Constitution says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now Romney, I'm guessing, must subscribe to the "original intent" camp. Article VI is clear enough. What, then, is this about "the religion of secularism"?
This falsehood which has permeated the land is not a "religion" by negation but a reflection of that original intent. Romney says, as if it's an affront, "religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."
By public life, I take his meaning to be regarding public policy. If so, then yes. Unqualifiedly, yes. He (and so many others) ought to consider the words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As a newly-minted staunch conservative, Romney ought to consider that a successful government is one that doesn't impose religious belief (no matter how benign) on its citizens. It's also one that doesn't drive to the margins those whose beliefs fall well outside the majority.
It would be remarkable that anyone could not see the danger implicit in Romney's speech. This is particularly so given the current global environment. Romney hasn't been excluded as a participant in public life because of his belief. The shame of it is that by seeking to prove his Republican credentials, he rhetorically excludes others not like himself.
That's a fine way to demonstrate fitness for office.
A Real (Subprime) Mess
With the growing problem of interest rate resets on subprime mortgages looming darkly on the horizon, the Bush Administration announced today a plan that would freeze rates for certain borrowers . The plan covers only those who live in their homes and fall within certain parameters (they must be current on their payments, actually live in the home [intended to exclude speculators] and must have taken out the mortgage between January 1, 2005 and July 31, 2007, among other exclusions).
So is this an exercise in compassionate conservatism? Probably not. Given the restrictions, the plan would apply to only about 12% of all subprime borrowers (about 240,000 homeowners).
But when Citigroup (with "large losses related to subprime mortgages and the credit market turmoil"), Merrill Lynch (the bruised but "once-proud Wall Street firm battered by losses from the mortgage debacle"), Countrywide Financial and Wall Street, generally, suffer substantial losses with the specter of greater losses yet to come, well, that clearly demands government involvement.
Of course, it strikes a lot of people as bizarre, even hypocritical, that a Republican administration would intrude into the market in this way and prescribe the dreaded bailout that's not a bailout. But the drying up of market liquidity (since no one knows who owes what, given the extraordinary complexity of the problem, everyone is wary of lending to the wrong party) is apparently significant enough to generate this response. Besides, better half a loaf than none in the face of the growing number of defaults.
That some homeowners will benefit from this is largely incidental (except for that 12%, of course). The particular purpose of this intrusion is to stem the bleeding from the financial sector's self-inflicted wound and, of course, desperately stave off the threat of recession in an upcoming election year.
So is this an exercise in compassionate conservatism? Probably not. Given the restrictions, the plan would apply to only about 12% of all subprime borrowers (about 240,000 homeowners).
But when Citigroup (with "large losses related to subprime mortgages and the credit market turmoil"), Merrill Lynch (the bruised but "once-proud Wall Street firm battered by losses from the mortgage debacle"), Countrywide Financial and Wall Street, generally, suffer substantial losses with the specter of greater losses yet to come, well, that clearly demands government involvement.
Of course, it strikes a lot of people as bizarre, even hypocritical, that a Republican administration would intrude into the market in this way and prescribe the dreaded bailout that's not a bailout. But the drying up of market liquidity (since no one knows who owes what, given the extraordinary complexity of the problem, everyone is wary of lending to the wrong party) is apparently significant enough to generate this response. Besides, better half a loaf than none in the face of the growing number of defaults.
That some homeowners will benefit from this is largely incidental (except for that 12%, of course). The particular purpose of this intrusion is to stem the bleeding from the financial sector's self-inflicted wound and, of course, desperately stave off the threat of recession in an upcoming election year.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
A Plan Gone Awry
The argument over the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iran is well underway.
Central to the debate is why the intelligence estimate changed so radically from 2005 to 2007 (the earlier estimate concluding in the 2005 version that "Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons," while the 2007 estimate concluded that "we judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.").
One reason: "senior U.S. intelligence officials said the judgment that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in mid-2003 emerged four to six months ago as a result of fresh intelligence, some of it from open sources and some from a "very rigorous scrub" of 20 years of information, some of which informed the 2005 NIE."
****
This explanation isn't at all satisfactory to those who view Iran's intentions--and now the intelligence community's--suspiciously. There have been accusations of "blatant unprofessionalism" of analysts who've removed "their analytical caps and gowns and put on their policy wigs." Others, like Opinion Journal have said, "Our own 'confidence' is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.'" Yet a third complaint, targeted more at media than intelligence analysts (citing "at least three (maybe four) theories or reasons as to why the NIE has changed its position on Iran"), says that "if the media is going to be on attack for the administration getting so much wrong on Iran’s program, might they themselves find a uniform theory of their story line as to why the administration was so wrong?"
****
Yet the President said following the 2005 estimate, "people will say, if we’re trying to make the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?" That case, he continued, "requires people to believe that the Iranian nuclear program is, to a certain extent, ongoing."
If even that earlier estimate required a leap of faith what other reaction but disbelief can be expected now? When Bush suggested today that Iran "come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities," and that Iran "has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions, especially the covert nuclear weapons program pursued until the fall of 2003," he cited no definitive evidence that Iran is pursuing a bomb.
****
And that's really the issue. There is nothing definitive either way. Perhaps the Iranians are withholding full cooperation from the IAEA to demonstrate their growing regional influence. Perhaps they do, indeed, have something worth concealing (the estimate assesses "with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.")
****
No one knows.
What we're left with, as with Iraq, is belief--a belief, in this instance, that Iran must be pursuing a weapon, since it's an Islamic Shia theocracy and must therefore be irrational (regardless of the NIE analysis that sees it as behaving rationally).
And while much of the NIE is classified, the lack of concrete knowledge about Iranian intention and behavior regarding nuclear weaponry means, among other things, a lack of data necessary to attack their nuclear facilities. If we don't know what they have, much less where it is, how precise can any bombing campaign possibly be?
But angry fires have been stoked and supporters of the president are seething with the release of this estimate. They want to maintain the blustering, threatening policy of belligerence that preceded the report's release.
But it won't do. It simply won't do.
Central to the debate is why the intelligence estimate changed so radically from 2005 to 2007 (the earlier estimate concluding in the 2005 version that "Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons," while the 2007 estimate concluded that "we judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.").
One reason: "senior U.S. intelligence officials said the judgment that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in mid-2003 emerged four to six months ago as a result of fresh intelligence, some of it from open sources and some from a "very rigorous scrub" of 20 years of information, some of which informed the 2005 NIE."
****
This explanation isn't at all satisfactory to those who view Iran's intentions--and now the intelligence community's--suspiciously. There have been accusations of "blatant unprofessionalism" of analysts who've removed "their analytical caps and gowns and put on their policy wigs." Others, like Opinion Journal have said, "Our own 'confidence' is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.'" Yet a third complaint, targeted more at media than intelligence analysts (citing "at least three (maybe four) theories or reasons as to why the NIE has changed its position on Iran"), says that "if the media is going to be on attack for the administration getting so much wrong on Iran’s program, might they themselves find a uniform theory of their story line as to why the administration was so wrong?"
****
Yet the President said following the 2005 estimate, "people will say, if we’re trying to make the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?" That case, he continued, "requires people to believe that the Iranian nuclear program is, to a certain extent, ongoing."
If even that earlier estimate required a leap of faith what other reaction but disbelief can be expected now? When Bush suggested today that Iran "come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities," and that Iran "has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions, especially the covert nuclear weapons program pursued until the fall of 2003," he cited no definitive evidence that Iran is pursuing a bomb.
****
And that's really the issue. There is nothing definitive either way. Perhaps the Iranians are withholding full cooperation from the IAEA to demonstrate their growing regional influence. Perhaps they do, indeed, have something worth concealing (the estimate assesses "with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.")
****
No one knows.
What we're left with, as with Iraq, is belief--a belief, in this instance, that Iran must be pursuing a weapon, since it's an Islamic Shia theocracy and must therefore be irrational (regardless of the NIE analysis that sees it as behaving rationally).
And while much of the NIE is classified, the lack of concrete knowledge about Iranian intention and behavior regarding nuclear weaponry means, among other things, a lack of data necessary to attack their nuclear facilities. If we don't know what they have, much less where it is, how precise can any bombing campaign possibly be?
But angry fires have been stoked and supporters of the president are seething with the release of this estimate. They want to maintain the blustering, threatening policy of belligerence that preceded the report's release.
But it won't do. It simply won't do.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Blogosphere, Iranian Style
From the American traditional media perspective, Iran is a monolith-of-an-Islamic-Republic, monochrome or monotone, and altogether lethal. In short, impressions of Iran are probably similar to impressions of the US abroad--not terribly positive.
It's something of a pleasure, then, to take a look at some Iranian blogs, both within and without the country.
Here are a few:
rottengods.blogspot.com (regarding the recent Annapolis Middle East conference: "Islamic Republic of Iran's regime know that after peace in Palestine region, uproar will come and catch this regime in Iran so they are pushing so hard to bring a new chaos in that region. Chaos in Middle-East is vital for Islamic Republic of Iran's dictatorship.")
viewfromiran.blogspot.com (regarding the relative weakness of the Iranian government: "A government that stones a man for adultery, sentences a woman to lashings for promoting the rights of women, imprisons professors, blocks social networking sites, and locks up union leaders is weak. W-E-A-K.")
persianperspective.wordpress.com (an expatriate's view: "Iran is the first country to have red white and green for a flag,
A beautiful country ran by the wrong people, But still the best part of Middle East.")
hriran.org (a human rights blog)
opiumandsaffron.blogspot.com (self-described as "Casual Observations on Iranian Culture, History and Politics")
A fairly comprehensive list of Iranian blogs can be found at iranianblogs.happyhost.org
It's something of a pleasure, then, to take a look at some Iranian blogs, both within and without the country.
Here are a few:
rottengods.blogspot.com (regarding the recent Annapolis Middle East conference: "Islamic Republic of Iran's regime know that after peace in Palestine region, uproar will come and catch this regime in Iran so they are pushing so hard to bring a new chaos in that region. Chaos in Middle-East is vital for Islamic Republic of Iran's dictatorship.")
viewfromiran.blogspot.com (regarding the relative weakness of the Iranian government: "A government that stones a man for adultery, sentences a woman to lashings for promoting the rights of women, imprisons professors, blocks social networking sites, and locks up union leaders is weak. W-E-A-K.")
persianperspective.wordpress.com (an expatriate's view: "Iran is the first country to have red white and green for a flag,
A beautiful country ran by the wrong people, But still the best part of Middle East.")
hriran.org (a human rights blog)
opiumandsaffron.blogspot.com (self-described as "Casual Observations on Iranian Culture, History and Politics")
A fairly comprehensive list of Iranian blogs can be found at iranianblogs.happyhost.org
Monday, December 3, 2007
An Unlikely Report
With the release today of the National Intelligence Estimate, the big news, of course, is that the NIE judged "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."
This assessment is close on the heels (October, 2007) of President Bush's comments that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." (It's noteworthy that Bush didn't cite Iran's having a nuclear weapon as the threat--rather, the threat was their "having the knowledge" to begin with.)
But why was the intelligence estimate released in the first place, particularly since it runs counter to what the White House has been saying? The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, had earlier said that he would not release the findings since doing so might reveal U.S. intelligence gathering methods to Iran.
Today, however, the Prinicpal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Donald Kerr, said in a statement that "the decision to release an unclassified version of the Key Judgments of this NIE was made when it was determined that doing so was in the interest of our nation’s security."
To say all of this is a rapid about face is an understatement. What changed regarding "the interest of our nation's security"? Why does the report's release no longer run the risk of revealing to Iran American intelligence methods? From what direction did pressure come (if it did all all) to release this report? Could it be that Defense Secretary Robert Gates--who said this summer that "it would be a strategic calamity to attack Iran at this time"--has more sway than meets the eye?
Whatever the answers to these and a multitude of other questions might be, it isn't often, as the NY Times puts it, that "a single intelligence report [has] so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here [in Washington D.C.]."
This assessment is close on the heels (October, 2007) of President Bush's comments that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." (It's noteworthy that Bush didn't cite Iran's having a nuclear weapon as the threat--rather, the threat was their "having the knowledge" to begin with.)
But why was the intelligence estimate released in the first place, particularly since it runs counter to what the White House has been saying? The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, had earlier said that he would not release the findings since doing so might reveal U.S. intelligence gathering methods to Iran.
Today, however, the Prinicpal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Donald Kerr, said in a statement that "the decision to release an unclassified version of the Key Judgments of this NIE was made when it was determined that doing so was in the interest of our nation’s security."
To say all of this is a rapid about face is an understatement. What changed regarding "the interest of our nation's security"? Why does the report's release no longer run the risk of revealing to Iran American intelligence methods? From what direction did pressure come (if it did all all) to release this report? Could it be that Defense Secretary Robert Gates--who said this summer that "it would be a strategic calamity to attack Iran at this time"--has more sway than meets the eye?
Whatever the answers to these and a multitude of other questions might be, it isn't often, as the NY Times puts it, that "a single intelligence report [has] so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here [in Washington D.C.]."
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Update on Purpose of Troop Surge
I wrote here on Friday about deceptive arguments regarding the US troop surge. Partisans jumped on the words of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) that the surge was working. What followed were his supposed qualifications that there had been no political accommodation among various Iraqi factions. Today, the Associated Press reports (via Salon.com) that Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte expressed similar statements that, absent accommodative agreements, Iraq risks "falling back to the more violent patterns of the past."
"It's one thing to have brought the violence under some semblance of control, but it's another to follow up," he said.
These statements, obvious though they may be, address critical issues that need to be resolved. Just as importantly, they reflect the concerns of anyone who seeks the best possible outcome for Iraqis and the American troops engaged in conflict there.
Reasoned and honest debate is required not just with respect to Iraq, but any other policies that affect Americans. Why should we play the partisan game when the only "winners" are the political and financial elites who--to extend the metaphor--own and operate the casinos?
"It's one thing to have brought the violence under some semblance of control, but it's another to follow up," he said.
These statements, obvious though they may be, address critical issues that need to be resolved. Just as importantly, they reflect the concerns of anyone who seeks the best possible outcome for Iraqis and the American troops engaged in conflict there.
Reasoned and honest debate is required not just with respect to Iraq, but any other policies that affect Americans. Why should we play the partisan game when the only "winners" are the political and financial elites who--to extend the metaphor--own and operate the casinos?
Religion and Maturity
There is a welcome entry by the Washington Post on the debate (as opposed to the standard rhetorical assault in the US) on Muslims and Islam.
Cairo, Egypt, is the home of Moez Masoud whom the WaPo describes as a "Muslim televangelist." Thanks to the presence of satellite television, men like Masoud are able to bring a newer, more tolerant interpretation of Islam to an audience (mostly young) eager to hear it.
As an indication of his popularity, the Post says, "his most recent show, a 20-part series that aired this fall on Iqra, one of the region's leading religious channels, attracted millions of viewers from Syria to Morocco. Clips of the show appeared immediately on YouTube, and fans downloaded more than 1.5 million episodes onto their computers."
(It's notable that in the Middle East, as in the rest of the world, younger generations demonstrate their responsiveness technologically--via, among others, YouTube downloads.)
****
So what, then, does his message consist of? In his words (via WaPo):
"We will be responsible to God on Judgment Day. He will ask: Did you represent our religion correctly? If you feel happy that non-Muslims are being killed, this is wrong. They are our brothers." And,
"A lot of Muslims act as if we can't enjoy this life, we can only enjoy the afterlife. That is not right. We should enjoy life, enjoy music and art. This life is ours and we should enjoy it. If you really truly love God and feel that all your pleasure comes from God, anything else will pale in comparison."
****
This is not the Islam typically presented in the West (at least not in the US) by traditional media. Instead, we're assaulted by the likes of Ann Coulter who likes to say any number of outrageous things. But, more importantly, we frequently hear two other Muslim voices, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who says "we are war with all Islam"), and Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan, a controversial figure, might be considered Islam's analog to the Reformation's Martin Luther. But Ramadan is viewed with suspicion by some who question his motives--does he say one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim listeners? He says no, that "I have often been accused of this 'double discourse', and to those who say it, I say - bring the evidence. I am quite clear in what I say. The problem is that many people don't want to hear it, particularly in the media. Most of the stories about me are completely untrue: journalists simply repeat black propaganda from the internet without any corroboration, and it just confirms what they want to believe. Words are used out of context. There is double-talk, yes, but there is also double-hearing. That is what I want to challenge."
****
One can only hope, in the months and years ahead, that American audiences will increasingly be exposed to the innumerable voices that speak, as Muslims, for Islam. Complexity in discourse--rather than the repetitious thundering of fundamentalist voices--better serves everyone interested in a more just and humane conversation between people.
Cairo, Egypt, is the home of Moez Masoud whom the WaPo describes as a "Muslim televangelist." Thanks to the presence of satellite television, men like Masoud are able to bring a newer, more tolerant interpretation of Islam to an audience (mostly young) eager to hear it.
As an indication of his popularity, the Post says, "his most recent show, a 20-part series that aired this fall on Iqra, one of the region's leading religious channels, attracted millions of viewers from Syria to Morocco. Clips of the show appeared immediately on YouTube, and fans downloaded more than 1.5 million episodes onto their computers."
(It's notable that in the Middle East, as in the rest of the world, younger generations demonstrate their responsiveness technologically--via, among others, YouTube downloads.)
****
So what, then, does his message consist of? In his words (via WaPo):
"We will be responsible to God on Judgment Day. He will ask: Did you represent our religion correctly? If you feel happy that non-Muslims are being killed, this is wrong. They are our brothers." And,
"A lot of Muslims act as if we can't enjoy this life, we can only enjoy the afterlife. That is not right. We should enjoy life, enjoy music and art. This life is ours and we should enjoy it. If you really truly love God and feel that all your pleasure comes from God, anything else will pale in comparison."
****
This is not the Islam typically presented in the West (at least not in the US) by traditional media. Instead, we're assaulted by the likes of Ann Coulter who likes to say any number of outrageous things. But, more importantly, we frequently hear two other Muslim voices, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who says "we are war with all Islam"), and Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan, a controversial figure, might be considered Islam's analog to the Reformation's Martin Luther. But Ramadan is viewed with suspicion by some who question his motives--does he say one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim listeners? He says no, that "I have often been accused of this 'double discourse', and to those who say it, I say - bring the evidence. I am quite clear in what I say. The problem is that many people don't want to hear it, particularly in the media. Most of the stories about me are completely untrue: journalists simply repeat black propaganda from the internet without any corroboration, and it just confirms what they want to believe. Words are used out of context. There is double-talk, yes, but there is also double-hearing. That is what I want to challenge."
****
One can only hope, in the months and years ahead, that American audiences will increasingly be exposed to the innumerable voices that speak, as Muslims, for Islam. Complexity in discourse--rather than the repetitious thundering of fundamentalist voices--better serves everyone interested in a more just and humane conversation between people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)